Image courtesy of Flickr user laikolasse

Last year there was a revolt against Facebook. Lots of people were weighing the pros and cons of becoming a Facebook dropout, including librarians. For many of these detractors and potential detractors of Facebook, the disjunct structure of personal and professional identity was no longer holding up under the pressure of Facebook’s urgings to reveal all and merge personal and professional spheres into one. Those who have attempted to draw this line by creating multiple Facebook accounts are all too familiar with Facebook’s stance against more than one individual account (and others have written about the tension of treating your Facebook account as a personal, professional, or hybrid space, e.g., Rogers, 2010). Identity issues aside, many users didn’t have time to devote to figuring out how to manage the dynamic and fickle privacy settings of their Facebook identities to get things back under control. Some were simply frustrated that Facebook offered no consistent and clear assurances on how their information and online habits would be used. A lot of people left Facebook, including myself. Until recently, I didn’t think I was missing out by not being on Facebook.

Backing up a bit

Most librarians first joined Facebook when it was limited to universities and colleges. For many academic librarians, it was the latest cool thing to experiment with to enhance engagement with students. Many librarians on Facebook published profile updates and expressed their interests as they related to their jobs and educational backgrounds. Their aim was to “be where the students were” and to explore the new world of social networking via Facebook. The choice of whether to seek out students and invite them to be Facebook friends worked for some and didn’t work for others (e.g., see the review and survey results published by Connell, 2009). On most accounts, Facebook has been considered a low cost, minimal effort venue for engaging with current and potential library users. In fact, many blog posts, white papers, and conference proceedings (but surprisingly few articles, e.g., Jennings and Tvaruzka, 2010) have been published about how librarians and libraries may leverage Facebook for outreach and engagement.

Much has changed in just a few years as Facebook opened beyond academia. Since September 2006, when Facebook was opened up to allow anyone to join, the number of active users has grown by over 4000%. Millions of business websites are connected via Facebook (e.g., the current most popular business on Facebook is Coca-Cola with over 22 million fans). These days, Facebook users can get personalized content delivered to them on websites affiliated with Facebook (aka “instant personalization”). Facebook is packing on more and more corporate investors and making itself more attractive and lucrative for businesses. By leveraging strategies that push “instant personalization” across the web, Facebook is encouraging the community on Facebook to change their expectations of what should (and shouldn’t) happen on Facebook. While most librarians are still feeling the sting of students’ early reactions that “friending” a librarian on Facebook was “creepy,” there appears to be a shift in this perspective. Roblyer, et al. (2010) report that students’ perceptions about interacting with faculty and librarians are morphing to suggest that they do expect these interactions to be just as likely in Facebook as they are in more traditional communication venues.

While there are valid reasons for maintaining a wary stance regarding a personal/individual Facebook account, there are also compelling reasons to use Facebook to fulfill your obligations as a librarian. It should be noted that many libraries are creating or updating their presence on Facebook, and that the concerns around a business or organization presence may not be as alarming as they are for individual Facebook accounts.

Benefits of being a Facebook Dropout

For many, the decision to drop out of Facebook suggested that they might gain some control over their online identities and reinstitute the distinction between their personal and professional spheres. Just a few months before “Quit Facebook Day” (May 31, 2010), Dan Yoder posted his top ten reasons to quit Facebook. There are several reasons posted by Yoder that resonated most with many users’ decisions to deactivate (or even delete) their accounts:

“Even your private data is shared with applications.” In April/May 2010, Facebook introduced the Open Graph Protocol in an effort to support the aim of providing more opportunities for instant personalization experiences for Facebook users. The Open Graph API enables an owner of a website to paste in a bit of code into their site that will help the site align better with your personal preferences and habits that you have made publicly available via Facebook. For example: if my Facebook account included information or patterns of use indicating that I like Thai food, then when I visit a website that has the Open Graph API, it may deliver content targeted toward my preference for Thai food. Companies such as Pandora, Yelp, ABC News, and Simply Hired are taking advantage of this new way to engage users. Some users view the instant personalization experience as a time saver and a convenience, while others find it to be too close for comfort.

“Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch” and “Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy.” Taken together, these two complaints reiterate that any personal or professional information that one presents on the web can and probably will be mined and regurgitated in some way for profit. The trouble with Facebook is that users expect to have more control over their information and online habits – because you must log in to participate in the social network, you expect the information to be somehow under your control.

“Facebook’s Terms Of Service are completely one-sided.” The crux of this complaint is that Facebook owns the data that you release to it, share within it and that others share about you within the service. This may be one of the most compelling arguments for not having a Facebook account. Even so, most librarians do realize that information about them and their consumption patterns of information, merchandise and services is valuable to a lot of online organizations (e.g., Amazon). The issue that has irritated a lot of privacy-conscious librarians is that Facebook seems to be a little less clear about customer privacy. Revealing information about your self in Facebook or in Facebook applications that function outside Facebook could be a potential threat to your sense of privacy due to the shifting tension between Facebook’s ever-changing privacy controls and their aim to enhance sharing and engagement of users and their information.

Drawbacks of being a Facebook dropout in Light of the Evolution of Facebook

At the most fundamental level, the duty of librarians is to remove the barriers to information for the members of the community to which we belong. We are also responsible for staying aware of the trends and issues impacting these various user communities – what they are studying, where they are seeking information, how they are sharing information, and what barriers they encounter as they go about their scholarship. Alongside the casual, social interactions, Facebook is one of those places where this collection of scholarly activity is happening. As more and more information providers/publishers, libraries and librarians have been getting in on the action with users on Facebook, librarians who are absent from Facebook may actually be missing a lot more than they think. To support this perspective, in response to Dan Yoder’s reasons to leave Facebook, David Lee King posted “10 reasons to not quit Facebook.” Several of his points resonated with me and my decision to return to Facebook.

“Your customers are using Facebook” and “Your community is on Facebook.” Mathews (2006) described the initial results of his outreach campaign via Facebook to engineering students at Georgia Tech. He was able to answer patron questions including which software was available on library computers, how to renew items online, recent building changes, and information about library study spaces. A little closer to home, my colleague, Orion Pozo, uses his Facebook account, the NCSU Libraries EngLibrary Twitter account and the Physical and Engineering Sciences News blog to simultaneously broadcast and re-broadcast information about NCSU engineering and the NCSU Libraries. Like Mathews, through his “friend” connections with NCSU engineering graduate students and faculty, Pozo has been able to answer questions about how to use subscriptions that the Libraries maintains for the NCSU community. In one instance, he showed a grad student how to search SpringerLink’s website for ebooks that the NCSU Libraries had acquired (helping to mitigate delays in getting the MARC records into our catalog). In another case, he helped a grad student access the NCSU Libraries online subscriptions from off-campus. While these transactions solve relatively simple problems, the ability to provide good customer service via Facebook has helped to underpin the support that the NCSU Libraries aims to provide to our community. Reaching out to users (where-ever they may be) who may otherwise go away frustrated sends a strong message to our users and to our stakeholders that the NCSU Libraries is clued into their needs and expectations.

“Did I mention free marketing?” With Facebook’s population hitting around 500 million active users, half of which log in to Facebook every day, with each user being connected to an average of 130 other users, this venue becomes a very compelling place for a business or organization to be. Facebook is working hard to make it an even more profitable and worthwhile place for businesses and organizations to be as well. With their social plugins and business integration features (e.g., Open Graph API, mentioned previously) companies are able to generate more comments, discussion and interest than occurs on their own websites.

“Publishers may be concerned about losing advertising revenues if people are spending time on a Facebook fan page rather than generating page views on the brand’s website. But many publishers have shown that a strong presence on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn can actually drive more traffic while increasing engagement. –Behling, 2010.

Facebook members can click on a “Like” button for any Facebook page or any website that has a “Like” button installed (via the Open Graph API) and automatically be connected to information about that page. For example, I could indicate that I “Like” the D.H. Hill Library on the North Carolina State University campus, joining the other 800 people on Facebook who have also publicly declared their “Like” of the D.H. Hill Library. I will be connected to updates about the D.H. Hill Library and other people will know how I feel as well. Now, if the NCSU Libraries website (including the D.H. Hill Library) took advantage of Facebook’s Like button and other social plugins, then the NCSU Libraries website would be able to connect with me leveraging some of my personal preferences (via Facebook) and perhaps even offer me a more personalized experience when I visit that website (or push alerts to my Facebook account) letting me know about new services, events or collections that might be relevant to my interests.

“Start conversations.” Most issues affecting librarians and libraries, such as changes in databases, journal subscription rates, and publisher mergers are commonly aired out on discussion lists in conjunction with meetings at national or regional conferences. The tide may be turning to include Facebook for those kinds of discussions and debates. One example: a few weeks ago, librarians began hearing about the possibility that the publisher McGraw-Hill may pull popular engineering reference works from the online full-text database Knovel. It is these popular engineering reference works that provide much of the value to the Knovel database. McGraw-Hill wants to make their reference works available online exclusively through their own platform – yet another product for which libraries must find funding in yet another year of budget cuts. While the details aren’t critical to this discussion, what is interesting is that librarians are discussing this issue and are voicing their concerns to McGraw-Hill via Facebook (see posts from “Just Others” from December 2010)! Facebook’s role in facilitating this kind of interaction between librarians and publisher/providers may be in the early stages, but this example suggests that Facebook does indeed play a significant part in the relationship between libraries and resource acquisition.

Taking Some Hints from Businesses on Facebook

Below is a sample of publishers and providers of journals and databases to which many libraries subscribe. The data show popularity of these publishers/providers on Facebook as of January 25, 2011. The number of Facebook users who have declared their “Like” for these publishers/providers is indicative of the engagement power of Facebook. Perhaps this new kind of engagement is due to the shift in Facebook’s community demographics and/or that Facebook users have started thinking differently about their interactions within Facebook. When users align themselves with non-academic entities on Facebook, this suggests that their perspectives about who they wish to engage with is shifting from solely student-to-student interaction to user-resource provider interaction – and that interaction is not necessarily the library or librarian!

In scanning through the Wall posts and Discussion boards on these publishers/providers Facebook pages, I see many gaps where libraries and librarians should be present. Take JSTOR’s Facebook page for example. Since early November 2010, there were at least 12 separate Wall post questions from users (whether they are students or faculty is sometimes difficult to distinguish) about how to access or search for JSTOR articles. A similar set of questions about access exist on the Discussion boards in JSTOR’s Facebook page. In most of the cases, a representative from JSTOR pointed out how to access JSTOR articles from the users’ home library subscriptions or suggested that the user request that their library subscribe to JSTOR content. Users also asked JSTOR for help finding articles on things like African music and behavioral finance (separate queries). But most of all, users were piling on the love for JSTOR: “Jstor saved my life :D” and “Where have you been all my scholastic life? Jstor is my hero!” and, my favorite “If I ever have twins, I want to name one of the J, and the other Stor, so when I call their name I will be reminded of sweet, sweet, JSTOR.” I haven’t heard of instances where a library user declared this level of adoration for a library, but I would certainly like to hear about any examples. Likewise, it would be interesting to see a study documenting how libraries (not just individual librarians) are leveraging the social networking power and intel-gathering force of Facebook to better engage with students.

Summing Up

A lot about the way that Facebook supports the profession of librarianship has changed in the past few years and even since the mid-2010 uproar that led to many users deciding to decommission their Facebook accounts. While I am not aware of any studies that measure the trends in librarian presence and interaction on Facebook, anecdotal evidence suggests that in addition to other communication venues (discussion lists, Twitter, etc.), many librarians are on Facebook and this is where considerable discussion about issues relevant to librarianship are happening. A librarian colleague reported using her Facebook account to brainstorm with her librarians’ group about work-related project plans and publication advice. I suspect that this kind of professional networking on Facebook happens more often than we think and that the value of having all of those relationships in one place is understated.

By tapping into the Facebook accounts of their community members and the pages of publishers/providers, librarians can stay up-to-date on domain-specific research, learn about changes to publishers’ content, and engage in the conversations that are happening in these spaces. But there might be more value for libraries to be involved with Facebook beyond keeping their librarians up-to-date. Libraries might leverage the social plugins made easily available via the Open Graph Protocol on their websites to automatically tap into a visitor’s likes and dislikes and offer up personalized services and content. Initiatives such as the Open Library Environment project led by Kuali with a handful of sponsoring institutions is interested in creating similar types of instant personalization experiences between libraries and patrons.

For me, the benefits of being on Facebook (e.g., keeping myself in the loop about issues that impact my job, staying connected with publishers/providers, other librarians and members of my campus community) outweigh the risks of being on Facebook (e.g., finding time to manage my account, monitor privacy settings, deal with a glut of “gifts” of virtual garden vegetables and getting “poked”). For the time being, I’m keeping Facebook in my toolkit of communication and professional social networks.

Many thanks to Ellie Collier, Emily Ford, and Joe Kraus for reading earlier drafts of this post and for all of their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Behling, Ellie. 2010. “Publishers turn to Facebook for community-building.” eMediaVitals posting August 6, 2010: http://emediavitals.com/article/1005/publishers-turn-facebook-community-building (last accessed on January 25, 2011).

Connell, Ruth Sara. 2009. “Academic Libraries, Facebook and MySpace, and Student Outreach: A Survey of Student Opinion.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, v. 9 (1): 25-36.

Crawford, Walt. 2010. “Does every librarian need to be an involved expert at everything?” Walt at Random blog posting June 1, 2010: http://walt.lishost.org/2010/06/does-every-librarian-need-to-be-an-involved-expert-on-everything/ (last accessed on January 25, 2011).

Jennings, E. and K. Tvaruzka. 2010. “Quick and dirty library promotions that really work.” Library Innovation, v. 1 (2): 6-14.

King, David Lee. 2010. “10 reasons to not quit Facebook.” DavidLeeKing.com blog posting May 4, 1010: http://www.davidleeking.com/2010/05/04/10-reasons-to-not-quit-facebook/ (last accessed on January 25, 2011).

Mathews, Brian. 2006. “Do you Facebook? Networking with students online.” College & Research Libraries News, v. 67 (5): 306–307.

Paul, Ian. 2010. “It’s quit Facebook Day, are you leaving?” PC World, Today@PC World blog posting May 31, 2010: http://www.pcworld.com/article/197621/its_quit_facebook_day_are_you_leaving.html (last accessed on January 25, 2011).

Roblyer, M.D., et al. 2010. “Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites.” The Internet and Higher Education, v.13 (3):134-140.

Rogers, Jenica. 2010. “IOLUG speaker’s notes on online identity.” Attempting Elegance blog posting January 5, 2010: http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=652 (last accessed on January 25, 2011).

Yoder, Dan. 2010. “Top ten reasons you should quit Facebook.” Rocket.ly blog posting April 26, 2010: http://www.rocket.ly/blog/posts/top-ten-reasons-you-should-quit-facebook.html (last accessed January 25, 2011).

Courtesy of Flickr User DavidDMuir

When I asked Selden Lamoureux, Electronic Serials Librarian at the North Carolina State University Libraries, “what are the most challenging issues for electronic serials librarians today?” we launched into a fascinating conversation about a topic that hits at the core of what it means to work in library acquisitions these days. Selden’s response was:

“The list is long and ranges from things that are the natural consequences of a dramatically altered publishing landscape (such as the need for new management tools), to problems largely of our own making. It’s within this second category that I find one of the more insidious problems for large academic libraries: fantasy pricing.”

Over the course of many weeks, the following interview-style Q&A unfolded. Selden is one of those people who have spent years cultivating intelligent and cooperative relationships between libraries and publishers. She is one of the founders of SERU (Shared E-Resource Understanding), a framework for eliminating the need for extensive and sometimes painful license negotiation for electronic resources such as e-journals, e-books and databases. Her invaluable contributions to librarianship have been recognized by her peers via awards such as the Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resources Management and the John Merriman Award to support attendance at the UK Serials Group Annual Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland in April 2010 (volcanic ash cloud, included). Selden is an active leader in NASIG (North American Serials Interest Group) and ALA’s ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services). The opinions and statements that follow are based on Selden’s experiences and come from the perspective of an acquisitions librarian working in the context of a large academic research library. Her insights may not reflect the experience of acquisitions librarians in other kinds of libraries, but hopefully give you a flavor of the state of serials acquisitions in the broad scale. Please share your thoughts, opinions and questions in the Comments section that follows this post.

Question: What is “fantasy pricing”?

Answer: Fantasy pricing is the practice of establishing a journal’s subscription price that, for the most part, appears largely divorced from production and distribution costs. In the print environment, journals had production and delivery costs that determined a minimum price. Electronic journal pricing is almost always based on the price of the print, but for electronic journals, the cost of delivering the content is cheap and there is little relationship between what it costs to produce and deliver the electronic journal and the asking price for its subscription. How do I know this? When a publisher can claim its collection of journals is worth more than $2 million, and also claim that the average price a library pays for all that content is less than 15% of the value of its titles, then something is amiss in the way that publisher values its titles! [Note: What Selden is saying here is that it doesn’t make sense that a publisher would claim that their journal collection is worth $2 million while also stating that libraries only pay 15% of that cost – why would a publisher sell their journal collection at such a loss if the value they claim is so much higher? Either the collection isn’t worth $2 million or the publisher is really desperate to make a sell.]

Question: Why is there such a difference in the stated value of the journal collection vs. the cost to libraries?

Answer: When pricing for online content is based on a library’s print subscription spending commitment, large research libraries, with their historically large number of print subscriptions, pay a disproportionate amount for electronic journal content. If all libraries shared in the savings, I wouldn’t object. But what happens in practice is that libraries wind up paying wildly different prices for the same content, pricing that is all out of proportion to differences among their institutions.

An especially egregious example: One publisher offered a library consortium access to their complete collection of journals online. The consortium contained library members that ranged in size from large ARL (Association of Research Libraries) libraries to small institutions of under 5,000 students. The difference in price for the exact same content was 32 times at its most extreme. In terms of actual dollars, it meant one institution was asked to pay $1.5 million, while another paid $47,000 for identical content. If the value of the content is truly $2 million (let’s say, in this case, it is purported to be valued at around $2 million), then both libraries are getting a bargain; but if the value of the content is closer to the average cost (15%, or $345,000) then the larger library is paying too much and the smaller library too little. The publisher could never have offered the smaller libraries this same access to print journals, because the cost of printing and delivering the journal would have been prohibitive. Clearly, the negligible cost of distributing electronic journals is what makes this possible. [Note: Our reviewers pointed out that if patrons of the larger libraries use journals 32 times more than smaller libraries, then it might be somewhat justified that the larger libraries should pay 32 times more for the same content. We haven’t seen statistics to back this up consistently, but it is an interesting perspective to note. Additional cost for supporting higher capacity usage doesn't necessarily kick in until there is a very large number of uses and a publisher needs to invest in additional server infrastructure. There is still no good metric for identifying the value of a "use." ]

Question: What is the impact of this pricing disparity on larger libraries?

Answer: One problem is that these business models lock in historic spending commitments of libraries at the same time that they disallow or severely limit libraries’ ability to cancel subscriptions. When library budgets are flat, the only way to subscribe to new journals is to cancel previous subscriptions. If, however, a library’s spending level for a given publisher’s journals is fixed, and the annual increase is fixed, and the ability to cancel is restricted, then the library budget equilibrium is broken.

Another problem exists in the inherent inequality of having no “real” price for a journal. There is a tradition, established long before there were electronic journals, of asking larger libraries, with their larger budgets and more extensive research needs, to pay more for content than smaller institutions (e.g., the Carnegie Classification was often used to establish tiered pricing for content). In those days, however, the disparity between costs paid by large research libraries vs. small academic libraries was never as disproportionate as it is now. [Note: Selden isn’t suggesting that tiered pricing models are disagreeable; just that the growing disparity is much more difficult to justify.]

These days, the ambiguity of how to value (and therefore charge for) electronic subscriptions not only compounds the pricing disparity between large universities and small colleges, but also between institutions of relative parity where there are different historic spending patterns. In the same consortial example cited previously, there happened to be two large universities with very similar student populations and PhD programs. One was an up-and-coming university that had grown rapidly in the last few years; the other was the flagship university with a long, storied tradition. In this example, where the two institutions were nearly identical in their current academic profiles, the flagship university was charged nearly 2.3 times the cost for the same content, since pricing was based primarily on historic spending commitments. Noblesse oblige cannot begin to explain this pricing disequilibrium.

Question: How did this kind of business model come about? What are the advantages for publishers?

Answer: This is a model that is often referred to as the “Big Deal,” and it’s not hard to see what its advantages are. For publishers, there were (and still are) real costs associated with the transition from print to electronic publishing: a web presence had to be established, a journal delivery platform created, and people had to be hired who had the necessary skills to build the new access and delivery system. Once those costs were met, other costs came into the picture such as the cost of maintaining online access (unlike print, where the commitment stops once an issue is delivered), managing complex access levels, providing extra user services (e.g., table of contents alert services), customer service for authors, libraries and patrons, and reporting of metrics such as usage statistics. For publishers, there was a lot of risk and uncertainty. [Note: There is considerable debate about the actual cost of electronic production of articles within the scholarly communication marketplace. The costs of electronic production are not what are being brought to light here – rather, it’s the disparity in what is charged to one library versus another library for the same content and the contradiction of average charges to libraries vs. the stated value of a publisher’s electronic journal portfolio.]

One strategy that minimizes the risk to publishers’ bottom lines is to lock in library spending at historic print spending levels, lock in an annual inflation cap (i.e., an annual price increase), and limit the ability to cancel subscriptions. That way, a publisher guarantees a predictable annual income and predictable revenue growth. Under this model, since large university libraries were often the biggest consumers of print journals, they are the customers who now provide the biggest online revenue.

The revenue from smaller college libraries which have not traditionally been able to afford (or necessarily have much interest in) the journals then becomes bonus income because the base line cost for the content has already been covered by the large libraries, and distribution costs (after covering the costs of technical infrastructure for production and maintenance with a core customer base of large academic libraries) become relatively small.

Question: What were the advantages for libraries?

Answer: Just as publishers were experimenting with electronic journals, so were libraries. A decade ago, we didn’t know how library users would react to electronic journals. This model offered us access to a lot of content for a price that was within range of what we were already spending. The carrot was that we would lock in our spending commitment and receive access to hundreds of new titles (of course, the stick was if we canceled, we’d lose access to all those new titles; there was very little middle ground). In addition, there was the promise of electronic journals eventually becoming cheaper than print, and we were willing to experiment with new business models in the short term as we all figured out the shape of the future.

Question: Why is fantasy pricing such a problem now?

Answer: If library budgets did nothing but grow, just as the price of journals do, I suppose there wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s not the case, and has never been the case. In addition to publishers minimizing risk by locking in library spending, there is a trend for more and more publisher mergers. When I follow the trajectory of the past several years, what I see is a future with a handful of publishers, delivering the same online content to every library, at a price that absorbs each library’s entire budget. Simple. We all get the same content, and we each pay all our budgets to have it, whether my budget is $100,000 or $10 million. If all library needs were the same, that might be a desirable model despite its bizarre pricing scheme, but libraries needs are not uniform, and libraries need the ability to customize their content. If pricing were more in line with actual production, distribution and support costs for the library market, I would bet that my library would see considerable cost reductions for commercial journal content.

Question: And what would the smaller academic libraries do if pricing were more in line with actual production and distribution costs? Wouldn’t their costs increase?

Answer: Perhaps costs to smaller academic libraries would increase. But, maybe they could rely on previous methods of sharing resources, and use Inter-Library Lending (ILL) for the content their budgets cannot afford to cover. That’s what we’ve all done in the print environment; that’s what we continue to do now. Perhaps it’s one of the strategies for sharing information that ought to survive in the electronic environment.

Question: What’s the future of scholarly journal pricing models?

Answer: There are a lot of things happening in the production and dissemination of scholarly content that are competing with the commercial publishers (e.g., institutional repositories, open access initiatives, non-journal publication venues), so I expect there will be many solutions – eventually. For now, however, libraries are still investing large percentages of their budgets in commercially produced content. What I’m hoping for is a short term solution. And because my perspective is that of someone at a large academic library, I’m most interested in changes that alleviate their problems first! I would like to see publishers redistribute the cost of their Big Deals; shift their pricing models toward a model that is closer to the actual cost of the journal; and pass some of the savings realized by low distribution costs to the large academic libraries which have been their best customers for years. Another offer they can make, while prices are inching closer to costs, is to offer the large research libraries something they value which smaller institutions traditionally don’t care about: ownership of the content (perpetual access to the digital content even if the subscription is canceled) rather than leased access (whereby access is lost if the subscription is canceled).

Question: What do you think are the chances that publishers will move away from fantasy pricing?

Answer: It won’t be easy! If there had been a pricing model at hand that was clear, fair, and low risk publishers would be using it already. This is not an easy problem to solve. There’s the added difficulty that most publishers still have print production costs as well as electronic format costs. What I’ve seen recently that makes me think we may be about to turn a corner, however, are a few publishers who are candid that their interest is in keeping library spending levels stable, and they are not so tied to which particular journal titles are delivered. I think this has been true for a long time; they are just now more comfortable in expressing this. If, in fact, we move away from the all or nothing Big Deal to a more nuanced exchange of dollars for value, some of the equilibrium will have been restored. [Note: Publishers and libraries alike are still trying to figure out next steps. We don't know the true impact on journal value of things like web publishing platform enhancements, server maintenance, expanding online customer service, electronic article submission and editorial processing systems, electronic resource management systems (ERMS), access verification tools, etc. The road ahead isn’t totally clear, but there are some things coming into focus as a result of good faith collaborative negotiations between libraries and publishers.]

Question: Any final thoughts?

Answer: I find myself caught in the tension between my impulse to provide a service (access to information) to as wide an audience as possible, and my desire to be a good steward of my institution’s financial resources. I don’t want to see small institutions lose access to commercially produced online journals, but I don’t want my institution to underwrite the bulk of the cost for that access. A difference of 3,000% between what libraries are asked to pay is absurd. Large academic research libraries are paying too much for electronic content. Pricing needs to move out of the fantasy realm and anchor itself closer to production and delivery costs appropriate for the academic library market. [Note: Selden and I didn’t discuss open access publishing models in any depth in the framework of these interviews. Open access publishing has played a significant role in the many debates about journal pricing; however, as long as scholarly communication continues to rely on traditional publishing being coordinated through external publishing organizations and corporations, libraries will continue to deal with the consequences of journal valuation models and disproportionate pricing tiers.]

Acknowledgments: Many thanks to Ellie Collier (In the Library with the Lead Pipe and Austin Community College) and Victor Lao (Springer) for their thoughtful review and feedback on previous drafts of this article. Their comments/feedback on the content in this article represents their personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employers.

Wrong Tool, Right Idea - Courtesy of Flickr user HikingArtist

Déformation professionnelle is a French phrase, meaning a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one’s own profession and forget a broader perspective. It is a pun on the expression “formation professionnelle,” meaning “professional training.” The implication is that all (or most) professional training results to some extent in a distortion of the way the professional views the world.
– Wikipedia

Sometimes it’s hard to step outside of your own mental model to achieve transformative thinking. Writers get “writer’s block,” software programmers experience “anti-pattern,” and we all find ourselves thinking “I’m in a rut” every now and then. In fact, it’s easy to get stuck in seeing the world only through the eyes of your profession: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail,” (Maslow, 1966). Librarians are certainly not immune to this way of thinking – even with all of the resources for inspiration at our fingertips, we fall prey to routine, to thinking about our problems from the perspective of a librarian. Stepping out of the mental models of our profession to achieve transformation and to come up with new ways to solve problems is difficult. How do we overcome these trapped ways of thinking?

A great way to revitalize is to try new things such as attending conferences outside of your own discipline or comfort zone. I was a virtual attendee of a conference that is completely outside of my comfort zone: the 8th Annual Blender Conference held in Amsterdam (Oct 23-25, 2009). Blender itself is a collection of open source software tools for 3D application development. How did I hear about this conference? My neighbor happens to be the proud father of one of the presenters who was attending his first professional conference, delivering his first conference presentation and making his first trip overseas. He did a pretty good job (click on the presentation by Wray Bowling about digital puppetry). The sessions were streamed live and have also been posted online for asynchronous viewing.

At the Blender Conference, I saw real-world applications of augmented reality created using Blender along with other software tools. I’m not a programmer or anything close, but what I learned from the conference is that augmented reality is being employed by people who aren’t necessarily high-level programmers and that the techniques are being used to develop tools for mobile phones. This technology is already being employed in marketing tv shows, selling real estate, and beyond. In libraries, we’re struggling to find ways to expose and deliver our collections and services to users wherever they may find themselves and within whatever technologies they may be using. There are a few examples of augmented reality being developed for library book-finding use cases, but they’re pretty crude. The concept is clear though – these are examples of applications that could be translated to libraries in use cases such as making it easier to find content on the shelf, find the expert librarian who can help you with your literature review, find the bathroom locations on each floor of in the library, the current open study rooms, etc. Through attending the Blender Conference via streaming video, I also learned that this open source software is being used in modeling road safety conditions, guiding robots during medical procedures, improving fire safety in buildings, engaging chemical engineering students with 3D animation, and in creating digital puppets that act in real-time using common video game controllers. Could libraries potentially benefit from being able to model moving whole collections, staff and service points between buildings, studying use patterns of physical spaces layered on use of virtual space? While I am not a programmer and I don’t have the skills to apply ideas from this particular non-librarian conference to my local setting, I see possibilities that could be tapped to solve some of our problems and generate innovation in our work.

Attending conferences outside of library-land also shows us how other disciplinary cultures work – how they run their professional gatherings, how they engage in training, how they organize networking events. For example, at the Blender Conference, they play cool music between sessions (when is the last time you heard cool music between sessions at ALA or SLA?). They developed great camera angles for simultaneously displaying the speaker, their slides, the audience, and any gadgets they brought with them to demo. How often have you been frustrated by the lack of visuals when reviewing videos from conference presentations either in real-time or after the fact? Perhaps getting ideas from other conference cultures can give us some ideas about how to help minimize déformation professionnelle within our own conference experiences. Attending non-library conferences could also give us some insight into how non-librarians conceive of the role of libraries, how they interact with information, how they approach research, what they think about copyright, etc. – all of the things that we care about in terms of connecting our users with what they need/want – straight from the source.

Another option for minimizing déformation professionnelle is to participate in unconferences. Many unconferences were established to counter the routine of conventional conferences. Remove the traditional sponsored sessions, eliminate registration fees, collect people interested in discussing shared interests, and you’re left with good ideas generated out of good conversation. “At traditional conferences, the most productive moments often occur in the corridor between meetings; at unconferences, attendees like to say, it’s all corridor” (Craig, 2006). Library-land has seen its fair share of unconferences as well. Derik Badman wrote about attending Library Camps – experiences that are in the spirit of stepping away from the traditional meat and potatoes library conferences. “The unconference offers an agility not found in a formal conference. Attendees make the decisions of what the discussion topics will be, allowing for not only a greater sense of participation (how very 2.0) but also a greater chance of currency” (Badman, 2008). Library-centric unconferences might get you closer to getting away from the trap of déformation professionnelle because the lack of structure can open up opportunities for exploring issues or ideas that might have otherwise fallen through the cracks of pre-established session themes and schedules. A colleague recently described his experience attending a camp with a broader perspective than just the library scope. THATcamp is a digital humanities unconference attracting everyone from scholars to educational technologists to artists and granting agencies. He described a memorable experience from THATcamp that was based on a 3-minute lightening talk by a student who used 3-D software to simulate how light fell on an ancient Roman mosaic over 2000 years ago. This idea alone could be translated to creating applications for students to interact with the unique special collections held by our libraries and museums.

The next time you find yourself in a professional rut, whether self-imposed or brought on by your local library or the profession overall, consider attending a conference outside library-land. Other ways to broaden your scope and breathe new life into your work could include stretching your professional reading regimen a little via listservs, blogs and published literature. I’m an on-again/off-again subscriber to a listserv about plant and animal taxonomy where they have been discussing issues related to open access publishing and intellectual property rights. Through this listserv, I get an insider’s perspective on how these issues impact this particular group of researchers and scholars. A colleague of mine subscribes to a commercial publication called “CPU” which focuses on trends and intersections between computer science, computer engineering and cognitive science. He gets insights from the computer science field in terms of how they consider the impact of computers on e-books, and where their visionaries see the profession and the computing industry headed. Much of these insights can give fodder for good ideas on how to shape the future of our profession as well.

Take time to invest in broadening your perspectives and open yourself up to possibilities of learning something that you didn’t already know. Start by keeping up with the conferences, events and reports that the visionaries (e.g., Clifford Lynch, Stephen Abram, Joan Lippincott, Andrew Pace, TAIGA Forum members, David Lankes are some that come to my mind) stay up-to-date with and follow the trail. What’s the risk? You might learn something new and you might be able to inject a new idea or tool into your own library setting and, perhaps even in the profession.

What ways have worked for you in keeping your professional mind open? Please share your strategies below in the Comments section.

Some conference examples to try:

• TED Talks
• Past Blender conferences (2009 videos – scroll down to find the videos from October 2009)
• Online News Association
• EmTech/Emerging Technologies Conference – offers some complimentary videos from the 2009 conference
• Free Culture Conference (already occurred, but look for free online streaming of sessions next year)
• PaidContent 2010 (already occurred, but look for free online streaming of sessions next year)
• THATCamp

Thanks to Markus Wust (NCSU Libraries) and Ellie Collier (IntheLibrarywiththeLeadPipe) for their helpful edits and feedback of earlier drafts of this article.

References

• Craig, Kathleen. 2006. “Why ‘unconferences’ are fun.” Business2.0 Magazine.
• Maslow, Abraham. 1966. The Psychology of Science: a reconnaissance. Harper and Rowe, 168 pp.

Treemap of mammals courtesy of Flickr user Arenamontanus

Introduction

I’m a slave to spreadsheets. Trying to decide between a stacked column bar chart and a 3-D area chart is par for the course in my work. Microsoft Excel© is great for many practical needs, but it doesn’t always support the need to create simple, compelling and interactive graphical data visualizations that are critical for libraries to best express value, communicate trends, and test assumptions about library services and collections. Data visualization is the study of strategies and methods for conveying information, as captured by data, in an efficient, functional way that leads to insights about a process or system. Good data visualization can drive home a point quickly and have lingering impact. Data visualizations can help you see something that you hadn’t noticed before. These days, libraries can’t afford to not be wise and impactful with the data that is collected and conveyed about patrons, services and collections. Many libraries are reporting declines in reference desk queries against the backdrop of massive surges in use of computers and other tech-related services. Most libraries are undergoing comprehensive reviews of journal and database usage (among other metrics) with the aim to cut collections to comply with shrinking budgets. To express these kinds of trends, to seek support, or to simply try to assess library collections and services, many libraries fall back on the use of tables with a few pie charts and bar graphs thrown in for added measure. When I started having conversations with my library colleagues about data visualization tools and techniques, I was humbled by what I didn’t know and embarrassed that I hadn’t heard about, much less tested, some of the data visualization tools that are surfacing. So, I decided to start exploring what I’ve been missing while hiding behind the ubiquity of Microsoft Excel© graphs and charts. In this post, I present some examples using a few popular data visualization tools and I give an overview of some inspirational guides for creating compelling data graphics that may help you better express your own library metrics. First, let’s explore a little further why data visualization matters for libraries.

Library data in context

Libraries serve users at the reference desk, circulation desk, and special collections centers. Library staff engage with constituents through committees and working groups, at the library security gate, and through online chat. Librarians attempt to expose valuable services and collections via library catalogs, carefully-crafted subject guides, during bibliographic instruction sessions, and via long lists of databases and online journals. Libraries assess usage and patrons needs via web statistics, gate counts, circulation transactions, LibQual surveys, usage statistics, and feedback forums. Why do we measure these experiences? To show value for money or time and to understand the uptake of our collections and services. Library value has been a popular topic since at least the 1930s and libraries have gotten better at showing return on investment (ROI). We’re not completely there yet, as the recent $1,000,000 IMLS sponsorship of “Lib-value” grant suggests. Libraries are pretty adept at measuring lots of different kinds of interactions, so how can we be so bad at demonstrating our worth and making our point? What if part of our problem in demonstrating value lies in how we attempt to showcase library value? Libraries also want to make good, sound decisions in the context of their user communities. Libraries collect a lot of data that encompass complex networks about how users navigate through online resources, which subjects circulate the most or the least, which resources are requested via interlibrary loan, visitation patterns over periods of time, reference queries, and usage statistics of online journals and databases. Making sense of these complex networks of use and need isn’t easy. But the relationships between use and need patterns can help libraries make hard decisions (say, about which journals to cut) and creative decisions to improve user experiences, outreach, achieve efficiencies, and enhance alignment with organizational goals.

Not another library ROI article, please!

Relax, this isn’t another post about how calculate library ROI nor is it about how to collect data that show library worth. This post is an exploration of visualization techniques that can help libraries make a compelling case to stakeholders and get insight about how data visualization can help libraries make more informed decisions. Disclaimers: I’m not an expert on visualization techniques; I’m part of the slew of librarians who need to know how to better illustrate what we do and learn how to better allocate resources. Visualization strategies have made their debut at library conferences already (e.g., 2009 Computers in Libraries; 2008 Computers in Libraries; 2009 NASIG Conference). However, I haven’t seen a groundswell of examples indicating that libraries have taken these strategies and these conference presentations to heart. What I have experienced is a few really good ideas popping up in conversations with colleagues about how to make the case for libraries in simple, compelling, visual ways. I want to share what I’ve learned so far in my exploration and open the door to some more good ideas.

Data needs to be “humanized”

During various conversations about how to represent library collections and expenditures data, one of my very smart colleagues, Cory Lown, introduced me to the work of John Tukey and Edward Tufte. Cory explained that Tufte’s aim is to encourage the use of as much data as possible (“to clarify, add detail”) and to use visualization techniques that “fit” the data.

“Often bar charts and pie charts (which tend to have low data to ink density) obscure more nuanced and interesting data. It’s not just about new and interesting tools, but matching the data to the right visualization so we can make use of data we have.” (Lown, 2009, pers. comm.)

This isn’t a trivial process by any means due to the uniqueness of each set of data due to variation in methods for collection, data clean-up, analysis and so on. But, according to Tufte’s principles, focusing on giving as much attention to the data in a chart, graph or image (aka “maximizing the data-ink ratio“) while reducing the “fluff” (aka “chartjunk“) (e.g., chart borders, text legends, background fill, decorations) can aid in getting the point across.

In the spirit of the work of Tukey and Tufte, a recent book, aptly named Beautiful Data (2009, edited by Toby Segaran and Jeff Hammerbacher) brings together a great compilation of data visualization, data handling and data sense-making strategies. In one chapter, Nathan Yau, also author of a terrific blog called FlowingData (to which I’ll refer a little later in this post), describes the development of a simple, user-friendly tool to track and measure what he calls “personal data” (e.g., eating, sleeping, travel habits). Yau is interested in creating tools for people to distill their personal data into stories that can help them understand patterns about their personal habits and eventually help relate people to the bigger picture about their impact on their environment and vice versa. This concept of creating a way for a person to relate to the bigger picture through data is an important lesson for libraries.

“Data has to be presented in a way that is relate-able; it has to be humanized.  Oftentimes we get caught up in statistical charts and graphs, which are extremely useful, but at the same time we want to engage users so that they stay interested. . .Users should understand that the data is about them and reflect the choices they make in their daily lives.” (Yau, 2009)

All of those interactions with patrons that libraries collect and track – circulations, journal usage statistics, cost/use metrics, etc. – are about the patron. However, most of the metrics that libraries present to make the case to patrons, aren’t presented in a way that relates the patron to the data. An example: Academic libraries spend a lot of money on journals. In fact, the NCSU Libraries spent around $6 million on journals during 2008-2009, but how many of our patrons know that when they download a journal article that it’s paid for by the NCSU Libraries? That $6 million dollars doesn’t necessarily “translate” to a user when they download an article. We tell them how many articles were downloaded, but is there a better way to make the connection between the user and the cost of resources? For the most part, library metrics aren’t good at telling stories that keep our users interested and help them inform the choices that they make. We are in need of some great ideas and examples from the field.

Simple data visualization tools

While several other visualization tools exist, I want to focus on three of the most popular tools and demonstrate what is possible using a few datasets that I’ve created using the kind of library metrics that you might be dealing with in your own library. After trying a few different types of library metric datasets in Google Gadgets for spreadsheets, ManyEyes and Swivel, my favorites are Google Gadgets and ManyEyes because of their ease of use and diversity of visualization styles.

Google Gadgets: First, I have to give props to Cory Lown for making me aware of Google Gadgets for spreadsheets. It’s really quite simple to use. If you have a Google account (e.g., Gmail), then you can use Google Gadgets. Log into your Google account, choose Google Documents, Create New Spreadsheet, then add your data (just as you would in Excel). Once your data is ready, go to the Insert menu and choose Gadget. As of the time of this writing, there are over 35 different visualizations you can choose from: everything from the standard bar charts to motion graphs to piles of money. The upside: You can experiment with the different visualizations and pick one that fits the point that you’re trying to make or the audience that you’re trying to reach. You can share your visualizations with a simple URL that you plug into an email, or into your website or blog. The downside: You don’t have a lot of control over font size or positioning of elements on the charts.

Google Gadget Motion Charts are excellent for showing change in values over time. They are the primary visualization mode for sites like GapMinder to illustrate changes in global issues over time. Below is an example using data that I collected from the data from the Association of Research Libraries on research library expenditures plotted against university expenditures spanning from 1982 through 2006. Try the motion chart with the default variables, then try changing them. You’re welcome to access the dataset itself to create your own data visualization.

ManyEyes: As part of the agreement to use ManyEyes with your own data, any data you upload is made publicly and freely available for others to use. After signing up with an email address, the process is easy and straightforward. You can be up and running with several visualizations of your data within a few minutes and you can share your visualizations with links in emails, or embed them in your website or blog. The upside: the choice of visualizations is pretty extensive: Word Tree, Phrase Net, Wordle, Tag Cloud, Bar Chart, Block Histogram, Bubble Chart, Network Diagram, Scatterplot, Matrix Chart, Treemap for Comparisons, Treemap, Pie Chart, Country Map, US County Map, World Map, Stock Graph, Line Graph, Stack Graph. The downside: if you want to compare more than two variables, you have limited options. The example that I’ve included here is data that I collected on the publication and citation patterns of NCSU scholars. Researchers at an academic university will almost always have more citation activity than publication activity in a journal. But just how much more? This visualization illustrates the scale of citations for journals in which NCSU scholars publish 0 times, 2 times, 3 times, on up to 41 times. Try the visualization below and experiment with the dataset to create other ManyEyes visualizations.

Swivel: With Swivel, you have a choice to let the data that you upload be freely available to others or to keep your data private. If you choose to keep your data private, be prepared to commit to a fee of $12/month. For most of us who use Excel to prepare data for upload into a tool like Swivel, an Excel toolbar is available from the Swivel Confectionary. The upside: You have a little more control over things like font size and font face (compared to Google Gadgets for spreadsheets); it’s just as easy to share data and visualizations (email or embedding in websites or blogs); and if you want your audience to be able to interact with your charts, Swivel makes that a trivial process. The downside: The choice of graphs is limited (Bar, Line, Area, Stacked Bar, Stacked Area, Scatter, and Pie) and the site isn’t very responsive with larger sets of data (e.g., I tested it with a dataset of over 1900 rows and it had trouble switching between different types of graphs). In this example, I’ve uploaded a small dataset of usage of the major types of digital collections provided by the NCSU Libraries. Try interacting with the pie chart and download the dataset if you want to use it to experiment with your own visualizations (you’ll need to create an account before you can do much with the data in Swivel).

Visualization inspiration

There are some excellent resources that help provide some insight into what is considered good and bad data visualization practices. These sites are filled with examples of interesting data visualizations to inspire your own work and in some cases (e.g., GapMinder) also offer datasets with which to experiment.

FlowingData: The FlowingData blog is one of the most compelling, idea-filled blogs I’ve come across – ever. Authored by Nathan Yau (UCLA PHD student in statistics focusing on data visualization), this blog highlights great examples of how to make a compelling point with data and visual creativity. FlowingData offers a great deal, but I want to point out 5 specific
visualization categories:

• Statistical Visualization – strategies for visualizing different types of statistics
• Infographics – examples of aesthetically pleasing and intellectually captivating modes for presenting data in graphical format
• Mapping – examples of data mapped to geographic representations
• Artistic Visualization – examples of data as art
• Network Visualization – examples of visualizations showing networks or relationships between entities

Not only does Yau collocate examples of how to display data to different audiences, but he also provides thoughtful analysis about why a visualization is effective (or not) and what could be improved about it.

Visualization ad

Infosthetics: Authored by Andrew Vande Moere (faculty member of Architecture, Design and Planning at the University of Sydney in Australia), Infosthetics acts much like the FlowingData blog, but tends to focus more on data as art. There’s overlap between Infosthetics and FlowingData, but you’ll find a slightly different perspective in Infosthetics – one that deals with data visualization from the design and interaction approach.

Visual Complexity: Manuel Lima uses the Visual Complexity blog to bring together examples and ideas around the study of the visualization of complex networks such as data from library systems, the social web, biological systems, and transportation patterns.

3D Dewey Data Visualization

GapMinder: GapMinder is an organization that runs a website for displaying trends in global issues such as poverty plotted against inequality indices or oil consumption plotted against oil production. Its main visualizations are based on Google Motion Charts, and have been featured in the famous TED Talks.

Information Dashboards: Information dashboards are user interfaces that serve the need of providing critical information at a glance. A book aptly named Information Dashboard Design (2006, by Stephen Few) promises to teach readers how to use graphs discriminately to enhance communication. Some excellent examples of information dashboards that might fit in library contexts are the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) Dashboard (thanks to Adrienne Lai for sharing this site with me) and the Sprint Now Dashboard.

Indianapolis Museum of Art Dashboard

The IMA Dashboard presents simple, compelling data in a graphically aesthetic way. It tells a visitor things like how many plants are in the gardens, how many visitors are at the IMA, how much energy is being consumed by the IMA, and the number of active memberships. Each widget window leads to a little more information about the IMA, drawing the visitor in to learn more without overwhelming him/her with too many options or underwhelming with too few avenues to explore. The Sprint Now Dashboard, on the other hand, creates a slightly different experience. There’s a lot going on that isn’t necessarily relevant here – from the creepy voice-over to the number of eggs being produced or the number of people stuck in elevators – but the concept of surfacing this kind of real-time information is compelling.

The possibilities in libraries for these kinds of information dashboards are obvious. An external audience might find it helpful to know which books are being checked out (similar to Seattle Public Library display of circulating materials), real-time locations of available computers, how many journal articles are being downloaded, how many e-books are being read, the number of devices (e.g., laptops, ipods, Kindles) that are checked out, the latest articles by your campus researchers, upcoming community events, and maybe even an ROI metric on the value of library services and collections per tuition dollar (or tax dollar) per hour. Tack on a catalog search box, real-time webcam views of the coffee shop wait line and the Info Commons, and you’ve got a mode for making a case for the value of library services and collections while providing real-time information all in one view.

An internal audience of library staff and decision makers might find it helpful to see in a dashboard view the “health” of the library budget, cost/use metrics based on circulation data or electronic journal or e-book usage statistics, hourly gate counts, keywords searched in the catalog, cataloging activity, and a current snapshot of the composition and use of the collection broken down by format or by material type plotted against community demographics (e.g., number of full-text journal downloads per graduate student in the Chemical Engineering Department) among other things. Other than the Seattle Public Library, I am not aware of any libraries presenting this kind of (more or less) real-time, dynamic information dashboard to the public, but I suspect that any data displayed for public consumption would require that personally-identifying information be excluded.

Final thoughts

The ultimate goal of libraries is to help patrons make smart decisions about the information they use and create. As an extension of that goal, Jason Casden, one of the reviewers of this article noted that data visualization techniques should be adopted to be part of a library’s organizational culture for assessment and justification to not only best serve patrons, but also to help guide the allocation of limited resources. Investing in ways to leverage the data that libraries collect to show value, communicate trends, and test assumptions about library services and collections is part of the solution for making the library be all about the patron. Try out some of the visualization tools and sample datasets used in this post or share your own data visualization creations via the Comments.

Learn more

• Few, Stephen. 2006. Information Dashboard Design: the effective visual communication of data.
• Fichter, Darlene. 2008. “Data Visualizations.” Presented at Computers in Libraries 2008 Conference.
• Fichter, Darlene and Jeff Wisniewski. “Harnessing New Data Visualization Tools: Say It Visually.” Presentation at Computers in Libraries 2009 Conference
• Kurt, Lisa and Will Kurt. 2009. “Making Usage Data Understandable with Visual Representation.” Presented at the North American Serials Interest Group 2009 Conference.
• Legrady, George. 2005. “Making Visible the Invisible: Seattle Library Data Flow Visualization.” Presented at International Cultural Heritage Meeting 2005.
• Seattle Public Library Data Visualization: “Making the Visible Invisible.”
• Segaran, Toby and Jeff Hammerbacher. 2009. Beautiful Data: the stories behind elegant data solutions.
• Tenopir, Carol. 2009. “Value, Outcomes, and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries (Lib-Value).” IMLS Awards 3-Year Grant.
• Tufte, Edward. Statistician and author of data visualization books such as “Beautiful Evidence,” “Envisioning Information,” and “Visual Display of Quantitative Information.”
• Tukey, John. Statistician and author of Exploratory Data Analysis (1977).

Thanks

Thanks to the people who’ve opened my eyes to the possibilities and who reviewed this post and offered valuable feedback: Cory Lown, Jason Casden, Brett Bonfield, and Kim Leeder.

Image courtesy of Flickr member Elvie.R.

Talk to any librarian or library vendor and you’ll hear the same thing – the global economic downturn is hitting hard. Libraries everywhere are taking an axe to their collections; libraries are cutting book budgets, canceling serials subscriptions, allowing institutional memberships to lapse, and letting go of databases. Libraries and their stakeholders are having to make some really hard, realistic decisions about how much they can do without, while still maintaining adequate support for learning, research, and teaching. The experience of a serials and databases review– reviewing all continuing expense obligations– can be a painful, traumatic process for any library. But it can also give a library some tremendous insights into its collection, its level of credibility within its parent organization, and just how well-positioned it is to fully support the needs of its constituents. A review can unveil some interesting issues in the business of librarianship, publishing, and scholarly communication – from the tools and skills necessary to make value judgments about a library collection to the potentially fatal future of some segments of the publishing industry. In this article, we outline the steps of a serials and databases review from the perspective of an academic library and unpack some of the big issues and questions that face our profession as surfaced through the experience of a conducting a review.

1. Identify the Serials and Databases

To successfully undertake a serials review you of course need a list of everything to which your library subscribes, how much you pay for each serial and database, and the dollar amount you have to cut to meet the bottom line. Wherever possible you also want to gather data elements that, combined with cost, campus feedback and librarian knowledge, will help you ascertain the value each title brings to your community. Some of the more common data elements librarians utilize in a review exercise are: vendor supplied usage statistics, impact factors, information about journals your constituents are publishing in and citing, and alternative access via databases that aggregate full-text journal content. This list of potentially useful collection metrics is certainly not definitive but it represents those data elements that are heavily relied upon by most libraries (for more see the metrics described by Guy Gugliotta).

The above sounds a simple proposition, but the ways in which libraries subscribe to journals are not simple. For instance, journals and databases may be subscribed in a multitude of ways: through a package of journals/databases from a publisher, on the basis of an institutional membership, or through a consortial deal whereby access to a given resource is shared by all libraries in a consortium due to the fact that one of the member libraries subscribes to the journal. Unfortunately, the tools available to us to manage and account for complex subscriptions don’t yet meet all of our needs. An ILS (Integrated Library System) will likely work with the concept of an “order,” but an order doesn’t necessarily correlate to journal titles or other ways that journals can be purchased such as packages and memberships. If an order is for a journal package, say the ACM Digital Library, only one record with the associated package cost may appear in your ILS. The order is, in reality, for each of the 30 journals contained in that package but the native ILS has difficulty with that concept. Generating a comprehensive list of subscribed journal titles and their associated costs from an ILS is far from straightforward, and in our experience no ILS is currently set up out of the box to work that way. If you were to ask your Acquisitions librarian, they would tell you that the issue goes even deeper – the way that serials agents and publishers set up the billing structure for libraries can dictate how libraries are able to describe the order and its related parts.

Consequently, a lot of larger libraries have turned to an ERM (Electronic Resource Management system) as a way to try to tackle some of the inadequacies of today’s ILSs. Theoretically, an ERM helps libraries maintain a running inventory of journals to which they provide access (either paid or free), if they paid for them during the current fiscal cycle, the cost paid (either as an institutional membership, or as a subscription to a single title or a package of titles) and the library’s rights to the content for which they have paid (i.e., can the library claim perpetual ownership of the content or is the library simply leasing current access?). Many factors have to be triangulated to reasonably determine if you’re getting good value for your subscription money. Having this information collected in one place in preparation for a serials and databases review is critical, especially if your subscriptions have soared beyond 100 or so. However, based on our own experience and talking with other libraries, no ERM is truly positioned to combine all of these pieces in a way that is efficient and accurate. A great deal of time and attention is needed to handle extraction of data, normalizing the data (e.g., the concept of “usage” and “downloads vs. accesses” is not applied consistently internally or externally by publishers/vendors), cleaning up the data (e.g., compiling cost data from multiple order records for thousands of subscriptions and variations in how serials are packaged), and interpretation of the data.

The bottom line is that current ILS and ERM solutions are imperfect tools for comprehensively supporting a major serials and databases review to achieve cancellations and save money. What is needed from these kinds of tools is a way to co-locate order information with use information and provide a system to collect feedback from a user community to help determine the relative value of journals and databases when we have to make cuts to the collection.

2. Communicate with Users

A major component of a serials and databases review is communicating with your users why a review is necessary, laying out how it will work, and making clear what kind of feedback is needed from them. It might not be the easiest dialogue to have with your community, but it is a prime opportunity to have honest, open conversations that will educate your patrons and address many of their commonly held misconceptions and anxieties.

In order to make the best decisions on what resources to keep and what to cancel libraries have to actively solicit feedback from their communities. This is usually done in a combination of ways – meetings between librarians and faculty, emails to campus, and a web presence designed to communicate the reasons for the cuts and the mechanisms for providing feedback. Some examples of websites created for this purpose are from North Carolina State University Libraries,  and the University of Maryland Libraries.

Some libraries will ask for feedback on a list of every single journal and database to which they subscribe while others attempt to share only the content that isn’t deemed a “no-brainer” to keep. While the idea of providing as much information and data as possible to your users can be compelling, it has its drawbacks. Is a data-driven approach the best method for getting feedback from constituents? You want to balance giving your users enough information to make informed decisions, but you don’t want to overwhelm them with information that they either don’t care about or that takes lots of explanation. Journal cost, subject, usage statistics, impact factors, and the journals in which your constituents are publishing and citing (supplied by the Local Journal Utilization Reports (LJUR) from Thomson ISI) are all standard metrics that will likely resonate with library patrons and that can easily be conveyed with each title on the list for review.

What does it mean to “keep or cancel” a journal? A common misconception from patrons is that the print and online components or formats of a journal are “always” distinct and that canceling one format means that the other will still be available. Of course, we know that this is not always the case as, often the cost of the print is tied to the online version (and vice versa). This is an opportunity to dispel another common misconception about potential cost saving by going electronic-only (dropping the print and maintaining only the electronic format of a journal). Realistically libraries rarely see more than 5% savings by dropping print subscriptions but many patrons (usually faculty) expect the savings to be higher and are often startled that the cost of the journal isn’t halved by removing one format. From the publishers’ perspective the production costs of publishing journals, regardless of format, play heavily into the prices that libraries pay, hence the minimal savings.

What about preservation for the long-term? One common anxiety that librarians still frequently meet is centered on the loss of the print journal. Most libraries have moved large chunks of their journal collections to electronic only formats. The desktop convenience provided by the electronic format is expected by our patrons and the downstream cost savings that libraries can realize is beneficial. Patrons have embraced the electronic format, yet when asked about canceling print counterparts (if you still have them) many users are reticent. Sometimes their concern is tied up in the traditional notion of the library as a large print archive where researchers can serendipitously discover content by browsing in the stacks. In other cases, patrons are shocked that in the digital world libraries haven’t done a straight swap from shelf space to server space. The fact that, in most cases, these electronic materials do not reside on a local server, but are maintained on publishers’ servers across the world makes it hard to convey the shifted concept of ownership in the electronic world. Libraries can negotiate for rights to own the electronic content just like it can own the physical item sitting on the shelf, but if that content resides on someone else’s servers, some patrons, perhaps rightfully, are distrusting of a move away from the print world and fearful for how we can successfully safeguard these materials for future generations. With the economic crisis providing the final nail in most print journal coffins, this is a great opportunity to educate your patrons about the concepts of archival and perpetual rights, explaining what options are available, such as LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) and Portico.

What about other parts of a library system budget? A serials review brings to light the diverse services a library provides and the breadth of the patron-base the library supports. When asked to help make hard choices about cutting collections, some patrons may look to other library-provided services and question why the library thinks those services are more important than their favorite book or journal. Reading room renovations, computer equipment refreshes, and laptop lending are services that might seem peripheral to one user but may be central to another user’s learning and research experience. Any serials review will likely raise the thorny issue of how a library prioritizes resources, and reconciling that balance for some patrons will be difficult. The intricacies of university and academic library budgeting may not be what they want to hear about, but it is important to clearly explain, for instance, how a reading room renovation is supported with a budget source that is distinct and independent from the budget source that supports journals and databases.

3. Evaluate Feedback

Once you’ve collected the community feedback, the process of combining all of the information available about each of the serials and databases begins. We’ve referred to journal package and consortial dependencies already, but at this stage these issues truly make or break the decision to cancel a journal or database. Does it make sense to dismantle a package of ten journals simply to be able to cancel two titles if the cost of canceling those two titles doesn’t save more money than keeping the package of ten intact? Consortial dependencies are even more complex. Your library may have access to a title based on the fact that another library in your consortium pays for a set of journals or databases, so the decisions made by that library to keep or cancel resources could severely impact the ability of their consortial partners to maintain a collection that best serves users. Often, large journal packages are negotiated by a consortium of libraries and the savings that result from going in as a group can be compromised if one library decides to back out of the deal. The downstream effects of canceling journals and databases can build rapidly when these dependencies are in place.

Beyond package and consortium dependencies, the process of weighing the variety of metrics associated with journals and databases can be rather tricky. Not all journals and databases provide usage statistics or impact factors. There has been much written (e.g., Pikas, 2007; Davis and Price, 2005) about the reliability of usage statistics, even in light of existing standards for measuring electronic journal use. So, how do you balance the lack of metrics for some resources with the need to determine value of the resource to your community? To what extent do you trust usage statistics when they do exist (this might be a whole article in it’s own right)?

These are just a few of the tricky issues that must be weighed when evaluating feedback and combining it with the data you may have. The bottom line is that a serials and databases review cannot and should not be entirely data-driven. The presence of data for some resources and the absence of data for other resources needs to be carefully weighed with the advantages and disadvantages of dependencies as well as the librarians’ expertise and knowledge about the research, teaching and learning needs of community. This is the value that collection management and acquisitions librarians bring to the table during critical budget cuts.

4. Decision-Making – What to cancel and what to keep?

Analyzing the feedback will hopefully have given you a clear idea of any “dead wood” that may be floating in your collection. If you are extremely lucky then you may be able to stop there, but the realities of today’s economic climate forces libraries to cut to layers far below the “dead wood.” Tackling these deep cuts is truly painful, and at the final stage of the serials review requires the impossible task of balancing the campus feedback with your budget reduction target. You need to make the best decisions to minimize the impact of the collections cuts on teaching and research, preserve a balance between different subject disciplines and user groups, and refrain from strangling collections flexibility and growth for years to come. Really simple, right?!!

For most libraries, the strategies used to deal with collections cuts focus on some combination of cutting serials, reducing the monograph budget, going online-only (if you haven’t already), cutting standing orders, reducing the binding budget, and canceling databases. It is extremely tempting to shift the heavy lifting of the cuts to the monograph budget and shield the continuing resources from the cuts. A year or two of buying considerably fewer monographs sounds manageable and will likely have less immediate impact. However, unless your budget cut is a one-time reversion and everything will get back to normal next year, then be very cautious in hitting your monograph budget disproportionately from other collection areas. Most academic libraries probably have between 75% to 98% of their collections budgets tied up in continuing resources. The bigger this proportion the more vulnerable your budget is to inflation. Serials inflation is on average about 8% a year, while monograph inflation is much lower. The cushion provided by cutting the monograph budget will be eaten away quickly, and you will again be faced with cutting continuing resources just to keep inflation at bay. The act of building a collection quickly reaches the stage where it is one in, one out – nothing new can be added unless something is canceled. The collection cannot grow or be nimble enough to respond to new campus initiatives, it can only remain static. Keeping a balance between serials and monographs is critical so that collections breadth, flexibility and growth are not lost to combating inflationary increases.

A Few Lasting Implications

It will be hard to recover from substantial cuts for consecutive years, and the impact will be felt for years to come as gaps in collections begin to appear. As collections budgets continue to diminish leaving ever-widening gaps in collections that cannot be filled retrospectively without a large influx of money, libraries may well begin to step away from the notion of broad and comprehensive research collections. Access to materials at the point of need will become the main focus with patron-driven collecting or access models becoming primary strategies. Take a look at the Taiga4 statement:

“Within the next 5 years collection development as we now know it will cease to exist as selection of library materials will be entirely patron-driven. Ownership of materials will be limited to what is actively used. The only collection development activities involving librarians will be competition over special collections and archives.”

This statement may at first seem outlandish, but has strong foundations in what we see happening now. With collections cuts, Interlibrary Loan (ILL) is becoming a key service for every library, ILL is the ultimate on-demand service. We also see libraries investigating and investing in user-driven collection models for their monograph acquisitions. These models are seen mainly in the e-book landscape with platforms such as EBL and MyiLibrary working with libraries to offer ownership combined with on-demand collection building models. Other libraries are working to include print books into their on-demand collecting (Spitzform and Sennyey, 2007).

All of these developments will produce some major changes in the publishing industry and perhaps ultimately in scholarly communication. Libraries have been the main market for high level research monographs and journals over the years, but that market has been shrinking and will no doubt continue to diminish in the future. The large publishers will find some way to adapt, but the small publishers may not. Small publishers don’t have the revenues to “retool” their products and pricing options to change with the times. Some are still unable to provide standardized usage statistics (if any), and still others haven’t made the move to produce their journals electronically.

Other impacts of a serials review are captured in all of the backend work of a library’s technical services team (acquisitions, metadata, and cataloging) and the work they conduct with the serials agents and publishers. Journal cancellations and conversions to electronic -only format will certainly imply work down the road to edit and update catalog records. Subscription cancellations may also result in reduced discounts with subscription agents as your spending decreases. As a consequence, renegotiation of service agreements with serials agents and even new license agreements with publishers will be likely. The work required to act on the decisions made as a result of a serials review can instigate a great deal of costs in terms of time and staff to actually make the changes a reality.

The impact of substantial collections cuts across a large number of academic institutions will be felt immediately by the scholarly publishing industry. Longer-term implications for how research collections are built and the nature of scholarly communication are unclear. Many possible outcomes exist and libraries need to take a lead role in shaping their futures so that they still remain central to the learning, teaching and research needs of their constituencies.

Many thanks to our reviewers who helped shape this article:  Derik Badman (ItLwtLP), Kristen Blake (NCSU), Maria Collins (NCSU), Emily Ford (ItLwtLP), and Greg Raschke (NCSU).

References/Further Reading:

• Davis, Philip M. and Jason S. Price. 2005. “eJournal interface can influence usage statistics: Implications for libraries, publishers, and Project COUNTER.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 57, no. 9: 1243-1248.
• Gugliotta, Guy. 2009. “The Genius Index: One Scientist’s Crusade to Rewrite Reputation Rules.” Wired Magazine: http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/17-06/mf_impactfactor?currentPage=all
• LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe): http://www.lockss.org/
• Pikas, Christina. 2007. “It’s about trust, reliability, accuracy…” Christina’s LIS Rant: http://christinaslibraryrant.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-about-trust-reliability-accuracy.html
• Portico (A Digital Preservation and Electronic Archiving Service): http://www.portico.org/
• Project COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networking Electronic Resources): http://www.projectcounter.org/
• Spitzform, Peter and Pongracz Sennyey. 2007. “A vision for the future of academic library collections.” The International Journal of the Book, v. 4, no. 4: 185-190.
• Taiga Forum. 2009. “Provocative Statements (after the meeting).” Taiga 4: http://www.taigaforum.org/documents/Taiga 4 Statements After.pdf

Courtesy of Flickr member cambodia4kidsorg

“The indicators that served as benchmarks in the past, such as number of volumes and number of journal subscriptions, are no longer sufficient because of the more expansive role that the contemporary library has assumed” (Weiner, 2005).

“The measurement of quality will come back to the questions of who are the users, what are the inputs, what are the outputs, do we produce the outputs in a way that meets the needs of the users, and what do those outputs contribute to the productivity and accomplishments of those users?” (Pritchard, 1996).

It’s almost a sure bet that your friends, family and colleagues are looking at ways to save money and, in general, are tightening the purse strings a little more these days. The post on January 14, 2009 in this blog reviewed the state of libraries during recessions and pointed out the growing news pieces that remark at the huge surge in library usage. People are realizing real savings by relying more and more on libraries. Ask yourself how much do you spend at bookstores and music shops such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble each year? Magazine subscriptions? Internet service? Entertainment like movies and concerts? If you had to go without one or more of those services, think about how much you could save by relying on your local library to provide access to those services and content streams. At the same time, libraries of all types are faced with the inevitability of budget cuts due to the recession and must justify the use of existing funds for programming, staff, services and collections. Take a second and google ‘return on investment and libraries’ to get a sense of the importance of demonstrating library value.

In order to have the financial ability to continue providing those services and content streams, libraries need to prove to their funding sources, whether tax-payers, private donors, universities, governments, schools, or corporate parents, that those services, programs and collections are meeting users’ needs. Moreover, libraries must prove without a doubt that the funds provided to libraries to develop those services, programs and collections provide a good return on investment.

While there are many metrics for assessing library value (e.g., LibQual, circulation trends, gate counts, usage statistics trends, ARL Annual Statistics, etc.), this article aims to explore the return on investment (ROI) approach used by libraries to demonstrate value.

What is Return on Investment (ROI) and how is it used by libraries?

Return on investment (ROI) is how much you get back for what you put into something. Strictly speaking, ROI is based on dollars and cents. So, you need to be able to quantify how much money was invested in something and then you need to compare how much money is gained or lost as a result of how the investment was handled. There are two kinds of questions that ROI is good at answering. One is: how much money will be gained by investing in a particular financial asset? The other is: will putting resources into a project or service yield a measurable benefit? Let’s take a look at a quick example using a baseball card. If you bought a baseball card in 2000 for $50 and now in 2009, it’s worth $500, what is your return on investment?

In libraries, ROI is measured in many different ways. ROI can be used to measure the costs (investment) and the outcomes (the return on investment) from the perspective of library users, the parent organization, or from the perspective of the library itself. Costs are typically dollars spent on a service or resource and/or time spent to provide or access a service or to acquire or use a resource. The returns on an investment can be either outputs (the result of a service or resource such as expanded journal collection), uses (how the service or resources are used), or outcomes (indirect results of the output or the use such as time saved) (Jose-Marie Griffiths, 2007).

Motivations for using ROI in libraries

ROI can be an integral part of the process for evaluating a library’s services, collections, staffing levels, planning for new services and resources, or measuring how valuable your library is to your community and stakeholders.

For example, for libraries supported with public tax dollars, one way to use ROI is to measure tax dollars (the investment) against the benefits (savings by not having to pay elsewhere for the use of library materials and services). Library ROI studies consistently suggest that public libraries give a high return on investment, providing anywhere from $2 to $10 in return for every tax dollar received.

• In Florida: for every $1.00 of taxpayer dollars spent on public libraries, income (wages) increases by $12.66
• In South Carolina: In return for an investment of $77.5 million, public libraries pump $347 million into the state’s economy
• Can you say your library users derive more than $4.00 in benefits for every $1.00 spent of taxpayer money? St. Louis Public Library can!

[From Trustee Blog: Library ROI - What's Your Community rating]

Strategies for measuring ROI in libraries

Calculating a return on investment may seem straightforward until one considers the kinds of costs and returns associated with libraries. Measuring returns first requires that the organization have a clear sense of its mission and objectives. It is not possible to measure benefits unless one can identify the value an organization aims to provide. There are several classes of returns, direct and indirect, and individual and collective. In general, direct, individual benefits are easier to measure and quantify than indirect and collective benefits. This poses a challenge for libraries, as many of the benefits libraries provides are indirect and collective, such as the value of having a better-educated citizenry.

Jose-Marie Griffiths has conducted several return on investment studies in public and special libraries. In a presentation at the Special Library Association Annual Conference (2007), Griffiths outlined a method for calculating ROI in special libraries that demonstrates the kinds of factors that should be taken into consideration. Costs are generally straightforward, and include overhead and the costs of the users’ time associated with utilizing the library, but returns are trickier. Griffiths argues that libraries should use contingent valuation for assessing benefits. Contingent valuation is a method for evaluating goods and services that are not priced. It involves assessing the effect of taking the service away. This could mean attempting to calculate the costs that would be borne by users if they could not use the library. Griffiths also notes that changes in productivity and information needs that would go unanswered should also be considered.

Using ROI, libraries can try to place a value on the services they provide and the collections that they make accessible. For instance, many ROI studies compare the cost associated with borrowing an item from the library versus individuals having to purchase that item on their own. Consider the costs associated with the library providing a DVD that is worth $20 that circulates 50 times in a year. If each library user had to purchase that item, the collective cost would have been $1,000. Of course, there are additional costs borne by the library for providing the DVD than just the $20 investment, including staffing, storage, and preservation.

Courtesy of Flickr member allaboutgeorge

Libraries can also be valued in terms of savings of entertainment costs to a community—public film viewings, author readings, and workshops are freely offered services provided by libraries. Many libraries also offer classes, which can be viewed as a cost savings to the community as well. Classes on Microsoft Office programs, general computing, financial planning, and job hunting strategies are often offered for free at libraries. Libraries are also valuable to communities as employers of citizens and as contributors to the local economy.

Examples from different library contexts

Public libraries

Most ROI studies in libraries have focused on public libraries. A fantastic inventory and review of value-demonstration methods and metrics is available from the Americans for Libraries Council: Worth their Weight: An Assessment of the Evolving Field of Library Valuation (2007). We will highlight a few examples here.

The “Public Library Benefits Valuation Study” conducted by the St. Louis Public Library in 1999-2001 used cost-benefit analysis techniques. First, they calculated a comparison between local taxes invested in library services and direct benefits provided to users. Across the five urban, public libraries included in the study, for each $1 of annual taxes invested in the library, library users received between $1.30 and $10 in benefits. This varied widely among the libraries in the study. Second, the study looked at returns in terms of capital investment. This compares the total investment in a library’s capital (buildings, vehicles, furniture, and other assets) with the benefits received by users. Annual returns on capital investments ranged from 5% to 150%, again varying widely among the public libraries in the study.

The State Library and Archives of Florida conducted a taxpayer return on investment study of Florida public libraries. Overall, the study found that for every $1 invested in the library at least $6.54 is returned. Other findings show that for every $1 invested in the library the Gross Regional Product increases by $9.08 and wages increase by $12.66. They also estimate that for every $6,488 invested in the library, one job is created. Statewide, the study estimates that the Gross Regional Product is increased by $4 billion as a result of taxpayer investment in Florida public libraries.

Many other public libraries have reported return on investment information, including New York public libraries, Pennsylvania public libraries, South Carolina public libraries, and Wisconsin public libraries, among others. Return on investment results from these studies ranged from $2.38 in Indiana to $5.50 in Pennsylvania. Among the five states with published ROI studies, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Florida, the average ROI is $4.99 for every $1 invested.

Another approach some libraries have taken is to provide calculators on their websites that let users estimate how much value they are getting from the library based on their own use of its services (e.g., Rhode Island).

A potential hazard of ROI studies is that they produce what appears at face value to be a simple metric that can be compared across libraries.

Courtesy of Flickr member msmail

It is critical to reiterate that the ROI studies that we use as examples specifically state caveats that those ROI metrics are estimates that are based on surveys of their own local users combined with metrics that are relevant to their own budget systems. Any attempt to compare ROI metrics across these boundaries doesn’t make sense and is not relevant. The new LJ Index, while not specifically ROI-focused, attempts to correct the problem of peer comparison by removing the metrics that are specific to local contexts. Instead the LJ Index focuses only on measurable outputs such as circulation per capita, visits per capita, program attendance per capita, and internet use per capita. The LJ Index is one of several models for ranking public library quality, and is unique in that it enables statistically valid comparison across libraries. However, it removes the context-sensitive framework that enables libraries to show a return on investment of money and resources.

For ROI library metrics, the point isn’t that putting more and more money into libraries will yield ever increasing returns. The point is to show that libraries are providing value for the money that is invested in them. Those investments should be commensurate with the needs of the communities they serve.

Academic libraries

University libraries have fewer models to emulate. In 1996, Sarah Pritchard described the problems associated with assessing the value of academic libraries. She claims that the lack of standards and repeatable methods for demonstrating value (such as support of accreditation reviews, educational assessment and outcomes, ranking of graduate programs, success of job attainment after graduation, success in attracting donors, and faculty research productivity as measured by grants and publications) makes it impossible to conduct studies that compare library value across institutions.

A recent study (Luther, 2008) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign addresses some of Pritchard’s concerns about demonstrating ROI in academic libraries. Unlike public libraries, which focus on the value of services, the Illinois study examines the library’s contribution to revenue-generating activities of faculty by examining the role of library-sourced citations in grant applications. The model for the study is that the library’s investment in materials increases researchers’ productivity. This increase in productivity produces a measurable increase in grant receipts due to increased citations, as well as recruitment and retention of productive faculty.

To calculate the dollar value returned to the University of Illinois in the form of grants due to investment in the library, the faculty was surveyed to determine the importance of citations in securing grants, the percentage of faculty who use citations in grant applications, and the percentage of citations obtained through library-subscribed resources. The model also accounts for the proportion of grants that are funded. The study found that for every $1 invested in the library, $4.38 in grant income is generated for the university. This model purposefully avoids attempting to measure the social value or increases in productivity attributable to outcomes from use of the library resources.

Special libraries

Special libraries such as those found primarily in the government and corporate sectors tend to focus their ROI metrics on time saved for employees by using library resources and expertise, increases in revenues, decreases in research and development expenses, productivity gains, and cost savings. Roger Strouse, Director of Outsell, Inc., writes extensively about the value and application of ROI studies for special libraries. Outsell conducts studies of market trends in the publishing, education, and information industries. In its 2007 study on corporate, government, and medical libraries, Outsell found that the average time saved for users was 9 hours per library visit/interaction. They also reported that not only do corporate libraries save $3,107 per use of library resources and services, but also that $6,570 worth of revenues were generated with the aid of library resources and services.

“Being good at what you do and at the services you provide is no longer good enough. Very good information centres will be cut, and may be outsourced or offshored, not because of their inability to provide good services, but because of their inability to demonstrate an ROI or provide evidence of the impact they make on their organizations” (Boyd Hendriks and Ian Wooler, 2006).

Outsourcing remains a serious threat to many special libraries. Integrating and aligning the work of special libraries with the risks associated with the parent organization is one of the key recommendations of corporate library strategists. Collaborating on the reduction of risk, delays, and workplace injuries is seen as a way to position a library as a value-added partner and a key component in the success of an organization. Strouse (2003) provides an example survey for special libraries to use in measuring ROI that includes questions about types of projects for which library services and resources were used such as patents, new technologies, new product acquisitions, and changes in marketing strategies. The Special Libraries Association maintains a summary of articles and presentations on ROI metrics and value-demonstration strategies (the full bibliography is available to SLA members).

A Few Caveats

There are some reasons why ROI might not be the best tool for demonstrating library value. In some cases, a strict ROI metric may demonstrate that a library is not providing a good return on investment. Elliott, et al. (2007) describe the pros and cons of conducting an ROI or cost-benefit analysis. Many of the benefits they describe are covered earlier in this article. However, one of the disadvantages of ROI or cost-benefit analyses described by Elliott, et al. is that these metrics cannot be used for peer-comparison. The metrics are created using value systems and context-sensitive data that pertain to individual libraries. Pritchard (1996) echoes this problem in the realm of measuring academic library quality and effectiveness:

“The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable—i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution.”

Elliot, et al. (2007) also warn against applying these kinds of metrics to small libraries: “Efficient operating costs do not appear to rise proportionally with cardholder population and collection size. Thus, benefit-cost ratios for well-managed larger libraries tend to be higher, in general, than those for well-managed smaller libraries. Larger libraries also are more likely to be able to accommodate the expense and technological requirements associated with a CBA [cost-benefit analysis] study.”

There are more subtle reasons to not rely on ROI metrics alone, and to be careful about interpreting ROI. Organizations need resources to survive. Not-for-profit organizations, whose missions are based on soft values or moral ideas rather than monetary profit, must be supported by private donations, government, or by the organizations that they support. The values of the library—ubiquitous access, preservation, and organization of information—are prone to differing interpretations of importance. Put bluntly, the library must show that the Internet has not rendered it obsolete. Libraries will be stronger if they can demonstrate their value in terms which those that provide its funding understand. In the culture and time in which we live, “value” is understood most readily in monetary, economic terms.

Making it even more difficult for academic libraries to demonstrate their worth, the mission of the library is tied to the mission of the university at large. Academic libraries must demonstrate their contributions to the mission of the organization of which they a part. And they must also attempt to make a long-term argument about preservation of information and investment in human capital to an audience that is focused on the present bottom line. Can we articulate the importance of what we do in terms that non-librarians can understand? If we cannot articulate what we are doing then we must first go back and redefine what our mission and purpose is, clearly and succinctly, before we can attempt to measure our effectiveness and value.

It is, however, essential to remember that there is a reason why libraries do not operate for a profit (with the possible exception of libraries that charge back to users for services), and that they came into being for reasons other than generating monetary wealth. There are also good reasons to be skeptical of measurements of library quality, performance, and relevance presented in purely economic terms. Discussing the role of non-profit organizations in general, Eikenberry claims:

Because of their inherent value, it is extremely important for nonprofit organizations to focus on their organizational missions…They are more than just tools for achieving the most efficient and effective mode of service delivery; they are also important vehicles for creating and maintaining a strong civil society. (Eikenberry)

Libraries must strike a balance between focusing on their mission and on their desire to prove worth in terms of high performance and ROI. For many libraries, ROI simply doesn’t measure the indirect benefits they provide.

Librarians must be particularly creative in the ways that they think about how their libraries perform and what they contribute to the populations they serve. For example, does having an appealing library make a university more appealing to potential students? One study suggests that libraries have a significant influence on students’ decisions to go to a particular university—53%—second only to “Facilities for Major” (e.g., labs, studios, etc.) at 73%.

U.S News and World Report’s rankings of colleges and universities, has transformed the way students select schools. Traditional ROI studies do not account for a library’s impact on the reputation of its university or college as a whole, but a study by Weiner in 2009 makes a case for the library’s contribution to the reputation of the university it serves. The study finds that library expenditures are a significant predictor of institutional reputation.

Weiner argues that this finding means that, in fact,

“the disintermediation caused by the rapid increase in online access to information does not seem to have displaced the library. These results suggest that libraries in the doctoral institutions included in the study may have adjusted and found solutions to unprecedented external pressures.”

Weiner sees the libraries’ position as one of “boundary spanning,” meaning that it brings together researchers and students from across the campus in ways that no other organization on the campus can. Studies such as this one are vital for libraries, as they give evidence that libraries contribute to their parent organizations in unexpected ways. By contributing to an institution’s overall reputation, libraries also impact real economic outcomes from that reputation: such as attracting better students, retaining top-notch faculty, and attracting donors. Being able to articulate this kind of impact may help university administrators listen a little more closely.

It is vital that libraries demonstrate both the monetary value and as well as the social value of their services. ROI is one part of a suite of tools librarians can use to demonstrate performance and value. Relying on ROI alone to communicate and demonstrate the value of libraries may very well undermine the core purposes libraries serve and the indirect benefits they bring. Libraries undertake many tasks that are invisible to the casual user. They handle licensing of journals, negotiating with vendors and publishers for access to content, selecting resources. Libraries also contribute to the prestige of the institutions they serve by helping to attract top researchers, faculty, and students. Academic libraries and public libraries, especially, serve as unique third places within their communities, where people who would otherwise not interact come to work and learn in the same space. It’s up to us to convince our users and our sources of funding that we’re worth it. ROI studies aside, one of the best things we can do to show our worth is to provide great services that help our users work more effectively.

We hope this post will generate some lively discussion about the role of ROI in libraries, and also generate ideas about what libraries can measure to demonstrate their value. What has your library done to measure its value?

Thanks especially to Brett Bonfield, Greg Raschke and Katie Wheeler for their comments and for reviewing and editing various drafts of this article.

Conferences, Seminars, Upcoming Events on ROI and Libraries

• Computers in Libraries – Track E (Planning and Managing): What’s the Return on Investment for Your Library? April 1, 2009
• ALA Annual Conference Surviving in a Tough Economy – An Advocacy Institute Workshop July 10, 2009

Further Reading

• Abram, Stephen. 2007. The Value of our Libraries: Impact, recognition, and influencing funders: http://www.sirsidynix.com/Resources/Pdfs/Company/Abram/ArkansasLA_Value.pdf
• ALA. 2009. Articles and Studies Related to Library Value (Return on Investment): http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/ors/reports/roi.cfm
• Cain, David and Gary L. Reynolds. 2006. The Impact of Facilities on Recruitment and Retention of Students. Facilities Manager, March/April: http://www.appa.org/files/FMArticles/fm030406_f7_impact.pdf
• Eikenberry, A.M. and J.D. Kluver. The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, vol. 64 (2): 132-140.
• Elliott, Donald S., Glen E. Holt, Sterling W. Hayden, Leslie Edmonds Holt. 2007. Measuring Your Library’s Value: How to Do a Cost-Benefit Analysis for Your Public Library. ALA Editions (978-0-8389-0923-2)
• Hendriks, Boyd and Ian Wooler, 2006. Establishing the return on investment for information and knowledge services: A practical approach to show added value for information and knowledge centres, corporate libraries and documentation centres. Business Information Review, v. 23 (1): 13-25.
• Holt, Glen E., Donald S. Elliott, Leslie E. Holt, Anne Watts. 2001. Public Library Benefits Valuation Study (St. Louis Public Library): http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/libsrc/valuationc.htm
• Imholz, S. and Arns, J.W. 2007. Worth Their Weight: An Assessment of the Evolving Field of Library Valuation. Americans for Libraries Council: http://www.bibliotheksportal.de/fileadmin/0themen/Management/dokumente/WorthTheirWeight.pdf
• Lance, Keith Curry and Ray Lyons. 2008. The New LJ Index: Why these measures matter. Library Journal, http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6566452.html
• Luther, Judy. 2008. University Investment in the Library: What’s the Return? A Case Study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/lcn/0601/lcn060103.html
• O’Hanlon, Nancy. 2007. Information Literacy in the University Curriculum: Challenges for Outcomes Assessment. portal: Libraries and the Academy 7, no. 2: 169-89.
• Pritchard, Sarah M. 1996. Determining Quality in Academic Libraries. Library Trends, vol. 44 (3): 572-594.
• SLA. 2009. Additional Value Resources: http://www.sla.org/content/learn/members/ipvalue/additionalValue.cfm
• Strouse, Roger. 2003. Demonstrating Value and Return on Investment: The Ongoing Imperative. Information Outlook, v. 7 (3): 15-19. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_3_7/ai_99011610
• Strouse, Roger. 2007. ROI for libraries remains high: http://www.outsellinc.com/store/insights/3538
• Weiner, Sharon Gray. 2005. Library Quality and Impact: Is there a Relationship between New Measures and Traditional Measures? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(5):432-7.
• Weiner, Sharon. 2009. The Contribution of the Library to the Reputation of a University. Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 35 (1): 3-13.
• Yackle, Anna. 2007. What is Your Library’s ROI? (NSLS): http://www.nsls.info/articles/detail.aspx?articleID=137

Image courtesy of Flickr user RayBanBro66

In 1933, Carl Milam, secretary of the American Library Association, along with Ora Wildermuth, an attorney in Indiana, and H.L. Woolhiser, a city manager in Illinois, held a radio broadcast called “How to Reduce the Library Budget.”  The transcript (available from the National Municipal Review, 1933, vol. 22, no. 8) unpacks a revealing conversation about the pressures on libraries during the Great Depression and the corresponding aims of the American Library Association.

“Judge Wildermuth: Wages are down, and the incomes from every business and every property has been drastically reduced. In many cases the income from property is not sufficient to pay taxes, much less living expenses of the owner…In a time of depression we have to stop considering what is good for a well organized social structure and consider what is necessary for continued existence of the people. In my town we have been spending $90,000 per month for poor relief and that is not enough. Our public library spends about the same amount each year. Suppose we are reduced to the necessity of eliminating one of these functions, which will it be Mr. Milam?”

It’s 2009 and our nation is in a major financial crisis with a new leadership positioning itself to get our economy back on track. The media is spilling over with worsening updates on our economy, a shrinking job market and what it all means for citizens and their jobs. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for Economics in 2008, called the current economic downturn the “worst situation in two lifetimes” on the December 29, 2008 airing of CBS’ Face the Nation program:

By all accounts, the profession of librarianship is not immune to the compounding economic downfall. As of December 2008, the US National Bureau of Labor Statistics declared a 7.2% unemployment rate across all professions and industries (approximately 10,015,000 unemployed persons), representing the highest unemployment rate since 1991. Of that, librarians, trainers and educators make up 218,000 of the unemployed population. This is up from 98,000 unemployed people in this category in December 2007 to 218,000 in December 2008.

So, what does all of this look like for the librarianship profession, a profession that very recently (December 2008) was listed as one of the top professions by the U.S. News and World Report? How has librarianship fared over the past several economic recessions? How has our profession recovered from those recessions? What role are libraries playing during the current economic crisis?

Libraries during recession events

Praise for library services and collections during the current economic crisis is remarkably similar to the praise of libraries during the Great Depression. In his excellent investigation of the impact of the ALA on the anti-taxation groups that arose in response to economic collapse during the Great Depression, Brendan Luyt (2007) summarized a set of position statements from the ALA for the role of the library:

“as providing encouragement for the citizen to re-identify with state, in the form of loyalty to the public library, a state agency. The library was portrayed as mediating between the individual and the rest of society. Mediation had both ‘giving’ and ‘protecting’ functions. Through the library citizens could be given access to practical instruction, as well as to the ‘finer’ cultural things of life, while also being protected against the forces of anarchy and disorder.”

Fast-forward to today’s recession and it’s hard to miss the praise for the services and collections that libraries offer. These reports mirror similar marketing materials published by the Bulletin of the ALA during 1933 and 1934 promoting the value and role of libraries during the Great Depression. Take an eHow article for example, that promotes ways that citizens can make the most of libraries during an economic downturn:

“Members can re-skill themselves, enhance their knowledge, gain new capabilities and even save money while borrowing (instead of buying) popular books, study materials, novels and DVDs.” –eHow

Stories of libraries providing access to books, videos/dvds, cds, newspapers, magazines, journals, reference guidance and Internet service in addition to training and programming for children, teens and adults are popping up everywhere. A news-map snapshot of the latest news stories about the value of libraries over the past month on MetaCarta spotlights hundreds of locations where library usage has dramatically increased during the past year.

At the same time, these news reports are remarking on the incredulity of library shutdowns due to lack of budget funds.

Given the inherent value of libraries during the current economic crisis, Pennsylvania State Librarian Mary Clare Zales, testified before the House of Representatives that libraries are essential to the nation.

“The public library plays an even more important role as Americans are facing tough economic times. Library usage is up ten percent from the last economic downturn in 2001. Debbie Long of West Goshen in Chester County, Pennsylvania noted the price of borrowing one hardback book from the library saves her enough to fill her gas tank halfway. So this year, she is frequenting the West Chester Public Library instead of the bookstore. … Patrons are visiting their library for more than the borrowing of free books. Libraries offer databases with job listings, training on resume development, techniques for interviewing and 21st century skills needed to get that new job. The Washoe County Library System’s Community Resource Center in Nevada helped Stephanie D’Arcy, who hadn’t had full-time employment for several months, successfully get a job with the local parks and recreation department. … That library attendance has increased is not a surprise. Studies from generation to generation have shown that in times of economic downturn, libraries become busier.”

Furthermore, Library Journal (November 15, 2008) reported that the American Library Association (ALA) is seeking a $100 million stimulus package from Congress to “help libraries aid Americans as they deal with the nation’s current fiscal crisis.” With or without a funding stimulus, most libraries are undoubtedly facing significant budget cuts and seeking solutions via hiring freezes, layoffs, collections cuts, service cutbacks, foregoing computing refreshes, salary freezes, etc. Just a few examples:

• Free Library of Philadelphia system saved from closing 11 of 54 branches
• Nevada public library preserves children’s reading program, but stops filling positions and replacing old computers
• University of Tennessee Health Sciences Library announces collection funding unsustainable
• Cutback in library hours at Florida State University Libraries

Impact of recession events on librarian salaries and employment

While libraries are seeing huge increases in usage, the job market for librarians is being hit hard. With unemployment on the rise and hiring freezes and layoffs in effect, what might our profession expect and can we identify trends from past recession events to help inform our future? I am not an economist or a historian, but I am deeply concerned about the impact of the current recession on the librarianship profession and want to try to bring to light any evidence from past recession events to prepare librarians for what might lie ahead.  Much of what is presented below lends itself to many different interpretations and I invite our readers to make up their own minds and share their own insights.

A recession is measured as a decrease in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over at least two quarters. This can also be conveyed as a percent change in the GDP, as displayed in the figures that follow. I used salaries and number of people employed as librarians as two indicators of how librarianship has fared during the past recession events. Giving credit to the sources of this data: average (a.k.a mean) annual librarian salaries came from the ALA Annual Salary Survey, a very handy report by Denise Davis from 2005 on librarian salaries and the Gerould Statistics 1907/08 – 1961/62. The number of people employed as librarians over the years came from the U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstracts and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The period of 1930-1961 included six recessions as identified by the U.S. National Bureau of Statistics. In Figure 1 below, these six recessions are represented by the yellow vertical bars. The GDP Percent Change is represented by the blue line and the Average Librarian Salaries is represented by the red line. From 1930-1939 (the Great Depression) the average librarian salaries slowly decreased from $2,099 in 1930 to a low of $1,591 in 1939. The following years from 1940-1947 show a gradual increase in the average salary from $1,724 in 1940 to $2,562 in 1947 even though there was a short recession from 1945-1946 (possibly due to the end of World War II). One could speculate that because the librarian profession was not sought after by males returning from service, that job security for the women holding those positions was solid. However, during the mild recession from 1948-1949, average salaries did drop 6.3% followed by a substantial rise of 15% in 1949 ($2,759). For the rest of this period, from 1950-1961, the average salaries continued to increase despite three more recessions. This data suggests that even during this turbulent period, for those librarians who did have jobs, their salaries bounced back and even rose despite some some mild recession events toward the end of the period.

Figure 2 describes the period from 1988-2007 which includes three recessions: 1990-1991 recession event tied to a decrease in industrial manufacturing and sales, 2001-2003 recession tied to the dot.com collapse combined with 9/11, and the current recession from 2007-present. Average librarian salaries increased steadily throughout this 20-year period, going from $29,675 in 1988 to $57,809 in 2007. The most dramatic increase in the average salary for librarians occurred between 1988 and 1989 when the average salary increased by nearly 12% (or $3,485). One might expect that the dot.com recession would have had an impact on librarian salaries given the profession’s close ties with the information industry, but does not appear to be the case. There could be many reasons why (e.g., librarianship, for the most part, was not at the bleeding edge of technology during 2001-2003), but the health of the job market has held steady with robust salaries during this period.

Taking into account the number of librarians employed, Figure 3 describes the period from 1977-2007 which includes four recessions: 1980-1982 recession tied to the Iranian Revolution and U.S. attempts to control inflation, 1990-1991, 2001-2003, and the current recession. The GDP Percent Change is represented by the blue line and the number of librarians employed is represented by the red line. A lack of data deemed that I could not include earlier time periods, including the 1973-1975 recession which was linked to the oil crisis of 1973 and the Vietnam War, but it appears that the economy is still in recovery mode from 1977-1978 as seen in the chart. What is evident is that during each of these recession events, the number of employed librarians decreased. The period from 1980-1982 saw a series of dramatic swings from a decrease in the number of employed librarians by 3.5% (dropped by 7,000 persons) in 1981 quickly followed by a sharp increase in 1982 by nearly 8% (an increase of 15,000 persons), immediately followed by another decrease of nearly 7% (dropped by 14,000 people no longer employed as librarians in 1983). The recession of 1990-1991 also saw a substantial decrease (nearly 7% or 15,000 people no longer employed as librarians). However, the period from 2001-2003 saw the greatest change – a drop of just over 16% (or 38,000 people not longer employed in librarianship). Stabilizing from 2004 to 2006, the number of people employed as librarians increased from 217,000 to 229,000. The latest data for 2007 report that the number of employed librarians again dropped to 215,000. This seems to indicate that the number of employed librarians is a much more volatile statistic and more susceptible to major economic downturns. If you are employed as a librarian now, count your lucky stars because your salary, if history is any indication, should hopefully remain fairly stable. If you’re in the job market now, you will certainly find it a rough road ahead as long as this recession lasts.

Figure 1: Comparison of GDP Percent Change and Average Librarian Salaries, 1930-1961

Figure 2: Comparison of GDP Percent Change and Average Librarian Salaries, 1988-2007

Figure 3: Comparison of GDP Percent Change and Number of Employed Librarians, 1977-2007

The Bottom Line?

Overall this is pretty rotten news. It’s possible that the U.S. Census hasn’t got the most current data and that much of this is certainly up for scrutiny; however, if the current recession is being called the worst recession since the 1930s, it’s hard to imagine the average librarian salary continuing to increase and the employment figures getting much better anytime soon. If you have a job, hold on it. If you don’t, there are some pretty good avenues to explore. In addition to hosting job ads, LISJobs.com is a great first stop for resources that help match librarians with free continuing education opportunities as well as help aligning your skills in a non-library workplace. The Special Libraries Association (SLA) has even set up a mentoring program for librarians who are between jobs or who have been laid off. Eventually, things will improve. We can see from past recession events, the profession does indeed rebound. And, because libraries are acknowledged as a fundamental force that holds societies together, I think the important thing to take away from this crude analysis and brief snapshot of libraries during today’s economic recession is that our profession is buoyant and has a good chance of weathering this storm.

The bright side of the recession is that libraries across the nation are getting the best PR in mainstream media that we’ve seen in a long time. Indeed, libraries have traditionally been strongly promoted during times of economic crises (e.g., American Libraries August 2002, pp. 62-63). The upsurge in use of libraries is good evidence as is the public outcry when a library is threatened with being closed down.

Revisiting the radio broadcast from 1933 on “How to Reduce the Library Budget,” Carl Milam, secretary of the American Library Association at the time, crafted a careful argument supporting the value of libraries during economic crisis. His arguments framed the necessity to uphold librarian salaries, look for efficiencies in government, and make cuts to libraries in the order of (1) decrease operating costs, (2) implement efficiencies in routine processes, and as a last recourse, (3) cut the collections budget. One of H.L. Woolhiser’s (the City Manager from Illinois) final statements from the broadcast is as true an argument for supporting libraries during today’s recession as it was for the plight of libraries during the Great Depression:

“The library exists to provide the means of self-education. Education is the interest of the state, and the educational institutions – school, libraries, universities – are engaged in the process of helping people to become intelligent members of society. In other words, society has a stake in what the library does. It is interested in having the library’s influence reach the largest number of people in the most effective way.”

Selected Resources for Further Investigation:

• ALA-APA’s Better Salaries/Pay Equity Bibliography
• Association of Research Libraries Annual Salary Surveys
• Tom Terrell and Vicki Gregory’s 2003 paper, “A Look at Now and Then: Salaries of Academic and Research Librarians”
• ALA 2002 report, “Public Library Use and Economic Hard Times: Analysis of Recent Data“
• Library Journal’s Placements & Salaries Surveys
• AL Direct January 7, 2009 issue includes 6 stories on libraries and the recession

Flying high - image by Flickr member Dezz

“If where our scientists are and how they work is fundamentally changing, doesn’t that fundamentally change how we support them?” (Luce, 2008 – audio | slides)

A major change to our profession is afoot. Well, more than afoot – the “E-science” ship has sailed and has some major momentum behind it, but are we on board? If you’re one of the librarians still standing on the dock wondering what “E-science” is, you’re not alone. In simple terms, E-science is international, collaborative, technology-driven science that brings together data, research, and people around the world. The Joint Task Force on Library Support for E-Science describes it as an “inter- and multi-disciplinary” enterprise “with significant dependence on computation and computer science;” and as a data-intensive approach to scholarship that is focused on team-based research composed of scholars spread across the globe.

Some examples of team-based, cross-disciplinary research with people and computers connected within a “grid” of networks across the world: ClimatePrediction.net which leverages the underused computer processor power of home computers to study climate change models; the Southern California Earthquake Center which has over 600 collaborators from Tokyo to Woods Hole, Massachusetts working on ways to understand earthquake behavior in order to minimize the damages of earthquakes; and the Biomedical Informatics Network which has pooled together biomedical researchers and computer scientists from sites spanning the UK and the US to share data and research insights to enhance diagnosis and treatment of diseases.  This is science that rises above place, institution, and even country, science that shatters the boundaries upon which our libraries are traditionally built.

Stepping back a bit to take in a wider view, an ever broader term, E-research, is defined as “the development of, and the support for, advanced information and computational technologies to enhance all phases of research processes” (Luce, 2008). What this all comes down to is supporting research on the broadest scale, with added layers of depth that include high performance computing, both human and non-human consumers of information, and an utterly complex world of data types and data quantities. Add in the diverse expectations of not only the scientists conducting the work, but also their funding sources, and their network of existing and potential colleagues, and you start to get the picture (see Nature’s Big Data issue (September 3, 2008), for a nice sampling of where things are headed).

While scholarly communication and open access were the big issues of library conferences a few years ago, expect to see E-science take its place in prominence. As a case in point, I recently attended the ARL/CNI Fall Forum on “Reinventing Science Librarianship.” With E-science as the main spotlight, the conference speakers delved into themes surrounding data curation, transforming libraries to support the needs of researchers, support for virtual organizations, developing cyberinfrastructure, and training for librarians in the E-science landscape (see the Proceedings for more details).

The theme from this conference that I want to focus on in this post is what elements could be holding our profession back from being able to become major players in the E-science landscape and what elements are going to give us a leg-up in enabling us to become credible, respected participants in shaping the future of E-science/E-research. As a profession, we are at a point where the successes of what we have done traditionally act both as limitations and advantages to our ability to play a major role in E-science (aka, “What one loses on the swings one gains on the roundabouts”) – currently, the balance is weighted more heavily by our limitations. I’ll outline some of the limitations and counterbalance those with the aspects of our profession, that if they become more fully fleshed out, would shift the balance.

To begin with, E-science is global while libraries (for the most part) are not globally-oriented. In the E-science landscape, our users are no longer identified by institution nor are they even necessarily human – our E-science users are also networks of computers. However, the home institutions of libraries are our comfort zones and we are bound to them in many ways, but most importantly, we need them to be fiscally afloat. How do we break free of the mentality that we can only support our institutional users when, in an E-science landscape, our users cross all kinds of institutional boundaries? Even the licenses that we negotiate and sign reinforce the restrictive behaviors of libraries in terms of defining who and where our user communities are.

The other major issue is that we are dealing with a very fast event horizon when it comes to E-science. As James Mullins noted at the ARL/CNI Fall Forum, our profession has had over 100 years to develop best practices for managing, organizing, and curating print objects – books, journals, manuscripts, etc. But because of the rampant pace at which researchers are generating data that they need to share, re-use, and preserve “what took us 100 years to do for print, we now have to do in ten years for digital data” (Mullins, 2008). While our profession’s goal for E-science does and will include traditional roles like collecting, storing, organizing, and making information useful, we need to be able to perform these roles with datasets that are diverse and multi-dimensional in the sense that data lends itself to constantly being built upon by students and scholars. We’re going to need to help researchers by connecting datasets with articles, scholars, computer programs, and networks that aren’t necessarily easily identified/pigeonholed into a particular discipline or a single geographic area. Many disciplines are already embarking on their own collaborative research solutions (astrophysics, for example), but lack some of the standards and archival considerations that are distinctive of the library discipline; in essence, they are creating their own virtual research networks because libraries, for the most part, have not yet taken steps to meet these needs.

Despite this limitation of our profession to jump on board, many are ready to reconceptualize and reposition ours jobs to address the needs of E-science. Because E-science is institution-agnostic, this re-envisioning of the librarian process must involve crossing institutional boundaries, but we are so closely tied to our institutional identities and support structures that this is going to be a major hurdle. We will need to look to unique partnerships so that we can hybridize our organizations with other organizations that will enable us to build expertise and support beyond our institutional boundaries. These kinds of partnerships would need to be positioned to enable the active development of technologies for sharing, managing and curating massive quantities of diverse datasets while growing a workforce of data savvy librarians and information scientists. Partnerships like the Data Intensive Cyber Environments Research group (DICE) with a new arm at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the San Diego Supercomputing Center + University of California, San Diego partnership are a few great examples of these kinds of partnerships for big scientific research agendas. What about not-so-big research? It has been noted that while “small science” (research not necessarily backed by lots of grant dollars) is most in need of an E-science solution, it is most overlooked in terms of funding and support. Libraries at small schools without research grant support won’t be able to get resources to support E-science even if they’d like to. To this end, library and other academic consortia alongside professional organizations like the ARL are likely going to have to take the lead to make any headway at all. As touched on in the following sections, some potential areas for progress include training for librarians, reconceptualizing the benchmarks for what make our libraries successful, and building relationships with publishers and grant funding agencies that focus on defining standards and best practices for data sharing, re-use and curation.

The lack of E-science training opportunities for librarians has been brought to the fore as a major limitation. Swan and Brown (2008) offer many recommendations and reflections on “skilling up” for E-science. Not only do MLS/MLIS programs need to develop courses in data curation, data management and data infrastructure, but libraries need staff who are skilled enough to be involved at every stage of data generation, collection, analysis, interpretation, synthesis, preservation, storage, and re-use. Existing librarians will need to take part in practical, hands-on, career-long training for the whole data life cycle. Exemplars include data curation courses such as those offered by the Specialization in Data Curation and the Summer Institute in Data Curation at the University of Illinois. These courses are sought after by both bench scientists as well as librarians. Some have even postulated that the necessity of holding an MLS/MLIS degree is an antiquated notion in this new context. Libraries who are already dabbling at the cutting edge are positioning themselves to get in on the act by creating jobs to support E-science that don’t require an MLS/MLIS. They are turning library services on their head and hiring people who can collaborate with scientists at the lab bench, in the grant proposal process and in the classroom.

The ways in which we’ve defined our libraries based on our collections and services raise several questions that our institutions will need to come to terms with: What is unique about our research library content and services? Think about things like the published and unpublished output of the researchers at your institution – how is the library showcasing that content to the global community? What percent of our budget resources support unique services? In our drive to be competitive, we find ourselves duplicating collections that are already available at flagship universities while neglecting the truly unique content on our campuses. Libraries could begin to build collections using scholarship generated “‘at the source’—that is, collect, organize, and host data sets generated by researchers at their own institutions. In doing so, libraries have the potential to exert influence over the emerging data sets market rather than waiting for commercial vendors to harvest and package the data for later re-sale” (Davis and Vickery, 2007). Some research communities are already taking the lead on connecting datasets to publications (something libraries have been partially successful at with institutional repositories) – examples include Dryad (a database of evolutionary biology and ecology research articles and datasets) and the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (a compilation of all known research on the systematics of flowering plants). Why aren’t libraries more fully involved in these efforts?

There are increasing expectations for scientists to save their research data and document the research process. Beyond being ethically responsible researchers, they are increasingly becoming responsible for complying with federal and institutional regulations, protecting their intellectual property rights, maintaining a record-keeping plan and an audit trail, and managing data files so they can be accessed into the future. Funding sources are increasingly mandating that researchers make their data accessible (e.g., NIH) and more and more publishers require deposit of datasets as a prerequisite for publication. These are very complex issues for anyone to deal with, but many of these are issues that libraries have deep knowledge about. Within the E-science landscape, libraries are going to be expected to evolve to act “as a catalyst for an interdisciplinary community…The role of the library moves from manager of scholarly products to that of participant in the scholarly communication process” (Lougee, 2002).  We have expertise in intellectual property and copyright and we’ve got a healthy respect for openness (Open Data/Open Science) balanced with ownership issues that impact promotion and tenure. We have expertise in standards and in developing and applying metadata in ways that support the management and curation that drive future reuse and repurposing of digital content. Educating researchers on these issues and even stepping in to help manage these issues is an important role for librarians to continue to build upon.

Information has dimension - it can exist in many different contexts and serve many different needs – as library professionals and lifelong students, we have an obligation to recognize and seize opportunities that enhance the dimensionality of information and help information seekers tap into, evaluate and fully exploit this dimensional quality of scholarship. We’ve planted our profession at the nexus of many different disciplines and organizationally we have broad knowledge across all of those disciplines. By making our depth within those disciplines go a little deeper with proper training for librarians, by helping researchers make useful connections across disciplines, by educating and collaborating with researchers on how to cultivate their data in such a way that it can be shared, re-used and preserved over space and time, we can have significant impact in shaping the future of E-science/E-research. Scientists are often hard to pin down and their research process is often hard to isolate into discrete, recognizable stages that librarians can develop relationships with and solutions for, but it’s our responsibility to become relevant within the process. If libraries can pull together, re-envision our roles, and build the sort of support networks required by the international collaborations inherent in E-science, the rewards will exceed all expectations. These opportunities for libraries to be key players in team-based, cross-disciplinary research are opportunities that our profession and the scientific enterprise cannot afford to miss.

Time to hear from you – a few question to spur your comments:

1. What does E-science mean to you?

2. What does an E-science librarian look like?

3. Do you think our profession is ready to support researchers in an E-science landscape?

Further Reading:

• E-science Talking Points for ARL Deans and Directors
• Data Audit Framework Development Project
• Agenda for Developing E-Science in Research Libraries
• The Institutional Challenges of Cyberinfrastructure and E-Research

Much appreciation to Kim and Derik from ITLWTLP for their invaluable editing skills, and to Annette Day, Honora Eskridge, and Marcus Helfrich for providing thoughtful feedback on drafts of this post.