Exploring the Cause and Effect of Library Value
Exploring the Cause and Effect of Library Value Danuta A. Nitecki and Eileen G. Abels 9 th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services August 24, 2011 York, England
Value as stakeholders’ perception: Introduction to the study EFFECT CAUSE
Library Value Wheel
5 Whys Method 1. “How do you rate library’s value? …Why 2. Input factors…Why? 3. “why does this contribute to library value? ”… Why? . . . Why…Why? 4. Chart “causes” on whiteboard 5. Clusters identify root cause=valued impact
Guiding Study Objectives 1) Identify effects [perceived value] of the library held by faculty 2) Identify root causes faculty identify that affect their perceived value of the library 3) Identify issues related to the use of the “ 5 Whys” protocol to uncover root causes related to perceptions of value
Research design: Adapting 5 Whys • Case study: one university with diverse disciplinary programs and both research and teaching faculty • Short individual oral, in-person interviews • Reviewed recorded interviews • Clustered factors, identified causes • Focus group validation of the results • Member checks
Objective 1: Identify effects [Perceived value] How would you rate the value the Library provides you as a faculty member? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1= little or no value and 10= maximum value
Objective 1 Findings: Value score • Overall [n=10] – Mean = 7 – Median = 7. 5 – Range = 3 – 9 • Research [tenure track] faculty [n=7] – Mean = 7. 5 – Median = 8 • Teaching & Admin [non-tenure track] faculty [n=3] – Mean = 6. 5 – Median = 6. 5
Objective 2: Identify Causes “Whys” uncovered multiple tiers: Tier 1: Input factors Library services and resources Tier 2: Root Causes Impact on stakeholders
Objective 2: Findings Input factors • Information resources [archives, reserves, stacks, electronic] • Staff • Space • Access [circulation, ILL, online catalog] • Assistance [Instruction & reference] • Purpose of Use [e. g. reason to use the library]
Objective 2: Findings Root causes [Supported through focus group interview] • increase my productivity • expand student ability • do my job • save money • indulge intellectual curiosity [Not supported in focus group interview] • [not] feel frustrated • meet accreditation criteria • change the university
Objective 2: continued Why might these contribute to the value of the Library? • To archive student work • To find 95% of what you need online • To provide space for faculty that is quiet, separate, peaceful, attractive, without being bugged • To provide space for students – To hang out – To meet study groups – To work together
Objective 2: Findings Additional root causes • Archive: – Historic value of student work – Students get jobs and are more successful in their field • Finding online: – Save time and being efficient • Space for faculty: – Shape faculty scholarly attitude • Space for students: – Makes stronger students
Objective 3: Observed “ 5 Whys” issues • • • Adaptable Awkward Answering implicit whys Evaluation versus root cause analysis Complicated interview management
Discussion: Insights about factors Library purpose: “I don’t use all the value that is there” “Thought librarians are there just for students, not for me. ” Space: “I’m nervous that the digital is taking away the value of the library. ”
Discussion: Insights about factors [continued] Library resources: “ [staff enthusiasm offers] compensation a lot for lack of collection, but without collection can’t get to 10” “The number of online resources in my field are limited. ”
Discussion: Insights about root causes To do my job: “If libraries did not exist, I could still do my research” “Without the library, my productivity would be reduced by 75%”
Discussion: Insights about effect ratings Single quantitative number rating of value is unstable: “Hmmm…now maybe a 9 or a 10…higher value since the librarians work with adjuncts and faculty needs of our department. ” Lack of awareness of library opportunities: “I’m not familiar with all library provides teachers and students…”
Research limitations • Qualitative case study: – difficult to generalize – Validation incomplete • Institutional influences: – Teaching and research faculty cultures – Experiential learning emphasis – Technology-centric, applied research – Collection is significantly electronic over physical – Faculty have access to nearby research library
Strategies for maximizing value • Distinguishing perceptions of satisfaction and value • Marketing to root causes • Factoring root causes in strategic planning
Value as perception: Final thoughts EFFECT INPUT OUTPUT ROOT CAUSE
Thank you to continue the discussion Danuta A. Nitecki danuta. nitecki@drexel. edu Eileen G. Abels ega 26@drexel. edu
- Slides: 22