Afterword: academic library value and the college library

The Association of College and Research Libraries “Plan for Excellence,” adopted in June 2011, focuses attention on the value of academic libraries by making it the first of three major strategic areas of the Association’s work. According to the Plan, “by promulgating a compelling case for their value, ACRL elevates the position, recognition, and impact of all academic and research libraries and librarians as catalysts in exceptional research and learning” (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2011). Megan Oakleaf’s excellent report, The Value of Academic Libraries (2010), urges the academic library community to increase the recognition of the value of libraries by answering the question “How does the library advance the mission of the institution?’ (Oakleaf, 2010: 11) This very thorough literature review and report recommends demonstrating the library’s impact on the enrollment, retention, graduation, success, achievement, and experience of students, the research and teaching of the faculty, and the reputation and prestige of the institution as the most effective means of making a compelling case. This is surely a critical endeavor for all academic libraries in the current educational and economic environment. At the same time, however, Oakleaf cautions that simply assessing and documenting library impact is not sufficient because “the demonstration of value is not about looking valuable; it’s about being valuable.” (2010: 140)

A reading of the chapters in this volume by nine of the college library recipients of the ACRL Excellence in Academic Libraries Award along with the original applications of all the previous winners makes clear that these college libraries know a lot about being valuable. Although each library has tailored its excellent programs and services to the needs, mission, and culture of its own institution, a reading of these chapters reveals important common themes that emerge when these libraries and their work are looked at as a group. These themes, when considered along with the assessment and research methods recommended by Oakleaf’s The Value of Academic Libraries, suggest fruitful areas of exploration for academic libraries interested in the pursuit of academic value.

First, all the libraries put students at the center of everything they do. As the primary users of college libraries, students and their information needs are a natural focus when designing library programs, but these libraries consistently put students first, over library procedures and practices. Understanding students and how they learn is a high priority in these libraries, including Hollins’s recognition of the preference of Millennial students for collaborative and group learning, Baruch’s identification of the needs of graduate and adult nontraditional learners, and Grinnell’s investment in active learning projects. Enhancing the learning of students in the library, whether through strong, integrated information literacy instruction at Elmhurst, technology tools closely aligned with the graduate curriculum at Baruch, or Real Deal, real world-focused, information literacy at Champlain, is important in all these libraries. These libraries also intentionally connect students with the library at significant developmental milestones with active involvement with first-year experience programs such as at Elmhurst and significant assistance with comprehensive capstone projects at Carleton. A number of the libraries were part of institutions that carried out major curriculum reinvention and reform initiatives, while others effected curriculum change in more organic and incremental approaches. However, in all cases, the library had a major impact on not only information literacy learning but also on the methods and quality of student learning. In addition to creating innovative instances of the information literacy instruction that has now become a core part of most academic library programs, each of the libraries extended its relationship with students in other creative and effective ways. Hollins and Carleton made students partners in designing and improving library services, while Grinnell provided opportunities for students to be engaged learners through active participation in the work of the library as information literacy tutors and curators of library exhibitions. All of the libraries sought to enhance the total college experience of their students by hosting social and cultural activities and programs, ranging from diversity poetry readings at Grinnell, computer gaming at Elmhurst, rock music concerts at Hollins, and the cultural programming of the Athenaeum at Carleton. Finally, each of the libraries invested considerable effort in creating a welcoming, comfortable “third place” on campus where students can study, learn, collaborate, and confer, perhaps best exemplified by Augustana’s “living room of the campus”, which is now being redesigned as a student center integrated into the library.

Second, each library has built a strong connection with its campus’s culture. Sam Demas describes this connection at Carleton as an “exquisite attunement” that helps the library to stay true to the culture of the institution and to act in unison with the college community. At Grinnell, where independent learning is a strong value, librarians have embraced the mentoring relationships with students and the inquiry-based learning that is the foundation of the curriculum. Mount Holyoke balances its culture’s wish for the preservation of venerable traditions with its attraction to new hip uses of technology. At Champlain, where the campus culture is explicitly detailed in its mission and strategic plan, the library created a new strategic plan carefully aligned with and in support of institutional goals. Because Hollins librarians understand the importance of personal interaction and the intimacy of small classes on its campus, they are careful to communicate openly and frequently with students and faculty and are very intentional about creating those personal relationships by participating in campus groups and gatherings. Each library, in its own way, demonstrates not only a strong relationship with its institutional culture, but an enthusiastic and passionate identification with and embracing of it. The librarians represented here genuinely like the colleges they work in and fully and eagerly engage in the life of the institution, both in the library and across the campus. This active involvement makes it easy to take the library to its users wherever they may be and at the same time creates strong bridges back to the library when that is the best place for users to do their work.

Third, these strong connections to the campus culture facilitated partnerships and collaborations across the campuses that were especially effective for all the libraries. At Mount Holyoke, what began as a collaborative relationship between librarians and information technologists has grown and developed over ten years into a fully integrated blended department that meets all its campus’s information and technology needs in one organization. Hollins has intentionally forged partnerships with faculty and administrative departments that have strengthened relationships with faculty and the curriculum and led to new staff and funding resources for the library. At Carleton, where the campus believes people are more important than things, a great deal of time and energy is devoted to building relationships across campus. Elmhurst has leveraged its collaborative faculty relationships to fully integrate information literacy learning outcomes throughout the curriculum. Many of these libraries reported good success in forming partnerships with students and student groups; this is especially noteworthy in the current higher education climate, which often talks about students as customers and consumers. Through these efforts, librarians were able to bring expertise to bear on institutional priorities, issues, and problems. Libraries that have been able to meet institutional needs through collegial rather than competitive relationships have created allies across the campus that have proved to be useful in future projects. Most of these libraries have also gone beyond their own campuses to form collaborative partnerships with other libraries that have greatly expanded the resources available to their students and faculty. Collaborations with neighboring institutions increase the efficiency of library operations such as the Bridge Catalog at Carleton and St. Olaf, while active membership in statewide consortia expand the resources available to students and faculty, such as Augustana’s and Elmhurst’s participation in I-Share (the Illinois statewide consortial online catalog and library management system).

Fourth, strong, effective, and engaged staffs were critical to the success of all the libraries. Although the staffs of these libraries were organized in many different ways, in all the libraries a great deal of attention was paid to helping staffs work in effective and fulfilling ways. At Carleton, a strong and committed staff works together in a supportive team. At Augustana, a resilient staff with high self-esteem and good collaborative skills is the library’s most essential resource. Elmhurst relies heavily on support and student staff members as well as a number of library school interns to stretch the resources available for the delivery of library services. While each of these libraries demands a great of deal of the people who work there in terms of intensity, intellectual rigor, creativity, enthusiasm, and just plain hard work, they also all recognize and devote a great deal of thought and attention to the motivation, morale, learning, and energy required to be part of an excellent college library.

Fifth, each of the libraries has made reimagining and expanding the roles and definitions of librarians an important part of its work. By pushing traditional library boundaries, all the libraries, either explicitly or implicitly, asked the question: who are librarians in the twenty-first century? In every case, librarians were asked to explore new roles for librarians, moving outside the walls of the library and into areas traditionally beyond the comfort and training and education levels of many librarians. While librarians at Elmhurst and Earlham have enthusiastically embraced their faculty roles by teaching courses outside the library as classroom faculty, others have performed faculty functions more informally. Mount Holyoke’s blended librarians sometimes feel like newly evolved creatures that are not always recognizable in the profession of librarianship. Champlain librarians have forged new self- identities as “TL’s” or The Teaching Librarians. Whether an institution grants full faculty status to librarians or what form that status takes, librarians at all these institutions have stepped into faculty roles, and library administrations have supported them by endorsing this participation. Hollins emphasizes the importance for librarians of being upfront and assertive about their own identity, what they are good at, and where their expertise lies. Earlham concluded that its librarians and archivists are the intangible assets that give unique value to its library and sustain its excellence over time.

Finally, all of the libraries demonstrated noteworthy forward thinking when they received the Excellence in Academic Libraries Award, and that thinking has continued to evolve. None of these libraries hesitated and waited around for someone to tell them what the value of the academic library in the twenty-first century would be. All of the libraries assumed responsibility and leadership for asking big questions: What is excellence? What is value? What is a college library? As Carla Tracy reminds us in her discussion of Augustana’s approach to new and unexpected challenges, they viewed “the library as a growing organism” and proceeded to think outside the box of existing expectations and to move forward. All of the libraries also embraced risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity and failure, flexibility and nimbleness, and innovation as important values. Elmhurst’s culture of “yes,” Champlain’s reflection on and toleration of uncertainty, and Hollins’s intense and diligent work to take the library to users are representative of this type of thinking. As a library with a long history as an excellent college library that is an antecedent and model for many other college libraries, including a number of those represented in this collection, Earlham did not need to prove its continued excellence, but it did not hesitate to embrace current trends in assessment and examine whether they are still excellent. Mount Holyoke has continued to develop and refine its organizational structure, which not only meets the needs of its campus but also serves as model for the blending of libraries and IT organizations. Hollins proactively changed the information agenda on its campus to bring disengaged students and faculty back to the library. Champlain and Augustana fearlessly stepped up to the challenge of radically rethinking their collections, one of the more imposing sacred cows of both librarians and faculty. While they were all recognized and rewarded for their work with the Excellence in Academic Libraries Award, not a single library stopped or stalled at that point in their history. Instead when asked to contribute to this volume, all of the libraries, whether recent or much earlier recipients of the Award, came up with fresh thinking and new stories about their continued pursuit of value and excellence.

So, what is it about undergraduate colleges that make them particularly vital environments in which to explore the value of academic libraries? Although the institutions described in this collection represent a range of sizes, missions, affluence, and reputation, they all provide fertile ground for the creation and cultivation of library excellence. Colleges very intentionally articulate their institutional identities, cultures, and core values, both explicitly and implicitly. In addition, colleges place high value on distinctiveness of mission and unity of culture as part of what makes them special places that foster student learning and development, and often talk about themselves as communities of scholars and learners. This focus makes it particularly easy for libraries to align themselves with the mission of the institution and to leverage connections with campus culture. As communities, colleges emphasize personal relationships and associations between and among their members and place high value on the time and energy required to create, develop, and maintain these connections. By investing in collaborations and partnerships, libraries are able to weave services and programs into the fabric of their institutions in very fundamental ways. A curriculum common to all students is an important part of the educational experience at most undergraduate colleges, whether that curriculum is developmental, integrated, competency based, skills or discipline oriented, or traditional or innovative. Because all students have at least some experiences in common that are valued by the institution, there is a natural place to include information literacy learning and experience with the library. Finally, the small size of most colleges and the relative lack of bureaucracy facilitate the nimbleness and flexibility displayed by the libraries that received the Excellence in Academic Libraries Award; fewer gatekeepers and rule enforcers make it easier to make and implement changes. In turn, this flexibility fosters environments that are very tolerant of the risk-taking and failure so necessary for true innovation because college librarians believe that they can try new ways of working and then evaluate and improve the results of their efforts with relatively little resistance from their users and colleagues.

Although larger academic libraries and the institutions they serve may not be able to benefit from all the advantages experienced by college libraries, they can look to the experiences of these libraries for effective strategies that can be adapted to an institution of any size. Focusing on students, paying attention to culture, building collaborations and partnerships, expanding the roles of librarians and other library staff, and emphasizing forward thinking and continuous evolution can be powerful methods for creating excellent libraries. When aligned with the mission of the institution, the approaches will surely enhance the value of all academic libraries.