Quality and the academic library

Quality and the Academic Library Quality and the Academic Library Reviewing, Assessing and Enhancing Service Provision Edited by JEREMY ATKINSON Jeremy Atkinson Consultancy, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, UK Copyright © 2016 Jeremy Atkinson Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein) Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein ISBN: 978-0-12-802105-7 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress Control Number: 2015955064 For information on all Chandos Publishing visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/ DEDICATION To all those I have worked with for over 40 years to provide high quality services for library users LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Leo Appleton Library Services, University of the Arts London, London, United Kingdom; Library and Student Support, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom Jeremy Atkinson Jeremy Atkinson Consultancy, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom Kathryn Ball Assessment and Accountability, McMaster University Library, Hamilton, ON, Canada Jackie Belanger Assessment and Planning, University of Washington Libraries, Seattle, WA, USA Candice Benjes-Small Information Literacy & Outreach, McConnell Library, Radford University, Radford,VA, USA Aldwyn Cooper Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer, Regent’s University London, London, United Kingdom Matt Cunningham University Library, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom Helen Fallon University Library, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Republic of Ireland Meg Gorman University Library Service and Postgraduate School of Medical and Dental Education (Wales Deanery), Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom Steve Hiller Assessment and Planning, University of Washington Libraries, Seattle, WA, USA Ann Holmes Formerly Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom Margie Jantti Library Services, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Glynnis Johnson Client Liaison Services, University of Cape Town Libraries, Cape Town, South Africa Michael Jubb Research Information Network, London, United Kingdom Kate Kelly Library Services, Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia Liz Kerr Learning Resources, Regent’s University London, London, United Kingdom xvii xviii List of Contributors Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger Library, Howard Community College, Columbia, MD, USA Martin Lewis Formerly University Library, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom Vivian Lewis Office of the University Librarian, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Alison Little University Library, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom Gemma Long Quality Assurance Agency, United Kingdom Alison Mackenzie Edge Hill University, Lancashire, United Kingdom; SCONUL Performance Measurement and Quality Strategy Group, London, United Kingdom Frances O’Neil Scholarly Information Services, Library, Victoria University, VIC, Australia Fiona Parsons Directorate of Academic Support, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom Janet Peters University Library Service, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom Jon Purcell University Library, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom Jaya Raju Library and Information Studies Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Reggie Raju Client Liaison Services, University of Cape Town Libraries, Cape Town, South Africa Danny Saunders Quality Assurance Agency, United Kingdom Eryl Smith North Wales NHS Library Service, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board, Wales, United Kingdom Simon Speight University Library and Heritage Collections, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom Stephen Town Formerly University Library, University of York,York, United Kingdom Jakob Trischler Southern Cross Business School, Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia Graham Walton University Library, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom ABOUT THE EDITOR Jeremy Atkinson has wide-ranging experience and expertise in the leadership, management and development of academic library services He had overall responsibility for the strategic and operational management of library and information services at the University of Glamorgan from 1991 to 2012 He previously held library posts at the University of Northumbria, Cardiff University and Manchester Metropolitan University Jeremy was a key member of University-wide and Faculty quality assurance groups at the University of Glamorgan, played an important role in a number of institutional quality reviews and led the development of library service agreements with Glamorgan’s further education partner colleges For years, Jeremy was Chair of the SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance which involved close liaison with the Quality Assurance Agency and he was responsible for leading the production of an ‘Aide-Memoire for QAA Reviewers Evaluating Learning Resources’ As Chair of the Working Group, he was invited to give the keynote paper on the UK experience of quality assurance of learning resources at the FOTIM/CHELSA Conference in Pretoria in South Africa in 2006 Jeremy has had a long-standing and active involvement in a large number of UK strategic committees and groups, notably those of Jisc (continuous involvement from 1998 to 2012), SCONUL (including years as a trustee and member of SCONUL Executive Board) and WHELF (Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum) Jeremy has produced a wide range of publications and conference papers on topics including change management, quality assurance, electronic resources, library collaboration and networked moving images His most recent experience (2012 to date) is as a Library and Information Services Consultant working with a number of high profile clients, including Jisc, SCONUL and individual UK universities This work has included research and reviews of library and information services and projects xix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who has made this book possible: to the authors of the chapters and case studies for agreeing to be involved and for producing their contributions to time; to Glyn Jones, Harriet Clayton and George Knott of Chandos Publishing for their support at all stages of the project; and to my wife Chris, my daughter Verity and friends and colleagues for their support, patience and suggestions during the research and editing process xxi CHAPTER 1 Introduction Jeremy Atkinson Jeremy Atkinson Consultancy, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom In recent years, there has been a greater emphasis on the quality, relevance and effectiveness of academic library services This has partly come about because of the financial constraints under which universities have had to operate, but also because of the implications of the strategic planning and business processes put in place by universities, the requirements of quality assurance bodies and the move to view students as ‘customers’ with service expectations and a strong consumer voice Quality is always a rather elusive concept Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary highlight the problem: ‘The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind’; ‘The degree of excellence of something’; ‘A distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something’ The first two definitions are probably more relevant to the consideration of quality in academic libraries, but we probably all want our libraries to be distinctive and different as well as being excellent and having high standards of service Beginning to think about quality and academic libraries when preparing for this book, I started to appreciate the number of different aspects and perspectives Interestingly, I also recognised the many different roles that I had played in my career in helping to deliver and develop quality library services and in assessing and reviewing their effectiveness As a subject librarian and library manager, I had liaised and surveyed to find out what our students, staff and researchers really wanted and tried hard to deliver relevant and useful services I used and developed various tools and techniques to measure the effectiveness of our services I played my part in validations and subject reviews on both sides of the fence, helping to ensure that courses and the library services to support them were up to scratch I produced documentation and did my best to be a well prepared interviewee when the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) came to Quality and the Academic Library Copyright © 2016 Jeremy Atkinson Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved Quality and the Academic Library call to assess our institutional quality As Chair of the SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance1 I tried to influence the QAA to look at library services in a more considered way during institutional reviews I was on the receiving end when consultants reviewed our library services, and then, several years later, saw the process from a different perspective when I was a consultant reviewing another institution’s library service This led me to want to try to capture all these different perspectives, to hear the different voices and the views of the different players in order to produce a rounded picture of quality and the academic library So, in this book, there are views, perspectives and case studies not just from librarians, but also from university senior managers, an auditor, a QAA manager and those involved in large scale reviews of library services The literature relating to the quality of the academic library has become substantial and complex and can be difficult for the nonexpert librarian or librarianship student to gain access to and understand The aim of this book is to help deal with this problem by providing a wide ranging introduction and overview of the area whilst, at the same time, offering a practical approach through case studies and up to date and reflective content for the more experienced information professional The book also seeks to present a different approach by: Providing accessible content within the overviews of each area, and including the more readable articles in the references and further reading sections Providing signposts to the key trends, key developments and key resources Covering the different aspects Introductions are provided to the different quality concepts and approaches The different ways quality is looked at in academic libraries – assurance, assessment, review and enhancement – are examined and there is detailed coverage of the changing nature of library services and support and the approaches used to analyse quality in two of the key market segments for libraries in students and researchers Looking at the changing environment in which academic libraries are operating Consideration of quality cannot be static because of the enormous changes within and around the library services, and libraries themselves have to change to continue to provide high quality and relevant services Where appropriate, there is coverage of the political, economic, social and technological changes impacting on academic ● ● ● ● Further Reading 299 Taylor, M., & Heath, F (2012) Assessment and continuous planning: The key to transformation at the University of Texas Libraries Journal of Library Administration, 52(5), 424–435 Mixed Methods Approaches Bowles-Terry, M (2012) Library instruction and academic success: A mixed-methods assessment of a library instruction program Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(1), 82–95 Retrieved from: Dryden, N H., & Goldstein, S (2013) Regional campus learning commons: Assessing to meet student needs Journal of Library Administration, 53(5–6), 293–322 Fitzpatrick, E B., Moore, A C., & Lang, B W (2008) Reference librarians at the reference desk in a learning commons: A mixed methods evaluation Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 231–238 Holder, S., & Lange, J (2014) Looking and listening: A mixed methods study of space use and user satisfaction Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(3), 4–27 Retrieved from: Outcomes, Value and Impact Charlton, P., Mavrikis, M., & Katsifli, D (2013) The potential of learning analytics and big data Ariadne, 71 Retrieved from: Collins, E., & Stone, G (2014) Understanding patterns of library use among undergraduate students from different disciplines Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(3), 51–67 Retrieved from: Crawford, J (2006) The use of electronic information services and information literacy: A Glasgow Caledonian University study Journal of Library and Information Science, 38(1), 33–44 Emmons, M., & Wilkinson, F C (2011) The academic library impact on student persistence College and Research Libraries, 72(2), 128–149 Retrieved from: Hagel, P., Horn, A., Owen, S., & Currie, M (2012) ‘How can we help? The contribution of university libraries to student retention Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 43(3), 214–230 Jacoby, J., & O’Brien, N P (2005) Assessing the impact of reference services provided to undergraduate students College & Research Libraries, 66(4), 324–340 Retrieved from: Jubb, M., Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D (2013).Value of libraries: Relationships between provision, usage and research outcomes Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2), 139–152 Retrieved from: Kelly, B., Hamasu, C., & Jones, B (2012) Applying Return on Investment (RoI) in libraries Journal of Library Administration, 52(8), 656–671 Mezick, E M (2015) Relationship of library assessment to student retention Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 31–36 Oakleaf, M (2011) What’s the value of an academic library?: The development of the ACRL value of academic libraries comprehensive research review and report Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 42(1), 1–13 Retrieved from: Pan, D., Wiersma, G., Williams, L., & Fong, Y S (2013) More than a number: Unexpected benefits of return on investment analysis Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 566–572 Rawls, M M (2015) Looking for links: How faculty research productivity correlates with library investment and why electronic library materials matter most Evidence Based 300 Further Reading Library and Information Practice, 10(2), 34–44 Retrieved from: Showers, B (Ed.), (2015) Library analytics and metrics: Using data to drive decisions and services London: Facet Publishing Shreeve, S., & Chelin, J (2014).Value and impact of librarians’ interventions on student skills development New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(2), 204–232 Soria, K M (2013) Factors predicting the importance of libraries and research activities for undergraduates Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 464–470 Stone, G., & Collins, E (2013) Library usage and demographic characteristics of undergraduate students in a UK university Performance Measurement and Metrics, 14(1), 25–35 Retrieved from: Stone, G., Pattern, D., & Ramsden, B (2011) Does library use affect student attainment? A preliminary report on the Library Impact Data Project LIBER Quarterly, 21(1) Retrieved from: Stone, G., Ramsden, B., & Pattern, D (2011) Looking for the link between library usage and student attainment Ariadne, 67 Retrieved from: Stone, G., Sharman, A., Dunn, P., & Woods, L (2015) Increasing the impact: Building on the Library Impact Data Project Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(4), 517–520 Weiner, S (2009) The contribution of the library to the reputation of a university Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(1), 3–13 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS The following list explains general abbreviations and acronyms used in the book It does not include abbreviations and acronyms related to a particular institution ACRL APC ARL AWHILES BSC BYOD CAUL CHELSA CIBER CILIP CODATA CONUL COUNTER CRIS CSE CyMAL DCC DOI EFQM FOTIM FTE GESS HEE LKSL HEFCE HER HERW ICT IIP IMS ISO IUQB Jisc JSTOR JUSP KIS KPI LIS Association of College and Research Libraries (USA) Article Processing Charge Association of Research Libraries (USA and Canada) All Wales Health Information and Library Extension Services Balanced Scorecard Bring Your Own Device Council of Australian University Librarians Committee of Higher Education Libraries of South Africa Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (UK) Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (UK) Committee on Data for Science and Technology Consortium of National and University Libraries (Ireland) Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources Current Research Information System Customer Service Excellence Museums Archives and Libraries Wales, now MALD (Museums, Archives and Libraries Division) Digital Curation Centre Digital Object Identifier European Foundation for Quality Management Foundation of Tertiary Institutions of the Northern Metropolis (South Africa) Full-Time Equivalent Global Educational Supplies and Solutions Health Education England Library and Knowledge Services Leads Higher Education Funding Council for England Higher Education Review Higher Education Review Wales Information and Communications Technology Investors in People Integrated Management System International Organization for Standardization Irish Universities Quality Board Now known as Jisc, formerly Joint Information Systems Committee (UK) A shared digital library, short for Journal Storage Journal Usage Statistics Portal Key Information Set Key Performance Indicator Library and Information Service/Library and Information Science/Library and Information Studies 301 302 Abbreviations and Acronyms LMS Library Management System MINES Measuring the Impact of Networked Electronic Services MISO Measuring Information Service Outcomes MoD Ministry of Defence (UK) MOOC Massive Open Online Course NHS National Health Service (UK) NHS LQAF Library Quality Assurance Framework (UK) NHS SHALL Strategic Health Authority Library Leads (UK) NSS National Student Survey OA Open Access OJS Open Journal Systems PDA Patron Driven Acquisition PEST Political, Economic, Social and Technological (analysis) PRES Postgraduate Research Experience Survey PSRB Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body PTES Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey QAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (UK) QFD Quality Function Deployment QS Quacquarelli Symonds RAE Research Assessment Exercise (UK) RATER Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy, Responsiveness (five factors for service quality in SERVQUAL) RCUK Research Councils UK RDM Research Data Management REF Research Excellence Framework (UK) RFID Radio Frequency Identification RIN Research Information Network (UK) RLG Research Libraries Group (USA) RLUK Research Libraries UK ROI Return on Investment RPM Research Performance Management SCONUL Society of College, National and University Libraries (UK) SEALS South East Academic Libraries System (South Africa) SLA Service Level Agreement SMART Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Repeatable, Timely (objectives) (different authors assign different words to the letters) SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (analysis) TAFE Technical and Further Education (Australia) TDAP Taught Degree Awarding Powers THE Times Higher Education TNE Transnational Education TORA The Oxford Research Agency TQM Total Quality Management UCISA Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UK) UKRR UK Research Reserve USP Unique Selling Point/Proposition VLE Virtual Learning Environment WHELF Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum INDEX Note: Page numbers followed by ‘f’, ‘fr’ and ‘t’ refer to figures, further reading and tables, respectively A Academic quality processes See Programmes and courses Academic relationships See Liaison Accreditation See Customer Service Excellence; Investors in People; Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies Action research, 183, 298fr Advisory groups See User groups All Wales Health Information and Library Extension Services (AWHILES), 62–66, 71–74 Altmetrics, 144, 152, 172 American Library Association Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, 22 Analytics, 22, 210, 251 See also Learning analytics; Web analytics Annual monitoring, 11, 18–21, 33–35, 282 Anthropological studies, 183 Article processing charges (APCs), 147, 152, 170–171, 176, 194 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 182 Value of Academic Libraries Initiative, 186 Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 102, 147, 153, 183–184, 192, 209–211, 216–217, 220, 259-260, 262, 279 New Measures Initiative, 183–184 B Balanced Scorecard (BSC), 21, 25, 185, 187, 279, 283, 298–299fr Implementation at McMaster University, 259–265 background of, 259–260 difficulties in implementation, 263–264 future plans for, 264–265 initial implementation, 260 strategic planning, 261–263, 261f successes in implementation, 261–263 Benchmarking, 11–12, 21, 25, 46, 58–59, 64, 67, 80–82, 94, 104–105, 131, 159–160, 182–184, 191, 194, 212–215, 217, 219, 222–228, 238– 240, 244, 249–250, 252, 278–279, 281–282 Bibliometrics, 138, 150–152, 163, 167–168, 171–172, 175–176, 294–295fr Big data, 267–273, 299fr BiQual, 184 Book availability, 102, 105 Borton’s developmental model of critical reflection, 5–6, 6t Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD), 250 Budgets See Funding Buildings See Library buildings; Library space Business cases, 62, 104, 106, 249–250, 252–253, 255, 282 C Cardiff University, 13 Health Library Service, review of, 59, 61–75 aims and objectives of, 63 impact of, 68–74 methods of, 63–65 outcomes of, 66–68 rationale for, 61–63 use of the report, 68 CAUL See Council of Australian University Librarians Change management, 82–84, 242, 278, 280–281 Charter Mark See Customer Service Excellence 303 304 Index Charters See Student charters Citation analysis See Altmetrics; Bibliometrics; H-index Citation services, 151–152 See also Bibliometrics Client See Customer; User ClimateQUAL®, 25, 262 Coalition for Networked Information, 153 CODATA, 153 Codesign, in library service design projects, 111–120, 278, 280 implications for service implementation and operation, 116–117 methodology, 113–114 recruitment of lead users, 114 user involvement, 112–113, 115–116 Cognos, 268 Collaboration and partnerships, 38–39, 62, 66, 106, 108, 139, 144, 158, 161–165, 278–279, 283 See also Codesign; Consortia; Shared services Collections See Library collections Comments schemes See Suggestions schemes Communication, 109–110, 158–160, 263, 284 Complaints schemes See Suggestions schemes Conferences, for library assessment and performance management, 296–297fr Confidentiality and privacy, 58, 72, 81, 233, 269 Consortia See Association of College and Research Libraries; Association of Research Libraries; CONUL; Council of Australian University Librarians; Research Libraries UK; SCONUL; SEALS Continuous improvement, 12, 19–20, 52, 94, 127, 181–182, 214–215, 226–227, 283 See also Quality enhancement and improvement CONUL (Consortium of National and University Libraries), 212 Converged services, 20, 82, 218, 278 See also Superconvergence Core texts, 38, 278 Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), 222, 224, 226, 228, 279 COUNTER, 182 Courses See Programmes and courses Cranfield University LibQUAL+ surveys, 213–214 CRIS See Current research information system Critical reflection, 5–7, 291fr Critical thinking skills, 230 researchers, 138, 163 Culture of assessment, 13, 195, 284 Current research information system (CRIS), 144 Customer See also User Customer Service Excellence (CSE), 12, 89, 94, 124, 126–128, 130–132, 158, 215, 284, 292fr Customer service management, 13, 83, 94, 106–107, 183–185, 229–235, 279–280 development and review of quality, 121–132 background of, 121–124 benefits of, 131–132 challenges to, 129–131 Customer Service Excellence, 126–128 external validation, 128–129 future of, 132 internal validation, 128–129 Investors in People, 126–128 library values, 125 recruitment, 124–125, 279 retail approach, 121–124 staff skills through training, development of, 125–126 D Data See also Big data; Learning analytics; Library statistics; Research data management; User surveys Data curation, 138, 171, 175 Data mining, 150, 206 Data warehousing, 267–268, 271–272 DigiQUAL, 217 Digital Curation Centre (DCC), 153, 173 Index Digital literacy, 23, 30, 36, 42, 96, 248 See also Information literacy and skills Digital resources See Electronic resources Disintermediation, 18–19, 136, 154, 280, 284 Durham University Library research support services, 157–166 background of, 157–158 benchmarking, 159–160 benefits of changes, 161–164 context, 157 issues of, 164–165 quality service, 158–159 review of services, 159–160 staff skills, 160–161 staffing, 160–161 E Eastern Washington University, 97 Eduroam, 71, 72, 74 Electronic resources, 67, 72–73, 182, 199, 206, 217, 270 Embedded library services, 13, 98, 279–280, 283, 293fr in research, 150, 162, 295fr Emporia State University, 97 Empowered Students for University Libraries and Archives (ESULA), 97 Enhancement-Led Institutional Reviews, 28 Ethnographic studies, 183, 249 European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), 182 External examiners, 11, 18–19, 31, 36 F Fines See Library fines Focus groups, 34, 38, 48, 67–68, 89, 123, 183, 205–206, 255, 297–298fr Funding, 18, 52, 72, 83 Funding Councils, 27, 152 See also Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) G Gap theory See Insync; LibQUAL+ ; SERVQUAL Good practice, from quality reviews, 36–41, 49–50 305 feedback from students and staff, 38–39 learning support spaces and centres, 40–41 management and leadership, 37–38 reading lists, core texts and journals, 38 resourcing, 36–37 social media, 39–40 virtual learning environments, 39–40 websites, 39–40 Google Scholar, 172 H H-index, 172 Health Education England Library and Knowledge Services Leads (HEE LKSL), 71 Health libraries, 61–75 Higher education, quality approaches, 11–15, 17–26, 291–292fr Higher Education Act 2004, 121 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 24, 94, 102, 108, 155 Higher Education Review (HER), 22–25, 27–43, 95, 282 I Impact, library services, 19, 22, 185–187, 200, 267–273, 299–300fr See also Outcomes; Value Improvement, recommendations from quality reviews, 36–41 See also Continuous improvement; Quality enhancement and improvement; Quality Improvement Plan feedback from students and staff, 38–39 learning support spaces and centres, 40–41 management and leadership, 37–38 reading lists, core texts and journals, 38 resourcing, 36–37 social media, 39–40 virtual learning environments, 39–40 websites, 39–40 InCites (Thomson Reuters), 173 Information Commons, 96, 104, 106–109, 214, 281, 283 306 Index Information literacy and skills, 35–36, 49, 52, 95–96, 98, 186, 210, 241, 284 See also Digital literacy researchers, 137–138, 145–146, 149–150, 154, 163, 279–280, 294fr Information strategy, 214 Institutional repositories See Repositories Insync survey, 95, 184, 188, 279 longitudinal study of at Victoria University, 221–228 benchmarking, 227 developments of, 224–227 early years, 222–223 future of, 227–228 later years, 223–224 limitations of, 224–227 Integrated Management System (IMS), 221 Internal measures, of institutional higher education quality, 17–20 International Student Barometer, 95, 99, 103, 158 Internet access, 71 Interviews, 48, 59, 64, 80–81, 89, 126, 130, 183, 205–206, 226–227, 251, 255 Investors in People (IIP), 12, 124, 126–128, 130–131, 284 Irish Universities Act 1997, 45 Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB), 45 ISO 9001, 13, 182, 221, 297fr IT services, 18, 78, 80, 82, 85, 104, 109, 139, 218, 251 Ithaka S+ R, 153, 219, 224 J Jisc Collections, 68, 73 John Lewis, 122 Johns Hopkins University, 260 Journal Citation Reports, 172 Journal Impact Factor, 151, 172 Journals, for library assessment and performance management, 297fr JUSP, 182, 187 K Key Information Set (KIS), 12, 14, 94, 108 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 11, 21, 25, 95, 130, 158, 182, 241, 243–244 Knowledge barrier, 112 sticky, 112 L Lead users, in codesign projects, 111–114, 117 Leadership, 37–38, 87, 239–240, 243, 284–285 League tables, 11–12, 94, 104, 143, 145, 215–216, 252, 282 See also Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities; QS World University Rankings; Times Higher Education league tables Lean management, 13–14, 107, 182 Learning analytics, 22, 267, 271–273, 299fr Learning Commons, 96, 225, 230, 299fr Learning materials, relevance of, 34–35 Learning outcomes, 31, 33–34, 105, 186, 231, 278 Liaison, 33, 83, 105–106, 139, 149–150, 158–162, 279–280, 283 LibQUAL+ survey, 25, 46, 95, 102, 158–159, 161, 183–184, 187, 227, 238, 241, 244, 282–283, 285, 298fr case study, 209–220 Cranfield University, 213–214 critiques and responses to, 216–219 goals of, 210 LibQUAL+ Lite, 210 UK & Ireland SCONUL Consortium, 212–213 University of York, 214–215 Library buildings, 62, 68–70, 106 See also Library space Library collections, 51, 86, 135–137, 146–149, 215, 297fr See also Electronic resources; Learning materials; Special collections Library fines, 98, 107, 215, 279 Library Impact Data Project, 186, 299–300fr Library Management System (LMS), 62, 84, 86, 107, 267 Library Publishing Directory, 153 Library Quality Assurance Framework (LQAF), NHS, 22, 71 Index Library satisfaction surveys See User surveys Library schools, skills development and offerings, 175–176 Library service design, 111–120 Library space, 40–41, 83, 89, 96, 109, 116– 117, 137, 159, 218 See also Library buildings reviewing and revising, 247–257 impact of, 255–256 lessons learned, 252–255 methodology, 248–251 rationale, 248–251 Library statistics, 182–183, 191–194, 249– 250, 267–273 See also Association of College and Research Libraries; COUNTER; JUSP; SCONUL Library values, 124–125 Library visits, 137, 202–204 Likert scale, 102, 199 Littlewoods See Shopdirect Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) quality assurance in a super-converged service, 20, 237–245 background of, 237–238 new library and student support service, quality assurance problems, 238 on reflection, 244–245 quality assurance framework, developing, 238–240 quality assurance framework, effectiveness, 240–241 quality assurance framework, use, 242–244 Loans policies, 38, 49, 98, 106–107, 215 Longitudinal studies, 20–21, 197, 221–228, 252, 282 Longwood University mystery shopping, 231–234 Loughborough University Library, 97 customer service quality, development and review of, 121–132 background of, 121–124 benefits of, 131–132 challenges to, 129–131 Customer Service Excellence, 126–128 external validation, 128–129 307 future of, 132 internal validation, 128–129 Investors in People, 126–128 library values, 125 recruitment, 124–125, 279 retail approach, 121–124 staff skills through training, development of, 125–126 library space, reviewing and revising, 247–257 impact of, 255–256 lessons learned, 252–255 methodology, 248–251 rationale, 248–251 M Management, 37–38, 284–285 change, 82–84, 242, 278, 280–281 lean, 13–14, 107, 182 Marketing, 74, 84, 97, 109–110, 135, 215, 278, 284 Marketing Cube, 267, 269–271 Matrix standard, 238 Maynooth University (MU) Library, quality review, 45–53 context, 45 outcomes, 50–52 building, 51 collections, 51 funding and strategic policy, 52 routine tasks, 52 staffing, 51 peer feedback, 47–50 peer review report, 50 peer reviewers, 46–47 quality improvement plan, 50 quality review blog, 47 self-assessment report, 45–46 site visit, 47–50 McMaster University Library Balanced Scorecard, implementing, 259–265 background of, 259–260 difficulties in implementation, 263–264 future plans for, 264–265 initial implementation, 260 strategic planning, 261–263, 261f successes in implementation, 261–263 308 Index Merseytravel, 239–241 MINES for Libraries, 217 MISO, 218–219 Mixed methods approaches, 185, 204–206, 252, 283, 299fr Moments of truth, 111, 239–245 Monash University, 58 Multiple methods approaches See Mixed methods approaches Mystery shopping, 123, 184–185, 229–235, 278, 298fr N National Student Survey (NSS), 12, 21, 34–35, 94–95, 124, 128–129, 158, 161, 212–215, 219, 241–242, 244, 251, 253, 282, 292fr Sheffield University, 101–110 developing quality management agenda, 108–109 history of surveys at Sheffield, 101– 104, 103f lessons for the future, 109–110 library response to, 104–107 next steps, 107–108 National University of Ireland Maynooth (NUIM) See Maynooth University (MU) Library New Measures Initiative (ARL), 183–184 NHS Library Quality Assurance Framework (LQAF), 22, 71 O Observational studies, 59, 80–81, 113, 205–206, 231 ‘One stop shop’ approach, 80, 123–124 Open access (OA), 138, 147, 150, 152, 161, 163, 168–171, 280 Open Access Publications Officer, 161 OpenDOAR, 169, 176 Open Journal Systems (OJS), 171 Opening hours, 24, 37, 39, 49, 51, 95, 106, 123, 158–159, 206, 215, 225–227, 251 Outcomes, library services, 108–109, 185–187, 299–300fr See also Impact; Value Oxford Research Agency, The (TORA), 102–105 P Partnerships See Collaboration and partnerships Patron See also Customer; User Patron-driven acquisition (PDA), 96–97, 147, 215, 292fr Peer review, 27–28 Maynooth University Library, 45–53 research, 144, 151 Performance management, 259–265 Personalisation of services, 96 PEST analysis, 59, 64 Planning See Strategic planning Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, 21, 25 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, 21, 25 Privacy See Confidentiality and privacy Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs), 11, 22, 34–35 Programmes and courses See also Annual monitoring approval, 11, 13, 17, 30–31 design, 30–31 development, 30–31 monitoring, 31 proposals, 18 review, 11, 13, 18, 22, 31, 282 validation, 11, 13, 17–18, 22, 34 Promotion, 74, 84, 97, 284 See also Marketing Publishing See Open access; University publishing Q QAA See Quality Assurance Agency QS World University Rankings, 155, 165, 168 Quality, definition of, Quality assurance frameworks, 17, 20, 66–67, 71–72, 238–245, 282 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 3–4, 22–25, 27–43, 281–282 Higher Education Review (HER), 22–25, 27–43, 95, 282 Knowledgebase, 36, 41 Quality Code, 17–19, 22–23, 27–32 Quality Code, 17–19, 22–23, 27–32 Index Quality enhancement and improvement, 19–21, 25, 28, 218–219, 221 See also Continuous improvement Quality Function Deployment (QFD), 182, 297fr Quality improvement See Quality enhancement and improvement Quality Improvement Plan (QIP), 45–46, 48, 50 Quality management systems, 181–182, 297fr See also European Foundation for Quality Management; ISO 9001; Lean management; Quality Function Deployment; Six Sigma; Total Quality Management Quality reviews See also Service reviews Higher Education Review (HER), 22–25, 27–43, 95, 282 Maynooth University (MU) Library, 45–53 R Radford University mystery shopping, 231–234 RAE See Research Assessment Exercise RATER (Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy and Responsiveness), 183 Reading lists, 30, 38, 41, 102, 105–106, 297fr REF See Research Excellence Framework Reference and User Services Association Guidelines for behavioral performance of reference and information service providers, 231–232 Reference services, 149, 229–231, 299fr Reflective practice, 5–7, 291fr Regent’s College London See Regent’s University London Regent’s University London, 59, 77–89 learning resources, review of, 77–89 impact of, 87–89 methodology of, 79–82 outcomes of, 82–84 rationale for, 77–79 RLUDiscovery, 86–87 use of review, 85–87 Repositories, 138, 150, 152–153, 160–161, 168–170, 169f, 176, 217, 295fr 309 Repository Manager, 161 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), 101, 148, 293fr Research Commons, 137, 205–206, 281, 283, 294fr Research Councils UK (RCUK), 152, 163, 166 Research Data Alliance, 152–153 Research data management (RDM), 138, 152–153, 163, 167, 171–173, 175– 176, 295fr Research degrees, 31–32 Researchers of Tomorrow, 162–163 Research Excellence Framework (REF), 11, 95, 152, 157, 160–161, 163–165, 282 Research impact See Altmetrics; Bibliometrics Research Information Network (RIN), 137, 145–149 Research landscape analysis service, 173–174 Research Libraries UK (RLUK), 145–147, 154, 159–160, 212–213 Research lifecycle, 135, 136f, 138, 279–280 Research performance, 101, 143–145 See also Peer review; Research Assessment Exercise; Research Excellence Framework Research performance management (RPM), 173 Research Support Librarian, 161–163, 294fr Research support services, 31–32, 135–141, 145–156, 281, 293–296fr changing role of libraries in, 137–140 capability, 138 capacity, 138 librarian, role of, 139 role expansion, 139–140 support services, role of, 139 Durham University Library, 157–166 South African academic libraries, 167–177 traditional role of libraries in, 135–137 Research Week, 174 Retail approach, 94, 98, 121–124, 183, 231–232, 239–240, 281 310 Index Return on investment (ROI), 145, 148, 187, 251, 299fr See also Value Reviews See Quality reviews; Service reviews Role of librarians, 73–74, 281, 284 research support, 135–140, 149–150, 162–164, 167–168, 295–296fr Roving services, 97–98, 293fr RULDiscovery (Regent’s University London), 86–87 Russell Group universities, 101, 103, 105, 143 See also Research Libraries UK (RLUK) S Satisfaction surveys See User surveys Scholarly communication, 150–151, 175 SciVal Spotlight (Elsevier), 173–174 SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries), 21, 102, 182, 184, 212–213, 238–239, 250, 278–279 Aide Memoire, 33–34, 41, 285 Review of the value of SCONUL statistics, 191–194 background of, 191–192 Performance Measurement and Quality Strategy Group, 191–192 reflection, 194 statistics, 192–194 SCONUL/UCISA Working Group on Quality Assurance, 33–34, 41, 285 SEALS consortium, 169–170 Secret shopping See Mystery shopping Self-assessment, 34, 45–48, 59 Self-consciousness, Self-critique, Self-reflection, Service level agreements, 22, 63, 83, 108 Service quality See Customer Service Excellence; Customer service management; SERVQUAL; User surveys Service reviews, 57–60, 159–160 Cardiff University Health Library Service, 61–75 Loughborough University library space, 247–257 Regent’s University Learning Resources, 77–89 Service standards, 83, 94 SERVQUAL, 183–184, 209, 217–218 Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities, 155, 195 Shared services, 12 Sheffield University, 99, 278, 281 National Student Survey, 101–110 developing quality management agenda, 108–109 history of surveys at Sheffield, 101–104, 103f lessons for the future, 109–110 library response to, 104–107 next steps, 107–108 Shopdirect, 239–241 Six Sigma, 13, 182, 297fr Skills development See also Critical thinking skills; Digital literacy; Information literacy and skills of librarians, 73–74, 87–88, 125–126, 138, 160–161, 175–176 of researchers, 138, 146, 150, 160–163, 279 of students, 36, 40–41, 84, 117, 215 ‘SMART’ measures, 263–264 Social learning spaces, 80, 96, 137, 249, 251, 283 Social media, 39–41, 47, 49–50, 96, 114, 280 South African academic libraries, research support services in, 167–177 bibliometrics, 171–172 gold open access services, 170–171 article processing charges, support for, 170–171 publishing services using Open Journal Systems, 171 new research support services, 168 offerings by LIS schools, 175–176 open access services, 168 repositories, 169–170 content in, 170 growth of, 169–170, 169f research data management services, 172–173 research landscape analysis service, 173–174 Index Research Week, 174 skills development, 175–176 Space See Information Commons; Learning Commons; Library buildings; Library space; Research Commons; Social learning spaces Special collections, 51, 71, 157–158, 163– 164, 193 Staff development See Skills development Staff resource, 51, 83, 160–161 Standards See Customer Service Excellence; Investors in People; Service standards Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (American Library Association), 22 Statistics See Library statistics Stellenbosch University Library, 171 Sticky knowledge, 112 Strategic Health Authority Library Leads (SHALL) See Health Education England Library and Knowledge Services Leads (HEE LKSL) Strategic planning, 11–13, 25, 33–34, 37, 52, 61–62, 83, 85–87, 185, 193, 200, 206, 259–265, 261f, 283 Strategic reviews See Service reviews Student attainment, 20, 186, 267–269, 299–300fr Student Barometer, 95, 99, 103 Student charters, 94 Student employees, 97, 124–125, 129–131 Student engagement, 28, 96–97, 109–110, 292–293fr Student experience, 17, 19–22, 82–84, 93, 95, 101, 109–110, 121–122, 238, 267, 271–272, 278 Student lifecycle, 20, 95–96, 239–240, 279–280, 292fr Student performance See Student attainment Student recruitment, 95, 186–187, 283 Student retention, 19, 95, 186, 229–230, 271–273, 283, 299–300fr Student satisfaction surveys See User surveys Student support academic libraries, by, 93–100, 292–293fr background, 93 311 evaluation, 94–95 monitoring, 94–95 new and innovative services, 96 removing barriers and reaching out, 98 standards, 94–95 student engagement, 96–97 student lifecycle, 95–96 Study skills See Skills development Study spaces See Library space Suggestions schemes, 67, 83, 94, 128, 183, 241, 250 Superconvergence, 95–96 See also Converged services quality assurance in, 20, 237–245 background of, 237–238 new library and student support service, quality assurance problems, 238 quality assurance framework, developing, 238–240 quality assurance framework, effectiveness, 240–241 quality assurance framework, use, 242–244 on reflection, 244–245 Surveys See User surveys SWOT analysis, 46, 59, 64 SysNet, 70 Systematic literature reviews, 66, 70, 138, 162 T Taught Degree Awarding Powers (TDAPs), 77, 84 Teaching Excellence Framework, 110 TechQUAL, 218 Texas A&M University, 183–184, 209 Times Higher Education league tables, 121–122, 154, 165, 195 Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey, 108 Total Quality Management (TQM), 13, 182, 291fr, 297fr Touchpoints, 111 Touro College, 97 Training See Skills development Transnational Education (TNE), 18 Trend analysis, 21, 191, 215, 222 312 Index U UK Quality Code for Higher Education See Quality Code UK Research Reserve (UKRR), 147 Universities, quality approaches, 11–15, 17–26, 291–292fr Universities and colleges See also Cardiff University; Cranfield University; Durham University; Eastern Washington University; Emporia State University; Johns Hopkins University; Liverpool John Moores University; Longwood University; Loughborough University; Maynooth University; McMaster University; Monash University; Radford University; Regent’s University London; Sheffield University; South African university libraries; Stellenbosch University; Texas A&M University; Touro College; University of Cape Town; University of Exeter; University of Gloucestershire; University of Huddersfield; University of Liverpool; University of St Andrews; University of Virginia; University of Wales College of Medicine; University of Washington; University of Wollongong; University of York;Victoria University University of Cape Town (UCT), 168, 171–174 University of Exeter, 97 University of Gloucestershire, 12 University of Huddersfield, 186 University of Liverpool, 97 University of St Andrews, 13–14 University of Virginia, 260 University of Wales College of Medicine (UWCM), 61–62, 70 University of Washington Libraries (UW Libraries), 260 Office of Assessment and Planning, 196 user surveys at, 195–208, 284 background of, 195–196 In-Library Use Survey, 196, 202–203, 203t, 204f, 205f local survey development, 197 multiple assessment methods, 204–206 strengths and weaknesses of, 196–197 Triennial Survey, 196–203, 199t, 200f, 201f, 202f user-centred design, 204–206 University of Wollongong Library (UWL), 267–273 learning analytics, 271–272 Marketing Cube, 267, 269–271 privacy of information, 269 Value Cube, 267–269 University of York LibQUAL+ surveys, 214–215 University publishing, 138, 150, 153, 170–171 UR@UCT: undergraduate research journal, 171 User See also Customer User-centred design, 204–206 User groups, 22, 83, 87 User involvement See Codesign User surveys, 12, 18–21, 64, 67–68, 101–105, 118–119, 128–129, 183, 249–251, 255, 282, 297–298fr BiQual, 184 Insync survey, 95, 184, 188, 279 longitudinal study of at Victoria University, 221–228 International Student Barometer, 95, 99, 103, 158 LibQUAL+ survey, 25, 46, 95, 102, 158– 159, 161, 183–184, 187, 227, 238, 241, 244, 282–283, 285, 298fr case study, 209–220 National Student Survey (NSS), 12, 21, 34–35, 94–95, 124, 128–129, 158, 161, 212–215, 219, 241–242, 244, 251, 253, 282, 292fr Sheffield University, 101–110 Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, 21, 25 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, 21, 25 Student Barometer, 95, 99, 103 Index Survey fatigue, 102, 197, 212 Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey, 108 University of Washington Libraries, 195–208, 284 background of, 195–196 In-Library Use Survey, 196, 202–203, 203t, 204f, 205f local survey development, 197 multiple assessment methods, 204–206 strengths and weaknesses of, 196–197 Triennial Survey, 196–203, 199t, 200f, 201f, 202f user-centred design, 204–206 V Validation See Programmes and courses Value, library services, 19, 147–149, 185–187, 192, 229–230, 267–273, 299–300fr See also Impact; Outcomes; Return on investment 313 Value Cube, 267–269 Value of Academic Libraries Initiative (ACRL), 186 Value Wales, 65–66, 73 Variable dynamic loan (VDL), 107 Victoria University Library Insync surveys, longitudinal study of, 221–228 benchmarking, 227 developments of, 224–227 early years, 222–223 future of, 227–228 later years, 223–224 limitations of, 224–227 Virtual learning environment (VLE), 30, 39–40, 78–79, 83–85, 87–88, 106, 126 Virtual support, 96, 281 W Web analytics, 182 Websites, 39–40 ... provided by the library The purpose of these meetings is to triangulate the views of those 24 Quality and the Academic Library who meet the review team with the evidence base At the very least... when the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) came to Quality and the Academic Library Copyright © 2016 Jeremy Atkinson Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved Quality and the Academic Library. .. Quality and the Academic Library academics as appropriate judges of quality and standards (Hannan & Silver, 2006, p 57) REVIEWING HIGHER EDUCATION QAA reviews in England, Wales and Northern Ireland