Wilfrid Laurier University Library External Review 2011 ... · Wilfrid Laurier University Library External Review 2011 1 Introduction At the beginning of its second century, Laurier

Wilfrid Laurier University Library External

Review 2011

Report of the Review Committee

June 2011

Mary Ann Mavrinac

Chief Librarian

University of Toronto, Mississauga

Marnie Swanson

University Librarian

University of Victoria

Colleen Willard-Holt

Dean, Faculty of Education

Wilfrid Laurier University

Wilfrid Laurier University Library External Review 2011

1

Introduction

At the beginning of its second century, Laurier is poised at the brink of reinventing itself, and the Library has an opportunity to transform itself and lead the University in catalyzing student learning and engagement, in an environment of unprecedented access to information. The Vice President: Academic and Provost commissioned a review of the Library, to address the following goals:

Review the workflow processes within the current departmental areas; Review the liaison librarian program; Review the suite of services that the library offers; and Review the governance and organizational structure.

This review coincides with the conclusion of the Library’s 2008-11 Strategic Plan, the impending change in Library leadership, the commencement of a new Academic Plan for the University, and a new Campus Master Plan. Recommendations from the 2004 External Appraisal of the Library informed the writing of the current review.

This review was conducted by two external consultants with extensive experience related to University Libraries—Marnie Swanson of the University of Victoria and Mary Ann Mavrinac of the University of Toronto-Mississauga—along with Colleen Willard-Holt, Dean of the Faculty of Education at Laurier. Materials considered by the reviewers included a comprehensive self-study prepared by the Library and the Library website. Interviews were conducted with numerous individuals across the University community, who have an interest in the Library (see Appendix).

Progress Since Last Review

The reviewers noted that substantial progress has been made since the 2004 External Appraisal of the Library. The staff can be commended for several initiatives undertaken as a result of recommendations made in 2004. These include:

increased collaborations with other campus professionals; increased communications and marketing of library services; several organizational changes including amalgamation of some

departments and streamlining of workflows; and physical changes to the Laurier campus library which have improved the

visibility and delivery of services.


2

Unfortunately some recommendations made in 2004 have not been acted upon. Most notably:

a more formalized program of information literacy teaching; a substantial increase to the library’s acquisitions budget; and a reduction in the number of direct reports to the University Librarian.

The Reviewers believe these recommendations are still valid and consequently are recommended once again in the Findings of the Current Review section below.

The 21st Century Academic Library

The Vice President Academic has asked the Library to create “the library of the 21st century”. In order to put this phrase in context, this section of the report is a brief review of what, at this point in time, an academic library should consider when developing services and resources to deal effectively with the increasing scope and pace of change in both the information environment and higher education. The role and functions of the academic library are rapidly evolving but its primary mission and values remain unchanged: to support and facilitate learning and research through the provision of timely and accurate information and the provision of an environment conducive to independent learning and inquiry. To continue to deliver on this mission and values in the 21st century, there are several trends that academic libraries are acting upon to keep up with users’ changing behaviours and expectations. They include:

Integration of library facilities and services with teaching, learning and research initiatives across campus;

Re-purposing of Library space to accommodate a variety of services to support student success;

Creation of rich digital environments including better resource discovery and the use of social media to deliver services;

Expansion of online learning environments that includes delivery to an increasingly distributed academic community;

Increased emphasis on digitization and provision of online access to unique special collections and archives held by the library;

Provision of services to support the institution’s research data; Enhanced measures of accountability and library contributions to the

teaching, research and learning mandates of the university; and More and broader collaboration among academic libraries.


3

Findings of the Current Review

Observations and recommendations arose within seven broad areas of consideration. These will be explicated below.

1. Community Perceptions

Data from surveys (LIBQUAL, MINES, flipchart) indicate that printed materials, journal collections, and electronic resources are top concerns of faculty and graduate students; undergraduate students were more concerned with quiet study space and a place for inspiring study and learning. Comments revealed space as a primary issue, with requests for tables, couches, group study rooms, and cubicles. Another top area of concern was improved access to wireless. There is widespread desire for more resources without relying to such a great extent on Interlibrary Loan.

Interviews of faculty and staff external to the library reveal distinct differences by location. Waterloo and Social Work data will be reported together, followed by data from Brantford appearing in Section 7. There is a general feeling that the library has done a great deal considering its current constraints, and widespread sentiment that the library needs updating and could play a significant role in transforming the campuses. Indeed, a Learning Commons is prominent in the campus master plan and is anxiously anticipated by the University community. Faculty and staff at both Waterloo and Kitchener noted the willingness of librarians and staff to be involved in the campus community, their helpfulness in the Library, and the usefulness of instructional sessions in courses by liaison librarians. Librarians are well respected across the University community, and TUG is recognized as a fabulous resource. Different sectors of the University had comments specific to their constituencies:

Students are very supportive of the Library, and eager to contribute to the Library from the Student Life Levy.

Deans are positive toward the Library and report few complaints about the library from faculty, but feel it is under-resourced.

The Faculty of Social Work is very appreciative of having their own library space.

Learning Services and Instructional Support Services reported some overlap with the functions they serve. They would like to partner more and not duplicate services. They have been impressed by what knowledge and skills librarians can bring to the table.

While not without some negatives, the general tenor of the comments made by members of the University community about the Waterloo and Social Work libraries was positive; the concerns at Brantford are more serious and pervasive as noted in Section 7 of this report.


4

2. Organization and Governance

2.1 Organizational Structure

The reviewers observed there is a need to move from a functional, traditionally-based organizational structure to one that is more flexible, reflecting a 21st century library service model. Currently there is a combination of gridlock and empowerment in the library. The University Librarian (UL) has 22 direct reports where the (relatively) newly created Associate University Librarians (AULs) have no direct reports or organizational authority. This makes it impossible for the UL to adequately meet with, mentor and coach those reporting to her; moreover, this affects her ability to meet the demands of her role in campus and external relationships and activities, fund raising, and advocacy. We believe these issues could make it difficult to attract an outstanding candidate for the UL position when this search begins in the upcoming academic year. In the current organizational structure Librarians are “equal.” In order to move initiatives along, one has to appeal to the good will of a colleague. The Library’s support staff is eager to learn, develop and contribute to changing library services; however, the current model and practice results in librarian involvement in most operational matters. This frustrates librarians and support staff. With many individual and group agendas, this structure cannot meet the needs of a complex, fast-paced environment. There is a strong belief that the library is reactive and losing ground to other, more nimble, service providers at Laurier.

Recommendation 1: Re-negotiate the collective agreement to allow librarians to report to AUL positions in order to decrease the number of direct reports to the University Librarian and to provide AULs with positional authority. Recommendation 2: Consider establishing a third AUL position and clearly articulate all AUL roles and responsibilities with each overseeing a segment of the teaching, research and learning, technical services, collections and information technology portfolios.

2.2 Roles

Closely related to the organizational structure are the roles which employees embody to achieve the mission and priorities of the library. We heard a mixture of opinions with some believing that librarian roles were too “traditional” and “functional”, where others advocated for more investment in traditional library services. There was consensus on the need for a shared vision for the liaison librarian model, which should be envisioned when a new, more fluid, organizational structure is developed.


5

The liaison librarian model must be in alignment with 21st century library services as described by Karla Hahn.1 The reviewers also observed there is an opportunity to use student employees more strategically and creatively. Students are only allowed to provide library services after 5:00 pm and on weekends, requiring support staff to staff service points during daytime hours. With diminishing support staff numbers and librarian involvement and oversight for operational functions this results in a lost opportunity to train and develop support staff to assume greater roles and responsibilities for library operations.

Recommendation 3: Develop a new organizational structure which includes new or enhanced librarian functions; e.g., assessment, undergraduate and graduate experience, emerging technologies, scholarly communications, instructional technology, information literacy, online learning, outreach, digital research, data/GIS, embedded librarians, etc. Recommendation 4: Give support staff more responsibility and accountability for basic operational work. Recommendation 5: Begin discussions with the appropriate Union to find ways to allow students to work in a wider variety of basic library functions such as circulation assistance during the day and assistance with information technology at the public computers; the latter is potentially critical with the departure from the Library of the IT Help Desk.

2.3 Culture

The reviewers observed a dedicated staff across staffing groups who aspire to provide a high level of library service and be partners in the teaching, learning and research mission of the university. However, staff is frustrated, and as such, the organizational culture was variously described as “embittered,” “powerless” and having “too many rudders,” with three segregated groups: department heads, librarians and support staff. There was a contradictory message being sent: one that championed autonomy and the value of pursuing one’s individual interests and another that

1 Useful references for this discussion: Karla Hahn. “Introduction: Positioning Liaison Librarians for the 21st Century.” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 265 (August 2009): 1–2. http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/ rli/archive/rli265.shtml. Karen Williams. “A Framework for Articulating New Library Roles.” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, no. 265 (August 2009): 3–8. http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/rli/archive/rli265.shtml.ST

http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/


6

yearned for greater team work, shared priorities, cross-departmental project work and communication. The organizational cultural issues cannot be adequately addressed without changes to the organizational structure and roles. It is imperative that collective agreement issues are addressed immediately to ensure these are in place before the new UL is hired.

Recommendation 6: Establish that one priority mandate for the new UL is to lead an organizational renewal process.

2.4 Staff Training

Staff communicated a hunger for staff training. In conjunction with the development of a strategic plan, the learning needs of the organization could be reviewed and determined. Strategically incorporating learning as a central asset in organizational life could be a great stimulus in effecting positive change towards a 21st century library service model.

Recommendation 7: That an audit of current library learning be undertaken along with a survey of staff learning needs to help determine a sustainable structure for ongoing learning including the development of a learning plan.

2.5 Planning and Accountability

The reviewers noticed an absence of regular organizational planning. There is a current strategic plan for the library; however, staff members communicated they felt disconnected from this plan. There is an opportunity to develop a new strategic plan under the incoming UL that can have a dual purpose in developing a shared vision and buy-in from all staff, and in turn, advancing a new organizational structure and roles to meet the needs of a 21st century library. There is an urgent need to develop organizational processes and accountability measures such as annual library goals and objectives, individual librarian and departmental goals and objectives and the development of project management skills.

Recommendation 8: Embark upon an engaging and consultative process towards the development of a shared vision and a new Laurier Libraries strategic plan under the leadership of the new UL. Out of this, a new organizational structure and roles will be articulated. Recommendation 9: Develop library, individual and departmental annual goals and objectives that align with the Library’s strategic plan and are an expectation of all librarians and units.


7

Recommendation 10: Adopt, as soon as possible, a project management approach to project work, with training in project management processes offered to all librarians, managers and selected support staff.

2.6 Committees

The reviewers observed there were a large number of committees in the library with many people participating on several committees. We learned that any librarian can create a committee, should he/she be interested in doing so. We believe that the “committee issue” is related to organizational structure and culture issues as the primary intent in creating a committee is to get something done. We believe it is important to review the committee structure and introduce accountabilities and guidelines for the establishment of library committees and membership. This could reduce duplication, free up time and include support staff in leadership roles.

Recommendation 11: In tandem with the creation of a new organizational structure and roles, the AULs should lead a review of the Laurier Library committee structure to rationalize and reduce the number of committees, and to introduce accountabilities and guidelines for library committees and membership.

3. Budget

Information provided to the Reviewers indicated a dramatic drop in the percentage of the University’s budget allocated to the library: 5.10% in 2009/10 to 2% in 2010/11. The acquisitions budget has remained at the same level for the past three years but it was decreased by almost $150,000 in 2008/09. Since then, there has been an increasing dependence on soft monies to maintain staffing levels and to pay for print and electronic resources as well as the equipment required to access those resources.

While we acknowledge that Canadian universities are struggling to operate in a difficult fiscal environment, no increase or cuts to the library’s budget places the library in an extremely difficult position. This is especially true for the acquisitions budget as there is an expectation in the campus community that all major sources of scholarly information will be conveniently and readily accessible. Laurier Library staff has tried to fulfill this expectation through prudent and collaborative negotiating and the strategic allocation of limited financial resources. Like many other academic libraries, Laurier is participating in and benefiting from regional and national consortial purchasing initiatives which increase the convenient and economical access to the ever growing body of needed scholarly resources. However, without an annual increase to the


8

Library’s budget, staff will be forced to either cancel journal subscriptions or significantly reduce the number of books purchased. Cancelling journal subscriptions in today’s environment is very difficult to do because of the type of purchasing libraries engage in (i.e. bulk licensing and bulk ordering in order to achieve substantial savings). Cancellations, if required will come in the form of thousands of titles at a time and be felt deeply by faculty and students. 2

Recommendation 12: At a minimum, retain the existing base budget for acquisitions and eliminate as much as possible the need for soft monies to maintain the current base of information resources.

Recommendation 13: Determine the Library’s budget in future years not by historical allocations but by allocations that take into consideration the variety and depth of resources to be made available and maintained, to support research and to remain competitive with comparator institutions.

4. Reference and Instruction Services

As highlighted in the self-study document and noted by several staff members, there are a variety of opinions on the future directions of reference and instruction services. At the Waterloo campus, reference services are mainly delivered through a traditional model of providing service from one desk in the library. As is happening on many campuses, the number of questions being asked at the Reference Desk is declining while chat reference services are increasing. Students are increasingly looking for self help solutions through online services and/or at point of need. As a result, many academic libraries are exploring alternative ways of providing reference services, e.g. roving reference both in and out of the library, online tutorials, combining reference and circulation service desks, and/or a triage process of reference and research consultations. Each campus is unique and Laurier has to figure out which services will work best for its different constituencies.

The 2004 External Appraisal of the Library recommended “a more formalized program of information literacy teaching than currently exists”. We did not see any evidence that this recommendation has been acted upon and it appears that instruction is handled in an ad hoc manner and not coordinated by any one individual. In the meetings with librarians we heard of a few successful teaching initiatives and we heard from faculty that these efforts were highly valued. Many academic libraries have assigned responsibility for teaching and learning to a

2 Since the site visit, we learned that the Library received $155,000 from the Strategic Investment Fund for Library collections sustainability. We commend the Laurier senior administration for making this allocation as we understand that the addition of this money to base will provide some stability to the collections budget to meet inflationary increases over the next few years.


9

librarian who coordinates the library’s efforts to find ways to integrate information literacy into the curriculum and into course management systems. A Teaching and Learning Librarian should also be able to assist librarians in developing their teaching skills and to coordinate the development of a program.

The Instructional Technology Librarian has developed some highly innovative video tutorials and other instruction related web services. Her work, however appears to be done in isolation and is not coordinated with the liaison librarians’ teaching responsibilities. Ideally all liaison librarians should be working closely with the Instructional Technology Librarian to develop web services for their respective departments.

We noted with regret that Learning Services has recently moved out of the Library. This is unfortunate as it’s a lost opportunity to build a learning commons devoted to student success in the library. Development of Learning Commons in academic libraries has proven to be very successful especially in providing students with “one-stop shopping” access to services critical to their success. We heard of ambitious and exciting plans for a new Waterloo Learning Commons which would integrate all the library’s functions and services but which will likely take several years to come to fruition.

Recommendation 14: Review reference service and consider alternative methods for the provision of this service.

Recommendation 15: Create a Teaching and Learning Librarian position or assign that responsibility to a librarian already on staff.

Recommendation 16: Assign the Instructional Technology Librarian to an “instruction team” led by the Teaching and Learning Librarian.

Recommendation 17: Continue to collaborate with Learning Services and explore ways to integrate research and instruction services with their service offerings.

5. Information and Systems Technology

Information and systems technology is a critical function within any 21st century university library and it continues to grow in importance as more and more information is conveyed and used in digital form. During the site visit we heard that Laurier Library’s IST unit functions well but there was concern it was understaffed. Much of the concern related to the “loss” of two positions to a new centralized model within ITS. Given the library’s dependence on technology, it will be important to negotiate a service level agreement with ITS which outlines what services the library can expect and acceptable time lines for delivery of the services. If the new model is successful, it could result in IST staff being freed up


10

to devote more time to the maintenance of library specific software and the development of new innovative services.

Collaborations with TUG and OCUL have proven to be very successful and they have allowed Laurier to participate in and benefit from the efficiencies and cost savings of collaborative IT projects. During the site visit, concern was expressed about Laurier’s role in some of the collaborative IT projects and a suggestion that because Laurier is the smallest library in the collaboration, they don’t have sufficient leverage in their relations with the other partners.

Recommendation 18: Negotiate a Service Level Agreement with ITS as soon as possible.

Recommendation 19: Continue to collaborate with TUG and OCUL and explore strategies to strengthen the TUG IT collaborations.

6. Archives and Special Collections

The Laurier Library has some very valuable archival and special collections material especially in the areas of natural resources and the environment and Lutheranism in Canada. As noted above in the 21st century library section, there is an increased emphasis on digitization and provision of online access to unique special collections and archives held by university libraries. Given the relatively small staffing complement, we were surprised and pleased to discover a digitization program that includes over 5,000 images online. Making the library’s unique resources available online will increase their visibility and discoverability for research and teaching which could help to mitigate the challenges of the current location which is not easily accessible or visible.

The Archives also house the historic records of the university but there isn’t a university-wide records management program. A records management program should be an important part of the Archives’ mandate but that is currently impossible with only 2.5 FTE. A records management program is extremely important for the university and it should be properly resourced and expanded for the sake of efficiency and to more effectively meet the requirements of privacy legislation.

Recommendation 20: Continue, and if possible, expand the special collections digitization program and consider moving the Archives public service functions to a more accessible and visible location.

Recommendation 21: Establish a records manager position within the Archives to develop and maintain a university-wide records management program.


11

7. Brantford Campus

There is sincere appreciation for the support that the 1.5 FTE librarians have been able to give to the students and faculty at the Brantford campus. The partnership with Brantford Public Library has been positive and has engendered much goodwill within the community. However, the need is acute for an academic library with space for library instruction and a learning commons, and sufficient print and electronic media to sustain the faculty and student population. Library resources must reflect the programs offered by the campus. Faculty noted that they have lowered the academic expectations for students because the resources to enable students to work at a higher level are not available. Interlibrary loan materials do not arrive in a timely manner and onsite print resources are scant. Faculty research productivity has also been compromised by the limited access to resources.

We concluded there is an urgent need to address issues about library services and space at the Brantford campus, particularly with an enrollment increase to 4,500 students within two years and to 15,000-25,000 in the long term. There is an opportunity to create a truly innovative, 21st century library at the Brantford campus.

Recommendations are presented as short-term and long-term remedies.

Short term remedies (within one year)

Recommendation 22: Create a Head or Campus Librarian position that reports to the Principal/Vice-President of the Brantford Campus. This librarian should lead a five-year strategic planning process towards the development of innovative services and spaces. Recommendation 23: Create two support staff positions to provide front-line research and reference assistance at the Brantford Public Library (BPL), sharing service desk space with BPL staff (on the 2nd floor) until a Learning Commons location is developed. In addition, convert the .5 contract librarian position to a 1.0 fulltime permanent position. Recommendation 24: Move the budget for the Laurier Library Brantford Campus services to this campus and provide the full amount required to adequately deliver library services at the Brantford campus. This should occur in conjunction with the creation of a Head or Campus Librarian position. Recommendation 25: Review collection delivery and Reserves processing between the Brantford, Waterloo and TUG locations with the goal of reducing turnaround delivery times to, ideally, two business days.


12

Recommendation 26: Facilitate a program for Library staff to work with managers and support staff from student services and residence housing to develop a peer-assisted service model to train students to provide point-of-need, peer-to-peer basic assistance and referral. Recommendation 27: Develop a collections policy for the Brantford campus that will guide collection building and weeding. Ideally this will be a primarily digital collection model with strategic development of a core print collection to serve the needs of faculty and students.3 Recommendation 28: Consider using meeting space in the Research and Academic Centre and other buildings for after-hours’ use for student collaborative study. Recommendation 29: Consider the use of the casual seating area on the main floor of the Research and Academic Centre for use as the Library’s Learning Commons, using a mobile service model for student technology support and research and reference support.

Long term remedies (within five years)

Recommendation 30: Create an independent learning commons and library for the Brantford campus that is designed in a scalable fashion to ultimately serve the needs of between 15,000 and 25,000 students. It is recommended that a bold, new and innovative model of library services be developed, one that accentuates outreach, embeddedness, mobility, and the online delivery of collections, services and resources buttressed by onsite modifiable teaching, learning and study spaces in a technology-rich environment.

3 A useful source is: Spiro, L. & G. Henry. (June 2010). “Can a new research library be all-digital?” in Council on Library and Information Resources. The idea of order: Transforming research collections for 21st century scholarship, pp. 5-80. Washington, DC, CLIR.


13

Conclusion While the Library certainly has some challenges ahead as previously noted, the strengths of the librarians and staff and the willingness of the University community to support and collaborate with the Library bode well for the transformation process. The consistency of the messages that we received from various constituencies indicates that there is considerable agreement on many of the issues the library is facing. There exists a widespread desire for a library to serve the needs of 21st century students and academics. We are hopeful that this review will provide a useful step in the process of attaining that goal.


14

Appendix: Persons Interviewed

Becker, Jean Blouw, Max Boyle, Deirdre Brown, Sharon Burgos, Blanca Butler, Jim Cadell, Susan Carroll, Michael Carruthers, Glen Carter, Kate Chaves, Debbie Cooper, Lesley Crerar, Adam Dewan, Pauline Donelson, Robert Dowding, Martin Fesnak, Vera Fitzgerald, Catherine Forsyth, Gail Fraser, Ross Genzinger, Peter Gold, Anna Gray, Sally Hamilton, Don Hendry, Julia Hicks, Jennifer Hogg, Kristin Hughes, Sandy Imort, Michael Jessop, Paul Jorgensen, Allen Kalimpalli, Madhu Kerr, Christina Kristofferson, Rob Kucharska, Elizbieta LeBlanc, Helene LeClair, Jamie

Lindschinger, Hildegard MacLatchy, Deborah Maly, Ken Matesic, Gina McGill, Janell McMaster, Lori McMurray, David Menary, Amy Metzger, Patti Moore, Dillon Noecker, Robert Norris, Joan Olender, Jenna Oud, Joanne Peltier, Nancy Peters, Diane Pfrimmer, David Pinkett, Maureen Preece, Cindy Reisenstein, Paul Robertson-Wilson, Jennifer Roth-Abbott, Gail Sagi, Helen Saraco, Joan Sennema, Greg Skelton, Mike Skelton, Brooke Stephenson, Carol Stewart, Catherine Tales, Matt Tedesco, Sarah Tencinger, Irene Thomas, Matthew Warrick, Gary Wills, Deborah Znotinas, Nora

Wilfrid Laurier University Library External Review 2011 ... · Wilfrid Laurier University Library External Review 2011 1 Introduction At the beginning of its second century, Laurier

Documents