In May and June, the ARL Board of Directors sponsored a survey seeking member leader assessment of eight core ARL programs. Ninety-one members responded providing a wealth of perspectives that will be used in shaping the evolving program agenda of ARL. In reviewing the results of the survey last July, the ARL Board first examined a summary that presented the numerical scores and representative member comments. For the eight programs reviewed, the summary presents the actual and mean scores for each of the five questions along with the standard deviation. Based on their review of this data, Board members participated in a structured discussion that resulted in the following observations.
Member Expectations about the importance of the issues to individual research libraries and to the ARL community
There is broad membership endorsement that the issues being addressed by ARL are important. On a scale of 1 to 10, the issues the programs are addressing were rated in importance to member libraries between 6.8 and 8.4 and in importance to the ARL community between 6.9 and 8.7.
Member Perceptions of how effective ARL programs are in addressing the needs of an individual library and the ARL community
Members perceive success of ARL programs in influencing these issues. On a scale of 1 to 10, the effectiveness of ARL efforts, including ARL¹s work with other organizations, in addressing the needs of individual member libraries was rated between 5.5 and 7.8; in addressing the needs of the ARL community, the scores ranged from 5.9 to 8.3.
The Board speculated that members view ARL as doing its most effective work in addressing issues that have an impact on the ARL community rather than in addressing issues particular to individual libraries. For example, the scores for Scholarly Communication, Federal Relations, and Statistics and Measurement all indicate a strong sense of need for and of ARL effectiveness in addressing the needs of the community.
The survey confirmed a very positive assessment of ARL staff performance in pursing their programs. Comments were explicit and there is only a 1 point difference or less in member scores between their sense of the importance of the issues for the individual library or the ARL community and their sense of how effective ARL is in addressing the issues.
Member Views on Prospective Future Investment in ARL to address these issues
The Board concluded that the overall results did not signal a mandate to drop any program or make a major reallocation of dues within programs. For example, when asked about the member library¹s assessment of future investment needed by ARL, all eight programs received mean scores ranging from 5.4 to 6.7 indicating a future investment of ³about the same² or a little more. In relative terms, the 3 areas rated highest by members on the need to invest more in the future (with a low standard deviation) are: Statistics and Measurement, Scholarly Communication, and Federal Relations.
Overall, the member responses endorse the investment pattern adopted by the ARL Boards over the last decade and signal a willingness to support this pattern into the next few years.
Analysis by Type of Institution Responding
The Board observed that the standard deviation in some of the survey scores and comments capture some very interesting and diverse views (especially when viewed by type of institution responding, i.e. U.S. state universities, U.S. private universities, Canadian universities, and nonuniversity libraries). Additional charts were made available to the Board that displayed aggregated responses sorted by type of institution. This analysis showed, for example,
- On the sense of importance of the issues being addressed
U.S. state institutions ranked the issues addressed by the Statistics and Measurement program as most important to their library and ranked Scholarly Communication issues as most important to the ARL community.
U.S. private institutions ranked Scholarly Communication issues as most important to their library and to the ARL community.
Canadian universities ranked the issues addressed by OLMS programs as most important to their library and Statistics and Measurements issues as most important to the ARL community.
Nonuniversity members ranked Federal Relations issues as most important to their library and Diversity issues as most important to the ARL community.
- On the sense of ARL effectiveness in addressing needs of the library and the ARL community
U.S. state and private institutions, as well as nonuniversity members, ranked the Federal Relations and Scholarly Communication programs highest in effectively meeting their library needs; Canadian universities top their list with the Statistics and Measurement program followed closely by the Scholarly Communication program. In terms of effectively meeting the needs of the ARL community, U.S. state and private institutions identified Federal Relations and Scholarly Communication in that order while Canadian universities and nonuniversity institutions also identified these two programs but in reverse sequence.
- On the member's assessment of future investment by ARL in these issues
U.S. state institutions identified the Statistics and Measurement program as an area where investments may need to be increased somewhat, followed by Scholarly Communication. U.S. private institutions and Canadian university responses also identify these two programs as warranting a modest increase in the future but rank Scholarly Communication a little higher than Statistics and Measurement. Nonuniversity members identified Federal Relations and Preservation as programs where future modest increases may be needed.
While these different perspectives were acknowledged as important, it was also pointed out that the difference among any of these scores was, for the most part, relatively small.
The Board observed that the survey results indicate that optional member contributions to special projects add value by providing flexibility and a way for members to invest in activities that are of special interest.
The Board found the member comments very valuable as they added nuance to numerical scores; all were impressed with the number and extent of comments. The Board observed that there is a portion of our community who did not respond (32 members). In addition, a handful of the comments from some that did respond divulged significantly from those of their colleagues. Clearly, there is great value in listening to all members and being aware of all points of view.
Some of the comments (turnover in member leaders and a lack of sense of community, plus a perception of ³orchestration² of business meetings with little time for discussion) are of concern to Board members. The Board asked staff to make recommendations on efforts that could be made to welcome and acculturate new member leaders to the values and opportunities of participation in ARL. One response is the timing of the Welcome to ARL orientation for members new to ARL and other first time Membership Meeting attendees. By scheduling it just prior to the reception, it will make it easier for Board members and others to accompany new leaders into this setting where they could be greeted by ARL colleagues.
The Board discussed how difficult it is for a membership organization to change except in incremental ways. The survey was judged a good first effort at assessment and a confirmation of recent and current dues investments. The survey does not, however, tell us what to do differently. As to the future, the Board¹s initial sense is that the survey results support the Board¹s most recent statement of ARL Developmental Priorities but agreed that the statement should be reviewed next February in light of the survey findings.
The survey results were also viewed as a valuable management tool for staff. In addition, the Board felt that some ARL committees might find the results useful to clarify or reinforce discussions already underway about changes in program directions. And finally, there was general endorsement of the notion of using this survey methodology every three years to inventory member perspectives.