![\"hillary-wins\"](\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/assessment\/files\/2016\/11\/hillary-wins.png\")
<\/a>New York Times. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2016\/upshot\/presidential-polls-forecast.html<\/p><\/div>\n
As an assessment librarian who counts on numbers to tell a story, I could not help but take this “failure” to heart. In our talk of data-driven decision making – what are we missing? Are we not asking the right questions? Or do our lenses (rose-colored glasses?) prevent us from seeing the whole picture?<\/p>\n
I touched on this topic at the recent Charleston conference, where I participated in the panel Rolling the Dice and Playing with Numbers: Statistical Realities and Responses.<\/a><\/p>\n I discussed balancing the collection of standard library data elements over time, in order to discern trends, with the changing nature of metrics required to provide a meaningful reflection of the 21st century library\u2019s activities and resources.<\/p>\n Last year, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL, ALA) formed a joint advisory task force to suggest changes to the current definitions and instructions accompanying the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Academic Libraries (AL) Component.<\/p>\n For example, the IPEDS instructions for counting e-books originally said to \u201cCount e-books in terms of the number of simultaneous users\u201d – a problem if we have a license with no access restrictions. Another example is IPEDS\u2019 request that libraries NOT include open access resources, including those available \u00a0through the library\u2019s discovery system. Not only can this be a difficult number to collect, but counting only the resources “we pay for” goes against the library’s value of making available quality, open access resources to its community.<\/p>\n A continuing discussion on library liservs is related to whether our traditional metrics were \u201cmeaningful\u201d. The question was prompted by the publisher of Peterson\u2019s College Guides requesting we report a count of a library\u2019s microforms. We must ask ourselves, \u201cWhat sort of high school student selects a school based on the library\u2019s collection of microfiche?\u201d<\/p>\n Increasingly, I am frustrated by the “thin-ness” of our metrics, the data that we use to measure ourselves and our success. Not just that it doesn’t tell a robust story. But it also seems to pigeon-hole us with an out-dated notion of what the library does and the service it provides.<\/p>\n Usage metrics are proxies, but are not measures of success. We need to dig deeper. Our instruction statistics demonstrate growth in sessions and students served. Yes, we reach out to faculty and we may be asked back into the classroom.\u00a0 But are we able to demonstrate real learning? How are we demonstrating effectiveness? For instance, we might be more deliberate and systematic in collecting data related to our partnerships with teaching faculty –\u00a0 developing better course assignments; end of year feedback loops on student learning.\u00a0 These are harder, a little fuzzier, but arguably more important, measures of our library work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent election demonstrated in a powerful way the limits of data, in this case a multitude of polling numbers, towards understanding, or planning, for our\u00a0 future. As an assessment librarian who counts on numbers to tell a story, I … Continue reading