Measuring the Value of Academic Libraries

Center for Information and Communication Studies

Measuring the Value of

Academic Libraries Carol Tenopir

University of [email protected]

Michigan Library AssociationMay 2010


Methods for measuring value

Usage Citations

Focus groups

Return on Investment

Perceptions

Experiments Critical incident

Contingent

valuation

Observations

Conjoint measurement

Interviews


1) Implicit value (i.e., usage, downloads)

2) Explicit value (i.e., Interviews)

3) Derived values (i.e., ROI)

Value of libraries can be measured in many ways:


Average Number of Article Readings per Year and Average Minutes per Reading by University Faculty in the US (percent change)

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1977 1993 2000-2003

2004-2006

Readings

Minutes perReading


• Purpose• Outcomes• Return on Investment (ROI)• And help make decisions for the future

Going beyond implied value to show…


Series of Studies

Surveys by Tenopir & King, 1977-Present using critical incident of last article reading

ROI in grants, Phase 1: case study at University of Illinois, completed 2008

Phase 2: expanded to 8 countries (report coming soon)

Value and ROI for grants/research, teaching, student engagement (2010-2012) (LibValue)


“The following questions in this section refer to the SCHOLARLY ARTICLE YOU READ MOST RECENTLY, even if you had read the article previously. Note that this last reading may not be typical, but will help us establish the range of patterns in reading.”

Critical Incident


Principal Purpose of Reading (Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2006, n=1433)

51%

9%

11%

9%

20%

Research

Teaching

CurrentAwarenessProposals

Other


Source of reading by purpose of reading by faculty (Faculty in U.S. and Australia, 2004-2005, n=1412)

ResearchTeaching

Current Awareness

5%

5% 5%

11%

37%

38%

3%3%

30%

47%

7%

10%

3%

50%

18%

14%

7%

9%Library provided

Personalsubscription

Open Web

Colleagues

SchooldepartmentsubscriptionOther


Proportion of readings that contain information that is

rated as absolutely essential to the principal purpose

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Research Teaching Administration CurrentAwareness

WritingProposals


Proportion of readings that contain information that is rated as absolutely essential to the principal

purpose

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Library Source Personal Source Others


Readings for Research

• More likely to be rated “absolutely essential”

• More likely to be found by searching• More likely to be from e-sources• More likely to be from the library


Outcomes of Reading in Order of Frequency of Responses (n=880)

• Inspired new thinking (55%)• Improved results (40%)• Changed focus (27%)• Resolved technical problems (12%)• Saved time (12%)• Faster completion (7%) • Collaboration (6%)• Wasted my time (<1% of readings)


E-Collections improve efficiency, writing, and research

“E-access is essential for

scientific writing”

“I could not do the kind of research or

teaching I do without these resources.”

“[e-access] saves me a lot of time which can be used for more extensive

reading.”


Derived measuresReturn on Investment (ROI) is a quantitative measure

expressed as a ratio of the value returned to the institution for each monetary unit invested in the

library.

For every $/€/£ spent on the library,the university received ‘X’ $/€/£ in return.

Demonstrate that library collections contribute to income-generating activities


ROI Phases 1 and 2Faculty Grant Research Cycle

LIBRARY

ConductResearch

ObtainGrants

WriteArticles

WriteReports &Proposals


ROI for University of Illinois Grants (Phase 1)

$4.38 grant income for each $1.00 invested in library

(% of faculty who rated citations in proposals from library as important to the proposal x % of

proposals funded)


Phase 2: Grants only8 institutions in 8 countries


Phase 2: ROI Findings

• 1.3:1 to 3.4:1

Research and Teaching

STM/Hum/SS

• Under 1:1Research and

Teaching


Administration Values: Measuring Up

1) Attract outstanding faculty• Faculty with more publications and citations obtain more grants.*• Faculty who publish more read more• Faculty who receive awards read more

2) Retain outstanding faculty- “I would leave this university in a microsecond if the library deteriorated” - U.S. University

• *Ali & Bhattacharyya, “Research Grant and Faculty Productivity Nexus: Heterogeneity among Dissimilar Institutions.” Academic Analytics


Administration Values: Measuring Up3) Foster innovative research

– “I am now able to explore and trace back topics and check the developments that arose along the topic history making connections that were only dreams a few years ago.” -Western European Research Institute

– For every article cited, 27-40 more are read

4) Build research reputation of institution– In 1 university, over 10 years a 1% increase in library budget

correlates with a 1.07% increase in grant funding– In another, over 10 years a 1% increase in library budget

correlates with a 1.21% increase in grant funding


Administration Values: Measuring Up

5) Promote seamless integration of the library with institutional research activities

- “With the current workload, I could not continue with research without the convenience of access from my own computer” – South African University

- A doubling in article downloads, from 1 to 2 million, is statistically associated with dramatic increases in research productivity**

**Research Information Network. 2009. E-journals: their use, value and impact. Report prepared by Research Information Network.


LibValue: Broaden focus


And anticipate change..New Scholarly Endeavors

That Cut Across the Library’s Functional Areas

Research Social / Professional

Teaching / Learning

Sch

ola

rly E

nd

eavors

Functional Areas

e-science

CollaborativeScholarship

InstitutionalRepositories


What we can show so far…• E-articles are read for many purposes• Academic library e-collections help faculty be

productive and successful• Libraries help generate grants income• E-collections are valued by faculty• ROI for grants varies by mission and location of

institution• Value can be measured in many ways


Some Final Thoughts on Measuring Value

• Tie what you measure to the mission of the university

• Measure outcomes, not inputs• Quantitative data can show ROI and trends• Qualitative data tell a story• No one method stands alone• Need to develop was to measure value of all

library services


For further information: [email protected]

Tenopir, C. (2009). University Investment in the Library, Phase II: An International Study of the Library’s Value to the

Grants Process. Report prepared for Elsevier LibraryConnect.

mailto:[email protected]


Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., Wu, L. (2008). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article

seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61 (1), 5-32.

Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Spencer, J., Wu, L. (2009). Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference?. Library &

Information Science Research, doi 10.1016.

Documents

Measuring the Value of Academic Libraries