ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries May 1 9 9 5 /3 3 5 The Way I See It Focusing lib ra ry vision on educational outcomes By Richard Meyer The g o a ls o f th e in s titu tio n a re in teg ra l to th e lib r a r y ’s m issio n E ffective leadership to improve library qual­ity requires a vision based on understand­ ing the real and meaningful educational out­ comes o f your institution. Experience suggests that library leadership sometimes fails because it doesn’t know where it’s going, perhaps be­ cause the university has not been clear on its agenda or has not communicated it. Probably most readers have heard the familiar leader­ ship analogy based on the railroads. In the 19th century the railroads were perhaps the domi­ nant force in corporate life. However, by the middle of this century their importance faded, and in the last 40 years the railroads declined into obscurity. This may have occurred because railroads misunderstood what it was they were doing; they thought they were in the railroad business rather than the transportation business. A broader vision could have helped by allow­ ing them to shift into other forms o f transport: trucking and airfreight. There was no reason not to do that except that they were unable or unwilling to do anything but run trains on tracks. The important point here is that leaders re­ quire a clear understanding o f what it is they are doing. O ne o f the first things taught in management courses relates to the nature of organizations. Those organizations that lose sight o f their mission or succeed in completing their mission cease to exist or are threatened by extinction. Once polio was conquered, the March o f Dimes had to shift its mission in or­ der to justify its existence. Libraries flounder and sometimes fail to do well because they are not sensitive to this issue. A lot o f academic libraries operate on a vague mission to acquire, process, and make available books, media, and journals needed by the faculty and students. That sounds a little bit like a railroader’s agenda. Recognizing this trap and that libraries are in the education business— not the book collect­ ing business— has important implications, par­ ticularly in a world of quickly expanding elec­ tronic resources. Setting a vision derived from tracking down and articulating the educational outcomes o f the specific institution will improve the success and robustness o f a library. There­ fore, it is important to determine the primary product o f an institution and to rearticulate that information into a library vision. Outcomes m ay v a ry The educational outcomes o f colleges and uni­ versities vary and not all o f them fall under the heading o f education. In addition to teaching and research— or scholarship— most institutions offer a mix of additional products. Some con­ centrate on one outcome more than others, and some produce outcomes that they might rather forget but need in order to attract students to their truly educational products. Educational statistics indicate that colleges and universities provide: entertainment, babysitting, job admis­ sion tickets, research, job skills, expanded ho­ rizons, cognitive development, personal growth, knowledge enhancement, and skills important to graduate school success. Some might criti­ cize this list, but not after considering the real purpose o f Division I football and asking why some parents send their children to church- sponsored colleges or why graduates o f North­ western get jobs on Wall Street easier than graduates o f less prestigious schools. Certainly some segments o f society seem to have a richer understanding o f humanity and cultural issues and some people succeed in graduate school better than others. These variations reflect the R ichard Meyer is d irector o f the library a t Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas e-m ail: richard_m eyer@library.trinity.edu ; mailto:richard_meyer@library.trinity.edu 3 3 6 /C&RL News concentration o f educational outcomes at given institutions. Understanding educational outcomes The issue o f concern is to figure out what prod­ uct or products our own school offers and then use that knowledge to help determine a vision for the library. Only by knowing the true edu­ cational outcomes o f an institution can the li­ brary be effectively directed. To lead means to tend toward a goal or result; that is, librarians need to know what it is that their institution is doing in order to properly establish a reason­ able direction for the library. Two broad ex­ amples help to illustrate how a clear under­ standing o f educational outcomes may enhance library success. E x a m p le 1. Consider a land-grant institu tion compared to a liberal arts college. In each case, understanding o f educational outcomes plays a major part in determining a vision for the library. Land-grant universities tend to have large enrollments, they receive public funds, and they tend to provide major educational out­ com es such as job skills, en tertain ­ The issue is to f ment, knowledge, product our sc and research. On th e o th er hand, use that know l lib e ra l arts c o l­ mine a vision f leges have smaller enrollments and higher quality faculty/student interaction. Their alumni tend more toward graduate school and their graduates exhibit more fully broadened horizons. In the case o f many land-grant institutions, the general mission is to serve the state with the intention o f educating citizens in agricul­ ture, engineering, and practical arts to stimu­ late econom ic recovery. They help to produce citizens with skills appropriate to the economic success o f the state and to improve the quality o f life for citizens through education which provides job skills. Many focus on producing bachelor’s- and master’s-level graduates with skills that will allow them to take their place in the world o f work. This kind o f educational outcom e could easily lead to a library vision statement that says “[. . .] University will be a national leader in providing access to information and in educat­ ing individuals for effective lifelong learning.” An emphasis put on “providing access to infor­ mation” might lead naturally to augmenting the OP AC with locally mounted indexes. This em­ phasis gives students improved access to both the cataloged material in the library as well as to the journal literature. At schools with locally mounted indexes, improved access to informa­ tion has positively impacted the quality o f stu­ dent papers and, as a result, improved the qual­ ity o f the campus and the job skills of graduates. Recognizing the major educational outcome of the campus and developing a vision to support that outcome can lead to both a better directed library and improvement in campus quality. E x a m p le 2 . A different approach is appro­ priate at a private liberal arts college where educational outcomes are quite different than the land-grant school. For example, statistics at one liberal arts college revealed that alumni were completing Ph.D.s, law degrees, and medi­ cal degrees at the combined rate o f 58 percent within five years. This means that students have been choosing the school with longer-range objectives in mind than consuming entertain­ ment or gaining job skills at the bachelor’s level. In so many words, the unexpressed vision of this liberal arts college appears to b e to edu­ cate young people igure out w h a t fo r s u c c e s s in ool offers and graduate and pro­ fessional schools. dge to deter­ The importance of r the library. recognizin g this statistic to the suc­ cess o f the campus cannot be overemphasized. The major characteristic that parents and their offspring seek in assessing quality o f institu­ tions is high admission rates o f graduates to top graduate or professional schools.1 In this case, the statistics can be translated almost directly into the vision o f the institu­ tion. Administrators give every evidence of basing decisions o f where to place the alloca­ tion o f resources on cost/benefit analyses that focus on recruitment o f students as the num­ ber one concern. The character of the institu­ tion is shaped by a leadership vision which assertively articulates to recruits that alumni suc­ ceed in graduate school because the institution provides the appropriate education to assure that success. Given this institutional focus, it is easy to see what the library vision ought to be. There are two variables that the library can impact: one is the level o f its resources and the other is the success o f students in graduate school. The administration o f the library cannot determine the amount o f budget allocated to the library, h e o May 1 9 9 5 /3 3 7 but can influence it. Moreover, focusing on suc­ cess in graduate school leads to an appropriate vision easily compressed into a simple state­ ment: “Distinctive quality in resources and ser­ vices to empower students for advanced learn­ ing.” Obviously, this vision would have its major impact on the bibliographic instruction program. Focusing on making sure that students gradu­ ate with the best possible bibliographic skills they can acquire can improve both the overall success of the library and the college in this example. An ability to utilize information re­ sources effectively is essential to success in graduate school. It should be fairly easy to see from this that clear vision, competently ex­ pressed, lends focus to library operations, im­ proves success rates, and plays an important role in determining quality. Note 1. Larry H. Litten and Alfred E Hall, “In the Eyes o f Our Beholders,” Jo u r n a l o f H ig h er E du ­ ca tio n 60 (May/June 1989): 302-24. (Foundations cont. fr o m p a g e 3 3 1) Notes 1. Paul Coleman, and Ada D. Jarred, “Re­ gional Association Criteria and the Standards for College Libraries: The Informal Role of Quantitative Input Measures for Libraries in Accreditation,” Jo u r n a l o f A ca d em ic L ib ra ria n sh ip 20 (November 1994): 273–84. 2. Vemer W. Clapp, and Robert T. Jordan, “Quantitative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic Library Collections,” C ollege & R esearch L ib ra r­ ies 26 (September 1965): 371-80. 3. David Kaser, “Standards for College Librar­ ies,” L ib rary T ren ds 31 (Summer 1983): 7—19. 4. Michael Matier, and C. Clinton Sidle, “What Size Libraries for 2010?” P la n n in g f o r H igh er E d u catio n 21 (Summer 1993): 9– 15. 5. Ray L. Carpenter, “College Libraries: A Comparative Analysis in Terms of the ACRL Standards,” C ollege a n d R esearch L ib raries 42 (January 1981): 7– 18. 6. David B. Walch, “The 1986 College Library Standards: Application and Utilization,” C ollege & R esearch L ib ra ries 54 (May 1993): 217– 26. References Brown, Helen M. “College Library Standards” L ib rary T ren ds 21 (October 1972): 204-218. “Standards for College Libraries, 1995 edition.” C&RL News 56 (April 1995): 245– 57.