Research Article
Sharing Success: A Review of Strategic Planning, Annual
Reports, and Publicly Available Information from Academic Libraries
Kaitlin Springmier
Instruction & Learning
Assessment Librarian
Sonoma State University Library
Rohnert Park, California,
United States of America
Email: kaitlin.springmier@sonoma.edu
Elizabeth Edwards
Assessment Librarian
University of Chicago Library
Chicago, Illinois, United
States of America
Email: eee@uchicago.edu
Michelle B. Bass
Population Research Librarian
Lane Medical Library &
Knowledge Management Center
Stanford University
Stanford, California, United
States of America
Email: michellebbass@stanford.edu
Received: 14 July 2017 Accepted:
8 Mar. 2018
2018 Springmier, Edwards, and Bass. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – This paper
reports on a study which explored web-based information sharing practices in
North American academic libraries. This study specifically focused on how
selected academic libraries use data, reports, and other strategic planning
documents to communicate success and demonstrate impact to stakeholders,
administrators, and peers.
Methods – An environmental scan was conducted to explore the
assessment programs and communication practices of 97 North American academic
libraries. The population for this study was identified on the basis of several
metrics: consortial membership, Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) ranking on various criteria, and institutional
attendance at the 2014 and 2016 Library Assessment Conferences (LAC).
Researchers conducted content analyses on the websites of the 97 libraries to
identify measures of institutional support for assessment and to explore the
range, depth, and quality of data made available. These iterative analyses were
supported by the use of a rubric developed based on emergent criteria observed
during multiple phases of review.
Results – Of the libraries reviewed, 57% made some form of data
available to the public. The most robust and effective use of data observed in
this study involved the use of data to tell stories about the library and its
impact. While this study found a positive correlation between libraries with
clear investments in assessment and their use of data in public documents, it
found that other factors such as an institution’s consortial
memberships or funding model may more strongly influence a library’s decision
to make data available.
Conclusions – While
observations gleaned from this study may serve as a benchmark for evaluating
communication practices in academic libraries, further research is necessary to
understand how factors within an academic library, its parent institution, or
the profession at large may contribute to this decision making process.
Introduction
In 2016, a group of librarians at the University of
Chicago Library conducted an environmental scan to learn how academic libraries
were sharing information about their assessment programs on their websites. While conducting the scan, project members were struck by the
myriad ways libraries were (or were not) using data in public-facing
communications. As a result, the focus of this project evolved to
explore how libraries use data, reports, and other strategic planning documents
to communicate success and demonstrate impact to stakeholders, administrators,
and peers.
Literature Review
Formative work by McClure and Samuels shows that
transparent, evidence-based decision making contributes to a more productive,
innovative library. Beginning in 1985, McClure and Samuels found that academic
librarians had an overwhelming preference for internal information sources, and
tended to ignore external information (such as patron preferences) during the
decision making process. The authors claimed that these internally-based
decisions encourage ineffective library activity because they create a
“‘closed,’ inflexible environment” (p. 496) that is unable to adapt to the
changing needs of library clientele. McClure continued this work in 1986,
focusing on the need for staff to have a clear understanding of performance
measure data for library planning and decision making. When interviewing public
services academic librarians ranked as middle management, he found that these
librarians were unlikely to use data for library decision making because they
neither trusted the quality of the data nor were motivated to make effective
use of it. McClure claimed that a library must have an “organizational system
in place that recognizes the interactive aspects of policy making, encourages
wide access to the data, and recognizes that empirical data are used in a much
broader psychological context of organizational politics, personalities, and
conflicting objectives” (p. 333). While these studies are almost 30 years old,
the scholarship on the use of information and data in decision making within
libraries (Koufogiannakis, 2014) and many of their main conclusions about
library communication and decision making hold true today.
Assessment may feel like the latest trend in libraries,
but the use of data to inform library service decisions is well-documented in
the literature (Lundstrom, Martin, & Cochran,
2016; Manzuch & Maceviciute,
2014; Paulus, 2014; Seago, Schlesinger, &
Hampton, 2002; Van House, 1989). In fact, Van House (1989) documents examples
of the use of performance or output measures dating back to the early 1970s. In
more recent years, Paulus (2014) collected data on questions asked to roving
library workers and at service desks to inform staffing levels, hours, and
roving locations in the library’s new learning commons. Lundstrom
and colleagues (2016) partnered with academic departments to map
research-related student outcomes; they made significant changes in programming
after determining that current levels of library integration were failing.
It is less clear what might motivate a library to make
their data available to an external audience, particularly data related to
strategic decision making. In their review of Association of Research Libraries
(ARL) institutions’ use of data in assessment and strategic planning, Lewin
& Passonneau (2012) gave examples of productive
ways libraries used assessment to improve service to their stakeholders and
parent institutions. Saunders (2016) performed content analyses on libraries’
strategic directions documents, and found that slightly over 25% of her
institution’s cohort “integrated explicit performance related metrics into
their strategic plans” (p. 10). Given that libraries have been using a range of
data for decision making for several decades, it is
worth measuring the profession’s progress towards making these data and the
resulting decisions available to their stakeholders.
Aims
This project explored the hypothesis that an academic
library’s demonstrated commitment to assessment would correlate with the
web-based presence of data or other strategic documents demonstrating
institutional progress or data-driven decision making. After conducting content
analyses of web-based documents made available by 97 North American academic libraries,
this hypothesis was only partially supported, as it seems that other
characteristics of academic libraries were more closely correlated with the
presence of data and other reports on their websites.
Methods
Research Design
This study was conducted between May 2016 and June 2017
by researchers affiliated with the University of Chicago Library.
A total of 97 North American academic research libraries
comprised the population for this study. This population was identified on the
basis of several metrics: consortial membership, ARL
ranking, and institutional representation at the 2014 and 2016 Library
Assessment Conferences (LAC).
At the time of this study, the University of Chicago
Library was a member of two consortia: the Ivy Plus
Libraries (Ivy Plus) and the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA). Consortial relationships are frequently the basis of
institutional comparisons; however, the researchers felt it appropriate to
expand the pool beyond geography or institutional stature with other metrics.
The researchers reviewed rankings data made available by ARL for fiscal years
2014 and 2015, and selected the following criteria as potentially meaningful
for comparison: Investment Index ranking, total library expenditures, and total
staff. Institutions ranked in the five positions above and below the University
of Chicago Library were added to the population.
Finally, researchers looked to the attendee lists from
recent Library Assessment Conferences (LAC) to identify other types of
institutions with a demonstrated commitment to assessment. Given the costs
associated with sending staff to a national conference, the researchers felt
that the expenditures associated with sending three or more staff members could
be taken as an indication of institutional commitment to assessment. Attendee
rosters were procured from the LAC websites for the 2014[1] and 2016[2]
conferences.
These three sets of criteria yielded a population of 97
institutions, with several institutions included on the basis of multiple
criteria.
Methodology
The data for this study were collected between May 2016
and April 2017 through environmental scanning. Content analysis was supported
by the development of a rubric which was itself based on themes that emerged
from the data.
As a method, “environmental scanning is not just a source
of data on the external world...it provides that backdrop against which
internal values may be clarified” (Mitchell & Witthus,
1991, p. 162). The first phase of the environmental scan tested the study’s
hypothesis by seeking evidence of library-based assessment programs and
public-facing data through a content analysis, or “a systematic and iterative
review,” as described by Saunders (2015, p. 287). Researchers reviewed websites
and other public-facing documents made available by the institutions included
in the population seeking evidence of the existence of an established
assessment program, with each researcher reviewing about one-third of the
included institutions. Evidence of assessment programs included the word
‘assessment’ or ‘evaluation’ in a job title or in the name of a department or
committee; it could also take the form of an assessment webpage, LibGuide, or stand-alone website, as described by Lewin
& Passonneau (2012, pg. 89-90). If evidence was
not found by browsing a library’s website, researchers would use a site search
utility (if available) to search for terms like ‘assessment’ or ‘evaluation’ on
the website or in the library’s staff directory. Any evidence identified was
recorded; researchers also noted names of personnel holding assessment-type
positions, where applicable.
Researchers also looked for examples of public-facing
data on the libraries’ websites. Public-facing data included annual reports,
strategic planning documents, visualizations, infographics, or fact sheets used
to benchmark library progress, success, or impact to external stakeholders. If
evidence was not found by browsing a library’s website, researchers would use a
site search utility (if available) to search for terms like ‘report’, ‘annual
report’, or ‘strategic plan’ on the website. If no evidence was found by
searching the library’s website, researchers would repeat these searches in
combination with the word ‘library’ or the library’s name using a site search
utility (if available) on the parent institution’s website. Any examples of
these data or of other forms of strategic communication were recorded and
linked to data collected for the library’s assessment program (if applicable).
The researchers then reviewed data found in order to
better understand how the previously identified public-facing data were being
used in library communications. Because the population had a diverse range of
communication practices, a rubric (see Appendix) was created using grounded
theory, a methodology that embraces “the discovery of theory from data
systematically obtained from social research” (Glaser & Strauss, 2006, pg.
3). During an initial scan, the researchers’ comparative analysis generated
five conceptual categories that appeared to be indicators for excellence in
data reporting: Accessibility, or Ease of Access
(e.g., reports are easily found on the library’s website), Communication
(e.g., information is clear and without jargon), Data (e.g., reports include
quantitative or qualitative data), Documentation (e.g., reports are up-to-date
and publicly available), and Reporting (e.g., evidence of and access to historical
reports). These criteria were chosen because the researchers were interested in
investigating libraries’ varied use of qualitative and quantitative data in
external communication, and because 47% of the population included no
quantitative or qualitative data in reports, methods in which libraries were
communicating success. Each criterion was worth up to 3 points, allowing each
institution to receive a maximum of 15 possible points
Table 1
Rubric Scores by Institutional Assessment
|
|
Meana
|
Medianb
|
Modec
|
|
All libraries
(97)
|
8.7
|
10
|
10
|
|
Libraries with assessment
(52)
|
9.4
|
10
|
10
|
|
Libraries without assessment
(45)
|
7.3
|
9
|
0
|
a Mean, the
average of a group of numbers, is calculated by adding a group of numbers and
then dividing by the count of those numbers.
b Median is the middle number of a group of number;
that is, half the numbers have values that are greater than the median, and
half the numbers have values that are less than the median.
c Mode is the
most frequently occurring number in a group of numbers.
Results
Of the 97 institutions reviewed, the researchers
identified 52 institutions with demonstrated investments in assessment as met
the criteria for the first phase of content analysis: at least one position or
title focused primarily on assessment (e.g., Assessment Coordinator, Assessment
Data Specialist), an assessment committee, or a department dedicated to
assessment. The grades of the 52 institutions ranged from 0-15, the most common
grade being 10 (n=10).
The 52 libraries identified as having investments in
assessment consistently scored higher on the rubric than the 45 libraries
without. While grades of this cohort also ranged from 0-15, these libraries
received an average grade of 7.3, 2.1 points lower than libraries with
assessment personnel. The most common grade assigned was zero.
Researchers found that data sharing practices from
different types of institutions varied widely. Of the Ivy Plus members, 9 of 12
demonstrated a commitment to assessment in accordance with the study's criteria;
these institutions received an average grade of 8.4. The same number of BTAA
libraries (out of 14) demonstrated a commitment to assessment; however, these
libraries received an average grade of 10.3. Although the same number of libraries in both
consortia had dedicated resources to assessment, one consortium received a
markedly higher average score as a result of the range and depth of data and
documents made publicly available.
Table 2
Rubric Scores by Consortia
|
|
|
Mean
|
Median
|
Mode
|
|
All consortial libraries
(26)
|
8.4
|
10
|
0
|
|
|
BTAA
(14)
|
9.9
|
11
|
10
|
|
|
Ivy Plus
(12)
|
6.7
|
7.0
|
0
|
|
Consortial members with assessment
(18)
|
9.4
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
BTAA
(9)
|
10.3
|
11
|
11
|
|
|
Ivy Plus
(9)
|
8.4
|
9
|
9
|
|
Consortial members without assessment
(8)
|
5.6
|
4.5
|
0
|
|
|
BTAA
(5)
|
8.2
|
11
|
n/a[5]
|
|
|
Ivy Plus
(3)
|
1.3
|
0
|
0
|
Table 3
Rubric Scores by Public, Private, and ARL affiliation
|
|
|
Mean
|
Median
|
Mode
|
|
All libraries
(97)
|
8.7
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Public
(65)
|
9.2
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Private
(32)
|
7.5
|
8
|
8
|
|
ARL members
(65)
|
9.1
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Public
(45)
|
9.5
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Private
(20)
|
8.1
|
8
|
8
|
|
Non-ARL members
(32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public
|
8.4
|
10.5
|
11
|
|
|
Private
|
6.6
|
7.5
|
0
|
The notable discrepancy between ratings of Ivy Plus and
BTAA libraries inspired additional investigation into factors that might
contribute to libraries’ propensity for data sharing. One possible explanation
for this discrepancy could be that the majority of BTAA institutions are
publicly funded and so may be required by state law or mandate to make more
financial and strategic planning data available to the general public. The
majority of Ivy Plus institutions, on the other hand, are private, and so have
no such mandate for financial transparency. Another possible explanation for
greater transparency in some institutions could be the requirement for annual
data reporting to ARL
that affects 67% of the institutions included in this study. Might required reporting - whether to taxpayers or professional
organizations - affect a library’s data sharing?
Further analysis of library ratings by public, private,
or ARL affiliation determined that public institutions were much more likely to
score highly on the study’s rubric than private institutions, regardless of ARL
membership. Membership in an organization with (possible) mandated reporting
may contribute to more information-sharing, as seen when the ratings of private
ARL members (average 8.1) are compared to private non-ARL members (average
6.6). However, this type of organizational mandate does not consistently
correlate with higher ratings, as can be seen by comparing public ARL members
(mode 10) and public non-ARL members (mode 11).
Finally, the researchers saw that an analysis of
libraries’ dedication to assessment as measured by funding for LAC attendance
correlated with higher grades on the study’s rubric; however, there was a
notable discrepancy between LAC 2014 attendees and LAC 2016 attendees.
Libraries represented by three or more individuals at LAC 2014 were rated much
higher than the aggregate; they were also rated higher than institutions with
three or more LAC 2016 attendees. This could be because libraries that attended
a conference three years ago have had time to expand or develop a culture of
assessment and reporting; it could also be that the dramatic growth in LAC
attendance is also indicative of a wider range of experience with and
commitment to assessment.
Discussion
In total, 57% of libraries reviewed made some form of
data available to the public. The most common form of data sharing was a Facts and Figures type-page on the
library’s website. This type of page typically presented the library’s
“tombstone statistics” - data points
regularly collected for external reporting, including titles or volumes held,
classes taught, or gate counts.[7]
It is likely that libraries share these types of pages because they are
familiar library data points and are relatively easy to produce. As McClure and
Samuels discovered 30 years ago, “the closer and more familiar a source is, the
more it is likely to be used” (1985, p. 495). However, while libraries often
provide “tombstone statistics” as a measure of library value, these data provide
an incomplete picture of the library’s service to and impact on the campus, and
can be incomprehensible to outside stakeholders.
An improvement on the “tombstone statistics” approach
involved the use of data for (internal) benchmarking or (external) comparison.[8]
Some libraries use their “tombstone statistics” to demonstrate change over
time; they may also use these standard data points to compare themselves to
peer institutions that collect and report the same data. By establishing
benchmarks, libraries are able to measure and communicate ways in which they
are or are not achieving their goals. In this study, libraries that provided
benchmarks or comparisons tended to receive higher grades, as the presence of
benchmarks or comparisons by definition exemplified good communication.
The most robust and effective use of data observed in
this study involved the use of data to tell broader stories about the library
and its impact. The seven institutions receiving the highest scores this study
made use of data —qualitative or quantitative —to tell such stories on their
websites or in other reports, and by doing so, were able to effectively
communicate the library’s impact on campus research, teaching, and learning.
While the institutions tended to rely heavily on numbers to demonstrate impact,
they provided context by also supplying narratives describing why the numbers
mattered. These institutions often had a section of their website dedicated to
assessment in the library which directed viewers to multiple years of archived
documentation of library assessment initiatives. Others included yearly
initiatives in their long-term strategic plans and updated the status of these
initiatives in subsequent annual reports. Infographics complemented the
text-based discussion of assessment and data-based decision making; this was
particularly effective in illustrating the financial reasons behind
reallocation of library funds to or away from collections budgets to meet other
library service demands. [9]
Limitations
This study emerged from an environmental scan conducted
at the University of Chicago Library with the specific purpose of informing
internal decision making related to the representation of the library’s
assessment presence on its website. As a result, the first two criteria for
determining the study’s population identified institutions that more closely
align with the University of Chicago Library, rather than the average North
American academic library.
Similarly, the third criterion - staff attendance at a professional
conference - makes assumptions about the institutions represented at this
conference. First, while many institutions provide funding for their employees
to attend such events, many individuals are required to pay at least some of
the costs of attendance. While an institution may be willing to support this
type of professional development, staffing needs may limit the number of
individuals who are able to be away from the library at any a given time.
Additionally, many other reasons contribute to an individual’s decision or
ability to attend a conference. Finally, the LAC is a relatively small
conference, so while it was not clear from the LAC website whether registration
had reached capacity in 2014 or 2016, it is possible that the number of individuals
in attendance was limited due to the size of the conference itself. As a
result, while an institution’s representation at this conference in recent
years can be taken as a measure of some
institutions’ investment in assessment, it is an
incomplete measure at best.
Finally, the use of grounded theory for the
development of this study’s rubric limits the generalizability of
this study’s findings. As Thomas and James note, the problem with grounded
theory is that it is a scientific instrument similar to one’s everyday
“practical syllogism” (2006, pg. 773). Since the practice of developing theory
from observation is highly subjective, this study’s rubric should not be
utilized in other studies without further testing; similarly, the findings of
this study should be treated as observations subject to further investigation.
Areas for Future Research
This study used publicly-available data to make
inferences about external factors affecting libraries’ information-sharing
processes. While shared characteristics among institutions in this study’s
population could be correlated with expanded sharing of data on library
websites, none of these characteristics reflect internal institutional factors
that contribute to this area of decision making. Further research is needed to
identify these factors and to explore their implications for information
sharing in the larger academic library community. Additionally, further
research is needed to explore how the external factors identified in this study
(e.g., consortial membership) shape the internal
decision making around these processes.
Conclusion
Increasingly, libraries are relying on their assessment
programs to collect the data needed to demonstrate the value libraries
contribute to their institutions’ missions and goals. Evidence of the movement
can be seen through ACRL’s Impact of
Academic Libraries, Megan Oakleaf’s recent work (Oakleaf, 2016; Oakleaf et al,
2017) on integrating the library in campus data collecting initiatives, and
emerging papers considering the library’s role in protecting
student data (Jones & Salo, 2017). However, this
study demonstrates that a library’s investment in an assessment program does
not guarantee that the data collected by such programs will be made available
to external stakeholders.
This study sought to explore factors that influence the
ways academic libraries choose to share data and other reports on their
websites. While the researchers found a slight correlation between libraries’
investment in assessment and the presence of outward-facing reporting, the
correlations were observably impacted by other factors. A library’s
demonstration of data could be influenced by employees’ engagement in
assessment projects, participation in a consortia that
requires regular reporting, or the receipt of taxpayer funding. Future studies
might investigate which, if any, of these factors greatly increase or diminish
the likelihood of data being made publicly available.
It is the researchers’ hope that observations gleaned
from the content analysis can serve as a benchmark for measuring changes in
library communication practices. Slightly more than half of the libraries
reviewed made data or strategic documents available on their websites. However,
those institutions that made data or documents available frequently did so
without providing meaningful context for external audiences, thus missing an
important opportunity to articulate the value expressed in the data. There is
clearly significant room for improvement.
References
Glaser, B. D., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Jones, K., & Salo, D. (2017). Learning
analytics and the academic library: Professional ethics commitments at a
crossroads. College & Research
Libraries 79(3), 304-323. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.304
Koufogiannakis, D. (2014). McClure and Samuels’ study on information sources used for
decision making and the connection to organizational climate still resonates
today. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 9(4), 78-81. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8788Q
Lewin, H. S., & Passonneau,
S. M. (2012). An analysis of academic research libraries assessment
data: A look at professional
models and benchmarking data. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(2),
85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.01.002
Lundstrom, K.,
Martin, P., & Cochran, D. (2016). Making strategic decisions: Conducting
and using research on the impact of sequenced library instruction. College & Research Libraries, 77(2),
212-226. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.2.212
Manzuch, Z. & Maceviciute, E. (2014). Library user studies for strategic
planning. Information Research, 19(4),
71-84.
McClure, C. R. (1986). A view from the trenches: Costing and performance
measures for academic library public services. College & Research Libraries, 47(4), 323-336. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_47_04_323
McClure, C. R., & Samuels,
A. R. (1985). Factors affecting the use of information for academic
library decision making. College &
Research Libraries, 46(6) 483-498. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_46_06_483
Mitchell, M., & Witthus, R.
W. (1991). Planning for diversity: Strategic planning for an urban
academic library. Journal of Library
Administration, 13(3-4), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v13n03_12
Oakleaf, M. (2016). Getting
ready & getting started: Academic librarian involvement in institutional
learning analytics initiatives. Journal
of Academic Librarianship, 42(4),
472-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.05.013
Oakleaf, M., Whyte, A., Lynema, E., & Brown, M. (2017). Academic libraries
& institutional learning analytics: One path to integration. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 454-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.08.008
Paulus, A. R. (2014). Using data to assess staffing and services:
University of Iowa Main Library. Journal
of Access Services, 11(3), 189-205. Retrieved 19 March 2018 from ERIC
database (EJ1033784).
Saunders, L. (2015). Academic libraries’ strategic plans: Top trends and
under-recognized areas. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011
Saunders, L. (2016). Room for improvement: Priorities in academic
libraries’ strategic plans. Journal of
Library Administration, 56(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105029
Seago, B. L., Schlesinger, J.B., & Hampton, C.L. (2002). Using a decade of data on medical student computer
literacy for strategic planning. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 90(2),
202-209.
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some
questions about theory, ground, and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (6), 767-795. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032707
Van House, N. A. (1989). Output measures in libraries. Library Trends, 38(2),
268-279. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/7661
Appendix
Study Rubric
|
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
Needs Improvement
|
|
Accessibility[10]
|
Documents are easily found on the library's website
(within 5 clicks)
|
Documents can be found on the library's website, but it
takes some time (5+ clicks?)
|
Documents can be found by searching the library's
website
|
Documents not available
|
|
Communication
|
Communication is clear and accessible for
non-librarians (e.g. lack of jargon)
|
Communication is directed towards non-librarians, but
contains some jargon
|
Library's message or assessment contains jargon and
seems to be directed mainly to staff
|
No direct message publicly available
|
|
Documentation
|
Most recent strategic directions and annual report
publicly available, as well as archived documentation
|
Most recent strategic directions and annual report
publicly available
|
Strategic directions or annual report publicly
available; out of date
|
Documents not available
|
|
Data
|
Strategic directions or annual report uses qualitative
and quantitative data to tell a story about the library's achievement or
struggles
|
Draws links between qualitative/quantitative data
collected by the library with strategic directions and/or annual report
|
Makes qualitative or quantitative data related to
library assessment publicly available.
|
Data not available.
|
|
Reporting
|
Publicly available documents are up-to-date and there
is evidence of historical reporting and evaluation.
|
Publicly available documents are up-to-date
|
Publicly available documents are 1 year or less out of
date
|
Documents are not current
|
[5]
Each institution in this cohort received a different grade, making it
impossible to determine a mode.