Evidence Summary


 


Academic Libraries Report Minimal Standardization and
Oversight of LibGuide Content


 


A Review of:


Logan, J., & Spence, M. (2021). Content strategy
in LibGuides: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
47(1), Article 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102282 


  


Reviewed by:


Sarah Bartlett Schroeder


Research & Instruction Librarian


University of Washington Bothell/Cascadia College
Campus Library


Bothell, Washington, United States of America


Email: sarahkb6@uw.edu


 


Received: 30 Mar. 2021                                                                 Accepted:  24 May 2021


 


 


 2021 Bartlett
Schroeder. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.




 


 


DOI: 10.18438/eblip29955


 





 


Abstract


 


Objective – To
determine what strategies academic libraries use to govern creation and
maintenance of their LibGuides.


 


Design – Online survey questionnaire.


 


Setting – A
selection of academic libraries that use Springshare’s LibGuide system, mainly
in the United States and Canada.


 


Subjects – Academic libraries with administrator level access to LibGuides at 120
large and small, private and public schools.


 


Methods –
Researchers made their online questionnaire available on a Springshare lounge
and recruited participants through electronic mailing lists. Respondents were
self-selected participants. The survey consisted of 35 questions, including
several about their institution’s size and type, the number of LibGuides
available through their library, and how their guides are created and reviewed.
There was space available for comments. The survey stated that the researchers’
goal is to complete an “environmental scan of content strategies” in LibGuides
at academic institutions.  


 


Main Results – Of the 120 responding institutions,
88% are located in either the United States or Canada and 53% reported that
they do have content guidelines for LibGuide authors. Content guidelines might
include parameters for topics, target audiences, or purpose. Parameters for
structural elements, including page design, content reuse policies, naming
conventions, and navigation, were most commonly represented at those
institutions that reported having guidelines. Seventy-seven percent of
respondents reported that their LibGuides do not go through a formal review
process prior to publication. 


 


Regarding
LibGuide maintenance, 58% reported that LibGuides are reviewed as needed, while
27% indicated a more systematic approach. In most cases, the LibGuide reviewer
is the author, though sometimes a LibGuide administrator may take on a review
role. The most common considerations for LibGuide review are currency,
accuracy, usage, and consistency. Of the responding institutions, 74% reported
that they do not conduct any user testing of their guides. 


 


Two
of the biggest barriers to introducing and maintaining LibGuide guidelines
identified in the survey were lack of time and a sense of librarian ownership
over content and workflow. The strong culture of academic freedom may make some
librarians resistant to following institutional guidelines. Survey respondents
noted that, where content guidelines are present, they tend to address “low
hanging fruit” issues, such as page design and naming conventions, rather than
more complex issues around tone and messaging. 


 


Conclusion –
Content creators tend to have many competing priorities, so a workflow and
guideline system might help librarians spend less time on their guides. Despite
a large amount of research on LibGuide best practices regarding content
strategy, few institutions seem to be taking systematic steps to implement
them. Further research examining the experiences of LibGuide authors and
administrators and on the effectiveness of content strategy practices is
necessary. 


 


Commentary


 


As
noted in the Introduction to this study, much of the previous research on
LibGuide content management has focused on best practices. Some researchers
have explored content management at the institutional level. Notably, McDonald
and Burkhardt (2021) summarized findings from a survey of content managers at
academic libraries and found that “web content strategy as a community of practice
in academic libraries is operating at, or just above, a basic level” (p.15).
This is similar to Logan and Spence’s findings. A previous article by McDonald
& Burkhardt (2019) explored the relevance of cohesive content strategy
given the proliferation of LibGuide content at large institutions. 


 


This
review used a tool from the Center for Evidence-Based Management (n.d.) to evaluate the survey’s design quality. This
survey included clear research questions regarding how academic libraries
govern their LibGuides and what strategies they use and successfully gathered
information on the prevalence of LibGuide guidelines at academic institutions. 


 


Survey
participants were self-selected based on their participation in online forums
and electronic mailing lists and their willingness to take the survey, a
shortcoming acknowledged by the researchers several times. However, data
concerning the location, size, and degree-type of responding institutions was
collected and reported, and the survey instrument was included as an article
appendix. Responses to a number of questions included in
the survey, such as those addressing LibGuide workflow, could have potentially
added depth to the article discussion, but were not reported in the results.


 


This
study provides few recommendations for organizations seeking to improve
LibGuide cohesion, as though it is not yet known how content guidelines
influence the quality of guides. Nonetheless, organizations may be able to
review and compare their own internal LibGuide practices in relation to the
data presented, considering their content strategies from a different
perspective.


 


References


 


Center for
Evidence-Based Management. (n.d). Critical
appraisal of a survey. https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Appraisal-Questions-for-a-Survey.pdf


 


McDonald,
C., & Burkhardt, H. (2019). Library-authored web content and the need for
content strategy. Information Technology & Libraries, 38(3),
8–21. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i3.11015 


 


McDonald,
C., & Burkhardt, H. (2021). Web content strategy in practice within
academic libraries. Information Technology & Libraries, 40(1),
1–46. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i1.12453