Guerrilla Assessment A practical approach to Library Impact

Guerrilla Assessment: A practical approach to Library Impact and Value Zsuzsa Koltay Cornell University Library Director of Assessment and Communication

low cost

unconventional

big impact

low cost: senior survey “To what extent have Cornell library resources and services contributed to… …your ability to evaluate the quality of the information you find? …your ability to conduct research? …your efficiency? …your academic success? Rating scale: not at all; very little; some; quite a bit; very much

2010 Academic success 4, 9 13, 1 33, 3 Efficiency 7, 3 30, 7 Ability to conduct research 5, 7 Evaluate quality of information 9 29, 4 19, 3 not at all very little some quite a bit very much 0% 12, 3 9, 3 29, 1 27, 6 14, 9 20% 20, 6 30, 8 35, 5 40% 26, 5 27, 1 60% 13, 5 80% 100% 120%

Ability to conduct research not at all Female very little some quite a bit very much Male 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ability to conduct research Intl Multi not at all very little some URM quite a bit very much Asian White 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ability to conduct research ILR Hum Ec Hotel not at all very little Engineering some quite a bit Arts very much AAP ALS 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

unconventional: value calculations

Transaction count X value expressed in $$$

08/09 Cornell example • for the use of physical volumes: $15, 135, 782 • for articles accessed online and through interlibrary services: $61, 265, 783 • for answering questions to build research skills and contribute to Cornell research results: $1, 176, 615 • for in-depth consultations that contribute to Cornell research results: $126, 900 • for Cornell’s use of preprints from ar. Xiv. org: $740, 250

• for distributing Cornell-created content to the world through e. Commons: $12, 001, 290 • for laptops borrowed: $202, 165 • for library instruction: $xxx ______________ Roughly 1: 2 cost to value

so what? • Great context or bogus numbers? • How do our cost and value to users relate to each other? • Very varied reactions – not used, not updated

big impact: benchmarking

The big irony: resources and rankings rule!

1. 090 1. 525 1. 049 1. 268 1. 065 1. 360 1. 030 1. 135 1. 063 1. 333 1. 064 1. 361 1. 004 1. 017 1. 075 1. 418 1. 045 1. 227 1. 031 1. 150 1. 034 1. 157 1. 013 1. 030 1. 048 1. 263 1. 035 1. 181 1. 050 1. 203 1. 029 1. 151 1. 061 1. 336 1. 070 1. 397 1. 057 1. 315 1. 044 1. 235 1. 033 1. 178 1. 002 1. 011 1. 034 1. 174 1. 099 1. 595 1. 133 1. 606 1. 060 1. 312 1. 049 1. 265 1. 066 1. 352 1. 043 1. 179 1. 007 0. 997 median 1. 049 1. 249 avg 1. 049 1. 258 +1. 7% in 5 years +25. 8% in 5 years

5 yr cumulcative change in materials expenditures CHICAGO COLUMBIA CORNELL DUKE EMORY HARVARD ILLINOIS, URBANA INDIANA IOWA JOHNS HOPKINS MCGILL MICHIGAN MINNESOTA NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA OKLAHOMA PENNSYLVANIA STATE PITTSBURGH PRINCETON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TEXAS A&M TORONTO WASHINGTON YALE 1, 595 1, 606 1, 333 1, 418 1, 361 1, 336 1, 263 1, 227 1, 150 1, 157 1, 017 1, 030 1, 181 1, 203 1, 397 1, 315 1, 312 1, 235 1, 151 1, 178 1, 174 1, 011 1, 352 1, 265 1, 179 0, 997

The Petition We, the (undersigned) faculty of Cornell University, affirm the critical importance of the library system to all aspects of Cornell’s mission. […] We call on the central administration […] to meet the first objective of the Cornell University Library Strategic Plan (2011 -2015), to "Return the Library to its position among the top ten academic institutions in the Association of Research Libraries in terms of collection support".

Signature #554 The two most important ingredients of a great university are an excellent faculty and an excellent library. If need be, cut back on other things (athletic programs, faculty salary pool, . . . ) to rebuild the funding strength for Cornell's library system Professor X, Neurobiology And Behavior

Discussion • • Is there merit in lightweight approaches? Are they reliable? Do you have examples? What evidence resonates on your campus?