Quality and the Academic Library: Reviewing, Assessing and Enhancing Service Provision

process.

Section I

Introduction

Outline

Chapter 1 Introduction

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 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 libraries, the changing nature and requirements of students and other users, the changes in scholarly communication, teaching and learning and the transformation in the roles of libraries and librarians.

 Taking a UK focus but including international perspectives. Although the editor and a number of the contributors are from the United Kingdom, the book also seeks to include an international dimension with contributions from the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Ireland and the coverage of the literature is international in scope.

I also thought it would be helpful if I asked contributors, particularly of the case studies, to adopt an approach of critical reflection, where appropriate. Much of the literature relating to quality and academic libraries very usefully describes and analyses developments in the field. Although this approach is also taken here, I felt it was timely to ask contributors to reflect on quality approaches, developments and projects and their implications, impact and significance. I hope this will help readers to gain a deeper understanding of quality as it affects the academic library and the benefits and constraints of different approaches and methods and to reflect on issues and events in their own library service.

The ideas of reflective practice and critical reflection have been used increasingly in recent years in a number of professional fields, including health and care sciences. The development and understanding of specialised knowledge are essential for professional practice, and using approaches of self-consciousness (reflection) and continual self-critique (critical reflection) have been found to be useful to the development of continuing competence (Williams, 2001). In contrast, reflection has had less attention in the management and leadership literature with managers often placing more emphasis on action and outcomes (Gray, 2007). The pace of change in organisations and the day-to-day demands of the workplace often leave little time for reflection.

The aims of critical reflection are for practitioners to: understand the nature and meaning of practice; correct and improve the practice through self-reflection and criticism; generate models of good practice and theories of application through reflection and critique of actual occurrences. Critical reflection has three phases: a descriptive phase, with descriptions of practice or events; a reflective phase, with reflective analysis of events or situations; and a critical phase, with a critique of practice (Kim, 1999).

I used this approach and, in particular, Borton’s Developmental Model (1970) of ‘What? So What? Now What?’ to develop a simple critical reflection framework for the contributors to this book to help them in the writing of the chapters and case studies. This framework is given below. Additional references on critical reflection are given in the Further Reading section at the end of the book.

References

1. Borton T. Reach, touch and teach: Student concerns and process education New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1970.

2. Gray DE. Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through reflective tools. Management Learning. 2007;38(5):495–517 Retrieved from <http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/7876/1/fulltext.pdf>.

3. Kim HS. Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999;29(5):1205–1212.

4. Williams B. Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem-based learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2001;34(1):27–34 Retrieved from <http://www.themedfomscu.org/media/elip/PBL45.pdf>.

¹The Working Group on Quality Assurance was a joint group of SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries) and UCISA (Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association).

Section II

Quality, Universities and Their Libraries

Outline

Chapter 2 Quality, Universities and Their Libraries

Chapter 3 The Institutional HE Quality Perspective

Chapter 4 Academic Libraries and Quality Reviews Within the United Kingdom

Chapter 5 Self and Peer Assessment at Maynooth University Library

Chapter 2

Quality, Universities and Their Libraries

An Overview

Jeremy Atkinson,    Jeremy Atkinson Consultancy, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

Abstract

The overview considers the implications for universities and their libraries of an increasing governmental focus on market approaches, performance and accountability. Universities have become more likely to apply business practices and techniques and implement systems and organisational structures to ensure that quality processes are applied consistently and feedback acted upon to deliver continuous improvement. Libraries have also adopted a range of quality approaches and methodologies and sought to link closely to corporate and academic processes.

Keywords

Universities; higher education; academic libraries; quality

During the last 20 years, with an increasing government focus on market approaches and university performance and accountability, universities in the United Kingdom have become more managerial in their approach with a greater emphasis on performance, efficiency and meeting customer needs. From the perspective of some academic staff, this has led to some tensions with the long standing philosophies of academic freedom and autonomy (Docherty, 2014). From the perspective of senior university managers, universities have needed to become more like businesses, with a requirement to apply business practices and techniques, including strategic planning, key performance indicators, quality management and service quality. Similar trends can also be seen in other countries (Anderson, 2008; Arimoto, 2010).

The competitive, performance related, business focused and market led nature of current UK higher education can be clearly seen in a number of trends and developments taking place within institutions:

 The almost continuous and complex academic quality assurance processes that have been applied, both internally (e.g. course approval, validation, annual monitoring, periodic review, external examiner systems) and externally (e.g. quality reviews, professional body accreditations). Failure in external assessments can be extremely significant for the status of the institution and its ability to run courses.

 The time and effort that goes into preparation for periodic research assessment exercises, such as the REF (Research Excellence Framework) in the United Kingdom. An inadequate performance can result in loss of institutional funding and reputation and potential closure of poor performing departments (Ratcliffe, 2014).

 The obsession with league tables and benchmarking (national and international), with the institution continually seeking to maintain, or preferably improve, position in order to enhance status and recruitment.

 The time and effort put into running and responding to surveys, both internally and nationally (e.g. National Student Survey in the United Kingdom) to seek to identify customer satisfaction, respond to customer needs and to maintain institutional status.

 The achievement of a Standard (e.g. Investors in People, Customer Service Excellence) which can develop university staff and service quality, but which can also have competitive advantages.

 The requirement to provide a range of institutional performance data for the Key Information Set¹ to help students make their choice where to study.

 The implementation of rigorous and time consuming strategic planning processes, seeking to gain competitive advantage and trying to ensure integration within the institution (‘everyone singing from the same hymn sheet’).

 A focus on value for money and the potential of shared services, such as purchasing consortia, to achieve efficiencies (Universities UK, 2015).

These developments have implications for structures and processes and have required universities to put in place rigorous systems to ensure that quality processes are applied consistently and comprehensively and that outcomes and feedback are acted upon to deliver continuous improvement. In the United Kingdom most universities have an organisational structure including a central academic or quality office to ensure that academic quality processes are implemented effectively, a central research office to coordinate research processes and research assessment activity, and, increasingly, a planning unit to lead on activities such as strategic planning, data returns and process improvement. The increasing importance of continuous process improvement can be seen in a job advertisement at the University of Gloucestershire in December 2014 for a Process Improvement Manager in the Planning Office with responsibility for ‘developing and supporting improvement projects and programmes across the University and developing a culture of continuous improvement … as part of the University’s commitment to improving administrative performance’.

As well as organisational structures, there are also implications for the quality methods used. Quality management techniques and tools that were originally used in large manufacturing organisations in the 1980s and 1990s have been looked at by universities keen to eliminate waste, create more value for customers and carry out continuous improvement. Approaches such as Total Quality Management were particularly popular at one point, but now tend to be overshadowed by ISO 9001, Lean Management and Six Sigma. Lean thinking has been applied in institutions such as Cardiff University² and University of St Andrews³ in the United Kingdom (Hines & Lethbridge, 2008) and in a number of universities in the United States (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). Other techniques such as Six Sigma have been applied to academic processes as well as corporate university processes (Pryor, Alexander, Taneja, Tirumalasetty, & Chadalavada, 2012), but there is also a recognition that there can be challenges in applying these corporate quality approaches in what can often be significantly different environments (Jenicke, Kumar, & Holmes, 2008). When applying service quality techniques in universities, there can also be difficulties in defining customers and measuring customer satisfaction (Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, & Johnson, 2009).

What does this changing environment, with its greater emphasis on customers, performance and efficiencies, mean for academic libraries? When I was a senior library manager talking to new members of staff I always tried to emphasise a simple message – that we wouldn’t have jobs if it wasn’t for our users and that our aim should be to try to deliver the best possible service for them. Updated to the new environment, academic librarians will need to adopt (and embrace) new approaches and methodologies to assess and improve the quality and performance of their services and be able to demonstrate to their customers and managers the relevance and value of their services.

Although not without its challenges in terms of making appropriate links and gaining acceptance, librarians need to try to ensure that they are plugged in to the university corporately, for example through the development of plans closely aligned to university strategies (McNichol, 2005). They will also need to secure appropriate involvement in academic processes, such as course approval and validation, subject review (Costella, Adam, Gray, Nolan, & Wilkins, 2013), accreditation (Stratford, 2002) and quality audit (Balague, Duren, Juntunen, & Saarti, 2014).

In this demanding quality and performance environment, there are two key challenges for library managers:

 They need to create a culture of assessment amongst their own staff and their users (Lakos & Phipps, 2004)

 They need to ensure that they and their staff are embedded with the rest of the university at all levels (Dewey, 2004).

Case Studies

Many of these themes are explored further by other contributors to this book. In the case studies that follow in this section, the quality assurance of universities’ academic provision is considered in detail. Ann Holmes and Fiona Parsons examine the implications and impact of quality assurance requirements for universities on academic library services; Gemma Long and Danny Saunders look at quality reviews of higher education provision in the United Kingdom and the role of the Quality Assurance Agency; and Helen Fallon and Jon Purcell reflect on a quality review from the perspectives of both reviewer and reviewee.

References

1. Anderson G. Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization. 2008;15(2):251–270.

2. Arimoto A. The academic profession and the managerial university: An international comparative study from Japan. European Review. 2010;18(Suppl. S1):S117–S139 Retrieved from <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7451384&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1062798709990354>.

3. Balague N, Duren P, Juntunen A, Saarti J. Quality audits as a tool for quality improvement in selected European higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2014;40(5):529–533.

4. Comm C, Mathaisel D. A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2005;6(2):134–146.

5. Costella J, Adam T, Gray F, Nolan N, Wilkins C. Undergraduate program review processes: A case study in opportunity for academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2013;39(2):169–174.

6. Dewey BI. The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. Resource Sharing & Information Networks. 2004;17(1–2):5–17.

7. Docherty T. Thomas Docherty on academic freedom. Times Higher Education 2014; Retrieved from <https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/thomas-docherty-on-academic-freedom/2017268.article>.

8. Hines P, Lethbridge S. New development: Creating a lean university. Public Money and Management. 2008;28(1):53–56.

9. Jenicke LO, Kumar A, Holmes MC. A framework for applying six sigma improvement methodology in an academic environment. The TQM Journal. 2008;20(5):453–462.

10. Lakos A, Phipps S. Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for organizational change. Portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2004;4(3):345–361.

11. McNichol S. The challenges of strategic planning in academic libraries. New Library World. 2005;106(11–12):496–509.

12. Pryor MG, Alexander C, Taneja S, Tirumalasetty S, Chadalavada D. The application of six sigma methodologies to university processes: The use of student teams. Journal of Case Studies in Accreditation and Assessment. 2012;2:123–136 Retrieved from <http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111045.pdf>.

13. Quinn A, Lemay G, Larsen P, Johnson DM. Service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.