NJLA College and University Section and Association of College and Research Libraries

Mark Thompson

NJLA CUS/NJ ACRL Chapter President

At the VALE Conference in January 2011, four of us (Luis Rodriguez- Kean; Anne Ciliberti –WPU; Elizabeth Leonard –Berkeley; and myself) led a program on the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries report.  This report (http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/value) was a two-year effort that compiled some 2,000 articles and findings to establish new benchmarks on the importance and value of our libraries.  Since then, under Anne Ciliberti’s leadership, some of us still gather every few months to discuss these issues.  We are hearing and experiencing the dramatic questioning of traditional library values, so these discussions are very important.  Join us at the Values WIKI if you are interested: http://valevalue.wikispaces.com/

You should also be aware of two other recent reports that also focus on how to value academic libraries.  Both again translate value differently than the past – focusing more on institutional values, such as student graduation and retention, and less on traditional library measures of circulation, book counts, etc.

1.)  ACRL's new Standards for Libraries in Higher Education came out at the end of 2011 and replaces the older versions.  See http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries) and find the PDF at http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/slhe.pdf   Judith Lin Hunt (Montclair State U.) recently led a review and discussion of the new ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education.  A consensus of the attendees was formed around the efficacy of using this document as a tool for articulating value to administration.  The standards certainly represent the basic factors for examining library services and resources.  But each library will have to select and prioritize the items and the focus of what to measure based on their institution’s dynamics.  The most fruitful focus might be on the sample outcomes, as they are called, in the report.  The sample outcomes are very useful practical examples for how to translate values for our individual libraries and campuses.    See also the latest article that discusses the standards in College & Research Libraries News (January 2012 issue) http://crln.acrl.org/content/73/1.toc

2.)  A controversial report on the future of libraries was released recently.  Some of our provosts attended the 2011 Provost Roundtable in Washington DC (mid June) and the organizers extracted many of the charts and statements from the report: Redefining the Academic Library: Managing the Migration to Digital Information Services.  The report was published in 2011 by the Education Advisory Board's University Leadership Council.  Find a copy online at 
http://www.educationadvisoryboard.com/pdf/23634-EAB-Redefining-the-Acade... The report comes from what now seems to be an inactive group – the Taiga Forum (think tank).  The conclusions about the state and future of libraries are designed to be “provocative” –which is the word used in the report.  It would be a misperception, however, to say that all library leaders would agree to the conditions as stated in the report.  However, we must consider the issues as stated, if indeed they are gaining currency among our institutions’ leadership.  I find a strong element of reality in all of them but would question the forecasts.  Read Barbara Fister’s commentary last year about the Taiga group at http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newslettersnewsletterbucketacademicnewswire/890845-440/taiga_by_the_tail_.html.csp .