OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item { fl.‘|\\\\‘_ - RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIAL§: ”If-c ”up.” Place in book return toreno charge from circulation recor AWW>D7SL Jflcczgae swam SEP 01m " . ._1 - 1—1.9- -£:. 31+ IDENTIFICATION AND MODIFICATION OF CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES BY NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITATION TEAMS By Ronald George Leach A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 © Copyright by RONALD GEORGE LEACH 1980 ABSTRACT IDENTIFICATION AND MODIFICATION OF CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES BY NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITATION TEAMS By Ronald George Leach The Purpose The United States, unlike other nations of the world, does not have a strong national government regulatory agency to certify performance of educational institutions. To fill that void, six pri- vate regional accrediting agencies developed to provide certification. North Central Accrediting Association is the largest of the regional associations and, like the others, evaluates the effectiveness of the library as part of the total effectiveness of a higher education institution. An examination of North Central's past and present pro- cedures indicates that North Central seldom appoints a library/learning resource specialist to accrediting teams and provides little guidance to nonspecialists for evaluating libraries. The purpose of this study was to attempt to identify what criteria North Central evaluators presently are using for evaluating libraries and to attempt to identify criteria or tools that might be useful in the future. Ronald George Leach Procedure This study was exploratory in nature and involved the iden- tification of library evaluative criteria in the literature and a survey of l75 North Central evaluators who had completed evaluations in the years 1977, l978, and l979. Evaluators could not be sampled directly as North Central did not have information arranged in that manner. Instead a strati- fied random sample of 55 institutions that were evaluated in the three-year period (1977-l979) was drawn and presented to North Central. This enabled them to extract from their files the names and addresses of evaluators who had visited specific institutions. A questionnaire was mailed to l75 evaluators in March 1980. and a follow-up letter within one month. A total of l4l question- naires were received, representing an 81.l% response rate. The major purpose of the survey was to assess evaluators' opinions about evaluating libraries during the accrediting process. Findings North Central evaluators, while preferring an individual, nonquantitative approach to evaluation, definitely would like to see North Central provide more guidance for evaluating libraries as part of the total accrediting process. Fewer than one quarter of them feel well prepared to evaluate the library and would like more guidance. For example, a significant majority of the evaluators would like North Central to suggest what areas of the library should be investigated during a visit and to provide a list of questions Ronald George Leach to ask that would assist in gathering information in order to make an informed judgment about the effectiveness of the library program. When asked to indicate what techniques they used when evaluat- ing the library, the most frequently used techniques were to read the self-study, check the adequacy of the collection, check the adequacy of services, tour the library, check library hours, interview teach- ing faculty, spot check the collection for standard titles, inter- view the library director, interview students, and check on the library budget, in that order. Based on the findings of the survey and the review of per- tinent documents about library evaluation and accreditation, new guidelines for evaluating libraries were proposed to North Central Accreditation Association. To my mother, Erma Leach, for her love, faith, and prayers. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to many people who in big and small ways, and with friendship, expertise, encouragement, advice, and love, made it possible to com- plete the requirements of this doctoral program. A special appreciation is extended to my wife, Joy, for her love and support during the doctoral program. Without her patience, understanding, and encouragement the program would not have been completed. Appreciation is expressed to my sons, Ronald and Shane, and daughters, Debra and Catherine, for their adaptiveness and under- standing. I also want to express my appreciation to . . . Dr. Walter Johnson, my advisor and co-director of the disser- tation, for providing a model of dedication to learning, patience, and human kindness that will remain with me forever. Dr. Richard Chapin, a member of my committee and co-director of the dissertation, for sharing his ideas, providing guidance and encouragement during the writing of the dissertation, and for his professional and personal friendship. Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Howard Hickey, members of my doctoral committee, for their critique of the dissertation and encouragement. Mr. John N. Neatherford, Director of Libraries, and col- league at Central Michigan University, for his supportiveness. Finally, I want to express my support to the following people, who know the role they played: Dudley Yates Walter Scott Beth McLeod Al Vanderzanden Richard Hartley Virginia Niseman I express my deep appreciation for the cooperation, friend- ship, and/or support each of you extended to me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... THE PROBLEM ..................... Background on Accreditation ............ North Central Association ............. Library Evaluation ................ Purpose of the Study ............... Need for the Study ................ Definition of Terms ................ Limitations .................... Basic Assumptions ................. Overview ..................... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Accreditation ................... Library Evaluation ................ Evaluating the Library for Accreditation ..... RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY Interest in the Study ............... Methodology and Procedures ............ Questionnaire Design . ._ ............. Sample ...................... Analysis of Data ................. Methodology for Developing Proposed Questions and Areas of Inquiry .............. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................. Analysis of Selected Literature to Identify Criteria Used to Evaluate Libraries ....... Evaluative Statements ............... Organization .................. Administration ................. Collections ................... Page vii Staffing ..................... 49 Reference Service ................. 50 Usage ....................... 51 Budget ...................... 51 Facilities .................... 52 Networking/Resource Sharing ............ 52 Technology .................... 52 Survey Results ................... 52 Background Section ................ 54 General Information Section A ........... 60 General Information Section B ........... Bl Report Section .................. 99 Techniques .................... 121 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 180 Summary ....................... 180 Background and Purpose of the Study ........ 180 Literature Review ................. 181 Methodology .................... 182 Findings ...................... 183 North Central's Current Procedures for Evaluating Libraries ............... , ..... 183 Literature Search for Evaluative Criteria ..... 184 Survey Results .................. 184 Conclusions ..................... 187 Recommendations for Further Research ........ 190 Recommendations for Improving Library Evaluation . . 190 APPENDICES .......................... 193 A. LETTER FROM NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION INTRODUCING THE STUDY ...................... 194 B. COVER LETTER EXPLAINING THE STUDY ........... 196 C. QUESTIONNAIRE ..................... 198 D. FOLLOW-UP LETTER ................... 204 E. SELECTED SOURCES USED TO IDENTIFY LIBRARY EVALUATIVE CRITERIA ...................... 206 F. LETTER TO EVALUATORS SEEKING REACTION TO PROPOSED CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS ............... 210 G. PROPOSED GUIDELINES .................. 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 221 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Evaluators by Position ................. 41 4.1 Primary Type of Professional Responsibility of Evaluators ...................... 55 4.2 Specific Titles of Evaluators by Category ....... 55 4.3 Academic Preparation of Evaluators ........... 56 4.4 Number and Year of Evaluations Performed ........ 57 4.5 Responsibility for Evaluating the Library ....... 57 4.6 Preparedness of Evaluators for First Library Evaluation Visit ................... 58 4.7 It Is Appropriate That NCA Relies on Qualitative and Individual Approaches to a Library Evaluation Rather Than an Approach Based Upon Quantification and Standards ...................... 62 4.8 The Association of College and Research Libraries, a Division of American Library Association, Has Written Standards for Evaluating College and University Libraries. It Would Be Helpful if NCA Would Encourage the Use of These Standards as a Basis to Make an Informed Judgment .......... 63 4.9 It Would Be Helpful if NCA Would Provide Evaluators With Suggested Areas Which Should Be Examined and a Set of Questions to Be Asked Which May Be Useful in Obtaining Information to Make an Informed Judgment . . 65 4.10 It Would Help an Inexperienced Evaluator to Observe at Least One Library Evaluation Before Being Assigned to a Visiting Evaluation Committee ..... 66 4.11 Evaluators Who Evaluate the Library Need Better Guidance in the Form of Standards, Guidelines, Checklists, and/or Suggested Questions to Ask . . . . 67 vii Table 4.12 It Is Possible to Evaluate Adequately a Library's Collection and Staff in a Visit of Two to Three Days' Duration .................... An Evaluator Often Acts as a Catalyst to Speed Up a Segment of the Host Library's Program by Using the Leverage Inherent in the Authority of the Accredit- ing Agency ...................... As a Library Evaluator, You Are More Concerned With the Educational Effectiveness of the Library Rather Than Its Operational Efficiency ........... The Role of the Evaluator Is to React to and Evaluate the Library's Self-Study, Not the Library ...... The Most Important Facet to the Evaluative Process Is That It Compels the Library to Consider the Very Reasons for Its Existence. Thus, the Evaluative Process Will Aid in Bringing the Library's Purpose Clearly Into Line With the Overall Objectives of the Institution of Which It Is a Part ........ It Would Be Helpful if NCA Would Include a Librarian as a Member of the Visitation Team .......... A Librarian Should Be a Member of Each Visiting Evaluation Team ................... Often Members of an Evaluation Team Who Are Not Librarians Do Not Have an Adequate Understanding of the Library to Make Informed Judgments About the Library Program ................... Have You Ever Served on a Visiting Committee That Failed to Accredit/Reaccredit an Institution Because of Deficiencies in the Library? ....... Have You Ever Served on a Visiting Committee That Failed to Accredit/Reaccredit an Institution Because of Any Reason? ................ Should NCA Introduce Some Quantitative Criteria Pertaining to the Library? .............. Do You Think a Checklist or List of Questions to Ask, Prepared by NCA, Would Be Helpful as an Evaluative Tool? ........................ Page 68 7O 71 72 73 74 76 77 83 84 85 86 Table 4.24 4.25 Would Guidance From NCA Help You to Perform Library Evaluations More Effectively and Efficiently? Do You Have Your Own Checklist of Items to Observe During an Evaluation of the Library? ......... Do You Have Your Own List of Questions to Ask Interviewees About the Library Program? ....... Has NCA Ever Asked You for Input for the Purpose of Improving Library Evaluative Techniques? ....... Have You Been Invited to Supply Any Input Into NCA Regarding the Procedures Used in the Evaluation of the Library? ..................... Should NCA Provide a Clearer Definition for the Term "Adequate" in Relation to Evaluating Library Programs? ...................... Do You Find the Information Supplied by NCA Helpful in Library Evaluations? ............... DO You Think Your Qualifications Enabled You to Make an Efficient and Effective Evaluation of the Library? ....................... The Library Collection, in Your Opinion, Is Not Sufficient to Support the Informational Needs of the Institution ................... There Are Inadequate Provisions for Teaching the Use of the Library to Students .............. The Library Administration Continues to Hire Professional Librarians Without Regard to Whether They Graduated From an American Library Association Accredited Library School or Not ........... The Library Director and Library Faculty Are Not Members of Appropriate University Committees Which Would Enable Them to Anticipate and Meet the Needs of the Institution .................. Communications Among the Librarians Are Not Sufficient . The Library Has Inadequate Seating Capacity, Collection Capacity, and Services ....... 4. . . ix Page 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 101 102 103 105 106 107 Table Page 4.38 The Library Hours Appear to Be Inadequate Based on Input From Students and Faculty ........... 108 4.39 The Library Purchases Printed Materials and Will Not Provide Nonbook Material ............. 109 4.40 Communication Between the Library and Academic Departments Appears to Be Inadequate ......... 111 4.41 The Objectives of the Library Are Unclear and DO Not Relate to the Objectives of the Institution . . . 112 4.42 Instructional Departments, for the Most Part, Are Inactive in Recommending Library Materials for Purchase ....................... 113 4.43 The Library Falls Below the American Library Associa- tion Standard Of Receiving a Minimum of 5% of the Total Educational and General Budget ......... 114 4.44 No Weeding Has Taken Place Within the Past Ten Years . . 115 4.45 The Total Number of Volumes Does Not Match tne Number Suggested by American Library Association Standards, the HEW Guidelines, or Some Other Guideline for an Institution of Its Size and Curriculum ........ 117 4.46 Review Library Sections Of Institution's Self-Study Reports Sent to North Central Association ...... 124 4.47 Read the Self-Study Report in Its Entirety If the Institution Is Small and Selectively If the Institution Is Large ................. 125 4.48 Read Librarian's Annual Reports and Other Significant Reports and Memoranda ............... '. 126 4.49 Read College or University Statutes, If Any, Relating to Library Policy .............. 128 4.50 Determine the Library's Success in Achieving Its Goals . 129 4.51 Interview Students .............. ' ..... 131 4.52 Confer With Students at Random ............. 132 4.53 Interview Members of the Teaching Faculty ....... 133 4.54 Interview Members of the Administration ........ 134 Table h-bnb .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .60 .61 .62 .63 .64 .65 .66 .67 .68 .69 .70 .71 Interview the Library Director ............. Confer With Key Library Staff Members ......... Interview Members of the Faculty Library Committee . . . Utilize the Expertise of Other Committee Members to Evaluate the Sections of the Library Collection Most Familiar to Them ................ Spot Check the Collection for Standard Titles in Your Area of Knowledge .................. Spot Check Availability of Books Listed in Public Catalog ....................... Determine If There Is a Continuous Weeding Program . . . Use American Library Association Standards When Evaluating Collections and Facilities ........ Check Library Hours .................. Check the Staffing Schedule to Determine If the Availability of Professional Librarians Is Sufficient ...................... Check Accessibility of Professional Staff to the Academic Community (Attitudinally and Physically) Compare Library Expenditures With Total Institutional Expenditures ..................... Compare the Percentage of the Educational and General Budget Allocated to the Library With the Accepted Standard Stated in American Library Association Standards ...................... Compare Library Expenditures With Those of Other Libraries of Similar Size in Institutions of Similar Purpose in NCA Territory ........... Compare Library Expenditures With Association of College and Research Libraries Statistics ...... Tour the Library to Assess the Ease of Locating Materials and Services ................ Check Seating Capacity ................. xi Page 135 137 138 139 141 142 143 145 146 147 148 150 151 152 154 155 156 Table 4.72 .74 .75 .76 hb-§-§ .77 4.78 Determine the Largest Number of Students That Are on Campus at Any One Time ................ Determine the Adequacy of Lighting and Other Environmental Factors ................ Check Faculty Use of the Library ............ Examine Statistics and/or Reports of Circulation . . . . Examine Statistics and/or Reports of Reserves ..... Examine Statistics and/or Reports of Audio-Visual Services ....................... Examine the Relationships and/or Reports of Use of Neighboring Libraries ................ Examine Statistics and/or Reports of Interlibrary Loans ........................ Explore the Position of the Library Director in the Institution's Administrative Hierarchy ........ Determine If the Faculty Library Committee Is a Policy-Making or Advisory Body ............ Determine If There Are Regularly Scheduled Staff Meetings ....................... Determine the Ratio of Professional Staff to Clerical Staff ........................ Determine If the Librarians Who Have Faculty Status Truly Have All the Rights and Privileges of Such Status ........................ Determine if the Professional Staff Is Active in Professional Organizations .............. Compare Library Practices With Prevailing Practices of Libraries at Own Institution ........... Most Frequently Used Techniques ............ xii Page 157 159 161 162 164 165 167 168 169 171 172 173 175 176 178 179 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The problem of evaluating libraries as part of the North Central Accreditation visit to colleges and universities will be examined in this study. Background on accreditation, in general; the North Central Accreditation Association process, in particular; and the problems associated with library evaluation will be dis- cussed. Background on Accreditation In contrast to most nations of the world, the United States does not have a strong national government regulatory agency for education. To fill the vacuum, private accreditation developed to certify that institutions met certain standards. Regional accreditation has achieved major status in American higher education as a universal accepted means for evaluating the quality of colleges and universities, but in doing so, it has not been without criticism. Few people associated with institutions of higher education are 1David A. Trivett, Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility, ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 9 (Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Association of Higher Education, 1976), p. 4. 2The recent elevation of the Department of Education to cabi- net level is not likely to change this status in the near future. neutral on the subject of accreditation.3 Its advocates attest to the value of accrediting agencies in improving the quality of edu- cation; its opponents deplore the power of the agency and the inflexible, detailed criteria set up which tends to have a stifling effect on initiative and imagination. In recent decades, accrediting agencies have been subjected to increased criticism and challenge. Although accreditation began in the United States over three-quarters of a century ago and involves six regional and approximately fifty specialized associations, few faculty members and administrative Officers, let alone the general public, fully understand the concepts and implications of accredit- ing.4 (The number of specialized accrediting associations has increased to more than seventy today.) PeOple Often are critical of things they do not understand. Accreditation actually focuses on the institution's program statement of purpose to assess if the information or program is what it says it is and does what it says it does at a given point in time.5 The library is one segment of this evaluation process, and there has been little investigation of the procedures and criteria used by evaluators during an accreditation visit. For the purpose of 3Henry C. Mills, "The Effects of Accreditation Procedures," Journal of Higher Education 31 (June 1960): 312. 4William K. Selden, Accreditation: A Struggle Over Standards in Higher Education (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 5. 5Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Durgen, Academic Collective Bar- gaining and Regional Accreditation (Washington, D.C.: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, 1977), p. 9. this study, attention will be focused upon only one of six regional accrediting agencies, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. North Central Association North Central Accreditation Association is the largest of the regional accrediting agencies, extending across a nineteen-state region of mid-America, from West Virginia to Arizona. The Associa- tion was founded in March 1895, when thirty-six school, college, and university administrators met at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.6 By 1906, there was little doubt that the North Central Association was having an influence on secondary schools, and it seemed reasonable to raise the question, "Why not also accredit colleges and universities?" In March 1906, the name of the Commis- sion on Accredited Schools was changed to the Commission on Accredited Schools and Colleges to reflect the interest by North Central in accrediting colleges and universities.7 Standards for colleges were drafted in 1908 and adopted in 1909. The standard pertaining to the library stated, “the college should be provided with adequate books in the library and laboratory 6John W. Vaughn and Thurston E. Manning, "The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools," North Central Association Quarterly 52 (Winter 1978): 395. 7John Earl Grinnel, "The Rise of the North Central Associa- tion," North Central Association Quarterly 10 (January 1936): 479. equipment to develOp fully and illustrate each course taught."8 While the library standard is not quantitative, its application soon created quantification. For the purposes of securing comparable data, all libraries were asked to report their holdings on specific checklists of books and periodicals and to report their library expenditures. These data made it possible to compare and rank insti- tutions applying for accreditation with those already accredited. The purpose of the first set of standards was to encourage institutions to conform to a common mold, and in the 19205, the library standard became even more prescriptive.9 The criterion just prior to 1934 regarding the library, for example, provided that: The college shall have a live, well distributed, professionally administered library of at least 8000 volumes exclusive of public documents, bearing specifically upon the subjects taught, and with a definite annual appropriation for the purchase of new books and current periodicals. It is urged that such appropria- tion be at least five dollars per student registered.1 During the 19205, association members voiced concern over the fact that while standardization had been successful in bringing a much-needed measure of order to higher education, it was stifling legitimate experimentation and innovation. Walter Ziemba states the problem well: The system of accrediting higher institutions adopted by the association in 1909 was based to a great degree on that in 8Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Chicago, Illinois, March 26-27, 1909. PP. 52-54. 9 10Aaron J. Brumbaugh, "Accrediting Associations and the Col- lege Library," College and Research Libraries 2 (June 1941): 195. Vaughn and Manning, p. 399. operation for the accreditation of secondary schools. At the heart of the system was a set of minimum standards to which all institutions were expected to conform to the greatest degree possible. . . . But the very concept of rigid quantitative standards began to come into question as higher education expanded and changed in purpose, clientele, curriculum and facilitation. Responding to this criticism, the North Central Association Commission of Higher Institutions in 1929 appointed a Committee on Revision of Standards. The report was issued in 1936 and a new principle replaced the old standards.12 Basic to the change was the rejection of the concept of standardization and an acceptance of the principle of institutional individuality which holds that institutions properly differ in defi- nition of purpose and in the means employed in attaining the desired 13 ends. To exemplify this change, words such as "standards" and "inspectors" were replaced with "criteria" and "examiners."14 The underlying principle was that an institution be judged in terms of the purposes it seeks to serve. In other words, institutions, including their libraries, can not be measured against a norm unless they are alike, and the new principle accepted the fact that they 11Walter.J.Ziemba, "Changes in the Policies and Procedures of the Accrediting Process of the Commission on Colleges and Univer- sities of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1909-1958" (Ph.D. dissertation University of Michigan, 1966), p. 136. 12Louis G. Geiger, Voluntary Accreditation: A History of the North Central Association (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Bantu CO., 1970), P. 25. 13Norman Burns, "Accrediting: Its Response to an Evaluating System of Higher Education" (unpublished paper, n.d.). 14 Geiger, p. 27. are not.15 Although there have been modifications, this basic principle is the guiding one in North Central Accreditation today. Moving away from quantitative standards to a qualitative approach has not been without its problems. Many educators have been critical that the present self-study peer-judgment procedures are not rigorous enough and do not lead to an outcomes-oriented evaluation which would be valuable to the institution. This non- rigorous qualitative approach presents equal difficulty in evaluating the library. Library Evaluation All accrediting agencies indicate in their guidebooks and other material, received by colleges and universities being assessed, that the library is important and valuable to the institution's edu- cational program. North Central Association in its Evaluation Guide to Institutional Assessment includes the following statement: Learning resources adequate to support the educational pro- grams and adequately staffed should be readily accessible to students on campus and during periods of study or other activities away from campus. Learning resources are a sig- nificant component of an educational program only if they are used. This is largely the responsibility of the instruc- tional staff.16 The first difficulty an evaluator encounters with such a statement is trying to determine what "adequate" means. Applying North 15George look and Melvin E. Haggerty, The Evaluations of Higher Institutions, Vol. I, Principles of Accrediting Higher Insti- tutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936). 16North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commis- sion on Institutions of Higher Education, Handbook on Accreditation: Evaluation Guide for Institutional Assessment (Bhulder, Colorado: North Central Association, 1976), p. 67. Central's statement on libraries for evaluative purposes is a dif- ficult problem as Pattillo points out: After some seven years of coping with the practical problems of examining institutions for accrediting purposes, I can testify that the library is one of the most difficult phases of an institution's program to evaluate effectively. In almost every other area of the institution's program, informed persons have a reasonably clear notion of what to look at and how to draw conclusions in evaluation. . . In the area of the library there is no such unanimity.1 Larson concludes the same thing as he asks questions for which the accrediting agency or the institution appears to have no authoritative answers. "Are recent holdings more important than old ones? Whose word is to be accepted about the best 1,000 or 10,000 books to have? 00 exchange privileges, delivery systems, computer- ized systems, and similar devices substitute successfully for a paucity of local materials?"18 Larson illustrates a frustration likely to be faced by visiting accrediting teams when he states: Accrediting agencies lack authoritative answers to many com- plicated questions concerning libraries so we turn to basic folklore and past practice. We accept libraries of a half million volumes as being better than those with a quarter million . . . evaluators tend to raise the proverbial thumbs up for large libraries and thumbs down for small ones. 9 Since North Central has abandoned quantifiable criteria for evaluation purposes, it makes the evaluator's assessment of the 17Manning M. Pattillo, "The Appraisal of Junior Colleges and College Libraries," College and Research Libraries 17 (September 1956 : 397. 18Rolf S. Larson, "Accreditation: Some Professional Problems," LearningiToday,5 (Summer 1972): 28. 191bid., p. 29. total program and the library program very difficult. Semrow con- curs when he states: With respect to accreditation, it is probably true that with the abandonment of the norms and standard setting approach, nothing really satisfactory emerged to take their place. It would appear that the "inquiry statement" or criteria are not sufficient in themselves to lead to the desirable evaluative outcome. Since accrediting agencies or institutions do not have authoritative answers in determining criteria for evaluating libraries, it would seem reasonable to expect that the library profession would have. The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, has develOped and adapted stan- dards for college and university libraries. Apparently there is no agreement within the association as to whether standards should be specific and quantitative or general and qualitative. The 1975 Standards for College Libraries tend to be more quantitative, providing specific formulas and criteria such as: "A college library should have at least a collection of 85,000 relevant printed volumes . . . a college library should have one librarian for each 500, or fraction thereof, FTE students up to 10,000."21 On the other hand, the 1979 Standards for University Libraries tend to be more qualitative, leaving a high degree of latitude for 20Joseph Semrow, "Accreditation: Self-Study and On-Site Evaluation Report Models for Use by Traditional and Non-Traditional Institutions" (unpublished paper written for North Central Associa- tion of Colleges and Schools, 1979), p. 24. 21Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards for College Libraries Committee, "Standards for College Libraries," College and Research Libraries News 36 (May 1975): 4. professional judgment in evaluating libraries, as reflected in the following statement: Despite basic similarities, university libraries are also characterized by a high degree of individuality . . . hence, these standards are not intended to establish normative pre- scriptions for uniform application rather, they are meant to provide a general framework within which infbrmed judgment can be applied to individual circumstances.22 The language in the Standards for University Libraries tends to imply that the university libraries are complex and differ so greatly from each other because of the programs they support, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to derive a common measurement which could be applied to all of them. Unfortunately, as Yates points out, "in the area of library evaluation, there exists no corpus of knowl- edge that allows itself to be applicable to all the various libraries."23 Unlike the detailed evaluation of libraries that might be done using the specific standards of the American Library Associa- tion, library evaluations by regional accrediting agencies differ in that they are conducted as an integral part of total institu- tional evaluation with the primary objective to determine how suc- cessfully the institution is meeting its self-declared purposes. 22Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee of the Association of Research Libraries and the Associa- tion of College and Research Libraries, Standards for University Libraries (Chicago: American Library Association, 1979), p. l. 23Dudley Yates, "The Impact of Regional Accrediting Agencies Upon Libraries of Post-Secondary Education" (paper presented at the Biennial Conference of Southeastern Library Association, Knoxville Tennessee, November 3-6, 1976) (ERIC Ed., 135), p. 16. 10 Gelfand reports that highly detailed evaluations of the library program are usually not made by the evaluator of the accrediting association.24 Accrediting associations generally do not suggest the use of American Library Association Standards in evaluating libraries. Only the Northwest Association makes any reference to national standards, indicating that standards of the American Library Association serve as useful guidelines.25 Instead, the library is reviewed to deter- mine the degree to which it meets the educational objectives of the institution. It is a point of pride among the regional associations to utilize a qualitative evaluation directed at the objectives and goals of the institution. Consequently, such terms as "adequate to support the educational objectives“ and "basic resources" are used to describe a library program even though these terms and other similar descriptive terms are not defined. According to Yates, the use of these generalized nondefined terms only adds to the problem of evalua- tion by making it difficult for all but a specialist to determine the adequacy of a library program.2 An additional problem in evaluating libraries during the accreditation process is that accrediting associations visiting 24Morris A. Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators," College and Research Libraries 19 (July 1958): 306. 25Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Colleges, Accreditation Standards (Seattle: Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, 1977), p. 6. 26 Yates, p. 337. 11 committees vary in size and makeup, depending on the type of insti- tution and the association's schedule. A library specialist is not always included on the corrmittee. Some associations include library or learning resource specialists because they recognize the library as a complex segment of the total process; other associations do not make this inclusion. Givens and Sivells point this out when they state: The Southern Association includes on each team a librarian charged with specific responsibility for the library. In contrast to the practice of the Southern Association, the North Central Association is noticeable for the frequency and consistency with which it fails to include librarians as members of the visiting committee.27 Specifically stated, the problem is that the North Central Accrediting AsSociation usually does not assign a library specialist to a visiting team, nor does it provide specific criteria or guide- lines to assist nonspecialists in evaluating the library program.28 This investigation will attempt to answer the following two questions: 1. Lacking library specialists on the visitation teams or guidelines for nonspecialists, how do evaluators assess the effective- ness of the library program in relation to the mission of the insti- tution? 27Johnnie E. Givens and Wanda K. Sivells, “Accrediting Agencies and Library Cooperation in Education," Library Trends 24 (October 1975): 368. 28North Central is working on a draft of a checklist of items to assist teams in planning and carrying out an on-site accreditation visit as of Fall 1979. Also, team members receive two pages of data (Data Form E) regarding holdings, usage, and expenditures of the library. 12 2. What criteria would be useful to assist evaluators in making an informed judgment about the overall effectiveness of the library program? Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to attempt to identify criteria which may be used in evaluating libraries in the North Central accrediting process. It will involve an examination of the litera- ture, documentation provided by the North Central Accrediting Asso- ciation, and data collected by a direct-mail survey to evaluators. An effort will be made to generate a set of guidelines from the data which can be used by evaluators to help determine if the library is fulfilling its mission as related to the institution's mission. Need for the Study There is a need to investigate the processes and criteria used by accreditation team members who evaluate the library. Only two major studies have been undertaken on this subject. Yates completed a dissertation entitled "An Analysis of the Bases Used by Library Evalu- ators in the Accrediting Process of the Southern Association of Col- 29 The purpose of the Yates study was to identify leges and Schools." what criteria team members used to ascertain if the library was ful- filling its stated goals in supporting the mission of the institu- tion. The intent was to formulate a profile of the ideal evaluator 29Oudiey v. Yates, "An Analysis of Bases Used by Library Evaluators in the Accrediting Process of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Univer- sity, 1973). 13 and criteria used. Clearly, there is a need to investigate this same aspect in the North Central Accrediting Association process to determine what criteria are being used by evaluators to assess the effectiveness of the library as related to the goals of the institution. This study replicates, to a large degree, the concept of the Yates study and draws heavily upon specific parts, such as the questionnaire. Gelfand completed a dissertation entitled "A Historical Study of the Evaluation of Libraries in Higher Institutions by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools," which was related and helpful.30 However, his study concerning techniques used by library evaluators in the Middle States Association was even more useful.31 Many of the techniques identified by Gelfand were used in the technique section of the questionnaire to gather informa- tion for this study. In addition to the need to investigate the process and criteria used by North Central evaluators, there is a need to examine documentation distributed by North Central, library standards writ- ten by the American Library Association, literature on library evalua- tion, and education and library literature to identify potential areas of a library program which should be assessed during an accredita- tion visit. 30Morris A. Gelfand, "A Historical Study of the Evaluation of Libraries in Higher Institutions by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1960). 3lGelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators." 14 Finally, the study will analyze the data and generate guide- lines which may be useful to North Central Association evaluators in assessing library progress in the future. Definition of Terms North Central--Stands for the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Accreditation--Is an activity in which a group of educational institutions voluntarily band together to form an organization which has for its purpose the identification and preservation of quality in education. The process provides the public with a general rating of institutions. Evaluators--Educators chosen by the North Central Association to visit a member institution to evaluate the institution and react with professional expertise to the self-study of the institution. Library Evaluators--Educators chosen by the North Central Association to visit a member institution and who have a specific responsibility to evaluate the library and react with professional expertise to the self-study of the institution's library. Standards--Standards for College Libraries and Standards for Universities developed by the Association of Colleges and Research Libraries and pertaining to library evaluation. Library Program-~An administrative configuration within the institution responsible for the supervision and management of library printed, and sometimes nonprinted, materials. ‘Agfle-American Library Association. 15 ACRL--Association of College and University Libraries, a division of the American Library Association. Limitations 1. This study is limited geographically to the nineteen- state region of the North Central Association. 2. Only the North Central evaluators will be surveyed, not librarians or other staff of the hosting institutions, to gain their perception of the library evaluation. 3. Only evaluators who have evaluated libraries at insti- tutions of higher education offering a bachelors, masters, and doc- torate will be surveyed. 4. The study is limited to evaluators who completed an evaluation during a three-year period, 1977-1979. Basic Assumptions 1. Regional accrediting associations have exerted powerful influence for improvement of library services by voluntarily estab- lishing and implementing evaluative criteria for the guidance of their members. They are in a position to continue to influence further improvement. 2. The findings and recommendations of regional associa- tions, other agencies, and those of independent investigators and specialists can be implemented, if adOpted, by the regional accredit- ing associations. 16 Overview Chapter I will be used to provide background on accredita- tion, in general, and the specific problems related to the library segment of accreditation. The need to study the specific criteria used by North Central Accrediting Association evaluators will be established. Chapter II will be devoted to the review of pertinent litera- ture relating to accreditation, evaluating the library for accredi- tation, library evaluation, and the role of library standards in evaluation of libraries for accreditation purposes. The design of the study and the procedures to be used will be detailed in Chapter III. Chapter IV will be devoted to reporting an analysis of accreditation documents, library standards, and education and library literature for the purpose of identifying criteria for library evalua- tion and to analyzing the data. A discussion of the major findings of the survey will also be included. Chapter V will consist of a summary of the findings, major conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Accreditation Accreditation of higher education institutions became a reality in 1909 when North Central Association was the first to for- 32 In the beginning, accredi- mulate a definite accrediting program. tation of higher education, like that of secondary schools, functioned independently as a voluntary nongovernment activity. During the last fifteen years, the federal government has exercised a growing influ- ence to convert the accrediting function into a governmentally regu- lated activity.33’34’35 Accreditation never has been well understood by educators or the general public, even though efforts to explain it have been undertaken at various points in its short history. Accreditation, as defined by Young, is intended to foster excellence in postsecondary education through the development of criteria and guidelines for 32 33Courts Oulahan, "The Legal Implications of Evaluation and Accreditation," Journal of Law and Education 7 (April 1978): 193. 34Frank Dickey and Jerry Miller, "Federal Involvement in Nongovernmental Accreditation," Educational Record 53 (Spring 1972): 138. look and Haggerty, p. 24. 35John R. Profitt, "The Federal Connection for Accredi- tation," The Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979): 146. 17 18 36 Thrash adds to the defini- assessing educational effectiveness. tion by stating that "accreditation is the outcome of an evaluative process guided by criteria generally based on judging an institu- tion in the light of its stated purposes."37 Fisk and Durgen identify two important functions which are basic and describe the process, the institutional self-study and peer evaluation.38 In short, the purpose of accreditation is to encourage and stimulate high standards for higher education. Voluntary accreditation has played an important role in the development and preservation of a quality higher education program in the United States. It came into being as a response to an important social need to identify and ensure that institutions of higher learn- ing would have high standards. In the eyes of many people, accredited institutions held a position of higher status than unaccredited insti- tutions and tended to attract students, faculty, and financial sup- 39 port. Today, proponents of voluntary accreditation argue that the public (or nine client publics as identified by Pugsleyqo) interest is 36Kenneth E. Young, "New Pressures on Accreditation," Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979): 135. 37Patricia A. Thrash, "Accreditation: A Perspective," Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979): 116. 38Fisk and Durgen, p. 9. 39Burns, "Accrediting: Its Response to an Evaluating System of Higher Education," p. l. 40R. S. Pugsley, "The Consumer Interest in Voluntary Accredi- tation," The North Central Association Quarterly 51 (Spring 1977): 353. 19 best served through the self-study peer evaluation approach; however, voluntary accreditation is not without its critics. Some critics of accreditation suggest that the process encourages mediocrity because it is concerned only with minimum standards. Others are critical of regional agencies that have encour- aged institutions to set their own objectives upon which they are then judged. Still others are critical that regional accrediting agencies have arbitrarily used faculty-student ratios, number of Ph.D.'s on the faculty, and similar inputs as indices of educational performance rather than outputs, such as: what changes occur in students during their period of study, what levels of proficiency have they achieved in their chosen fields, what research is done by the faculty, and related measures.4] Koerner expresses trenchant views concerning regional accreditation when he states: Normally, regional accreditation is a rather quiet, clubby enterprise that seems to have special appeal for professional educators, small college presidents and other educational administrators. . . . The same people are found serving year ~ after year. . . . The truth of the matter is that the regionals are devoted more to the protection of their own memberghip than they are to the protection of students or the public.4 One of the most common criticisms appearing in the literature is the failure of regional associations to provide specific criteria 43 or specifically define educational quality. In some cases, terms 4lDewey B. Sturt, "Accreditation-~Its Problems and Its Future," Teachers College Record 62 (May 1961): 635. 42James Koerner, "The Case of Marjane Webster," Public Interest 20 (Summer 1970): 58. 43William E. Troutt, "Regional Accreditation Evaluative Cri- teria and Quality Assurance," The Journal of Higher Education 50 (March/April 1979): 203. 20 such as "quality education," "adequate library," and "academic excellence" are used by regional associations without any definition of their meaning. This qualitative terminology flies in the face of quantitative analysis normally used for assessing accountability, a watchword in American education today. The emergence of accounta- bility raises the question that something is wrong with higher educa- tion; in doing so it also implies that the warranty of accreditation is subject to question. Accrediting associations have recognized that there are wide variations among them and attempted to scrutinize their activities both individually and collectively. More emphasis was placed on central coordination of all accreditation when, in 1975, the Federa- tion of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education (FRACHE) and the National Commission on Accrediting joined forces to create the Council on Postsecondary Education (COPA). Young illustrates COPA's effort to ensure some accountability for accrediting associa- tions when he describes its purpose, which is to "evaluate nongovern- mental accrediting organizations for initial or continuing recognition and monitor the accrediting practices of these bodies to ensure the fairness, integrity, and consistency of their standards, their poli- "44 cies, and procedures for applying them. The library is one segment of the accrediting process which seems to lack consistency. 44Kenneth Young, "COPA: A New Force on the National Scene," North Central Association Quarterly 42 (Winter 1978): 359. 21 LibraryiEvaluation An evaluation, according to Dressel, is "both a judgment on a worth or impact of a program, procedure, or individual, and the process whereby that judgment is made."45 Higher education, as a part of society, has an obligation to evaluate its effectiveness and this is undertaken in part by accrediting agencies. The library, as one part of the institution of higher education, must share the same con- cerns and responsibilities. An examination of the literature of library and information science covering the last decade presents evidence that there is a growing interest in the subject of library evaluation. Lancaster's study of library evaluation is the most comprehensive and points out that there are three perspectives from which any type of service, including library service, can be evaluated: 1. How well the service is satisfying its objectives, which usually means how well it is satisfying the demands placed upon it. This is an evaluation of the effectiveness of service. 2. How efficiently (in terms of costs) it is satisfying its objectives. This is cost-effectiveness evaluation. 3. Whether the service justifies its existence (i.e., the worth of the service). Evaluating worth is concerned with cost- benefit relationships.46 The evaluation of libraries during an accreditation visit by a regional accrediting association is primarily effectiveness evaluation in rela- tion to the mission statement of the parent institution. 45Paul L. Dressel, Handbook of Academic Evaluation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976), p. 1. 46F. W. Lancaster, The Measurement and Evaluation of Library Services (Washington, D.C.: Information Resources Press, 1977), p. 322. 22 The Association of College and Research Libraries Committee on Liaison with Accrediting Agencies created a guide to methods of library evaluation in which they indicate three categories to judge the adequacy of a library. The first category is primary evidence such as books, reading spaces, and professional staff. The second category is secondary evidence such as budget and planning documents. The third category is special activities such as a friends of the library group, a lecture series, a course in library research methods, 47 This guide is helpful in outlining areas for and publication. accrediting teams to examine. It also contains many suggested tech- niques to gain information for making a judgment on the adequacy of the library. The Standards and Accreditation Committee of the Association of Colleges and Research Libraries has developed a checklist to be used in conjunction with the Standards for College Libraries for evaluating college libraries. The detailed checklist covers the fol- lowing components of a college library program: objectives, collec- tions, organization of materials, staff, delivery of service, facili- ties, administration, and budget.48 This checklist should be helpful to an accrediting team member; however, it does not address itself to nonprint media or to library performance or outcomes. 47Association of College and Research Libraries, Committee on Liaison with Accrediting Agencies, "Guide to Methods of Library Evalua- tion," College and Research Libraries News 29 (October 1968): 293. 48Association of College and University Libraries, Standards and Accreditation Committee, “An Evaluative Checklist for Reviewing a College Library Program," College and Research Libraries News 40 (November 1979): 305-16. 23 Two specific attempts in the area of collection develOpment evaluation have been made by Clapp and Jordan and by McInnis.49’50 Clapp and Jordan developed a formula which attempted to identify the principal factors affecting academic needs for books and to ascribe suitable weights to each factor. McInnis tested the Clapp-Jordan formula by empirical analysis. The two examples of the collection evaluation mentioned above are not representative of the type of evaluation done by regional accrediting teams; team members do not usually attempt that level of specificity in a two-day evaluation visit. Accreditation evaluators may, on occasion, use library stan- dards as guidelines for evaluation--both those which are created by an organization such as ALA and those which result from a compila- tion of comparative library data. An example of the latter is a comparative survey done by Downs and Heussman which collected infor- 51 mation from fifty U.S. and Canadian university libraries. Another example of comparative data is a tabulation concerning seating capacity of large universities compiled by White.52 49Vernon W. Clapp and Robert T. Jordan, "Quantitative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic Library Collections," College and Research Libraries 26 (September 1965): 371-80. 50R. Marvin McInnis, "The Formula Approach to Library Size: An Empirical Study of Its Efficiency in Evaluating Research Libraries,“ College and Research Libraries 33 (May 1972): 190-98. 5lRobert B. Downs and John W. Heussman, “Standards for Univer- sity Libraries," College and Research Libraries 31 (January 1970): 28-35. 52Lucien White, "Seating Achievement in Larger University Libraries,“ College and Research Libraries 28 (November 1967): 411-14. 24 Library standards created by organizations such as the Ameri- can Library Association are also used by some evaluators in some regional associations as guidelines for making judgments. The stan- dards are best used when considered by evaluators as guidelines and should be interpreted in light of institutional objectives. Since not all North Central teams include librarians and since not all faculty and administrative team members are knowledgeable about libraries, the standards can serve as a valuable guide from which team members can make informed judgments about the library program in rela- 53 tion to the mission of the institution. Ottersen compiled an annotated bibliography which is helpful in identifying various stan- dards for evaluating libraries.54 The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) created Standards for College Libraries in 1975 which replaced the 55 1959 standards. They are quantitative in nature and formulas are provided to determine adequacy of staff, facilities, and collection. At the time the standards were issued, there was criticism by some librarians that the standards went too far in telling institutions how to organize. Moran, in a recent discussion of adequacy in uni- versity libraries, takes that position when he states: "The setting of standards by outside agencies, like those in the Standards for 53Albert E. Meder, Jr., "Accrediting Agencies and the Stan- dards," Drexel Library Quarterly 2 (July 1966): 215. 54Signe Ottersen, "A Bibliography on Standards for Evaluating Libraries," College and Research Libraries 32 (March 1971): 127-44. 55 Standards for College Libraries. 25 College Libraries, represents an attempt to define a uniformity of purpose and goals for institutions. Such attempts may be ignored by an institution with every justification."56 Some spokesmen for the academic community accused librarians of creating a "self-serving document" when they created college library standards. Robert Kirkwood, who at the time was executive director of the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commission of Higher Education, criticized the standards for emphaSizing minimum quantitative requirements 57 instead of goals to attain. Standards for University Libraries was prepared, after a long study by a joint committee of the Association of Research Libraries 58 The standards and the Association of College and Research Libraries. for university libraries are almost the complete opposite of the col- lege library standards in that they are nonprescriptive; their empha- sis is qualitative in nature, as stated in the introduction section: "These standards are not intended to establish normative prescrip- tions for uniform applications. Rather, they are meant to provide a general framework within which informed judgment can be applied to 59 individual circumstances." Thus the college library and university standards vary greatly. 56"ACRL Yardstick for College Libraries," American Libraries 6 (February 1975): 81. 57 58Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards for University Libraries. 59 Ibid. Ibid., p. l. 26 Perhaps this difference can best be illustrated by comparing the standard relating to collection development. The college stan- dard 2.1.1 states that "the amount of print materials to be provided shall be determined by a formula which calls for a hegig_collection of 85,000 volumes."60 Conversely, the university standard B.l is not quantitative but states: "A university library's collection shall be of sufficient size and scope to support the university's total instructional needs and to facilitate the university's research pro- 6] The university standards fail to define what "collection of gram." sufficient size" means and furthermore do not give any indication of how to measure or evaluate the same. They leave the evaluator the flexibility to make judgment concerning a particular library in rela- tion to the total institution. This attitude of evaluating libraries probably is more acceptable to accrediting associations, in general, and it is in agreement with North Central's philOSOphy, specifically, because it takes into account the idea of the uniqueness of each uni- versity. However, the difficulty, according to Wallace, with respect to any standards is: "(1) they tend to be minimal and, once met, may be of no further value to an institution for guidance toward long range goals, and (2) administrative officers frequently regard the attainment of such standards as the attainment of the maximum destination for 60 61 Standards for College Libraries, p. 4. Standards for University Libraries, p. 3. 27 library services."62 It is important, then, to look for alternative measures to be used for evaluating the library for accreditation pur- poses. Evaluating the Library for Accreditation The value of a library to the institution's educational pro- gram is recognized by all accrediting agencies. The elements of a library program which are most often reviewed are best illustrated in a study by Totten63 which was reported also in Givens and Sivells' article.64 Staff, collections, facilities, budget, and usage were the most common elements examined by accrediting agencies. Other important elements such as nonprint media, networking, telecommuni- cations, computer applications, and interlibrary cooperation were conspicuously overlooked. It is surprising to find how little accreditation is dis- cussed by librarians in library literature and, concomitantly, how little the evaluation of academic libraries is discussed in education literature. Only one comprehensive study and a few articles have appeared in the literature. The lack of discourse concerning accredi- tation between professionals in the fields of education and 62James 0. Wallace, "The Practical Meaning of Library Stan- dards," in anntitative Methods in Librarianship: Standards Research Management, ed. Irene Broden Hoadley and Alice Clark (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1972), p. 32. 63Herman L. Totten, "Identification of Library Elements in Statements of Accrediting Standards, A Review of the Literature" (unpublished paper prepared as a working paper for the ACRL ad hoc Committee to Revise the 1959 Standards for College Libraries, March 9 9 . 64Givens and Sivells, pp. 366-67. 28 librarianship is most readily explicable when one considers that few librarians are involved in the planning and process of accreditations. Gelfand was the first to study the procedures used to evalu- ate the library during an accrediting visit. He surveyed thirty-one librarians, who had been an accrediting team member for the Middle States Association, to determine the techniques they employed for preparation of the visit and during the visit. The questionnaire inquiry revealed that nearly all respondents found it helpful to review the Middle States Association's guidebook, read the entire self-study, check the annual ARL statistics, and read the college catalog.65 The questionnaire survey also revealed methods and devices that were regularly and widely used. The top ten are listed below in rank order: 1. Review library sections of the institution's self-study. 2. Confer with chief librarian. 3. Examine librarian's annual report. 4. Confer with colleagues on visiting team. 5. Confer with key staff members. 6. Confer with librarian at conclusion of visit. 7. Read any available consultant reports. 8. Discuss basic routines and problems with department heads. 9. Inspect book stacks. 10. Inspect reading rooms. 65 Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators," p. 311. 66Ibid., p. 315. 29 The seemingly important process of conferring with faculty and student users to obtain their views of the library ranked only seventeenth and thirty-second, respectively--perhaps because the orientation of Middle States library evaluators is too much on library efficiency instead of program effectiveness within the goals of the institution. Yates undertook the most comprehensive study concerning the evaluation of an academic library during the accreditation process.67 The study, completed in 1973 and entitled "An Analysis of the Bases Used by Library Evaluators in the Accreditation Process of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools," was the second comprehensive attempt to determine what criteria evaluators used in assessing library programs. Yates analyzed existing data available from the Southern Association and gathered additional data on the subject by a direct-mail questionnaire to library evaluators. The purpose of the study was to formulate a profile of the ideal evaluator; to deter- mine if the evaluative criteria utilized by evaluators were supplied by the Southern Association, or based on an alternate authority; and to provide a new standardized approach to the evaluation of libraries.68 Yates concluded in his study that: 1. Communications between the Association and evaluators was minimal and little guidance was given to library evaluators; 2. Due to the lack of guidance, evaluators devised check lists which resulted in an inconsistent approach to library evalua- tions; 67Yates, "Bases Used by Library Evaluators." 68Ibid., p. 8. 3O 3. There was a need for more training and guidance in the form of a checklist of areas to be examined in the library pro- gram; 4. Libraries hosting an evaluation visit were subjugated to what perhaps could have been labeled as an undue degree of subjectivity on the part of the evaluator; and 5. The Association's Standard Six, the criteria provided to assist in evaluatinggthe library program, was too ambiguous and unquantlflable. The Yates study suffered from several limitations. First, this study was limited to the eleven-state region which the Southern Association serves. Second, since the Association normally includes a librarian on the visiting team, only librarians were surveyed. No opinions or attitudes of nonlibrarian team members were sought which may have been valuable in placing the library segment of the accredit- ing process in perspective. Third, while one of Yates' purposes was to provide a new standardized approach to evaluating libraries, he stopped short of recommending helpful criteria or checklists. For example, more than 75% felt that a checklist provided by the Southern Association would be helpful, yet Yates did not use the data collected to formulate and recommend a possible checklist. Although formulat- ing a checklist to be used by library evaluators was not part of the original intent of the study, it was a logical next step which pos- sibly would have made the results of the study more widely usable. Givens and Sivells studied the criteria of the six regional associations for evaluating libraries during the accrediting process. These include New England Association, Middle States Association, North Central Association, Southern Association, Northwest Association, 691bid.. pp. 178-80. 31 and Western Association. They determined that while each has its own criteria, only Northwest Association makes any reference to national standards, indicating that standards of the American Library Associa- tion serve as a useful guide. According to Givens and Sivells, the guidelines used by the six associations provide little guidance for the librarian team member or the librarian whose library is evaluated. The study also revealed that most of the associations agree on the importance of usage, but no one had faced the realistic problem of measuring use; most associations are not prepared to be accountable fOr audio-visual materials; and most associations do not take inter- library operation, networking, and resource sharing into account during their evaluations.7O Larson raises some excellent questions in an essay on evalua- tion in regard to resources sharing. Unfortunately, few accrediting agencies have authoritative answers, when he asks: Does pooling of five libraries of 50,000 volumes, in a neighbor- hood of colleges, result in a first rate library of 250,000 volumes or is the sum total of them not significantly better than only one of the original five? Do exchange privileges, trucking systems, teletype systems, and other similar deviges substltute successfully for a paucity of local materials? Only two of the six regional associations make any reference to resource sharing. There appears to be a significant degree of confusion and inconsistency regarding what criteria and procedures should be used in evaluating a library. As Pattillo points out, "there seems to be 70Givens and Sivells, p. 364. 71Larson, p. 28. 32 serious problems in almost every method of appraising the effective- ness of a college library."72 It is intended that this study will provide some answers to this problem. 72Pattillo, p. 397. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY All accrediting agencies indicate in their guidebooks, and other material received by colleges and universities being assessed, that the library is important and valuable to the institution's edu- cational program. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of the six regional accrediting associations and to which this study was confined, includes the following statement in its Handbook on Accreditation: Evaluation Guide to Institutional Assessment: Learning resources adequate to support the educational programs and adequately staffed should be readily accessible to students on campus and during periods of study or other activities away from campus. . . . Learning resources are a significant com- ponent of an educational program only if they are used. This is largely the responsibility of the instructional staff. Trying to evaluate whether a library is fulfilling this state- ment is difficult, and that difficulty is compounded by the fact that North Central seldom appoints a librarian to a visiting team. In addition, it does not provide any specific criteria or guidelines which would assist nonlibrarians in their evaluation. The purpose of this study was to assess what North Central evaluators were presently 73North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commis- sion on Institutions of Higher Education, Handbook on Accreditation, p. 67. 33 34 using as criteria for evaluating the library, and to identify useful criteria that could be used in the future. Interest in the Stugy The idea for the study evolved from the researcher's experi- ence of serving as a host librarian for a North Central Accreditation visit and from a preliminary search of the literature. During a search of the literature on a tentative topic of library evaluation and ALA standards, the relationship between library evaluation and accreditation became apparent. The fact that there were few relevant citations in the literature, combined with the researcher's experi- ence as a host librarian, led to the pursuit of this study with North Central. When approached, the Executive Director of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education expressed an interest in such a study and a willingness to provide needed information. The preliminary search of the literature indicated that there was a need to investigate the processes and criteria used by accredi- tation team members who evaluate the library during an accreditation visit. Dudley V. Yates' dissertation, entitled "An Analysis of the Bases Used by Library Evaluators in the Accrediting Process of the 74 was the only major Southern Association of Colleges and Schools," study found on this specific subject. It served, in part, as a model for the investigation reported in this dissertation. 74Yates, "Bases Used by Library Evaluators." 35 To serve the purpose of this study, attention was focused upon only one of the six regional accrediting agencies, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Methodology and Procedures This was an exploratory study which involved completing two tasks. The first task involved an extensive review of the literature on regional accreditation, library evaluation, library standards, and, specifically, North Central Accreditation to select the most perti- nent literature for the study. The data were analyzed and potential criteria statements were extracted. The purpose of the analysis was to extract statements of criteria which were considered to be crucial for library evaluation as it related to accreditation and to provide, to some degree, additional information for designing a survey instru- ment. The statements were placed on 4 x 6 cards and ordered topically under the following headings, which were found to be common throughout the documentation: organization, administration, collection develop- ment, reference service, staffing, budgeting, usage, facilities, and resource sharing/networking. Since the application of computer tech- nology has been a recent phenomenon in libraries, technology did not appear in the documents but was added by the researcher. More than 160 statements were found in the documentation searched, and after removing duplicated statements, eighty remained and are presented in Chapter IV. 36 The second task was to survey North Central evaluators, by direct-mail questionnaire, to obtain evaluators' opinions about North Central's accrediting process and to collect data concerning methods and techniques they used during the evaluation process. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was patterned to a large extent after the one used by Yates in his study and, in fact, utilizes some of the same questions.75 Many of the questions on Yates' study were eliminated because they were specifically oriented toward the Southern Associa- tion or were thought to be unnecessary. The questionnaire for this study contained ninety-one questions and was designed to conserve respondents' time by allowing for answer- ing to be done with a check mark in the vast majority of the cases (Appendix C). However, evaluators were encouraged to make comments throughout the questionnaire and were provided an opportunity to respond to two open-ended questions. Because it was rather lengthy when typed in regular type, a photo-duplication process was used to reduce regular type on 11" x 14" paper to smaller type on 8-1/2“ x 11" paper, thereby reducing the length of the questionnaire to less than five full pages. The questionnaire was divided into five sections: (1) Back- ground Information, (2) General Information Section A, (3) General Information Section B, (4) Reports, and (5) Techniques. 75Ibid. 37 The purpose of the Background Section was to gather infor- mation about the evaluator's specific job, position title, academic preparation, experience in education vis-a-vis experience in accredi- tation, and number of evaluations performed in recent years. In addition, information was sought as to whether evaluators, as team members, had primary or secondary responsibility for evaluating the library, whether they benefited from such an experience, and if they were prepared to make the library evaluation visit. It was felt that a profile of the typical library evaluator could be compiled from this information and that, if it could be determined that evaluators generally performed two or more evaluations, there would be some degree of reliability to the data collected. The questionnaire contained a General Information Section A for the purpose of gathering opinions on the use of qualitative vs. quantitative criteria; the value, if any, of assigning a librarian to a visiting team; and other evaluative statements concerning North Central Accreditation. The General Information Section B was included to gather information concerning evaluators' perceived relationship with North Central and the communication between the Association and the evalu- ators concerning library evaluation. The Report Section was designed to gather data relative to how respondents would react to and report certain conditions they encountered. The data were analyzed to determine if there were any differences among evaluators when they were grouped by position and type of library evaluated. 38 A Technique Section was built into the questionnaire for the purpose of gathering information about the techniques most commonly utilized by the evaluators when evaluating a library. This section 76 since he included many of the techniques identified by Gelfand had compiled a rather comprehensive list of techniques. The questionnaire was pre-tested by educators who had served on accreditation teams but who were not in the sample. These edu- cators were asked to complete the questionnaire and were then indi- vidually interviewed to obtain their suggestions for improvements and clarification. After several revisions, the questionnaire was num- bered and mailed with a self-addressed return envelope and an attached cover letter, written by the Executive Director of North Central Asso- ciation (Appendix A). The letter indicated the importance of the study to North Central and urged the completion and return of the questionnaire. A cover letter written by the researcher was also included (Appendix B). A follow-up letter and survey were mailed within one month to those who did not respond to the first survey (Appendix D). A return rate of 81.1% was realized. Sample The population studied was composed of evaluators who had been on North Central visiting teams of higher education institutions accredited during the years 1977, 1978, and 1979. However, the evalu- ators could not be sampled directly as North Central did not have information arranged in that manner. Instead, a sample of institutions 76Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators," pp. 314-16. 39 was drawn and, when presented to North Central, it enabled them to extract from their files the names and addresses of evaluators who had visited specific institutions. The procedure represented a form of cluster sampling and, since the average team size was five, all of the evaluators in the cluster were included in the sample. Each June all institutions receiving accreditation/reaccredi- tation during the year are listed in the June issue of the Ngrth Central Association Quarterly. There are approximately 265 institu- tions that received accreditation in 1977, 1978, and 1979 for the bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees. Within the 265 institutions which were accredited during the three years, 45% were at the bachelors level, 35% were at the masters level, and 20% were at the doctorate level. Both the literature and the North Central staff indicated that there was an average of five evaluators on an evaluation team. It was felt that a sample population of between 150 and 200 evaluators would be a sufficient representation for the purposes of this study. Therefore, fifty-five or 21% of the institutions were selected from the North Central Association Quarterly using a stratified random sample. A sample of the fifty-five institutions was divided to approximate the corresponding percentages of the degree levels men- tioned above and resulted in the selection of twenty-two institutions at the bachelors level, seventeen at the masters level, and sixteen at the doctorate level. The institutions were stratified according to the situational variables of degree level and year of evaluation. The final sample of institutions resulted in a fairly wide geographi- cal coverage of North Central's nineteen-state region. Institutions 40 were selected from thirteen states on the bachelors degree level, thirteen states on the masters degree level, and ten states on the doctorate degree level. After the institutions were selected, the list of institutions was sent to North Central Association, which consulted its computerized files and provided names and addresses of 175 evaluators. North Cen- tral supplied two mailing labels for each evaluator as well as a let- ter written by the Executive Director of the Commission on Higher Education, indicating North Central's support of this study. While the sampling controlled the selection of institutions which had been visited for accreditation for specified years, it pro- vided no control in direct selection of the evaluators who visited the specific institutions. They were selected and appointed by North Central. It was felt, during a discussion of the dissertation proposal, that librarians who had served on North Central teams should be sur- veyed, with the results reported separately for comparison purposes. North Central identified five librarians, one of whom coincidentally was identified in the original sample. All five librarians responded. Responses of evaluators were also analyzed separately accord- ing to type of institution in which most of their evaluations had occurred. Evaluators whose evaluation experience was at four-year colleges were coded accordingly so their responses could be reported separately under the category of College Evaluators. Respondents who indicated that their evaluation experience was at the university level were coded likewise so their responses could be reported under the 41 category of University Evaluators in addition to the all-respondents and type-of-position categories. The characteristics of the sample are listed in Table 3.1 by evaluator's position, type of institution they are employed at, and type of institution they have most frequently been assigned to evaluate. Table 3.1.--Evaluators by position. Category Frequency Percent Professor 44 31.9 President 31 22.4 V.P. Business Affairs 0 O V.P. Academic Affairs 21 15.2 V.P. Student Affairs 5 3.7 Graduate Dean 5 3.7 Academic Dean 23 16.6 Librarian 5 3.7 Counselor .7 Planning & Development 3 2.1 N = 138 3 responses missing Evaluators Employed At College Level 55 39.9 University Level 75 54.3 Other 8 5.8 N = 138 3 responses missing Evaluators' Evaluation Experience At College Level 74 53.5 University Level 57 40.8 Other 8 5.7 N = 139 2 responses missing 42 Analysis of Data The results of the questionnaire were coded onto op scan computer forms. If a respondent failed to check any of the response alternatives, that response was treated as a missing value. Position and specific job titles were grouped into the following categories as determined by the researcher: Professor, President, Vice-President for Business Affairs, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Vice- President or Dean of Student Affairs, Graduate Dean, Academic Dean, Librarian, Counselor, and Planning and Development. The responses for academic preparation were grouped by the researcher into the cate- gories listed as follows: Science, Social Science, Humanities, Business and Economics, Education, and Applied Science. Institutions selected in the sample were numbered sequentially, and if an evaluator had been a member of the accreditation team for a specific institu- tion, that number was entered on the op scan form. The coded op scan forms were then taken to Central Michigan University's Computer Center for processing. The analysis of data was done in the same sequence as the questions of the questionnaire. The Chi square test for homogeneity and the cross-tabulation procedure of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) were used to determine if evaluators, when grouped by various criteria such as position (teaching or adminis- trative), or type of institution visited (college or university), responded differently to specific questions. A .05 level of signifi- cance was employed for Chi square. 43 The results are reported in the accompanying tables for all respondents; by type of position (teaching, administrative, and other), and by type of institution visited (college evaluators or university evaluators). The five librarians whom North Central occa- sionally utilized on accreditation teams checked the administrative category to describe their position and were included in that category for statistical analysis, including the Chi square test. However, their responses to each question are also reported in the tables separately for comparison and informational purposes. Any comments written on the questionnaire by respondents were recorded and used in the analysis if they provided additional infOrmation or clarification. Responses were also compared to spe- cific questions in the Yates77 study and reported when relevant. Methodology for Developing Proposed Questions and Areas of Inquiry Data from the questionnaire responses and from the literature review were examined to provide a basis for developing a set of ques- tions and areas of inquiry to be used when evaluating the library as a part of the total accrediting process. The set of questions was sent to fifty educators for their reaction. The fifty educators were selected as follows: 1. An examination of the survey results indicated that 101 of the 141 respondents either "strongly agreed" or "slightly agreed" that they would like North Central to provide more guidance in the 77Yates, "Bases Used by Library Evaluators." 44 form of areas to investigate and questions to ask about the library program. Since these individuals could be identified and had expressed a need for such information, it seemed apprOpriate to have them react to any proposed list of questions and areas of inquiry. A random sample of 25 of the 101 respondents was drawn and the set of questions and an accompanying letter of explanation were mailed to them on August 15, 1980. Evaluators were asked to react to the document and return it by September 15, 1980 (Appendix E). 2. It seemed important to get the response of the five librarians who had served on North Central accrediting teams, so the set of questions with the same instructions was mailed to them on the same date. 3. It also seemed important to try to get a reaction from the librarians at some of the host institutions that had been visited by evaluators. A random sample of fifteen was drawn from the fifty- five institutions which constituted the original sample for the study, and a draft of the questions and the same instructions were mailed to them on the same date. 4. Reaction to the questions was also sought from five addi- tional librarians and educators selected by the researcher, and a c0py of the draft was also mailed to them on the same date. The North Central staff was also mailed a copy of the set of questions and areas of inquiry to be used when evaluating the library as part of the total accrediting process, for their information. A total of thirty-five of the fifty or 61% of the educators who were mailed the draft of questions responded by September 15, 1980, 45 and their suggestions were taken into consideration when the final set of questions and areas of inquiry, found in Chapter V, were developed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter contains presentation and analysis of data gathered from a search of relevant documents to identify criteria for evaluating libraries and a survey of selected North Central evaluators. The major findings are presented in descriptive and tabular form. A discussion is included in the questionnaire results at the end of each 78 section and a comparison made to the Yates study when relevant. Analysis of Selected Literature to Identify Criteria Used to Evaluate Libraries A review of documentation of the six regional accrediting associations, ACRL standards for college and university libraries, and selected literature concerning library evaluation from both library and education literature resulted in the identification of suggested criteria for evaluating libraries. The evaluative statements are listed below under the following headings: organization, administra- tion, collection development, reference service, staffing, budgeting, usage, facilities, resource sharing, and technology. 78Ibid. 46 47 Evaluative Statements Orgenization 1. (A) O The library has developed a statement of its objectives in accordance with the goals and purposes of the institution. There is evidence that the library objectives are periodically ‘ reviewed and revised as needed. The library's administrative and governance structure is clearly defined and is consistent with the goals of the insti- tution. The library is formally recognized as one of the major academic units within the university and the director participates regu- larly and directly in university-wide academic planning and decision making. The director of libraries reports to the president or chief academic officer to ensure close coordination with the instruc- tional program. The director and other librarians are eligible for active mem- bership on faculty and other committees. The chief librarian or his representative is represented on the curriculum or academic policy-making committee. A committee composed of representatives of the college commu- nity meets regularly to advise the director on matters of policy and user needs, and effectively assists in helping the academic community to understand the library's capabilities and problems. Administration 1. The library program is directed by a well-qualified librarian and supports the full range of the institution's educational program. The duties of the library director, as well as those of pro- fessional librarians, are well defined. The chief librarian is consulted by the chief academic officer or the president on the budgetary needs of the library prior to final decision on budget. There is frequent consultation with library staff members concerning library policy and procedures. 10. 11. 12. 13. 48 Information concerning library services, problems and accomp- lishments is regularly disseminated to the faculty, students, and administration in the form of news releases, reports, handbooks, reading lists, and displays. The library is continually monitoring and evaluating the use of library services and revises its program accordingly to meet the needs. Personnel practices within the library are based on sound, contemporary, administrative practices and are consistent with personnel practices of the institution. Institution and library policies concerning promotion, salary, tenure, and faculty status are clearly defined and made known. The library maintains clearly written policy and procedure manuals covering internal library operational activities which are periodically reviewed. The library maintains use studies to assist in assessing library performance. There is evidence of professional development to assist librarians in keeping current in their field. The library has assessed the needs of the academic community in relation to library services. There is evidence that the library is planning to meet future needs. Collections 1. Learning resources, adequate to support the education program, are readily accessible to students on campus and during periods of study or activities away from campus. A wide variety of learning resources, designed to provide alternative modes of instruction suited to a variety of student needs and learning styles, are available. Library holdings are sufficient in quality and quantity to meet the needs of students. Library holdings are balanced in direct relationship to the nature and level of curricular offerings. Equipment is provided, well maintained, and readily accessible to faculty and students. 6. Library holdings reflect the purposes of the institution, the curriculum offered, and the courses taught. 7. The distribution of holdings and acquisitions is up-to-date and keeps pace with educational program develOpment. 8. There is available, either in the library or a separate unit, such audio-visual materials as slides, film strips, micro- forms, motion pictures, video tapes, tape recordings, and phone discs suitable for supporting instruction. 9. A basic collection provides for source material contained in government documents, newspapers, and journal backfiles as reflected in indexing sources supporting fields of interest. 10. Existing holdings are examined periodically to remove obso- lete and superseded materials. 11. Graduate programs are largely dependent on local campus resources with nearby libraries only acting as a supplement. 12. The library has a collection development policy to guide in the selection and acquisition of materials as they relate to the academic, research, and service goals of the institution. 13. The teaching faculty and professional library staff select library materials to support curriculum areas and general fields of knowledge. 14. The library acquires, organizes, stores, and delivers all institution-owned forms of recorded information required to support the educational programs. 15. The library has a bibliographic control system for the classi- fication, bibliographic identification, location, and retrieval of all library materials which conforms to national conventions. 16. Library collections are organized in an unconfused manner and are easily accessible. 17. There is a planned program of conservation and preservation of the collections. Staffing 1. The library administration and staff are able to provide ser- vice consistent with the mission of the institution. 2. The library faculty is organized as an academic department and 49 participates in administering the library. 10. 50 Professional staff are adequate in number and properly quali- fied in various specialty areas to provide service to the public. Opportunities for professional development are available. Librarians and teaching faculty work closely together for the common cause to achieve educational objectives and provide a total learning experience. Librarians are performing the core academic and professional functions of the library such as collection development, reference and information services, and substantive activi- ties related to bibliographic control. The library has sufficient professional, technical, and clerical staff to provide satisfactory service to meet the objectives of the library and the goals of the institution. There are data regarding the number and assignment of the library staff. The library staff have the appropriate professional degrees at the graduate level. Professional librarians have faculty status. Reference Service 1. Qualified professional reference direction is readily and constantly available nearly all of the hours the library is open. There is evidence that the library staff makes new students and faculty familiar with the library. Such evidence may include tours, lectures, library handbooks, appropriate signs, and formal and informal instructions in the use of the library, bibliography, and retrieval tools. The library serves as a teaching agency providing biblio- graphic advice and instructional lectures to faculty and students. There are provisions for informing faculty of receipt of new publications. The number of hours per week that library services and facili- ties are available meets the study needs of the community, including weekends and vacation periods. Usage 51 Uniformly administered circulation policies regulate the use of library materials for periods that are reasonable without jeOpardizing access. There are provisions to offer library service to students in off-campus and external-degree programs, if any. The utilization of library instructional materials is con- sistent with the educational and instructional program and methods of the community. There is evidence that learning resources are widely used. The faculty encourages the use of library resources. Provisions are made for off-campus students to have ready access to library collections. The library receives sufficient funding to enable it to ful- fill its responsibilities in support of the institution's goals. The director has authority to apportion funds and initiate expenditures within the library approved budget in accordance with institutional policy. The budget of the library program, which is developed by the director in consultation with library staff and college admin- istration, reflects the library's priorities and objectives. Expenditures for library books are sufficient to cover replacements. Funds are allocated for books according to the purposes of the institution, the number and variety of books required by the educational methods employed, and the adequacy of the present holdings. Regular reports reflect the status of allocations, encum- brances, and expenditures and support sound practices of planning and control. 52 Facilities 1. 2. The library is easily accessible on campus. The library's buildings are functionally arranged, fully equipped, and of sufficient size to house the collection and to provide reference services consistent with the mission of the institution. There is evidence that the library has given careful consid- eration to general environmental factors which promote opera- tional efficiency and effective use such as: lighting, ventilation, temperature and humidity control, relationship between stacks and reader stations, relationship among ser- vice points, and adequacy of space for staff and Operations. There is an adequate number and variety of seats available in relation to the total enrollment. Facilities provide a comfortable study environment and invite optimum levels of use by students and faculty. Networking/Resource Sharigg l. The library engages in interlibrary cooperative arrangements, which enhances the quality of its service and resources. 2. The library efficiently delivers from its own collection or from state and national libraries via interlibrary systems materials needed to satisfy user demand. Technology 1. Automation has been applied to library operations, which has improved access to library materials. 2. The library has utilized technology and networking to access collections and resources of other libraries and agencies. 3. The library has utilized micrographics, when possible. Survey Results This section contains the presentation and analysis of data gathered when North Central evaluators were surveyed. The purpose of the survey was to assess their opinions about evaluating libraries 53 during the accreditation visit and to determine the techniques they employed when evaluating libraries. The major findings are presented in descriptive and tabular form in the same sequence as the ques- tionnaire, which included sections on background, general information, reports, and techniques. Each question of each section will be treated separately except when two or more similar questions were asked for the purposes of checking for reliability. Subjective com- ments added by the respondents are included when they are relevant or appear to provide clarification. Certain comparisons were made in the study. For example, the design of the background section of the questionnaire allowed the respondents to indicate position held, such as teaching, administra- tive, and other. An opportunity was also given for indication as to whether most of their evaluation experience was on the college or university level. The Chi square test for homogeneity and the cross- tabulation procedure, noted in Chapter III, was used to determine if there was a significant difference at the .05 level in evaluators' responses when grouped by the categories mentioned above. Since there was a large number of questions included in the questionnaire, the significant differences as determined by the Chi square test will be reported only for those questions having a significant difference. 79 In addition, some comparisons will be made with the Yates study, when appropriate. 79Ibid. 54 Background Section The purpose of the background section of the questionnaire was to elicit responses which would assist in developing a profile of the typical evaluator. Data were gathered on such characteristics as position, educational background, experience in higher education, experience with accreditation in general, and experience with library evaluation specifically. Question l dealt with primary type of employment of evaluators. Among teaching, administrative, librarians, and other types of employ- ment responsibilities, the majority of the evaluators indicated that administrative duties were their primary responsibility followed by teaching, librarians, and others, respectively. The number and per- centage of evaluators in each type of responsibility are found in Table 4.l. Evaluators were asked to list their specific titles so that, especially within the administrative-type responsibilities, the level and kind of administrator could be identified. Titles were combined into like categories, and the responses are listed in Table 4.2. Respondents were also asked for their subject area(s) of academic preparation. Responses were consolidated into six cate- gories as reported in Table 4.3. An attempt was made in asking Questions 2 and 3 to determine if the evaluators' educational experiences were directly related to their accrediting experience; that is, if visiting team members' edu- cational experiences were mainly in four-year colleges, were they assigned to evaluate the four-year college. The results indicated 55 Table 4.l.--Primary type of professional responsibility of evaluators. Primary Type of Responsibility Number Percent Administrative 91 63.9 Teaching 43 30.8 Librarians 5 3.8 Other 2 1.5 N = l4l Table 4.2.--Specific titles of evaluators by category. Title by Category Number Percent Professor 44 3l.9 President 3l 22.4 V.P. Business Affairs 0 0 V.P. Academic Affairs 2l l5.2 V.P. Student Affairs 5 3.7 Graduate Dean 5 3.7 Academic Dean 23 16.6 Librarian 5 3.7 Counselor l .7 Planning & Development __;3 __£EJ_ Total l38 100.0 N = 138 3 responses missing 56 that evaluators whose educational experiences were at the four-year college level were assigned 98.2% of the time to evaluate four-year colleges and 1.8% of the time to evaluate universities. Educators with university experience, however, were not assigned with the same degree of consistency. They participated in evaluating universities 74% of the time and evaluating four-year colleges 26% of the time. Table 4.3.--Academic preparation of evaluators. Subject Number Percent Science 34 33.0 Humanities 26 25.2 Social Science 24 23.3 Business Administration 12 11.7 Education 5 4.9 Applied Science __2. 1.9 Total 103 100.0 N = 103 38 missing responses For the purpose of determining reliability of responses, an attempt was made to determine how many evaluations had been performed by evaluators in the last five years. The number of evaluations per- formed during this time period and the percentage of evaluators per- forming an evaluation during a specific year are reported in Table 4.4. Questions 6 and 7 were asked to determine how teams assumed the responsibility for evaluating the library and whether the respon- dents had been specifically assigned responsibility for evaluating 57 the library themselves. Results of the questions are reported in Table 4.5. Table 4.4.--Number and year of evaluations performed. Number of Evaluations Performed by Percentage of Evaluators - More Than One Two Three Four Five Five 2.2% 5.7% 10.0% 10.7% 25.7% 45.7% Percentage of Evaluators Performing Evaluations by Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 65.0% 69.5% 81.6% 86.5% 81.6% N = 140 1 response missing. Table 4.5.--Responsibility for evaluating the library. . . Primarily One All Team Primarily . Category Members One Member Member W1th Help of Others All Respondents N = 139 12.9% 15.2% 71.9% 2 responses missing Yes No You have had specific responsibility 61.0% 39.0% N = 141 You have assisted others by spot checking collection 39.7% 60.3% N = 141 58 Evaluators were queried concerning their preparedness to evaluate the library. Since there is seldom a librarian appointed to a team, and since there are no specific guidelines provided for nonspecialists, evaluators were asked to assess if they felt prepared to evaluate the library. The results are reported in Table 4.6. Table 4.6.--Preparedness of evaluators for first library evaluation visit. Ill Prepared Moderately Prepared Nell Prepared 9.7% 67.9% 22.4% N = 134 7 responses missing The last question in the background section was included to determine whether nonlibrarian evaluators benefited professionally from evaluating the library. Of 132 responses, 71.2% indicated they did benefit from that experience, 17.4% said they did not, 11.4% had no opinion, and nine evaluators did not respond. Discussion.--Educational administrators were the largest category of professional responsibility (67.9%) found on the North Central accrediting teams, with Presidents, Academic Vice-Presidents, and Academic Deans accounting for the largest number within the admin- istrative category. Team members' academic preparation seemed fairly evenly divided among Science (33.3%), Humanities (25.2%), and Social Science (23.3%), with Business Administration, Education, and Tech- nology having a lesser number. 59 There was an interesting difference in the data gathered concerning the type of institution (college or university) an evalu- ator had experience in and the type of institution he/she was assigned to evaluate. Evaluators whose educational experiences were at the four-year college level were assigned 98.2% of the time to evaluate colleges and 1.8% of the time to evaluate universities. However, results of the Chi square test at the .05 significance level indi- cated that there is a significant difference between educators whose experience is at the university level and the consistency with which they are assigned to teams evaluating universities. Educators with university experience were not assigned with the same degree of con- sistency that college educators were as they participated in evaluat- ing universities 74% of the time and four-year colleges 26% of the time. There was no additional information provided by the respon- dents or in the literature which would help explain how educators with university experience can adequately evaluate four-year colleges but educators with college experience can not make a similar transi— tion to universities. Perhaps this inconsistency may be explained, in part, by the fact that many university educators have had four-year college experience prior to their university experience. The evaluators who were surveyed are active in the accredit- ing process. One hundred thirty-seven (97.9%) of the 141 had com- pleted at least two evaluations during the three-year period, and approximately 70% had completed five or more evaluations. In addi- tion, more than 80% of the total respondents had completed an evalua- tion in each of the years 1977, 1978, and 1979. The fact that 60 evaluators' accrediting experience was both frequent and current increased the validity of the responses to the questions in the sur- vey. The high number of evaluations by the same evaluators also indicates that North Central tends to ask the same educators to per- form evaluations. while this builds competence, it can also create a situation where not enough different educators are being involved to bring new perspectives. In 71.9% of the visits, the responsibility for evaluating the library was assigned to one member of the team, with other members providing some assistance. In response to Question 8 concerning the preparedness of the evaluator to evaluate the library, 22.4% felt they were well prepared, 67.9% felt they were moderately prepared, and 9.7% felt they were ill prepared. The fact that only 22.4% felt that they were well prepared suggests that North Central should consider giving evaluators more guidance in library evaluation. Responses to the final question in the background section concerning the professional benefit gained by evaluators in evaluat- ing the library indicated that a majority (71.2%) felt they had bene- fited from the experience. General Information Section A The purpose for the general information section of the ques- tionnaire was to gather data concerning the respondents' attitudes and Opinions about qualitative vs. quantitative measurement of library programs; the role of library standards and other guidelines in 61 evaluation; the role of the team member who evaluates the library; whether a librarian should be appointed as a team member; and the interchange between North Central and evaluators regarding library evaluations. Respondents were given a choice of five answers and could respond simply by checking one of the five choices: strongly agree, slightly agree, no opinion, slightly disagree, or strongly disagree. Responses in this section will not be reported in order but will be reported in groups relating to a specific topic. The first statement in this section, which states “It is appropriate that NCA relies on qualitative and individual approaches to library evaluations rather than an approach based upon quantifica- tion and standards," goes right to the heart of the quantitative vs. qualitative approach to evaluation. Responses indicated that 82% of the evaluators felt the qualitative and individual approach would be best. The results of the responses for Question 1 are found in Table 4.7. Questions 3, 6, 8, and 9 were asked to measure evaluators' opinions about the need for more guidance, and the results are reported in that order. The purpose of Question 3 was to determine if evaluators felt the college and university standards written by ACRL would provide guidance for library evaluations. The results were that 69.5% felt that the standards would be helpful. The complete results are reported in Table 4.8. 62 Table 4.7.--It is appropriate that NCA relies on qualitative and individual approaches to a library evaluation rather than an approach based upon quantification and standards. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents (N = 139) 44.6 37.4 4.3 11.5 2.2 (2) Teaching 47.5 40.5 4.8 4.8 2.4 N = 42 Administrative 44.7 35.1 4.3 13.8 2.1 N = 94 Other 0 50.0 0 50.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 42.5 39.7 2.7 11.0 4.1 N = 73 University Evaluators 43.9 36.8 7.0 12.3 0 N = 57 (11) Librarians 80.0 20.0 0 O O N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 63 Table 4.8.--The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of American Library Association, has written standards for evaluating college and university libraries. It would be helpful if NCA would encourage the use of these standards as a basis to make an informed judgment. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 24.8 44.7 20.6 7.8 2.1 N = 141 Teaching 27.9 48.8 18.6 4.7 O N = 43 Administrative 23.1 42.1 22.1 9.5 3.2 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 O O N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 27.0 43.2 17.6 9.5 2.7 N = 74 University Evaluators 21.0 50.9 22.8 3.5 1.8 N = 57 (10) Librarians 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 64 Question 6 was a key question in the survey. It was included to try to determine if evaluators would prefer North Central to use a nonquantitative interrogative approach for gathering information about the effectiveness of the library program. The responses indicated that 71.7% would like North Central to develop such an approach. The responses to this question are found in Table 4.9. Question 8 was included to determine if new evaluators needed to be trained by observing one library evaluation before being assigned that responsibility. The responses showed that 66.9% felt this would be helpful. The results for Question 8 are reported in Table 4.10. Question 9 was an important question to determine if evaluators needed more guidance from North Central in the form of guidelines, checklists, or questions to ask and was also a cross-check for relia- bility of Question 6. Again, a large majority (65.9%) indicated that they would like some guidance. The complete results for this question are reported in Table 4.11. Questions 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 were designed to measure opinions about the process or practices of accreditation, and results are reported in that order. When asked in Question 2 if it was possible to adequately evalu- ate the library's program in a visit of two or three days, 88% of the evaluators indicated that it was. See Table 4.12 for specific results. Educators have debated the role of accrediting agencies and the extent they should influence an institution. The purpose of Ques- tion 4 was to measure how evaluators perceived themselves using lever- age inherent in the authority of the accrediting agency to speed up 65 Table 4.9.--It would be helpful if NCA would provide evaluators with suggested areas which should be examined and a set of questions to be asked which may be useful in obtaining information to make an informed judgment. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 27.6 44.0 6.4 15.6 6.4 N = 141 Teaching 20.8 51.2 4.7 14.0 9.3 N = 43 Administrative 30.4 41.1 7.4 15.8 5.3 N = 95 Other 50.0 0 O 50.0 0 N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 31.1 48.6 5.4 9.5 5.4 N = 74 University Evaluators 24.6 38.6 7.0 22.8 7.0 N = 57 (10) Librarians O 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 66 Table 4.10.--It would help an inexperienced evaluator to observe at least one library evaluation before being assigned to a visiting evaluation committee. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 18.7 48.2 7.9 20.9 4.3 N = 139 (2) Teaching 11.9 45.2 16.7 23.8 2.4 N = 42 Administrative 21.3 50.0 4.3 19.1 5.3 N = 94 Other 50.0 50.0 0 O O N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 15.1 50.7 8.2 21.9 4.1 N = 73 University Evaluators 16.1 48.2 7.1 23.2 5.4 N = 56 (12) Librarians 40.0 60.0 0 O O N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 67 Table 4.ll.--Evaluators who evaluate the library need better guidance in the form of standards, guidelines, checklists, and/or suggested questions to ask. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 17.0 48.9 8.5 19.9 5.7 N = 141 Teaching 16.3 39.5 7.0 30.2 7.0 N = 43 Administrative 16.8 53.7 9.5 14.7 5.3 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 O O N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 21.6 41.9 10.8 20.3 5.4 N = 74 University Evaluators 14.0 50.9 5.3 22.8 7.0 N = 57 (10) Librarians O 80.0 0 20.0 0 N = 5 ( ) ' responses missing Table 4.12.--It is possible to evaluate adequately a library's 68 collection and staff in a visit of two to three days' duration. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 43.3 44.7 1.4 7.8 2.8 N = 141 Teaching 48.8 41.9 0 7.0 2.3 N = 43 Administrative 41.1 46.3 2.1 8.4 2.1 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 O O N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 47.3 43.2 0 6.8 2.7 N = 74 University Evaluators 38.6 45.6 3.5 10.5 1.8 N = 57 (10) Librarians 60.0 20.0 0 O 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 69 development of a library program. The results indicated that 87.2% felt that an evaluator often acts as a catalyst for this purpose. The complete results for this question are reported in Table 4.13. Question 5 asked if evaluators should be more concerned with the educational effectiveness rather than the operational efficiency of the library. Results indicated that 78.4% felt they were more concerned with educational effectiveness. Results for Question 5 are reported in Table 4.14. Question 10 was designed to determine if evaluators felt their role was to react to and evaluate the library self-study or the library. Results indicated that 82.2% felt they should evaluate the library. See Table 4.15 for specific percentages. The last question dealing with the accrediting process was Question 11. The responses indicated that 92.8% of the evaluators agreed that evaluating the library as part of the accrediting process aids the library in assuring that its purpose is in line with the over- all objectives of the institution. The complete results for Ques- tion 11 are reported in Table 4.16. Questions 7, 12, and 13 were designed to determine how evalu- ators felt about the desirability of having a librarian on the accredit- ing team. They were intended, in part, to be a cross-check for each other for the purpose of reliability. When asked if it would be helpful if North Central would place a librarian on a team, 45.4% indicated that it would not be. Complete responses for Question 7 are reported in Table 4.17. 70 Table 4.13.--An evaluator often acts as a catalyst to speedlnaa segment of the host library's program by using the leverage inherent in the authority of the accrediting agency. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 31.2 56.0 5.0 6.4 1.4 N = 141 Teaching 34.9 58.1 2.3 4.7 O N = 43 Administrative 29.5 54.7 6.3 7.4 2.1 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 O O N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 29.7 52.7 8.1 8.1 1.4 N = 74 University Evaluators 35.0 56.1 1.8 5.3 1.8 N = 57 (10) Librarians 60.0 20.0 20.0 0 O N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 71 Table 4.14.--As a library evaluator, you are more concerned with the educational effectiveness of the library rather than its operational efficiency. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree A11 Respondents 31.3 47.1 4.3 15.9 1.4 N = 138 (3) Teaching 25.7 58.1 2.3 11.6 2.3 N = 43 Administrative 33.7 42.4 4.3 18.5 1.1 N = 92 Other 0 50.0 50.0 0 O N = 2 (4) College Evaluators 34.2 45.2 4.1 15.1 1.4 N = 73 University Evaluators 25.5 50.9 1.8 20.0 1.8 N = 55 (13) Librarians 33.4 33.3 0 33.3 0 N = 3 (2) ( ) - responses missing 72 Table 4.15.--The role of the evaluator is to react to and evaluate the library's self-study, not the library. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree A11 Respondents 5.0 12.1 .7 44.3 37.9 N = 140 (1) Teaching 4.8 9.5 O 40.5 45.2 N = 42 Administrative 5.2 12.6 1.1 47.4 33.7 N = 95 Other 0 50.0 0 O 50.0 N = 2 (2) College Evaluators 4.2 12.3 0 43.8 39.7 N = 73 University Evaluators 5.2 12.3 1.8 47.4 33.3 N = 57 (11) Librarians O O O 20.0 80.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 73 Table 4.16.--The most important facet to the evaluative process is that it compels the library to consider the very reasons for its existence. Thus, the evaluative process will aid in bringing the library's purpose clearly into line with the overall objectives of the institution of which it is a part. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 49.6 43.2 3.6 3.6 O N = 139 (2) Teaching 47.6 40.5 4.8 7.1 O N = 42 Administrative 50.0 44.7 3.2 2.1 O N = 94 Other 100.0 0 O O O N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 52.7 41.7 2.8 2.8 O N = 72 University Evaluators 43.8 45.6 5.3 5.3 O N = 57 (12) Librarians O O 20.0 80.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 74 Table 4.l7.--It would be helpful if NCA would include a librarian as a member of the visitation team. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree A11 Respondents 12.0 22.0 20.6 31.2 14.2 N = 141 Teaching 7.0 20.9 25.6 27.9 18.6 N = 43 Administrative 14.7 23.2 17.9 31.6 12.6 N = 95 Other 0 O 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 10.8 18.9 27.0 31.1 12.2 N = 74 University Evaluators 12.3 24.6 12.3 33.3 17.5 N = 57 (10) Librarians 60.0 20.0 0 20.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 75 When asked in Question 13 if a librarian shoulg_be a member of a team, 76.4% felt it was not necessary. Results for Question 13 are reported in Table 4.18. Question 12 was designed to determine if evaluators felt that, lacking a librarian on the team, they had an adequate understanding of the library to make an informed judgment about its effectiveness. Table 4.19 may be consulted for the complete responses to Question 12. Discussion.--North Central evaluators who were surveyed had some very definite opinions about library evaluation as part of the total process and what they felt they needed to perform an evaluation. For example, 82% felt that they would rather have a qualitative indi- vidualized approach than a rigid standardized approach when evaluating libraries (Table 4.7). One respondent wrote, "I would rather err using the qualitative approach than to rely exclusively on a quantitative approach," while another said, "a combination of both would be most helpful." Yates found a similar response to an identical question in his study of the same subject with the Southern Association of Col- leges and Schools.80 He surveyed ninety librarians who had evaluated the library during a Southern Association Accrediting visit and found that 81% favored the qualitative approach over the rigid standardized approach. Evaluators have some very definite feelings that while they do not want rigid standards introduced by North Central, they do want some more guidance when it comes to evaluating libraries. When asked 801bid., p. 48. 76 Table 4.18.--A librarian should be a member of each visiting evaluation team. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 4.3 13.6 g5.7 35.7 40.7 N = 140 (1) Teaching 2.4 9.5 2.4 38.1 47.6 N = 42 Administrative 5.3 14.7 7.4 34.7 37.9 N = 95 Other 0 O O 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (2) College Evaluators 5.4 11.0 5.5 35.6 42.5 N = 73 University Evaluators 1.7 17.5 5.3 31.6 43.9 N = 57 (ll) Librarians 40.0 0 O 40.0 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 77 Table 4.19.--Often members of an evaluation team who are not librarians do not have an adequate understanding of the library to make informed judgments about the library program. Strongly Slightly No Slightly Strongly Category Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree All Respondents 4.3 19.1 6.4 41.1 29.1 N = 141 Teaching 0 16.2 4.7 37.2 41.9 N = 43 Administrative 6.3 20.0 6.3 44.2 23.2 N = 95 Other 0 50.0 50.0 0 O N = 2 (1) College Evaluators 5.4 17.6 2.7 41.9 32.4 N = 74 University Evaluators 1.6 21.1 8.8 40.4 28.1 N = 57 (10) Librarians 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 78 if North Central should encourage the use of ACRL standards for col- lege and university libraries as a basis for making an informed judgment about the library program, 69.5% responded affirmatively (Table 4.8). It is interesting to note that 20.6% had no opinion on this question, and by the number of written notes it appears that many of the respondents were not familiar with the standards. The added notes are best exemplified by one respondent's remarks, who wrote, "I have no opinion on this question because I am not familiar with these standards." Evaluators were asked if it would be helpful if NCA provided a list of suggested areas in the library to investigate as well as an accompanying set of questions to ask which would assist them in gathering information about the library program. Results for Ques- tion 6 indicated that 71.7% responded that they agreed a list would be helpful (Table 4.9). One respondent wrote, "It would help those who are not very knowledgeable about libraries to gather information in a consistent manner." Another wrote that "such a list would be helpful if not too lengthy or too iron-clad." It is interesting to note that librarians are somewhat divided on this question, perhaps, in part, because they feel they have the expertise to evaluate a library and would not need a list of questions. Results of Question 8 indicated that 66.9% of the respon- dents felt that a trial run would be useful before being assigned to evaluate the library (Table 4.10). Those who disagreed most often made written comments which are represented by one respondent's note: "This is not practical; the chairperson can give the needed guidance." 79 Question 9 was designed to be a cross-check for reliability to answers to Question 6 and again a large majority 65.9% wanted more guidance from North Central in the form of questions to ask, checklists, and guidelines. It is interesting to note that four of the five librarians felt the need for such guidance. It is also interesting to note that Yates,8] when surveying ninety librarians who had served on accrediting teams in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, found that a majority (55.8%) felt the need for more guidance from their association. Evaluators generally agreed (88%) that it is possible to evaluate a library's collection and staff in a visit of two or three days (Table 4.12). However, many qualified their answer with an addi- tional note which was similar to one respondent's, who wrote, ”adequate for the purpose of NCA accreditation but, of course, not adequate for other purposes." The concept that "an evaluator often acts as a catalyst to speed up or influence a host library's program" was agreed to by 87.2% of the evaluators (Table 4.13). Responses also indicated that 78.4% of the evaluators feel that as an evaluator they should be more con- cerned with educational effectiveness of the library rather than operational efficiency (Table 4.14). Evaluators generally disagreed (82.2%) that they should react to the library self-study rather than the library (Table 4.15). Yates82 asked the identical question in his study and found that 81 82 Ibid., p. 63. Ibid., p. 69. 80 76.6% disagreed. It would appear that both groups feel they are there to evaluate the library and not to rely on the self-study. Results indicated that evaluators overwhelmingly agree (92.8%) that the primary value of including the library in the over- all institutional evaluation for accrediting purposes is that it com- pels the library to bring its objectives into line with the goals of the institution (Table 4.16). Questions 7 and 13 covered the same topic, that of whether it is necessary for a librarian to be a member of accrediting teams, but each had a slightly different emphasis. The same topic was covered by two questions for the purpose of checking for reliability. Ques- tion 7 stated, "It would be helpful if NCA would include a librarian as a member of the visitation team." Results reported in Table 4.17 indicated that 45.4% disagreed with the statement. It should be noted that 80% of the five librarians agreed with the statement. When a stronger emphasis was placed on the fact that “a librarian §h921d_be a member of each visiting team," the level of disagreement increased to 76.4% and librarians also disagreed at a rate of 60% (Table 4.18). There were a number of additional notes written by respondents to support or clarify their answers. The most common response was that "the need for a librarian increases with the size of the institution" and "librarians would have to be equipped to evaluate other areas in addition to the library." One respondent stated, "A librarian should be on the team at the expense of whom? the scientist? the chief administrator? the humanist?" It is interesting to note that implied in this statement is a concept that a scientist, humanist, or 81 administrator can evaluate the library but librarians are not compe- tent beyond their own field. Question 12 was designed to determine if evaluators felt they had an adequate understanding of the library to make an informed judgment about the effectiveness of the library program. Results indicated that 70.2% of all respondents felt they had adequate knowl- edge to make such a judgment. It should be noted, however, that the Chi square test results indicated a significant difference between teachers and administrators, with 41.9% of the teachers "strongly disagreeing" that they lacked adequate understanding while only 23.2% of the administrators "strongly disagreed" with this statement. It is also interesting to note for comparative purposes that 60% of the librarians questioned if nonlibrarians really did have an adequate understanding (Table 4.19). General Information Section B The purpose of General Information Section B was to gather data relating to the evaluators' opinions about feedback between North Central and evaluators; why institutions failed to be accredited; guidance provided by North Centra1;the use, if any, of evaluators' own checklists; and North Central's use of general, immeasurable terms such as "appropriate" and "adequate" in its guidelines. Respondents were given a choice of three answers and could respond simply by checking one of the three choices: yes, no, or no opinion. The responses for questions in this section will not be 82 reported in order but will be grouped according to a specific topic for analysis. The purpose of asking Question 1, which stated, "Have you ever served on an accrediting committee that failed to accredit/ reaccredit an institution because of deficiencies in the library?" was to assess how often institutions were denied recommendation for accreditation because of deficiencies in the library. Results which are reported in Table 4.20 indicated that 5.7% of the respondents had served on a committee which did not recommend accreditation because of deficiencies in the library. For comparative purposes, Question 2 asked if evaluators had ever served on a visiting team that failed to accredit/reaccredit an institution for any reason, and 46% indicated that they had. Com- plete results to Question 2 are reported in Table 4.21. Questions 3, 9, and 11 were included to determine evaluators' opinions about the need for more guidance and to provide a reliability check for questions listed in the first two sections of the survey. When asked in Question 3 if North Central should introduce some quan- titative criteria, 31.2% of the respondents replied yes. (See Table 4.22 for complete responses to Question 3.) In response to Question 9, "Do you think a checklist or list of questions to ask, prepared by NCA, would be helpful as an evaluative tool?{'70.5% of the evaluators answered yes. A more complete analysis of responses to Question 9 is found in Table 4.23. Question 11, which asked if guidance from NCA would help perform library evaluations more effectively, was included to provide 83 Table 4.20.--Have you ever served on a visiting committee that failed to accredit/reaccredit an institution because of defi- ciencies in the library? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 5.7 93.6 .7 N = 140 (1) Teaching 11.6 88.4 0 N = 43 Administrative 3.2 95.7 1.1 N = 94 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (2) College Evaluators 6.8 93.2 0 N = 73 University Evaluators 3.5 94.7 1.8 N = 57 (11) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 84 Table 4.21.--Have you ever served on a visiting committee that failed to accredit/reaccredit an institution because of any reason? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 46.0 53.3 .7 N = 139 (2) Teaching 54.8 45.2 0 N = 42 Administrative 43.6 55.3 1.1 N = 94 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 50.7 47.9 1.4 N = 73 University Evaluators 42.1 57.9 0 N = 57 (ll) Librarians 60.0 40.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 85 Table 4.22.--Should NCA introduce some quantitative criteria pertain- ing to the library? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents ‘ 31.2 55.8 13.0 N = 138 (3) Teaching 25.0 55.0 20.0 N = 40 Administrative 33.7 56.8 9.5 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (4) College Evaluators 33.3 55.6 11.1 N = 72 University Evaluators 28.6 58.9 12.5 N = 56 (13) Librarians 20.0 60.0 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 86 Table 4.23.-~00 you think a checklist or list of questions to ask, prepared by NCA, would be helpful as an evaluative tool? Category Yes No NO Opinion All Respondents 70.5 22.3 7.2 N = 139 (2) Teaching 65.8 24.4 9.8 N = 41 Administrative 72.6 21.1 6.3 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 78.1 16.4 5.5 N = 73 University Evaluators 64.3 28.6 7.1 N = 56 (12) Librarians 60.0 40.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 87 another reliability check for Question 9 in this section and Ques- tions 3, 6, and 9 in the General Information Section A. Respondents indicated that they would prefer more guidance, with a majority (60.9%) answering affirmatively. Table 4.24 contains the complete results to Question 11. Since North Central usually does not appoint a specialist to the team or provide written checklists, it was thought that per- haps evaluators had created their own checklists. Questions 7 and 8 were designed to determine if this was occurring. Results indicated that 23.9% of the respondents have a checklist which they use when evaluating the library and 26% have a list of questions which they use with interviewees when seeking information about the library program. Complete responses for Questions 7 and 8 are reported in Tables 4.25 and 4.26, respectively. Questions 10 and 12 were asked to determine if North Central sought feedback from evaluators for improving library evaluation for accrediting purposes. Results indicated that only 2.9% of the respon- dents had been asked for feedback concerning the improvement of evaluative techniques. See Table 4.27 for complete responses to Question 10. When asked in Question 12 if they had been invited to supply any input to NCA regarding the library, a small number (4.5%) said they had been asked. Responses for Question 12 are reported more fully in Table 4.28. The purpose of including Question 5 was to assess how evalua- tors felt about North Central using general, difficult-to-measure terms like "adequate" in relation to evaluating library programs. 88 Table 4.24.—-Wou1d guidance from NCA help you to perform library evaluations more effectively and efficiently? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 60.9 18.8 20.3 N = 138 (3) Teaching 50.0 22.5 27.5 N = 40 Administrative 64.2 17.9 17.9 N = 95 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (4) College Evaluators 60.3 17.8 21.9 N = 73 University Evaluators 61.8 20.0 18.2 N = 55 (13) Librarians 40.0 40.0 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 89 Table 4.25.--Do you have your own checklist of items to observe during an evaluation of the library? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 23.9 73.1 3.0 N = 134 (7) Teaching 28.2 69.2 2.6 N = 39 Administrative 21.7 75.0 3.3 N = 92 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (8) College Evaluators 28.6 67.1 4.3 N = 70 University Evaluators 19.6 78.6 1.8 N = 56 (15) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 90 Table 4.26.--Do you have your own list of questions to ask inter- viewees about the library program? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 26.0 73.3 .7 N = 135 (6) Teaching 31.6 65.8 2.6 N = 38 Administrative 24.5 75.5 0' N = 94 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (7) College Evaluators 28.6 70.0 1.4 N = 70 University Evaluators 23.2 76.8 0 N = 56 (15) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 91 Table 4.27.--Has NCA ever asked you for input for the purpose of improving library evaluative techniques? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 2.9 96.4 .7 N = 139 (2) Teaching 0 100.0 0 N = 41 Administrative 4.2 94.7 1.1 N = 95 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators O 98.6 1.4 N = 74 University Evaluators 7.1 92.9 0 N = 56 (11) Librarians 40.0' 60.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 92 Table 4.28.--Have you been invited to supply any input into NCA regarding the procedures used in the evaluation of the library? Category Yes No Opifigon All Respondents 4.5 92.5 3.0 N = 133 (8) Teaching 0 97.4 2.6 N = 38 Administrative 6.5 90.2 3.3 N = 92 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (9) College Evaluators 2.9 95.7 1.4 N = 70 University Evaluators 7.4 87.0 5.6 N = 54 (17) Librarians 40.0 60.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 93 Results indicated that 48.3% of the respondents felt that North Central should provide a clearer definition. See Table 4.29 for complete results to Question 5. When asked in Question 4 if evaluators found the informa- tion supplied by North Central helpful in evaluating libraries, 57.6% replied in the affirmative. Complete results for Question 4 are found in Table 4.30. The purpose for Question 6 was to determine if evaluators, all but five being nonlibrarians, felt qualified to evaluate the library. This question also served as a reliability check for Ques- tion 12 in General Information Section A. Responses indicated that 69.3% of the evaluators felt they were qualified to make such evalua- tions. Complete results for Question 6 are reported in Table 4.31. Discussion.--The purpose for Questions 1 and 2 was to try to determine how frequently an institution was not recommended for accreditation/reaccreditation because of deficiencies in the library as opposed to other deficiencies. Responses indicate that 5.7% of the evaluators have served on teams that recommended not to accredit/ reaccredit an institution because of the library (Table 4.20). How- ever, the percentage of evaluators who have served on teams that have failed to accredit/reaccredit an institution for reasons other than the library increases drastically to 46% (Table 4.21). Several evaluators commented that they "had been on teams which had recom- mended accreditation but had also recommended that the library program be strengthened prior to a return of the next accrediting team." Some 94 Table 4.29.--Should NCA provide a clearer definition for the term "adequate" in relation to evaluating library programs? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 48.3 38.8 12.9 N = 139 (2) Teaching 31.7 51.2 17.1 N = 41 Administrative 55.8 32.6 11.6 N = 95 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 49.3 41.1 9.6 N = 73 University Evaluators 50.0 37.5 12.5 N = 56 (12) Librarians 40.0 20.0 40.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 95 Table 4.30.--Do you find the information supplied by NCA helpful in library evaluations? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 57.6 20.1 22.3 N = 139 (2) Teaching 57.1 14.3 28.6 N = 42 Administrative 56.4 23.4 20.2 N = 94 Other 100.0 O O N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 63.1 16.4 20.5 N = 73 University Evaluators 51.8 26.8 21.4 N = 56 (12) Librarians 60.0 0 40.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 96 Table 4.31.--Do you think your qualifications enabled you to make an efficient and effective evaluation of the library? No Category Yes No Opinion All Respondents 69.3 21.9 8.8 N = 137 (4) Teaching 75.6 19.5 4.9 N = 41 Administrative 66.6 22.6 10.8 N = 93 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (5) College Evaluators 68.6 25.7 5.7 N = 70 University Evaluators 72.0 17.5 10.5 N = 57 (14) Librarians 80.0 0 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 97 of the most common reasons cited by evaluators for failure to recom- mend accreditation were inadequate finances, faculty, and curriculum. Evaluators were relatively consistent in their responses to questions concerning the need for more guidance, in this section, as they were to similar questions in General Infbrmation Section A. When asked if North Central should introduce quantitative criteria for libraries, 55.8% of the respondents said no (Table 4.22). While 55.8% of the respondents indicated they do not want to see specific quantitative criteria pertaining to the library, 70.5% indicated they would like North Central to provide some guidance in the form of a checklist or list of questions to ask (Table 4.23) and 60.9% felt that more guidance from North Central would help them perform library evaluations more effectively and efficiently (Table 4.24). Written responses indicated that some evaluators felt that "guidelines would be helpful." As one respondent wrote, "the checklists or questions provided by North Central would be helpful but should be used as a 'guide' not a 'cookbook.'" Questions 7 and 8 were asked to determine if, lacking the appointment of a librarian to a team or specific written guidelines for evaluating libraries, evaluators were creating their own check- lists. Results indicated that 23.9% of the evaluators said they have a checklist to evaluate the library (Table 4.25) and 26% have a list of questions they ask students and faculty (Table 4.26). However, when asked if they could forward a copy of their checklist, only two responded. Most of the evaluators who commented on this question indi- cated that "the list is not written and it varies with each visit." 98 Evaluators were queried in Questions 10 and 12 if they were asked to provide any feedback to North Central concerning library evaluation. Responses indicated that only 2.9% of the evaluators had been asked for feedback about improving evaluation techniques (Table 4.27), while 4.5% said they had been asked to react to proce- dures used to evaluate the library (Table 4.28). It appears that North Central seldom asks evaluators how they could improve library evaluation. It should also be noted that the Chi square test results for Question 10 indicated a significant difference between university- level and college-level evaluators. While 7.1% of the university evaluators had been asked by North Central to provide input, not one college-level evaluator had been asked. Evaluators were asked in Questions 4 and 5 if they found the information North Central supplied for accreditation visits useful and if they were satisfied with North Central's use of the general, difficult-to-measure terms such as "adequate." Results indicated that 57.6% of the evaluators thought the information was helpful (Table 4.30), but 48.3% felt North Central should provide a clearer definition of such terms as "adequate" in relation to evaluating library programs (Table 4.29). The purpose for Question 6 was to assess if nonlibrarian evaluators felt qualified to evaluate the library and also to serve as a reliability check for Question 12 of the General Information Section A. A majority (69.3%) of the respondents indicated that they felt qualified. A typical written response is represented by the following statement: "I am qualified to evaluate the library as 99 well as many other aspects of the university, i.e., student affairs, business affairs, etc." Question 13 was an open-ended question which asked, "What recommendations would you suggest that, in your opinion, would help improve library evaluations?" The following statements are not in any particular order of importance, but are reflective of the evalua- tors' suggestions. A statement from the librarian concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the library, as well as written goals. Guidelines supplied by North Central similar to the checklist noted under the last section (Techniques) of the questionnaire. Supply a list of suggested ways in which the evaluators could validate the self-study. It would be helpful to use the ALA standards, but not be bound by them, for making an informed judgment about the library program. An inclusion in the self-study report of data from comparative institutions (selected by the unit being reviewed) indicating similarities and differences in holdings, staffing, and ser- vices. Better preparation for the visit by the library staff would strengthen the process. Include people on the team (not necessarily librarians) who have a full understanding of the library. North Central should provide a checklist or questions which evaluators could use when evaluating the library. Include a librarian on the team whenever possible, especially on teams visiting large institutions. Report Section The purpose of this section of the questionnaire was to gather data on how evaluators would report any library deficiencies which 100 were identified during an accreditation visit. This section listed fourteen deficiencies or conditions, and respondents were asked to indicate if they would mention a specific deficiency or condition in the text of the report, the recommendations of the report, or not men- tion it at all. (It should be noted that more weight is placed on a statement in the recommendation section by both North Central and the institution. Therefore, if a certain condition is included in the recommendation of the report, certain corrective action is expected to take place.) The responses to the questions in this section will be reported in the same order as asked in the questionnaire and are analyzed by type of position and type of institution commonly evalu- ated. Evaluators were asked how they would react if they found the library collection to be insufficient to support the needs of the institution. Results indicated that 77.7% of all respondents would place a statement of concern in the recommendations section. Complete responses to condition number one are found in Table 4.32. If evaluators found that there were inadequate provisions for teaching the use of the library to students, 56.2% of them would note this in the text of the report. For a complete reporting of the results to condition two, see Table 4.33. Evaluators were asked how they would report the fact that library administrators continued to hire librarians without a master's degree from an ALA—accredited library school. Responses to condition three in Table 4.34 indicated that 55.1% of the respondents would not mention this in the report at all. 101 Table 4.32.--The library collection, in your opinion, is not suffi- cient to support the informational needs of the insti- tution. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 22.3 77.7 0 N = 139 (2) Teaching 23.8 76.2 0 N = 42 Administrative 22.3 77.7 0 N = 94 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 23.3 76.7 0 N = 73 University Evaluators 19.6 80.4 0 N = 56 (12) Librarians 20.0 80.0 0 N = 5 ( ) - responses missing 102 Table 4.33.--There are inadequate provisions for teaching the use of the library to students. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 56.2 32.1 11.7 N = 137 (4) Teaching 53.7 36.6 9.7 N = 41 Administrative 57.0 30.1 12.9 N = 93 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (5) College Evaluators 53.4 37.0 9.6 N = 73 University Evaluators 59.2 24.1 16.7 N = 54 (14) Librarians 60.0 40.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 103 Table 4.34.--The library administration continues to hire professional librarians without regard to whether they graduated from an American Library Association accredited library school or not. Would Place In Cate or g y Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 26.8 18.1 55.1 N = 127 (14) Teaching 34.2 15.8 50.0 N = 38 Administrative 23.3 18.6 58.1 N = 86 Other 50.0 0 50.0 N = 2 (15) College Evaluators 27.6 21.7 50.7 N = 69 University Evaluators 20.4 14.3 65.3 N = 49 (23) Librarians 20.0 40.0 40.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 104 Respondents were rather divided on how they would report the fact that the library director and library faculty are not members of appropriate university committees, with 48.9% of all respondents indicating they would make a note in the text and 40.6% indicating they would note this fact in the recommendations section of the report. Complete details of the results for condition four are found in Table 4.35. Evaluators were asked to indicate how they would respond to the problem that communications among librarians was not sufficient. Results indicated that 52.6% of all respondents would mention this problem in the text. Responses to condition five are reported in Table 4.36. If the library has inadequate seating, collection, or ser- vices, 76.3% of the evaluators indicated they would note this fact in the recommendations section. For complete results on condition six, see Table 4.37. Library hours are usually examined by North Central evaluators, and when they appear to be inadequate, 52.5% of the respondents indi- cated they would report this inadequacy under the recommendations section. Responses to condition seven are reported in Table 4.38. Evaluators were asked how they would respond to the problem that the library purchases printed materials but will not purchase nonbook materials. Results to condition eight, reported in Table 4.39, indicated that 52% of the respondents would note this concern in the text section of the report. 105 Table 4.35.--The library director and library faculty are not members of appropriate university committees which would enable them to anticipate and meet the needs of the institution. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 48.9 40.6 10.5 N = 133 (8) Teaching 38.5 48.7 12.8 N = 39 Administrative 52.7 37.4 9.9 N = 91 Other 100.0 0 0 N = 2 (9) College Evaluators 47.1 40.0 12.9 N = 70 University Evaluators 53.7 37.0 9.3 N = 54 (17) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 106 Table 4.36.--Communications among the librarians are not sufficient. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 52.6 26.3 21.1 N = 133 (8) Teaching 48.8 25.6 25.6 N = 39 Administrative 53.8 27.5 18.7 N = 91 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (9) College Evaluators 58.0 21.7 20.3 N = 69 University Evaluators 48.1 27.8 24.1 N = 54 (18) Librarians 40.0 40.0 20.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 107 Table 4.37.--The library has inadequate seating capacity, collection capacity, and services. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 23.7 76.3 0 N = 140 (l) Teaching 14.3 85.7 0 N = 42 Administrative 27.7 72.3 o 11:94 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (3) College Evaluators 27.4 72.6 0 N = 73 University Evaluators 21.4 78.6 0 N = 56 (12) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 5 ( ) ' responses missing 108 Table 4.38.--The library hours appear to be inadequate based on input from students and faculty. Category Would Place In Text Recomendati on Not At All All Respondents N = 139 (2) 45.3 52.5 2.2 Teaching N = 42 Administrative N = 94 Other N = 2 (3) 47.6 47.6 4.8 45.7 53.2 1.1 0 100.0 0 College Evaluators N = 73 University Evaluators N = 56 (12) 42.5 53.4 4.1 50.0 50.0 0 Librarians N = 5 20.0 80.0 0 ( ) = responses missing 109 Table 4.39.--The library purchases printed materials and will not provide nonbook material. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 52.0 40.1 7.9 N = 127 (14) Teaching 61.1 30.6 8.3 N = 36 Administrative 50.0 43.2 6.8 N = 88 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (15) College Evaluators 51.5 42.4 6.1 N = 66 University Evaluators 54.8 35.8 9.4 N = 53 (22) Librarians 33.3 66.7 0 N = 3 (2) ( ) = responses missing 110 The research indicated that evaluators are concerned about the communication between the library and academic departments. If they found this to be inadequate, 51.5% indicated they would include this deficiency in the recommendations section of the report. See Table 4.40 for complete results of the responses to condition nine. When asked how they would respond to unclear objectives of the library, 68.6% of the evaluators responded that they would place this concern in the recommendations section of the report. For com- plete results to condition ten, see Table 4.41. Evaluators were queried if they would report that academic departments were inactive in recommending library materials for pur- chase. Results indicated that 56.6% of all respondents would note this concern in the text of the report. Responses to condition eleven are reported in Table 4.42. Evaluators were asked if they would report the fact that the library falls below the American Library Association standard of receiving a minimum of 5% of the total general budget. Results indi- cated that 40% of the respondents would place this concern in the recommendations section of the report. See Table 4.43 for complete results to condition twelve. When asked how they would respond to the concern that no "weeding" had taken place in the past ten years, 47.8% of the evalua- tors replied that they would note this in the text section of the report. The complete results for condition thirteen are found in Table 4.44. 111 Table 4.40.--Communication between the library and academic depart- ments appears to be inadequate. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 47.1 51.5 1.4 N = 138 (3) Teaching 40.5 ' 57.1 2.4 N=42 Administrative 49.5 49.4 1.1 N = 93 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (4) College Evaluators 48.6 48.6 2.8 N = 72 University Evaluators 44.6 55.4 0 N = 56 (13) Librarians 20.0 80.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 112 Table 4.41.--The objectives of the library are unclear and do not relate to the objectives of the institution. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 29.9 68.6 1.5 N = 137 (4) Teaching 34.2 63.4 2.4 N = 41 Administrative 29.0 69.9 1.1 N = 93 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (5) College Evaluators 33.3 63.9 2.8 N = 72 University Evaluators 27.3 72.7 0 N = 55 (14) Librarians 40.0 60.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 113 Table 4.42.--Instructional departments, for the most part, are inactive in recommending library materials for purchase. Would Place In Text Recommendation Not At All Category All Respondents 56.6 39.0 4.4 N = 136 (5) Teaching 54.7 40.5 4.8 N = 42 Administrative 57.1 38.5 4.4 N = 91 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (6) College Evaluators 56.9 41.7 1.4 N = 72 University Evaluators 58.2 32.7 9.1 N = 55 (14) Librarians 40.0 60.0 0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 114 Table 4.43.--The library falls below the American Library Association standard of receiving a minimum of 5% of the total Educational and General budget. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 37.8 40.0 22.2 N = 135 (6) Teaching 30.0 57.5 12.5 N = 40 Administrative 41.3 31.5 27.2 N = 92 Other 50.0 50.0 0 N = 2 (7) College Evaluators 34.8 47.8 17.4 N = 69 University Evaluators 39.2 30.4 30.4 N = 56 (16) Librarians O 40.0 60.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 115 Table 4.44.--No weeding has taken place within the past ten years. Category Would Place In Text Recommendation Not At All A11 Respondents N = 132 (9) 47.8 24.2 28.0 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 90 Other N = 2 (10) 56.4 44.4 50.0 20.5 26.7 23.1 28.9 50.0 College Evaluators N = 66 University Evaluators N = 56 (19) 48.5 48.2 30.3 14.3 21.2 37.5 Librarians N = 5 40.0 40.0 20.0 ( ) = responses missing 116 Finally, responses to condition fourteen indicated that 43.7% of the evaluators would make a statement in the text section of the report if the total number of volumes in the library did not match the number suggested by ALA, HEW, or some other guideline. See Table 4.45 for complete results. Discussion.--Generally, there is wide agreement among evalua- tors as to where they would place a statement about a specific defi- ciency or condition in the final report. While the data indicated that there was some disagreement among teachers, administrators, and librarians concerning how they would report certain conditions, there was a high level of agreement among the groups on where to report ten of the fourteen conditions. This fact may imply two things about accrediting teams and the accrediting process: (1) that evaluators, regardless of position, are looking at the program with common per- spectives, and (2) therefore, there is a certain level of consistency in the process. Discussion of the report section will be made on the basis of which category (text, recommendation, not at all) the major- ity (more than 50%) of the evaluators would make note of a condition they encountered. A majority of all respondents agreed that they would place concerns about conditions one, six, seven, nine, and ten in the recom- mendation section of the final report. It should be noted that there was 100% agreement on where to report two conditions. Results indi- cated that 100% of the evaluators responding to condition one, an insufficient collection, indicated that they would mention this 117 Table 4.45.--The total number of volumes does not match the number suggested by American Library Association standards, the HEW guidelines, or some other guideline for an institution of its size and curriculum. Would Place In Category Text Recommendation Not At All All Respondents 43.7 34.8 21.5 N = 135 (6) Teaching 42.5 50.0 7.5 N = 40 Administrative 44.6 29.3 26.1 N = 92 Other 50.0 0 50.0 N = 2 (7) College Evaluators 45.7 35.7 18.6 N = 70 University Evaluators 43.6 30.9 25.5 N = 55 (16) Librarians 40.0 20.0 40.0 N = 5 ( ) = responses missing 118 deficiency in the final report. Furthermore, 77.7% of the evalua- tors would make mention of this deficiency under the recommendation section of the final report as reported in Table 4.32. Condition number six, inadequate seating, collections, and service (measured against their perception of adequacy) would be reported by 100% of all respondents should they encounter it, and 76.3% would note such a condition under the recommendation section of the final report. See Table 4.37 for complete results of responses to condition six. The majority of all respondents agreed that they would report inadequate hours (Table 4.38), inadequate communications between academic departments and the library (Table 4.40), and unclear library objectives (Table 4.41) in the recommendation section of the final report. A significant majority of librarians (80%) felt even stronger than teachers (47.6%) and administrators (53.2%) that they would place inadequate library hours in the recommendation sectiOn of the final report. Likewise, a larger number of librarians (80%) felt stronger than teachers (57.1%) and administrators (49.4%) that the inadequacy of communications between academic departments and the library should be included in the recommendations section of the final report. A majority of all respondents agreed that they would place concerns about conditions number two, five, eight, and eleven in the text of the final report. A closer examination of the data (Table 4.39) for the condi- tion that a library purchases printed materials but will not provide nonprint indicated that 66.7% of the librarians would report such a 119 condition in the recommendations section of the report while only 30.6% of the teachers and 43.2% of the administrators would do the same. One evaluator commented, "I would place it in the report only if nonprint was not available elsewhere on campus," while another wrote, "I would recommend that they review their policy on this matter." Again librarians differ from the all-respondents category in how they would report the condition that instructional departments do not recommend library materials for purchase. Results reported in Table 4.42 indicated that 60% of the librarians would add this con- dition to the recommendation section, while 39% of all respondents would agree to mention this condition under recommendations. When asked where they would report that the library director and library faculty were not members of appropriate university commit- tees, evaluators, with the exception of librarians, were divided in their responses (Table 4.35). Results indicated that 48.9% of all respondents would express a concern in the text, 40.6% in the recommenda- tions, and 10.5% would not include this concern in the report at all. However, 100% of the librarians agreed that they would include such a concern in the recommendations section of the final report. Again, there is a wide difference among evaluators concerning where to report the fact that the library is not receiving a minimum of 5% of the institutional general budget. It is interesting to note that a majority (60%) of the librarians would not include such a concern at all (Table 4.43), perhaps because more than the 5% minimum may be necessary for some programs and less than 5% may be adequate 120 for others. It is an example where little attention is paid to the ACRL standards for libraries. There is no majority agreement in any category, except teach- ing, on whether to and/or where to report that "weeding" had not taken place in the last ten years. Results in Table 4.44 indicated that only a majority (56.4%)of the teachers agreed that they would report such a concern in the text of the report. It should be noted that the Chi square test results indicated a significant difference at the .05 level as to how university and four-year college evaluators would react to no weeding having taken place. Results denoted that 48.5% of the college evaluators would make note of that condition in the text of the report, while 37.5% of the university evaluators would not mention it at all. When asked if, and how, they would report that the number of volumes in the library did not match the number suggested by ALA stan- dards, HEW guidelines, or some other guidelines, responses by evalua- tors were varied on whether to include this concern in the text section, the recommendations section, or not to include it in the report at all. The results of the Chi square indicated a significant difference between the responses of teachers and administrators on this condition, with 50% of the teachers reporting this inadequacy in the recommendations section of the report and 26.1% of the adminis- trators not including it in the report at all. 121 Techniques The purpose of the technique section of the questionnaire was to query evaluators about specific techniques which they use to obtain information about the library during an accreditation visit. It seemed important to query evaluators about their techniques since a review of the relevant literature indicated that very little is known or has been written on this topic. The list of techniques used in this study was based largely on those used by Gelfand in his study of Middle States Association 83 The decision to use Gelfand's evaluators as noted in Chapter 111. list of techniques as a basis to generate a list of techniques to be used in this study was reinforced when it was determined that Yates had also used the techniques identified by Gelfand as a model for his study.84 It seemed appropriate to use an already-tested list of techniques as a basis for this study rather than to develop another set or ask open-ended questions which would be difficult to analyze. It is recognized that there are many types of institutions with specific missions that comprise the membership of North Central's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Nevertheless, it was felt that there would be some universality in techniques used by North Central evaluators when evaluating libraries. As Yates points out: Certainly there should exist some basic techniques which would have equal applicability over the entire institutional 83Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators,“ pp. 314-15. 84Yates, "Bases Used by Library Evaluators," p. 190. 122 spectrum. If this is true, the vast amount of knowledge residing witg individuals . . . should be pooled and shared with others. 5 The technique section of the questionnaire included the fol- lowing introductory statements to provide a frame of reference and general directions for the evaluators: NCA stated in its Handbook on Accreditation Library and other learning resources adequate to support the educational program and adequately staffed should be readily accessible to students on campus and during periods of study and other activities away from campus. Please indicate what techniques you use to determine the adequacy of the library program in relation to the state- ment above by checking one of the three choices below. The choices provided for the respondents to answer the forty-one techniques were: always, sometimes, and never. Responses from the technique section are analyzed and reported in the following manner: Responses concerning the usage of each tech- nique will be reported in table form providing a percentage breakdown by total responses, position (teaching or administrative), and the type of institution (college or university) visited by evaluators. Librarians are reported separately for comparison purposes. The Chi square analysis will be reported on techniques when results show significant differences among categories of respondents. Additional written analyses will be provided on specific techniques or groups of related techniques for the purpose of clarification, and comments of respondents will be included for the same purpose. In addition, 85Ibid., p. 145. 123 the techniques used most often will be listed at the end of this section. For the purposes of analysis and reporting, the techniques will be grouped according to the area of the library program with which they dealt. They are listed as follows: (1) background about library, (2) goals of the library, (3) interviewing members of the academic community, (4) collection, (5) service, (6) budget, (7) facilities, (8) usage, (9) resource sharing, and (10) administration and organi- zation. Techniques one, three, nineteen, and twenty—three were designed to be used by evaluators to gain background information about the library, some of it prior to the visit, by examining the self- study, annual reports, and other documents. Results indicated that 95.1% of all respondents “always" read the self-study reports, with a high degree of agreement among all categories. See Table 4.46 for specific responses for technique number one. The purpose of including technique number nineteen was to assess if evaluators tended to read all of the self-study report, especially for larger institutions. Results reported in Table 4.47 indicated that 90.2% of all respondents "always" read the entire report, with a high level of agreement in all categories. Technique number three was included to determine to what degree evaluators read the librarian's annual report and other similar reports. Responses recorded in Table 4.48 indicated that in the all- respondents category 48.4% of the respondents checked that they "always" read such reports, while 47.5% indicated that they only 124 Table 4.46.--Review library sections of institution's self-study reports sent to North Central Association. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 95.1 4.1 .8 N = 122 (19) Teaching 100.0 0 O N = 40 Administrative 92.4 6.3 1.3 N = 79 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 96.8 1.6 1.6 N = 64 University Evaluators 92.2 7.8 0 N = 51 (26) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 125 Table 4.47.--Read the self-study report in its entirety if the insti- tution is small and selectively if the institution is large. . Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 90.2 5.7 4.1 N = 122 (19) Teaching 92.5 5.0 2.5 N = 40 Administrative 88.6 6.3 5.1 N = 79 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 89.0 6.3 4.7 N = 64 University Evaluators 96.2 3.8 O N = 52 (25) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 126 Table 4.48.--Read librarian's annual reports and other significant reports and memoranda. Category Always Sometimes Never A11 Respondents N = 122 (19) 48.4 47.5 4.1 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 66.6 40.0 30.8 55.0 100.0 2.6 5.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 52.4 44.2 46.0 48.1 1.6 7.7 Librarians N = 4 (1) 75.0 25.0 ( ) = responses missing 127 "sometimes" read the reports, a rather evenly divided response. However, the Chi square test results at the .05 significance level indicated that teachers and administrators do not agree on the impor- tance of reading the librarian's annual report. The results denoted that 66.7% of the teachers "always" read the annual report, while only 40% of the administrators "always" included this activity as a part of their effort to gain background information. There were no additional comments made nor reasons given to help explain this dif- ference in attitude. It may be that administrators' experience in reading such reports is more extensive and that annual reports, by their very nature, tend to dwell on strengths rather than weaknesses. There was an interest to determine if evaluators regularly read more documents than the self-study and the librarian's annual report; therefore, technique twenty-three, "Read college or university statutes, if any, relating to library policy," was included. Results in Table 4.49 indicated that 59.2% of all respondents "sometimes" read such documents and there was a similar level of agreement in the use of this technique in all categories. One of the stated purposes of the North Central accrediting team is to determine if the institution is fulfilling its stated mission. Technique forty-one was included to determine if evaluators were concerned as to whether a library is meeting its goals. The responses in Table 4.50 indicated that 76.3% of all respondents do attempt to make this determination, and the fact that there was no significant disagreement among categories confirms the importance that 128 Table 4.49.--Read college or university statutes, if any, relating to library policy. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 120 (21) 27.5 59.2 13.3 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 78 Other N = 2 (22) 35.9 24.4 53.8 61.5 50.0 10.3 14.1 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 51 (27) 30.2 25.5 60.3 56.9 9.5 17.6 Librarians N = 4 (1) 50.0 50.0 ( ) = responses missing 129 Table 4.50.--Determine the library's success in achieving its goals. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 118 (23) 76.3 18.6 5.1 Teaching N = 38 Administrative N = 77 Other N = 2 (24) 76.3 77.9 15.8 19.5 50.0 7.9 2.6 50.0 College Evaluators N = 59 University Evaluators N = 52 (30) 76.3 76.9 22.0 15.4 1.7 7.7 Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing 130 North Central evaluators place on determining if an institution and its various units are meeting stated goals. Techniques four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and twenty-six were included to determine what percentage of the evaluators use the technique of interviewing, and whom they interview, to gather informa- tion about the effectiveness of the library program. More than 80% of all respondents "always" make it a practice to interview students, teaching faculty, administrators, and the library director. See Tables 4.51-4.55 for complete results of techniques seven, twenty-six, five, six, and eight. It should be noted that results of the Chi square test at the .05 significance level indicated there is a significant difference between teachers, administrators, and others concerning the regularity with which they interview members of the university administration. Results in Table 4.54 denoted that 81.2% of the administrators "always" interview university administrators as a technique to gain information, while only 66.6% of the teachers and 50% of those in the other categories "always" use this technique. It is interesting to note that the technique of "interviewing students“ is "always" used by 82.1% of the North Central evaluators and ranks ninth of the forty-one suggested techniques. This compares with a rank of thirty-seventh in Gelfand's study of Middle State evaluators and eleventh in Yates' study of Southern Association evalua- 85,86 tors. Gelfand's questionnaire contained sixty-one techniques 85Gelfand, "Techniques of Library Evaluators." 86Yates, "Bases Used by Library Evaluators." Table 4.51.--Interview students. 131 Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 123 (18) 82.1 17.1 .8 Teaching N = 40 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (19) 87.5 81.2 50.0 12.5 0 17.5 1.3 50.0 0 College Evaluators N = 64 University Evaluators N = 52 (25) 84.3 78.8 14.1 1.6 Librarians N = 4 (1) 75.0 25.0 0 ( ) = responses missing 132 Table 4.52.--Confer with students at random. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 70.2 28.1 1.7 N = 121 (20) Teaching 80.0 17.5 2.5 N = 40 Administrative 65.4 33.3 1.3 N = 78 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 74.6 23.8 1.6 N = 63 University Evaluators 65.4 32.7 1.9 N = 52 (26) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 133 Table 4.53.--Interview members of the teaching faculty. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 88.5 11.5 0 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 89.7 87.5 100.0 10.3 0 12.5 0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 85.7 92.3 14.3 0 7.7 O Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing 134 Table 4.54.--Interview members of the administration. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 75.4 22.1 2.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 66.6 50.0 30.8 17.5 2.6 1.3 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 71.4 80.8 27.0 15.4 1.6 3.8 Librarians N = 4 (1) 75.0 25.0 ( ) = responses missing 135 Table 4.55.--Interview the library director. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 84.4 13.9 1.7 N = 122 (19) Teaching 82.0 15.4 2.6 N = 39 Administrative 86.2 12.5 1.3 N = 80 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 88.9 9.5 1.6 N = 63 University Evaluators 78.9 19.2 1.9 N = 52 (26) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 136 while Yates' questionnaire and this study each contained forty-one techniques. Upon examining the responses of librarians as a separate group, it is interesting to note that 100% of them "always" interview members of the teaching faculty and the library director. There is also 100% agreement among librarians in "always" using technique number nine, "conferring with key library staff," while responses in Table 4.56 indicated that less than half of all respondents "always" confer with library staff. Technique number four was included to determine how much importance evaluators placed on interviewing members of the teaching faculty library committee, if there was one. Only 37.7% of all respondents indicated that they "always" interviewed committee members. As might be expected, a larger percentage of teachers than adminis- trators tended "always" to interview a faculty committee. Results for technique four are found in Table 4.57. In an attempt to determine how evaluators might evaluate the library collection, techniques two, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, and thirty-nine were included. Results indicated that 84.4% of all respondents would "always" utilize the expertise of other committee members to evaluate subject areas of the collection most familiar to them. See Table 4.58 for complete results. The technique of "spot checking for standard titles in the evaluator's field" was a technique that 87.7% of all the evaluators would "always" use, and there was a high percentage of agreement in 137 Table 4.56.--Confer with key library staff members. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 46.7 50.8 2.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 56.4 100.0 43.6 55.0 3.8 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 49.2 40.4 49.2 55.8 1.6 3.8 Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing 138 Table 4.57.--Interview members of the Faculty Library Committee. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 37.7 55.7 6.6 N = 122 (19) Teaching 53.8 41.0 5.2 N = 39 Administrative 31.3 61.2 7.5 N = 80 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 31.7 58.7 9.6 N = 63 University Evaluators 44.3 51.9 3.8 N = 52 (26) Librarians 25.0 75.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 139 Table 4.58.--Utilize the expertise of other committee members to evaluate the sections of the library collection most familiar to them. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 84.4 15.6 0 N = 122 (19) Teaching 82.1 17.9 0 N = 39 Administrative 85.0 15.0 0 N = 80 Other 100.0 0 ' 0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 82.5 17.5 0 N = 63 University Evaluators 84.6 15.4 0 N = 52 (26) Librarians 25.0 75.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 140 all categories for the use of this technique. The complete results for technique thirty-nine are reported in Table 4.59. When asked how frequently they would use the technique of spot-checking the availability of books listed in the card catalog, 43.3% of all respondents indicated they would "always" check, 43.3% replied they would "sometimes" check, and 13.4% indicated they would "never" check availability. It should be noted, however, that the results of the Chi square test indicated a significant difference between teachers and administrators on the use of this technique, with 59% of the teachers "always" checking availability while 35.9% of the administrators "always" checked. There were no comments from respondents relating to this technique, which would provide reasons for this difference. Responses to technique twenty-eight are reported in Table 4.60. When asked if they would try to "determine if there is a continuous weeding program," 22.5% of all respondents "always" try to determine, 58.3% "sometimes" try, and 19.2% "never" try. It is interesting that 100% of the librarians agreed that they "sometimes" try to determine if there is a continuous weeding program. Results of technique thirty are located in Table 4.61. When asked if they use ALA Standards when evaluating collec- tions and facilities, 50.8% of all respondents indicated that they "never" use them, while 46.2% of the teachers "never" use them. However, two of the four librarians (50%) responded that they "always" use this technique. Perhaps, part of the reason for this difference of opinion is that many nonlibrarians, as indicated earlier in this 141 Table 4.59.--Spot check the collection for standard titles in your area of knowledge. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 87.7 12.3 0 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (21) 97.4 82.3 100.0 2.6 O 17.7 0 College Evaluators N = 64 University Evaluators N = 51 (26) 92.2 82.4 7.8 0 17.6 0 Librarians N = 4 (1) 75.0 25.0 0 ( ) = responses missing 142 Table 4.60.--Spot check availability of books listed in public catalog. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 120 (21) 43.3 43.3 13.4 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 78 Other N = 2 (22) 59.0 35.9 35.9 47.4 50.0 5.1 16.7 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 51 (27) 47.6 37.2 38.1 14.3 11.8 Librarians N = 4 (1) 25.0 75.0 ( ) = responses missing 143 Table 4.61.--Determine if there is a continuous weeding program. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 22.5 58.3 19.2 N = 120 (21) Teaching 15.8 68.4 15.8 N = 38 Administrative 26.5 53.2 20.3 N = 79 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (22) College Evaluators 31.1 52.5 16.4 N = 61 University Evaluators 13.5 61.5 25.0 N = 52 (28) Librarians 0 100.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 144 study, are not familiar with the standards. Consult Table 4.62 for complete results of technique twenty-nine. Techniques sixteen, thirty-one, and thirty-two were included for the purpose of determining adequacy of library hours and availa- bility of staff. Results for technique sixteen indicated that 88.6% of all respondents "always" examine library hours to determine if they are adequate in relation to the mission of the institution. When reported as a group, for comparative purposes, 100% of the four librarians responding to this question indicated that they "always" check the adequacy of library hours. Complete results for technique sixteen are found in Table 4.63. When asked if they check the staff scheduling to determine the availability of professional librarians, 40.2% of all evaluators responding indicated that they "always" make it a point to determine the availability of professional librarians, while 49.2% indicated that they "sometimes" check for availability of professional librari- ans. Several evaluators responded that "they usually ask the director if professional staffing is sufficient." For complete results for technique thirty-one, see Table 4.64. Technique thirty-two was included to determine if evaluators were concerned about the physical accessibility of the professional staff and their willingness to assist users. Results indicated that 53.7% of all respondents "always" check on this, with a high level of agreement among responses from all categories. Complete results for this technique are found in Table 4.65. 145 Table 4.62.--Use American Library Association standards when evaluat- ing collections and facilities. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 10.2 39.0 50.8 N = 118 (23) Teaching 12.8 41.0 46.2 N = 39 Administrative 9.2 38.2 52.6 N = 76 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (24) College Evaluators 12.9 41.9 45.2 N = 62 University Evaluators 6.0 34.0 60.0 N = 50 (29) Librarians 50.0 25.0 25.0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing Table 4.63.--Check library hours. 146 Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 123 (18) 88.6 9.8 1.6 Teaching N = 40 Administrative N = 80 Othe 1‘ N - 2 (19) 92.5 87.5 50.0 7.5 11.2 1.3 50.0 College Evaluators N = 64 University Evaluators N = 52 (25 ) 87.5 88.5 3.1 Librarians N: (1) 4 100.0 ( ) responses missing 147 Table 4.64.--Check the staffing schedule to determine if the availa- bility of professional librarians is sufficient. Category. Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 40.2 49.2 10.6 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 46.2 38.8 48.7 48.7 50.0 5.1 12.5 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 46.1 32.7 47.6 50.0 6.3 17.3 Librarians N = 4 (1) 25.0 75.0 ( ) = responses missing 148 Table 4.65.--Check accessibility of professional staff to the academic community (attitudinally and physically). Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 121 (20) 53.7 38.0 8.3 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (21) 64.1 49.3 30.8 41.8 50.0 5.1 8.9 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 51 (27) 58.7 52.9 36.5 35.3 4.8 Librarians N = 4 (1) 50.0 50.0 ( ) = responses missing 149 Evaluators were queried if they make comparisons of library expenditures with criteria from outside agencies. In response to technique twelve, 82.1% of all respondents indicated they "always" compare library expenditures in relation to total institution expen- ditures. High agreement among all categories reinforces the concept that North Central evaluators are looking at the library budget in relation to the mission of the institution. Complete results for this technique are found in Table 4.66. When asked if they compare the library budget to levels sug- gested in ALA Standards, 41.8% of all respondents replied that they "always" do, 37.7% "sometimes" do, and 20.5% "never" do. It is inter- esting to note that as a group librarians tend to agree with other evaluators on how frequently they use technique thirteen. For com- plete results, see Table 4.67. It was thought that evaluators may use the technique of com- paring library expenditures with those of other similar-sized institu- tions within the North Central region. Results indicated that 28.9% of all respondents "always" make this comparison, while 47.1% "some- times" do, and 24% "never" do. However, as a group, 75% of the librarians "always" make this comparison. It may be that librarians frequently make such comparisons in support of their own library; therefore, it is natural for them to do the same on an accreditation visit. Table 4.68 contains the complete results of technique twenty- seven. Evaluators were asked if they compared the library expendi- tures of the library they were evaluating with the Association of 150 Table 4.66.-~Compare library expenditures with total institutional expenditures. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 82.1 14.6 3.3 N = 123 (18) Teaching 80.0 17.5 2.5 N = 40 Administrative 82.5 13.7 3.8 N = 80 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (19) College Evaluators 82.8 14.1 3.1 N = 64 University Evaluators 80.8 15.4 3.8 N = 52 (25) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 151 Table 4.67.--Compare the percentage of the educational and general budget allocated to the library with the accepted standard stated in American Library Association standards. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 41.8 37.7 20.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 46.2 41.0 12.8 37.5 37.5 25.0 100.0 0 0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 44.5 33.3 22.2 36.5 42.3 21.2 Librarians N = 4 (1) 50.0 25.0 25.0 ( ) = responses missing 152 Table 4.68.—-Compare library expenditures with those of other libraries of similar size in institutions of similar purpose in NCA territory. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 28.9 47.1 24.0 N = 121 (20) Teaching 20.5 59.0 20.5 N = 39 Administrative 34.2 43.0 22.8 N = 79 Other 0 0 100.0 N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 23.8 52.4 23.8 N = 63 University Evaluators 39.2 37.3 23.5 N = 51 (27) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 153 Research Libraries statistics. Responses indicated that 16% of all respondents indicated they "always" compare library expenditures to that benchmark, while 50.4% indicated they "sometimes" do, and 33.6% responded that they "never" do. There was a similar level of agree- ment among all categories reporting on this technique, and complete results are found in Table 4.69. However, there may have been some confusion about the question because it did not make it clear that the library being evaluated was an ARL library. Techniques fifteen, eighteen, twenty, and twenty-one were included to determine if evaluators are concerned about the physical facilities. When asked if they tour the library, 91.8% responded that they "always" tour the library, while 8.2% "sometimes" do. None of the evaluators indicated that they “never" tour the library, and the level of agreement held true for all categories. It would appear that there is a concern for a good study environment. Complete results for technique fifteen are reported in Table 4.70. Technique eighteen was included to assess if evaluators checked seating capacity of the library, and technique twenty was included because it was felt that information concerning the total number of people on campus was necessary to determine the adequacy of library seating. Responses to technique eighteen, found in Table 4.71, indi- cated that 66.1% of all respondents "always" check seating, while 31.4% "sometimes" check, and 2.5% "never" check. There is a similar agreement in all categories except librarians, where 100% reported that they "always" check seating. It is interesting to note, in Table 4.72, that a much smaller percentage (32%) "always" try to 154 Table 4.69.--Compare library expenditures with Association of College and Research Libraries statistics. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 119 (22) 16.0 50.4 33.6 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 77 Other N = 2 (23) 15.4 16.9 48.7 50.0 35.9 31.2 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 49 (29) 19.0 14.2 50.8 42.9 30.2 42.9 Librarians N = 4 (1) 25.0 75.0 ( ) = responses missing 155 Table 4.70.--Tour the library to assess the ease of locating materials and services. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 91.8 8.2 0 Teaching N = 40 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (20) 95.0 89.9 100.0 5.0 O 10.1 0 College Evaluators N = 64 University Evaluators N = 51 (26) 93.7 88.2 Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing 156 Table 4.7l.--Check seating capacity. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 121 (20) 66.1 31.4 2.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (21) 66.7 67.1 50.0 33.3 29.1 50.0 3.8 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 51 (27) 68.2 64.7 28.6 33.3 3.2 2.0 Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing Table 4.72.--Determine the largest number of students that are on 157 campus at any one time. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 32.0 48.4 19.6 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 23.1 37.5 59.0 42.5 50.0 17.9 20.0 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 34.9 32.7 49.2 44.2 15.9 23.1 Librarians N = 4 (1) 50.0 25.0 25.0 ( ) = responses missing 158 determine the largest number of students that are on campus at any given time. Results indicated that 48.4% indicated they "sometimes" check, and 19.6% indicated they "never" try to determine this. It is rather difficult to understand how an evaluator can make a judgment on seating capacity of the library without inquiring what the potential number of students wanting to use these seats might be. Technique twenty-one was included to determine if evaluators were concerned with environmental factors within the library building. Such factors could include lighting, temperature control, noise level, furniture arrangement, or others which the evaluator thought important. Results indicated that 54.9% of all respondents "always" are concerned about this, while 40.2% “sometimes" are concerned and 4.9% "never" are concerned. The Chi square test results at the .05 level of signifi- cance, however, indicated a significant difference between teachers and administrators on this matter. Findings indicated that 71.8% of the teachers "always“ check environmental factors, while 48.7% of the administrators "always" use this technique. When librarians were examined as a separate category, it was found that they tended to agree 75% of the time with teachers about the importance of checking environmental factors in the building. Complete results for technique twenty-one are reported in Table 4.73. Techniques eleven, seventeen, twenty-four, and forty dealt with measuring library usage. Results of technique forty indicated that 71.3% of all respondents "always" check faculty use of the library, while 23% "sometimes" check for this use and 5.7% "never" check. It should be noted, however, that the Chi square test results 159 Table 4.73.--Determine the adequacy of lighting and other environ- mental factors. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 54.9 40.2 4.9 N = 122 (19) Teaching 71.8 28.2 0 N = 39 Administrative 48.7 45.0 6.3 N = 80 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 61.9 34.9 3.2 N = 63 University Evaluators 48.1 44.2 7.7 N = 52 (26) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 160 at the .05 level of significance indicated a significant difference between teachers and administrators, with teachers more likely to "always" use this technique. From the researcher's perspective, faculty tend to use the library more than administrators because of the nature of their positions. If this perception is typical of the actual situation, then teachers would be interested in assessing the utilization of the library by faculty. It should be noted that 100% of the librarians "always" check faculty usage of the library. Com- plete results for technique forty are reported in Table 4.74. When asked if they frequently examine circulation statistics and reports, 74.4% of all respondents indicated that they "always" check statistics, 21.5% indicated they "sometimes“ check, and 4.1% responded that they "never" examine statistical reports on circulation. The Chi square results indicated a significant difference at the .05 level of significance between college and university evaluators, with 85.5% of the college evaluators "always" using this technique as opposed to 61.5% of the university evaluators "always" checking cir- culation statistics. Results in Table 4.75 indicated responses given by all categories on the use of this technique. Evaluators were asked if they examined statistics for reserves usage, and 39.2% of all respondents replied that they "always" used this technique, while 51.6% reported they "sometimes" checked this, and 9.2% indicated they "never" examined reserves statistics. The Chi square test results at the .05 level of significance indicated that teachers and administrators significantly disagreed on utiliz- ing this technique, with 59.5% of the teachers responding that they 161 Table 4.74.--Check faculty use of the library. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 71.3 23.0 5.7 N = 122 (19) ' Teaching 79.5 12.8 7.7 N = 39 Administrative 68.7 27.5 3.8 N = 80 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators ' 76.2 22.2 1.6 N=63 University Evaluators 67.3 23.1 9.6 N = 52 (26) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing Table 4.75.--Examine statistics and/or reports of circulation. 162 Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 74.4 21.5 4.1 N = 121 (20) Teaching 79.5 15.4 5.1 N = 39 Administrative 70.9 25.3 3.8 N = 79 Other 100.0 0 O N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 85.5 12.9 1.6 N = 62 University Evaluators 61.5 30.8 7.7 N = 52 (27) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 163 "always" examine reserve statistics but only 31.3% of the administra- tors replying that they check reserves usage. The fact that a smaller percentage of all evaluators responded that they do not "always" use this technique may be a reflection that instructional methods are not relying as much on library reserves as they used to and, therefore, their usage is not a good outcome measure of an adequate library pro- gram. Results for technique seventeen are found in Table 4.76. There was some concern expressed in the literature that audio- visual materials and services are often ignored by evaluators; there- fore, technique twenty-four was included to assess the importance that North Central evaluators placed on evaluation of audio-visual services. Results indicated that 32.8% of all respondents "always" examine audio-visual statistics and reports, while 59% replied they "sometimes" check these statistics and 8.2% responded that they "never" examine reports of audio-visual services. All categories were at a similar level of agreement on the frequency with which they utilized this technique. Responses to technique twenty—four are reported in Table 4.77. Evaluators should be aware of any relationships a library may have which enhance the access to library collections other than its own and consequently increase the resources available to the students and faculty. Techniques fourteen and twenty-two were included for the purpose of assessing whether evaluators looked for such rela- tionships. When asked if they checked to see if the library had established relationships with neighboring libraries, 41.8% of all respondents indicated that they "always" check this, while 45.1% Table 4.76.--Examine statistics and/or reports of reserves. 164 Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 120 (21) 39.2 51.6 9.2 Teaching N = 37 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (22) 59.5 32.4 58.7 100.0 8.1 10.0 College Evaluators N = 62 University Evaluators N = 51 (28) 46.8 29.4 45.2 62.7 8.0 7.9 Librarians N = 4 (1) 50.0 50.0 ( ) = responses missing 165 Table 4.77.--Examine statistics and/or reports of audio-visual services. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 32.8 59.0 8.2 N = 122 (19) Teaching 38.5 56.4 5.1 N = 39 Administrative 28.7 62.5 8.8 N = 80 Other 50.0 0 50.0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 38.1 52.4 9.5 N = 63 University Evaluators 26.9 65.4 7.7 N = 52 (26) Librarians 25.0 75.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 166 replied that they "sometimes" check this, and 13.1% responded that they "never" check. Complete results for technique fourteen are reported in Table 4.78. When asked if they ever check statistics of interlibrary loans to determine, in part, what extent the library is relying on other library collections, 27.9% of all evaluators reported they "always" check interlibrary loan activity, while 56.6% indicated they "sometimes" check, and 15.5% responded that they "never" check this activity. It is interesting to note that as a separate group 100% of the librarians "always" check interlibrary loan activity in their evaluation. This likely reflects a sophistication for under- standing library operations that nonspecialists do not have. Table 4.79 contains results for technique twenty-two. Techniques thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight were included to assess if North Central evaluators tried to obtain information about the organization and administration of the library. When asked if they examined the rela- tionship of the library director to the institution's administrative hierarchy, 66.1% responded that they "always" explored this relation- ship, while 27.3% "sometimes" were concerned about this, and 6.6% "never" examined this relationship. There was a similar level of agreement in using this technique except for librarians, who all felt this relationship was important to assess when evaluating the library during the accrediting process. For complete results of technique thirty-six, see Table 4.80. Table 4.78.--Examine the relationships and/or reports of use of 167 neighboring libraries. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 41.8 45.1 13.1 N = 122 (19) Teaching 48.7 41.0 10.3 N = 39 Administrative 40.0 45.0 15.0 N = 80 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 49.2 39.7 11.1 N = 63 University Evaluators 32.7 51.9 15.4 N = 52 (26) Librarians 50.0 50.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) - responses missing 168 Table 4.79.--Examine statistics and/or reports of interlibrary loans. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 122 (19) 27.9 56.6 15.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 80 Other N = 2 (20) 33.3 25.0 59.0 56.3 50.0 7.7 18.7 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 52 (26) 34.9 19.2 55.6 59.6 9.5 21.2 Librarians N = 4 (1) 100.0 ( ) = responses missing Table 4.80.--Explore the position of the library director in the 169 institution's administrative hierarchy. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 66.1 27.3 6.6 N = 121 (20) Teaching 66.7 25.6 7.7 N = 39 Administrative 67.5 26.2 6.3 N = 80 Other 0 100.0 0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 68.2 28.6 3.2 N = 63 University Evaluators 64.7 25.5 9.8 N = 51 (27) Librarians 100.0 0 O N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 170 When asked if they ever attempted to determine if there is a Faculty Library Committee and if it is a policy-making or advisory body, 50.4% of all respondents replied that they "always" try to detennine this, while 34.7% of all respondents "sometimes" make this determination, and 14.9% "never" inquire if there is a Library Faculty Committee. Responses for technique thirty-three are reported in Table 4.81. Technique thirty-five was included to assess if evaluators were interested in communications within the library. Of all evalua- tors responding, 15.6% indicated that they "always" checked to deter- mine if there were regular staff meetings in the library, while 55.7% "sometimes" checked, and 28.7% did not use this particular technique. However, it should be noted that 75% of the librarians "always" checked about staff meetings. Complete results for technique thirty- five are reported in Table 4.82. When asked if they ever attempt to determine if the ratio of professional library staff to support staff is sufficient, 28.9% of all respondents indicated that they "always" do, 54.5% responded that they "sometimes" determine this, and 16.6% were not concerned about this relationship. Responses to technique number thirty-four are located in Table 4.83. Respondents were asked if they ever inquire as to whether librarians have full faculty status, and results indicated that 34.7% of all respondents "always" check on this, 43.8% "sometimes" check, and 21.5% "never" try to determine the status of librarians. However, examining the librarians as a separate group indicated that 75% of 171 Table 4.81.--Determine if the Faculty Library Committee is a policy- making or advisory body. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 50.4 34.7 14.9 N = 121 (20) Teaching 53.8 28.3 17.9 N = 39 Administrative 50.6 36.7 12.7 N = 79 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 44.5 36.5 19.0 N = 63 University Evaluators 56.9 33.3 9.8 N = 51 (27) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 172 Table 4.82.--Determine if there are regularly scheduled staff meetings. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 15.6 55.7 28.7 N = 122 (19) Teaching 12.8 59.0 28.2 N = 39 Administrative 16.3 55.0 28.7 N = 80 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (20) College Evaluators 12.7 63.5 23.8 N = 63 University Evaluators 19.2 46.2 34.6 N = 52 (26) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (1) ( ) = responses missing 173 Table 4.83.--Determine the ratio of professional staff to clerical (1) staff. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 28.9 54.5 16.6 N = 121 (20) Teaching 41.0 43.6 15.4 N = 39 Administrative 24.0 59.5 16.5 N = 79 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 29.0 51.6 19.4 N = 62 University Evaluators 28.9 59.6 11.5 N = 52 (27) Librarians 25.0 75.0 0 *N = 4 ( ) = responses missing 174 them do explore the status of librarians. Complete results on technique thirty-seven are found in Table 4.84. Evaluators were queried as to whether they ever try to deter- mine if librarians are active in professional organizations as part of the evaluation process. Results indicated that 29.8% "always" try to determine this, 52.1% "sometimes" do, and 18.1% are not concerned with this activity in relation to accreditation. Again, however, 75% of the librarians "always" try to determine the professional activity of the library staff. Responses to technique number thirty-eight are found in Table 4.85. The researcher, in discussing North Central Accreditation with other educators, detected a concern by some that evaluators tend to compare the library they are evaluating with the library at their home institution rather than examining the library program in relation to the mission of the institution. When asked if they com- pare library practices with prevailing practices of libraries at their own institution, 47.9% indicated they "always" make such a comparison, 41.3% responded that they "sometimes" make this comparison, and 10.8% responded that they "never" make this comparison. The fact that 89.2% of all respondents either "always" or "sometimes“ compare the library they are evaluating with their own institution represents a significant percentage of the total. While making such a compari- son is both a natural and unavoidable thing for evaluators to do, they should be cautioned that their primary purpose in evaluating the library is to determine if it is effective in relation to the goals 175 Table 4.84.--Determine if the librarians who have faculty status truly have all the rights and privileges of such status. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 121 (20) 34.7 43.8 21.5 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (21) 35.9 43.6 20.5 35.4 44.3 20.3 0 50.0 50.0 College Evaluators N = 63 University Evaluators N = 51 (27) 38.1 44.4 17.5 33.3 41.2 25.5 Librarians N = 4 (1) 75.0 25.0 0 ( ) = responses missing 176 Table 4.85.--Determine if the professional staff is active in pro- fessional organizations. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents 29.8 52.1 18.1 N = 121 (20) Teaching 38.5 48.7 12.8 N = 39 Administrative 26.5 53.2 20.3 N = 79 Other 0 50.0 50.0 N = 2 (21) College Evaluators 30.1 54.0 15.9 N = 63 University Evaluators 27.5 52.9 19.6 N = 51 (27) Librarians 75.0 25.0 0 N = 4 (l) ( ) = responses missing 177 and mission of the parent institution. Complete results of tech- nique number ten are found in Table 4.86. At the end of the technique section, the following question appeared: "Please list any other techniques used and indicate if they are used 'always' or 'sometimes.'" The following statements by evaluators are representative of the responses received: Inquire about a long-range planning process. This questionnaire has covered all the techniques I have used. Determine if the library serves as a study hall or a place of investigation and research. Check course syllabus to determine relationship of instruc- tion and the library. Check what percentage of courses require research papers and reports. Check to see if there are adequate "runs" of periodicals. 1 interview students in student government, classes, and individually and ask them: 1. if they have used the library last week or recently, and 2. if they have used reference books, periodicals, or inter- library loan recently and for what purpose. For the purpose of a quick review of the techniques most fre- quently used by all evaluators, the top ten have been ranked in Tab1e 4.87. 178 Table 4.86.-—Compare library practices with prevailing practices of libraries at own institution. Category Always Sometimes Never All Respondents N = 121 (20) 47.9 41.3 10.8 Teaching N = 39 Administrative N = 79 Other N = 2 (21) 46.8 50.0 41.0 40.5 50.0 7.7 12.7 College Evaluators N = 62 University Evaluators N = 52 (27) 58.0 40.4 33.9 50.0 8.1 9.6 Librarians N = 4 (1) 25.0 50.0 25.0 ( ) = responses missing 179 Tab1e 4.87.--Most frequently used techniques. Question % - Rank Number Used Technique 1 1 95.1 Review library sections of institu- tion's self-study reports to the North Central Association. 2 15 91.8 Tour the library to assess the ease of locating materials and services. 3 16 88.6 Check library hours. 4 5 88.5 Interview members of the teaching faculty. 5 39 87.7 Spot check the collection for stan- dard titles in your area of knowl- edge. 6 8 84.4 Interview the library director. 6 2 84.4 Utilize the expertise of other com- mittee members to evaluate the sections of the library collection most familiar to them. 7 7 82.1 Interview students. 7 12 82.1 Compare library expenditures with total institutional expenditures. 8 41 76.3 Determine the library's success at . achieving its goals. 9 6 75.4 Interview members of the adminis- tration. 10 11 74.4 Examine statistics or reports for circulation. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter contains a summary of the study's background, purpose, methodology. and findings. In addition, it contains the conclusions, suggestions for further study, and recommendations. m Background and Purpose of the Study Unlike most other nations of the world, the United States does not have a strong national government regulatory agency for edu- cation. To fill that void, six private regional accrediting agencies develOped to provide certification that higher educational institu- tions meet certain standards of performance. North Central Accrediting Association is the largest of the regional associations and, like other regional associations, evaluates the effectiveness of the library as part of the total accrediting process. An examination of library evaluation literature and North Central's past and present procedures indicates a difficulty in attempt- ing to assess the library's effectiveness as it relates to the mission of the institution. Further investigation reflects the fact that North Central seldom appoints a library/learning resource specialist 180 18] to an accrediting team and provides little guidance to nonspecialists in evaluation of the library. The purpose of this study was to attempt to identify what criteria North Central evaluators presently use for evaluating the library and to attempt to identify criteria or tools that might be useful to them in future evaluations. Literature Review In preparation for this study, a review of pertinent litera- ture was conducted. It was concluded that accreditation has never been well understood by educators or the general public even though it has played an important role in the development and preservation of a quality higher education program in the United States. A search of the literature on library evaluation as it relates to accreditation resulted in the identification of very little research in this area. Librarians' concern with library evaluation has been focused on ACRL Standards, while most of the regional accrediting agencies tend to take a less structured approach when assessing whether the library is fulfilling its stated objectives. While there seems to be little agreement on consistency regarding what procedures and/or criteria should be used in library evaluation during the accrediting visit, the review of the pertinent literature did provide a basis from which to conduct this investigation both in the identi- fication of potential criteria and the final design of a survey instrument. l82 Methodology This study was exploratory in nature and involved completing two major tasks. The first task involved an identification of the pertinent literature on accreditation, library evaluation, library standards, and North Central's accrediting criteria and procedures. In addition to documents from all six regional associations, library and educational literature was analyzed for the purpose of extract- ing criterion statements which were considered important for library evaluation during accreditation and for the purpose of providing some additional information on designing a survey instrument. The second task was to survey North Central evaluators by direct-mail questionnaire to obtain evaluators' Opinions about North Central's accrediting process and to collect data concerning methods and techniques they used when evaluating libraries. The population studied was composed of evaluators who had been on North Central visiting teams of higher education institu- tions accredited during the years l977, l978, and l979. However, the evaluators could not be sampled directly as North Central did not have information arranged in that manner. Instead, a stratified random sample of institutions, evaluated during the three-year period, was drawn and presented to North Central. This enabled them to extract from their files the names and addresses of evaluators who had visited specific institutions. The questionnaire and cover letter were mailed in March l980 to l75 evaluators. A follow-up letter and survey were mailed within one month to those who did not respond to the first 183 request. A total of l4l questionnaires were received, representing an 8l.l% response rate. The major purpose of the study was to assess evaluators' opinions about evaluating libraries during the accreditation process. The findings were presented in descriptive and tabular form in the same sequence as the questionnaire, which included sections on back- ground, general information, reports, and techniques. Certain com- parisons were made in the study in relation to type of position held by the evaluators and the level of institution in which most of their evaluations had occurred. The Chi square test for homogeneity and the cross-tabulation procedure were used to determine if there were significant differences in responses at the .05 level of significance. Findings North Central's Current Procedures for Evaluating Libraries North Central seldom appoints a librarian/learning resource specialist to an accrediting team. In addition, there is very little guidance provided for nonlibrarian team members other than a three- sentence statement on the role of learning resources in the institu- tion and statistical data on the collection, usage, and financing provided on Data Form E. Fewer than 25% of the evaluators felt well prepared to evalu- ate the library, whereas more than 70% would like some additional guidance. Respondents felt there should be more training in library evaluation; specifically, 66.9% felt it would be helpful for an inex- perienced evaluator to observe at least one library evaluation before 184 being assigned that responsibility. Communication appears to be almost totally lacking between North Central and evaluators, as indi- cated by the fact that only 2.9% had ever been asked for input to improve the process of library evaluation. Literature Search for Evaluative Criteria Documents of six regional accrediting associations, ALA stan- dards for college and university libraries, and selected literature relating to library evaluation from both library and education litera- ture were analyzed in an effort to extract suggested criteria for evaluating libraries. Seventy-five evaluative statements, reported in Chapter IV, were identified which are presently used by different educational groups as a basis for evaluating a library program. The evaluative statements were categorized under the following headings: organization, administration, collection development, reference ser- vice, staffing, budgeting, usage, facilities, and resource sharing/ networking. The heading, technology, was added even though few evaluative statements relating to technology appeared in the stan- dards and accrediting literature. Perhaps this is due to the fact that a rather phenomenal change in libraries as a result of techno- logical application has occurred during the last five to ten years and thus has not been translated by the library profession or accrediting agencies into evaluative statements. Survey Results The majority of North Central evaluators are administrators and have a science, social science, or humanities subject background. 185 They are active in accreditation, with almost all of them completing two evaluations in a recent three-year period and 7l.4% of them com- pleting five or more evaluations within the same period. This sug- gests that North Central is, for the most part, utilizing the same educators, thus building a group of professional evaluators. However, less than one-quarter of the evaluators felt well prepared for their first library evaluation. North Central evaluators definitely prefer North Central to have an individual qualitative approach to institutions rather than introducing a set of rigid standards. However, a vast majority of the evaluators would like more guidance, even some quantitative guide- lines, for evaluating libraries. For example, 7l.7% of the evaluators would like North Central to provide a list of suggested areas of the library to investigate and an accompanying set of questions to ask when gathering data and information. Based on this finding, the principal outcome of'this study was to develop a set of'criterion statements that could be used to evaluate a library program. Tb assist in that evaluation, a set of'"areas of’inquiry and questions to ask" was also developed for evaluators' use in gathering informa- tion from'which they could make an informed judgment about the effectiveness of’the library program (Appendix G). A significant majority also suggested that North Central should make the ACRL standards for college and university libraries available to be used as background information for assessing library programs. It is interesting to note that less than one-quarter of the evaluators have developed their own, mostly unwritten, checklists. l86 More than two-thirds of the evaluators felt they were quali- fied to assess the library program as part of the total institutional evaluation but would like more guidance from North Central. A sig- nificant majority (76.4%) of the evaluators did not think it was necessary that a librarian should §1w§y§_be a member of each accredit- ing team. More than 75% of the evaluators would include a deficiency in the library collection or service under the recommendation section of the final report, while 68.6% of the evaluators would note in the recommendation section if the library did not have a clear statement of objectives. A majority of the evaluators also felt a concern for any deficiencies in teaching students the use of the library or in the interaction between the library and teaching departments and would report such deficiencies in the text of the final report. Many different techniques were used by evaluators, but the most frequently used are as follows. More than 9l% of the evaluators reviewed the self-study and toured the library. Between 85% and 90% of the evaluators checked library hours, interviewed members of the teaching faculty, and spot-checked the collection for standard titles in their subject areas. Between 80% and 84% of the evaluators inter- viewed the library director, utilized the subject expertise of other committee members in assessing the collection, interviewed students, and compared library expenditures with the total educational expen- ditures for the institution. Between 74% and 79% of the evaluators tried to assess the library's success at achieving its goals, l87 interviewed members of the administration, and examined statistics or reports for circulation. Conclusions Since North Central presently seldom assigns a librarian to an accrediting team and since they do not provide much in the way of library evaluative criteria, how do evaluators assess the effective- ness of the library? It is evident that evaluators feel they are not well prepared to evaluate the effectiveness of the library as it relates to the mission of the institution, but they do try to make a general assess- ment. They rely heavily on the library self-study. A small number of evaluators have their own checklist of things they examine when evaluating a library, but few checklists are in written form. Guidance from North Central to evaluators relevant to library evaluation is at an insignificant level, and conmunication between North Central and evaluators about ways to improve the process is almost nonexistent. This implies that there is very little consistency in the way that evaluators examine library programs. Evaluators who have been appointed to assess the library program rely heavily on the self-study report before coming to campus. When they arrive on campus they generally tour the library to check on materials and services; check the library hours, usage statistics, funding; and interview teaching faculty, students, and the library director. But there is no evidence of any consistency in their actions. 188 Another very important concern evaluators have is the ade- quacy of the library collection and the most frequently used method of checking for that adequacy is for them, and some of their fellow team members, to spot-check for standard titles in their own subject areas. Since there is no indication that they use an accepted bib- liography, the resulting evaluation of the collection would appear to be inconsistent. Indications are that evaluators generally recognize the importance of examining certain areas of the library (bibliographical instruction, media services, and so forth) but do not have any organized or consistent method for making that examina- tion in any depth. Better guidelines and methodologies for evaluat- ing specific areas of the library need to be provided to evaluators by North Central. The results of this study indicated that North Central evalua- tors definitely want more guidelines in evaluating the library pro- gram's effectiveness as it relates to the mission of the institution. Furthermore, they do not want rigid quantifiable standards which have to be strictly enforced; rather, they would like tools or criteria which, while they may have some quantifiable criteria, most of the criteria could be applied to individual institutions to assess the quality of the program. A review of the literature and results of the survey indicated that there are criteria. However, most library criteria are in the form of resource inputs rather than performance- oriented outcomes. In order to assess the effectiveness of the library more completely, evaluators would like North Central to provide more 189 training on library evaluation; develop a checklist with which to measure the library program; provide a list of suggested areas of the library that should be investigated and an accompanying set of questions which would be helpful in gathering information about the library program; and encourage the use of ACRL standards for college and university libraries as a guide for evaluating the library, along with other guides such as ARL statistics, non-ARL statistics, and comparisons of selected institutions similar in size and purpose. North Central evaluators' desire for more guidance in evaluat- ing the library as part of the accrediting process has direct impli- cations for North Central and the library profession. The library profession, in cooperation with regional accrediting agencies, needs to develop more effective methods for measuring performance or "out- comes" of the library program. North Central needs to assess its training program and comnunications with evaluators to ensure that library evaluation is adequately covered. In addition, North Central needs to assess what it could do to provide more guidance to evaluators. It appears that it would be useful for North Central and the library profession to interact on ways to improve library evaluation in the accrediting process.87 87Interaction between the library profession and accrediting agencies on standards and accreditation was very useful when repre- sentatives from COPA, ACRL, and all of the regional accrediting associations met in New York at the ACRL/COPA Institute on Libraries :33 Accreditation in Institutions of Higher Education on June 27, 0. 190 Recommendations for Further Research An attempt to identify criteria North Central evaluators presently use for evaluating the library and what additional tools or criteria would be useful to them in the future has resulted in identifying related topics that need further research: l. a study of other regional accrediting agencies, similar to the present one and the one done with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, for the purpose of making comparisons; 2. a study of the perceptions of librarians of host institu— tions about the self-study, North Central's procedures for evaluating libraries, the performance of the evaluators, and the final report to determine any correlation among these factors; 3. a study to identify new "outcomes" or "performance- oriented" tools or techniques to measure or assess the effectiveness of the library program; and 4. a study of librarians of host institutions to see if they utilize ACRL standards in preparation for the self-study and the accreditation visit. Recommendations for Improving Library Evaluation As a result of survey responses from experienced North Central evaluators, and as a result of findings in the literature, the follow- ing recommendations are offered: l. North Central should provide their evaluators more guid- ance for evaluating libraries. They should consider using, as guide- _ljnes, the criterion statements listed below and the areas of inquiry 191 and questions for data gathering found in Appendix G of this study. A. The library is a primary learning resource and should be central to the total educational program. The library should have clearly written objectives directly related to the mission of the institution and instructional programs. The library should be administered by a professionally quali- fied director who regularly participates in university-wide academic planning and decision making. There should be apprOpriate opportunities for representatives of the academic community to advise the director of libraries regarding the library program. The professional staff should be apprOpriately recognized as full members of the academic community and work closely with teaching faculty to provide a total learning experience. The institution should have its own collection of learning resources sufficient in quantity, depth, diversity, and cur- rentness to support its purposes and programs. The library should seek cooperative and resource-sharing programs with other institutions not as a substitute but as a supplement to enhance its services to students and faculty. Library collections should be organized in an unconfused man- ner and easily retrievable. They should include a variety of print and multi-media resources and be housed in an easily accessible, well-lighted, well-ventilated, and adequately equipped building with adequate seating space to support the needs of the academic community. The library should provide reference, interlibrary loan, bib- liographic instruction, circulation, and other services to support both on-campus and off-campus programs. Since use is primary evidence of a library's effectiveness, appropriate usage statistics should be kept, and user surveys should be conducted periodically. Based on this information, changes should be made when apprOpriate. The institution should allocate funds for library resources according to the purposes of the institution, the instructional methods employed, and the adequacy of present holdings and ser- vices. Supplemental funds should be provided for implementing new programs, new services, and new automated activities. The library budget should be developed and managed by the chief administrative officer of the library. 192 2. North Central should provide evaluators better education and training in library evaluation through publications and workshops. It should involve the library profession in this effort. 3. North Central should appoint librarians to accrediting teams with the expectation and acceptance of the fact that librarians can and will be involved in evaluating other areas of the institution in addition to the library. 4. Based on the result that 87% of the evaluators feel they act as a catalyst to improve the library program, it is recommended that librarians become more cognizant of the leverage inherent in the authority of accreditation to improve library programs. 5. The American Library Association, through its divisions like ACRL, should take a more active role in educating librarians about accreditation. It should involve regional accrediting associa- tions in this effort. 6. Librarians should attempt to develop performance-oriented "outcome" measures for evaluating the effectiveness of library pro- grams, seeking input from regional accrediting associations. APPENDICES 193 APPENDIX A LETTER FROM NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION INTRODUCING THE STUDY 194 APPENDIX A MA Norm Oscar-I Association 1221 University Avenue 820 DGVIS Street “com-um Bouider.Colorsdo eoaoz Evanston, llhnms 60201 W on W soc/«on 10 312164-0140 «mu-m coo/525.0340 coo/azs-ssza Dear Colleague: The Commission sponsors or conducts variom studies directed at assessing the quality of its activities and finding ways in which its operation can be improved. Many of these studies are conducted by persons outside the commission, but with the cooperation of the commission. Mr. Ronald G. Leach, Associate Director of Libraries at Central Michigan University, is Imdertahing a study oi the ways in which libraries are evaluated during our site visits to imtitutions. Mr. Leach's study is a part of his dissertation research at Michigan State University. Mr. Leach has drawn a sample of our visiting teams over the past three years, and devised a questionnaire (a visiting team members to obtain information bearing on library evaluation. A copy is enclosed. Your cooperation in responding to this questionnaire will be of great assistance in this research. We hope that its outcome will point to ways in which our evaluation procedures can be improved, both with respect to their eifectiveness and with respect to their efficiency. A report of the study will be made to the members of our consultant-evaluator group. I hope you will and it possible to take a iew minutes to complete the questionnaire and return it to Mr. Leach. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Yawn sincerely, lief/n -, Thurston E. Manning Director of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education TIM/as Enclosure 195 APPENDIX 8 COVER LETTER EXPLAINING THE STUDY 196 APPENDIX B CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Match 7, 1983 IHE HBRARY North Central Accreditation is important to educators and institutions of higher education within North Central's service area. However, the procedures used by the accreditation teams in evaluating a college or university are not widely understood. More specifically, the procedures used to evaluate the library program are generally not known. As a university librarian, 1 an interested in identifying what procedures and criteria team members use during a North Central visit to evaluate the effectiveness of the library program. Consequently,l an undertaking a study of this process as part of the renuire- ments for completing a doctoral degree in Higher Education Administration at Michigan State University. You have been selected as one of 200 educators who have participated in a North Central accreditation visit and who possess information regarding procedures used in evaluating the library program. The attached questionnaire has been designed to enable you to share your knowledge concerning how the library program was evaluated at the institution(s) you visited. It should take approximately twenty-five minutes to check your responses, however, any additional comments would be very much appreciated. The data obtained from the questionnaire will provide information which can be used with a view of developing criteria and guidelines which may be useful for florth Central evaluators in the future. I realise your time is valuable, however, sharing your thoughts, opinions. and evaluative techniques on library programs should strengthen the overall effectiveness of the accreditation process. You may be assured of complete confidentiality: the questionnaire is numbered for mailing purposes only. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please return the questionnaire by April 7, 1980. You may receive a summary of the results by writing, "Copy of results requested" on the back of the return envelope and printing your name and address below it. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ronald G. Leach Associate Director of Libraries mum new, mono»: «359 (517) 7740-33107 197 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE 198 APPENDIX C Q U E S T I O N N A I R E AN ANALYSIS OF CRITERIA USED BY NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION EVALUATORS IN EVALUATING TNE LIBRARY AS PART OF THE ACCREDITING PROCESS. DESIGN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE: To conserve as much of your time as possible. the questions in almost every instance may be answered with a K . however, the researcher values any additional cements you may have. (This questionna to can be capleted in approximately 25 minutes.) DEFINITION: NCA The acronym NCA should be read as the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Comission on Institutions of Higher Education. BACKGROUND: 1. My present position can best be described as: Teaching Administrative Other Please list your specific title In what subject area(s) is your academic preparation? undergraduate Advanced 2. Host of my experience as an educator has been in: Tour Year Colleges Universities Other (specify) 3. The majority of my evaluations have been in: Four Year Colleges Universities Other (specify) 4. Number of evaluations performed during the past five years (approximately) I 2 3 4 5 More than 5 5. I have performed evaluations in the following years: 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 6. On the teams that you served on, was the responsibility for evaluating the library usually assigned to: primarily one team member with the primarily one member all team members help of other team members 7. Have you ever been specifically assigned to review the library? Yes No If yes, did you: Serve as the person to have the specific responsibility to evaluate the library? Visit the library along with others to spot check the collection and services? 8. flow would you assess your preparedness for your very first library evaluation visit? I was: ill prepared moderately prepared well prepared 9. Do you benefit professionally from evaluating the library? Yes No No Opinion GENERAL mromrxow (Section 51 A o 0 3:0 ‘4} 6? 451? 455" ‘y o "0 o a 0,5 ifgS’ gig? egg? dig? J’J’ ~ &‘~ ‘b 6‘" dz .:;r° go 1. It is appropriate that NCA relies on qualitative and individual approaches to a library evaluation rather than an approach based upon quantification and standards. 2. It is possible to evaluate adequately a library's collec- tion and staff in a visit of two to three days duration. 3. The Association of College and Research Libraries. a division of American Library Association, has written standards for evaluating college and university libraries. It would be helpful if NCA would encourage the use of these standards as a basis to make an informed judgment. 199 200 General Information. Section A Continued 4" 4* On: a dfd' £§éf a?" or 4. An evaluator often acts as a catalyst to speed up a segment of the host library's program by using the leverage inherent in the authority of the accrediting agency. 5. As a library evaluator. you are more concerned with the educational effectiveness of the library rather than its operational efficiency. 6. It would be helpful if NCA would provide evaluators with suggested areas which should be examined and a set of questions to be asked which may be useful in obtaining information to make an informed judgment. 7. It would be helpful if NCA would include a librarian as a member of the visitation team. S. It would help an inexperienced evaluator to observe at least one library evaluation before being assigned to a visiting evaluation committee. 9. Evaluators who evaluate the library need better guidance in the form of standards, guidelines, check lists, and/or suggested questions to ask. 10. The role of the evaluator is to react to and evaluate the library's self-study. not the library. ll. The most important facet of the evaluative process is that it compels the library to consider the very reasons for its existence. Thus, the evaluative process will aid in bringing the library's purpose clearly into line with the overall objectives of the institution of which it is a part. 12. Often members of an evaluation team who are not librarians do not have an adequate understanding of the library to make informed judgments about the library program. -—- —. --- - -- 13. A librarian should be a member of each visiting evaluation team. GENERAL INFORMATION (Section B) : 1. Have you ever served on a visiting committee that failed to accredit/ re-accredit an institution because of deficiencss in the library? 2. have you ever served on a visiting co-aittee that failed to accredit/ re-accredit an institution because of any reason? If yes, please explain 3. Should NCA introduce some quantitative criteria pertaining to the library? 4. Do you find the information supplied by NCA helpful in library evaluations? 5. Should NCA provide a clearer definition for the term 'adequata' in relation to evaluating library programs? 6. Do you think your qualifications enabled you to make an efficient and effective evaluation of the library? 7. Do you have your own checklist of items to observe during an evaluation of the library? (If yes, please supply a copy to this researcher.) It. '3’! A «3’ do 0, N & (>0 Dim bio C 0 as :94" (I p Q <3 r.- 0 w or." e° é’ 201 General Information, Section 3 Continued 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Do you have your own list of questions to ask interviewees about the library program? (If yes, please supply a copy to this researcher.) Do you think a checklist or list of questions to ask. prepared by NCA, would be helpful as an evaluative tool? has NCA ever asked you for input for the purpose of improving library evaluative techniques? would guidance from NCA help you to perform library evaluations more effectively and efficiently? have you been invited to supply any input into NCA regarding the procedures used in the evaluation of the library? whet recommendations would you suggest. that. in your opinion. would help improve library evaluations? (Please comment.) REPORTS: ’be ”b szniqn ‘vo Assuming that you would encounter the conditions listed below. please indicate for each question whether you would: 1) include a statement describing the condition in the text of your report: 2) include the condition in the category of “Recomlendations': 3) not report it at all. The library collection, in your opinion. is not sufficient to support the informational needs of the institution. There are inadequate provisions for teaching the use of the library to students. The library administration continues to hire professional librarians without regard to whether they graduated from an American Library Association accredited library school or not. The library director and library faculty are not members of appropriate university committees which would enable them to anticipate and meet the needs of the institution. Communications among the librarians are not sufficient. The library has inadequate seating capacity. collection capacity. and services. The library hours appear to be inadequate based on input from students and faculty. The library purchases printed materials and will not provide non-book materials. 202 Reports Continued 5 :7 "e 6’ 3' £’ 5 a“ 53’ 4’ e 9. Co-unication between the library and academic departments appears to be inadequate. 10. The objectives of the library are unclear and do not relate to the objectives of the institution. ll. Instructional departments, for the most part, are inactive in recommending library materials for purchase. 12. The library falls below the American Library Association standard of receiving a minimum of 5| of the total Educational and General budget. 13. No weeding has taken place within the past ten years. 14. The total number of volumes does not match the number suggested by American Library Association standards, the SEW guidelines, or some other guideline for an institution of its size and curriculum. we: (IF YOU HAVE NEVER VISITED THE LIBRARY TO BVALUATE IT DURING AN NCA ACCREDITATION VISIT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COflPLETE TRIS SECTION.) NCA states in their Handbook on Accreditation 'Library and other learning resources adequate to support the educatiofiil program and adequately staffed should be readily accessible to students on campus and during periods of study and other activities away from campus.” Please indicate what techniques you use to determine the adequacy of the library program in relmtion to the statement above. by checking one of the three choices listed below. e 9 "y 6* * sf!“ 1. Review library sections of institution's self-study reports to the North Central Association. 2. Utilize the expertise of other committee members to evaluate the sections of the library collection most familiar to them. 3. Read librarian's annual reports and other significant reports and memoranda. 4. Interview members of the Faculty Library Committee. 5. Interview members of the teaching faculty. 6. Interview answers of the adninistration. 7. Interview students. 8. Interview the library director. 9. Confer with key library staff members. 10. Compare library practices with prevailing practices of libraries at own institution. ll. Examine statistics and/or reports of circulation. 12. Compare library expenditures with total institutional expenditures. 13. Compare the percentage of the educational and general budget allocated to the library with the accepted standard stated in American Library Association standards. 14. Examine the relationships and/or reports of use of neighboring libraries. 15. Tour the library to assess the ease of locating materials and services. 16. Check library hours. 203 Techniques Continued 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 26. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 30. 39. 40. 41. ‘2. Examine statistics and/or reports of reserves. Check seating capacity. lead the self-study report in its entirety if the institution is small and selectively if the institution is large. Determine the largest number of students that are on campus at any one time. Determine the adequacy of lighting and other environmental factors. Examine statistics and/or reports of interlibrary loans. lead college or university statutes. if any, relating to library policy. Examine statistics and/or reports of audio-visual services. Compare library expenditures with Association of College and Research Libraries statistics. Confer with students at random. Compare library expenditures with those of other libraries of similar size in institutions of similar purpose in NCA territory. Spot-check availability of books listed in public catalog. Use American Library Association standards when evaluating collections and facilities. Determine if there is a continuous weeding program. Check the staffing schedule to determine if the availability of professional librarians is sufficient. Check accessibility of professional staff to the academic community. (Attitudinally and physically) Determine if the Faculty Library Committee is a policy making or advisory body. Determine the ratio of professional staff to clerical staff. Determine if there are regularly scheduled staff meetings. Explore the position of the library director in the institution's administrative hierarchy. Determine if the librarians who have faculty status truly have all the rights and privileges of such status. Determine if the professional staff is active in professional organizations. Spot check the collection for standard titles in your area of knowledge. Check faculty use of the library. Determine the library's success in achieving its goals. Please list any other techniques used and indicate if they are used always or sometimes. APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER 204 APPENDIX D CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY April 16, 19 80 THE LIBRARY Last month, I wrote to you and asked if you would participate in a study by completing a questionnaire relating to your experience as a North Central evaluator and more specifically, as a library evaluator. It may be that the survey did not reach you or that your schedule has not permitted you to complete the questionnaire, therefore, I am sending you a second copy. I realize your time is valuable, however, sharing your thoughts, opinions, and evaluative techniques on evalu- ating library programs would greatly assist me in my study. From the information gathered, I plan to make recommendations to North Central which I hope will strengthen the overall effectiveness of the accreditation process. - I would appreciate it if you could take time to com- plete the questionnaire and return it by May 10, 1980. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your con- venience. Of course, if you have already mailed the questionnaire prior to receiving this letter, please accept my sincere thanks. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ronald G. Leach Associate Director of Libraries (517) 774-3347 MOVN’ PIE‘SL'J‘I, M‘CF-SAN 4355? 205 APPENDIX E SELECTED SOURCES USED TO IDENTIFY LIBRARY EVALUATIVE CRITERIA 206 APPENDIX E American Library Association. "Guidelines for College Libraries." Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Association of College and Research Libraries, Bibliographic Instruc- tion Task Force. "Guidelines for Bibliographic Instruction in Academic Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 32,4 (1977): 92. Association of College and Research Libraries, Committee on Academic Status. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and Uni- versity Librarians." College and Research Libraries News 35 (May 1974): 112-13. Association of College and Research Libraries, Committee on Liaison With Accrediting Agencies. "Guide to Methods of Library Evaluation." Collegefiand Research Libraries News 29,5 (1968): 294-99. Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee of ARL and ACRL. "Standards for University Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 40,2 (1979): 101-10. Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee on the ACRL, AAC, and AAUP. “Statement of Faculty Status of College and University Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 35,2 (1975): 26-27. Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards and Accredi- tation Committee. "An Evaluative Checklist for Reviewing a College Library Program." College and Research Libraries News 40 (November 1979): 305410. . Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards for College Libraries Committee. "Standards for College Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 36,5 (1975): 279-301. Canadian Association of College and University Libraries, Canadian Community College Library Committee. Standards Recommended for Canadian Community College Libraries. Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Association ofECollege and University Libraries, 1973. Gardner, Jeffrey 6., and Webster, Duane E. The Collection Analysis Project: An Assisted Self-Studnganual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, January 1980. 207 208 Lancaster, F. W. The Measurement and Evaluation of LibrarygServices. Washington, D.C.: Information Resources Press, 1977. Lancaster, F. W., and Cleverdon, C. W. Evaluation and Scientific Measurement of Libraries and Information Centres. Noordhoff International Publishing, 1977. Lyle, Guy R. The Administration of the College Library. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1974. Middle State Accreditation of Colleges and Schools, Commission of Higher Education. Standards for Middle State Accreditation. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 1978. Morein, Grady; Sitts, Maxine K.; and Webster, Duane E. Plannin Program for Small Academic Libraries: An Assisted Self-Study Manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, January 1980. Morein, Grady, and Webster, Duane E. The Academic Library Development Prggram: A Guided Self-Study for the Small and Mid-Size Academic Library. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library Resources, August 1977. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Inc., Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Standards for Accreditation: Institution of Higher Education. New England Association of schools and Colleges, March 1970. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Guidelines for Institutions Offering Advanced Degree Programs. Chicago, Illinois: North Central Association, 1969. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Handbook on Accreditation. Boulder, Colorado: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, April 1975. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Information Needed About Off-Campus Programs: Supplement to the Commission's Statement on Off-Campus Programs. Boulder, Colorado: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 1978. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Manual for Chairing a North Central Team. Boulder, Colorado: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 1979. 209 Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Colleges. Accreditation Handbook. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, 1978. Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Colleges. Instructions to Members of Evaluation Committees. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, February, 1979. Rogers, Rutherford 0., and Weber, David C. University Library Admin- istration.- New York: H. W. Wilson, l97l. Southern Association of Colleges, Commission on Colleges. Standards of the College Delegate Assembly. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, December 1977. Tanis, Norman E., and Jacobs, Karl J. "Strengthening the College Library." Raising the Standards: College Libraries. Drexel Library Quarterly 2 (July 1966): 276-91. Thrash, Patricia. "Evaluation of Libraries in the Accrediting Process From the Standpoint of the Accrediting Association." Paper presented at the ACRL/CDPA Institute on Libraries and Accredi- tation in Institutions of Higher Education, New York, June 27, 1980. Totten, Herman L. "Identification of Library Elements in Statements of Accrediting Standards, A Review of the Literature." Unpublished paper prepared as a working paper for the ACRL and ad hoc Committee to Revise the 1959 Standards for College Libraries, March 1974. ERIC Document ED., 121-350. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. Handbook on Accredi- tation. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, January 1979. APPENDIX F LETTER TO EVALUATORS SEEKING REACTION T0 PROPOSED CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS 210 APPENDIX F INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY unmeasuremonawa neos CUNNINGHAM MEMORIAL. LIBRARV 1012‘ 232-63” August 15, 1980 I have just completed a survey of North Central Association evaluators as part of my dissertation for a Ph.D. degree at Michigan State University. This study has the support of NCA as indicated by the attached letter. The purpose of the survey was to assess opinions evaluators have about evaluating the library and to determine what techniques they use when evaluating the library as part of the total accrediting process. Results of the survey indicated that 562 of the evaluators who responded do not want North Central to introduce quantitative standards for evaluating the library. However, 71.72 expressed a desire to have North Central provide some guidance in the form of suggested areas of the library to investigate and suggested questions to ask in order to gather information for making a judgment on the status of the library program. I am attempting to develop a list of questions which North Central evaluators could use to gather information about the library program. Your suggestions about the appropriateness of the attached draft of questions would be valuable to me in refining the list. Therefore, I am asking if you will take a few minutes to read the list of questions and make any comments. Please feel free to delete, add to, or modify the questions by marking on the enclosed copy and returning it to me by September 15, 1980. My hope is that a final list of questions can be developed that North Central evaluators could use to gather information about the library program and how it relates to the mission of the institution. It is also my hope that, if used, this procedure would add some consistency to the information sought about the library program which would aid evaluators in making an informed judgment. Again, I would appreciate it very much if you could take a few minutes from your busy schedule to indicate your reaction to the questions. Sincerely, Ronald G. Leach Dean of Library Services RGL/je encls. 2II APPENDIX 6 PROPOSED GUIDELINES 212 The APPENDIX G Proposed Guidelines for Evaluating Libraries following criterion statements, areas of inquiry, and questions for data and information gathering are proposed to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association ing process. I. of Colleges and Schools for possible use in the accredit- They have the following potential uses: To assist library staff at host institutions to prepare their self-study. To assist members of the accrediting teams to prepare for the accreditation visit before arriving on campus. To assist members of the accrediting team, during the visit, to identify some important aspects of the library program that should be-examined, and to gather useful information on which to judge the library program by asking appropriate questions. To supplement the statistical data gathered by North Central on Data Form E. THESE GUIDELINES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A STANDARD. EVALUATORS SHOULD SELECT QUESTIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO EACH INSTITUTION IN DETERMINING IF THEY ARE MEETING THE CRITERIA AND FULFILLING THEIR OBJECTIVES AS THEY RELATE TO THE MISSION OF THE INSTITUTION. 213 214 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING LIBRARIES Criterion Statements The library is a primary learning resource and should be central to the total educational program. The library should have clearly written objectives directly related to the mission of the institution and instructional programs. The library should be administered by a professionally qualified director who regularly participates in university-wide academic planning and decision making. There should be appropriate oppor- tunities for representatives of the academic community to advise the director of libraries regarding the library program. The professional staff should be appropriately recognized as full members of the academic community and work closely with teaching faculty to provide a total learning experience. The institution should have its own collection of learning resources sufficient in quantity, depth, diversity, and current- ness to support its purposes and programs. The library should seek cooperative and resource-sharing programs with other insti- tutions not as a substitute but as a supplement to enhance its services to students and faculty. Library collections should be organized in an unconfused manner and easily retrievable. They should include a variety of print and multi-media resources and be housed in an easily accessible, well-lighted, well-ventilated, and adequately equipped building with adequate seating space to support the needs of the academic community. The library should provide reference, interlibrary loan, biblio- graphic instruction, circulation, and other services to support both on-campus and off-campus programs. Since use is primary evidence of a library's effectiveness, appropriate usage statis- tics should be kept, and user surveys should be conducted periodically. Based on this information, changes should be made when appropriate. The institution should allocate funds for library resources according to the purposes of the institution, the instructional methods employed, and the adequacy of present holdings and services. Supplemental funds should be provided for implementing newprograms, new services, and new automated activities. The library budget should be develOped and managed by the chief administrative officer of the library. 215 Areas of Inquiry andgguestions for Data and Information Gathering in Libraries Organization 1. Does the library have a statement of mission and objectives? If so, do the objectives of the library relate to the mission of the institution? Are they reviewed regularly? Is there any evidence that representatives of the college community have opportunities to advise the librarian on user needs, concerns, and programs? What evidence is there that the library is of central impor- tance to the educational institution as a primary learning resource? Are the responsibilities and authority of the director of the library clearly defined? To whom does he/she report? Is there one central library or are there also departmental libraries? If there are departmental libraries, do they meet the needs of the student body better than a single collection would, and are they properly administered? Administration 1. Is the library program directed by a well-qualified librarian who administers library services which support the full range of the institution's educational program? Does the director of the library have the responsibility for preparing, defining, and administering the library budget in accordance with agreed-upon objectives? Is he/she consulted by the chief academic officer or president regarding the budgetary needs of the library prior to final budget deci- sions? What evidence is there that the library is closely in touch with curriculum development so that it may anticipate instruc- tional and research needs? Are written statements of policy readily available to all members of the library staff, and accessible to the library's clientele? For example, are the circulation and collection development policies widely distributed on campus? 216 Is there evidence that information concerning library service accomplishments and programs is regularly disseminated to the faculty, students, and administration? Examples of such evidence might include news releases, reports, handbooks, brochures, reading lists, and displays. What evidence is there that communications are effective between teaching faculty members and the library? If not covered on the institutional level, are there written policies and procedures consistent with the goals and respon- sibilities of the institution to direct the recruiting, appointment, promotion and tenure, training, education, or dismissal of the library staff? What aspects of the library program are considered to be both innovative and/or effective? Collection 1. Does the library have a collections development policy to guide selection and acquisitions of materials in relation to the institution's academic, research, and service goals? Does the library's book selection policy cover reference materials, textbooks, multiple copies, rare books, fiction, multimedia, the acceptance of gifts, etc.? Do the teaching faculty participate in the selection of library materials to support curriculum areas and general fields of knowledge? How active are teaching departments in their recommendations? In accordance with the mission of the institution, does the library have book and nonbook resources sufficient in quan- tity, depth, diversity, and currentness to support academic offerings, reading courses, seminars, independent studies, graduate studies, and faculty research? Does the library acquire enough new books to keep reasonably abreast of scholarly advances in each field of instruction and research in relation to the mission of the institution? Are audio-visual materials housed and administered by the library? If so, does the library's collection contain all of the varied forms of recorded information such as maps, microforms, films, sound recordings, video tapes, etc.? Are the periodical holdings comprehensive and well balanced in relation to the mission of the institution? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 217 Does the library purchase periodical indexes in each subject area (science, social science, business administration, etc.), which index most of the periodicals currently received? Are periodical back issues regularly retained in subject areas for which it is appropriate to do 50? Are they appropriately bound or in microformat and easily retrievable? Are the holdings and acquisitions up-to-date and keeping pace with educational program developments at the institution? How many new titles were acquired in each of the last five years? Are obsolete books continuously being culled out and dis- carded to keep the collection current and reflecting the institution's current programs? Are there written guidelines for this activity? What is the number of volumes discarded during each of the last five years? Is there a union catalog of the library's holdings that per- mits identification of items regardless of location or format? In what areas are the institution's present library holdings most satisfactory? Least satisfactory? Does the library take adequate precautions to control loss of or damage to the library's collections? How? Staffing 1. Are library faculty assigned general responsibilities in the library within their area of competence? Are they assigned regular teaching responsibilities? Do the librarians have the appropriate professional degrees at the graduate level? Does the library have sufficient professional, technical, and clerical staff to provide satisfactory services meeting the library's objectives and the mission of the institution? Is there evidence that the library has a staff development program and/or other mechanisms to assist librarians to keep current in their field? What meetings of professional associations have been attended by members of the library faculty within five years? How many of the library faculty have presented papers, pub- lished, or been involved in other creative endeavors in the last five years? 218 Reference 1. Usage Does the library serve as a teaching_agency with the library staff providing instructional lectures, reference assistance, and bibliographical advice the students and faculty need in order to take full advantage of the library's resources? In what year(s) is instruction given? Who in the library is » responsible? Do librarians routinely work closely with teaching faculty in identifying instructional needs and teaching the use of library resources and services to meet these needs? How? In relation to the mission of the institution, is the library open, with competent professional help available, a sufficient number of hours to meet the needs of the academic community? Is library staff able to readily provide a high percentage of materials in the library which are needed by patrons in an efficient and effeCtive manner? Does the library provide machine-readable reference data base search services? What evidence is there that library materials and services are available to off-campus programs? Is the service level adequate in relation to the mission of the institution? What evidence is there to show the extent of use of the library by students and faculty in specific instructional areas? Does the library keep use statistics by discipline, student level, faculty? Are there any significant circulation patterns? What evidence is there that the library's evaluation of the use of, and needs for, library services by students and faculty iscontinual and effective? Is there evidence that changes are made because of this evaluation? What evidence is there that faculty assign library projects (term papers, reports, etc.) and encourage the use of library resources? Does the library have a record of the number of classroom visits, bibliographic lectures, library tours, bib- liographies distributed, reference data base searches com- pleted, etc.? What was the library attendance during the academic year? Total? Typical week? Typical day? 219 5. In relation to loan policies, are there adequate photocopy facilities for both print and microform materials? 6. Are nonenrolled members of the surrounding geographical com- munity permitted to use the library? Budget 1. Is there an annual library budget? 2. What percent of the total educational expenditures of the institution is allocated to the library? 3. What percentage of the library budget is a direct result of grant support? Endowments? 4. Is there any evidence that the library budget is augmented if new curricular programs are offered or if the student body increases significantly? 5. Who determines the allocations for purchasing library mate- rials to support subject areas? 6. What part of the budget is in free or unrestricted funds at the disposal of the Director of the Library? 7. In the light of the mission, total budget, and needs of the institution, is the library adequately supported to enable it to maintain an appropriate quality of collections and services? Facilities 1. Is the library centrally located on campus and easily accessible? 2. Is the library inviting for students and faculty to use? Does it provide an atmosphere conducive to study? In what way? 3. Are the library facilities well budgeted, well ventilated, well maintained, and adequately equipped? Do they contain appropriate supporting equipment for utilizing print and nonprint materials? 4. Can one find his/her way around the library and locate materials easily? 5. 220 How adequate is the library building in relation to seating capacity, book capacity, new technology, and library services in general? Resource SharinglNetworking 1. What evidence is there that the library is able to deliver, from its own collection, a substantial quantity of materials satisfying the users' needs and assignment schedules in a reasonable and timely fashion? What evidence is there that the library has an efficient mechanism for interlibrary cooperation and resource sharing? Has the library entered into any cooperative relationships with other libraries and agencies in order to enhance its ability to provide all of the resources needed by its users? With whom? Are interlibrary loans and the resources of other nearby collections being used advantageously, yet not as a substi- tute for this library's proper development? During the past three years, what were the number of inter- library loans? Items borrowed? Items lent? What was the average time needed to secure an item on interlibrary loan? How many items were borrowed for faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students? Is there any other library in the immediate geographical area regularly used by students or members of the faculty of the institution? Is this library regularly used by stu- dents and faculty from other nearby institution(s) for a significant part of their library needs? Technology 1. What application of automated systems has been made to the library Operations (circulation, acquisitions, on-line cata- logs, reference, data bases)? Have they improved access to library materials? Has there been supplemental funding for implementation? Is there evidence that the library has utilized technology and networking to access collections and resources of other libraries and agencies? How? Has the library purchased materials in microformat when appropriate to do so? BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 BIBLIOGRAPHY "ACRL Yardstick for College Libraries." American Libraries 6 (February 1975). American Library Association, "Guidelines for College Libraries." Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association, 1970. (Mimeographed.) ' Association of College and Research Libraries, Bibliographic Instruc- tion Task Force. "Guidelines for Bibliographic Instruction in Academic Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 32,4 (1977). Association of College and Research Libraries, Committee on Academic Status. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and Uni- versity Librarians." College and Research Libraries News 35 (May 1974). Association of College and Research Libraries, Committee on Liaison with Accrediting Agencies. "Guide to Methods of Library Evaluation." College and Research Libraries News 29,5 (October 1968). Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee on ARL and ACRL. "Standards for University Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 40,2 (1979). Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee of the ACRL, AAC, and AAUP. "Statement of Faculty Status of College and University Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 35,2 (1974). Association of College and Research Libraries, Joint Committee of the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries. Standards for University Libraries. Chicago, Illinois: Association of College and Research Libraries, January 1979. Association of College and Research Libraries, Standards for College Libraries Committee. "Standards for College Libraries." College and Research Libraries News 36 (May 1975). 222 223 Association of College and University Libraries, Standards and Accreditation Committee. "An Evaluative Checklist for Review- ing a College Library Program.” College and Research Libraries News 40 (November 1979). Brumbaugh, Aaron J. "Accrediting Associations and the College Library." College and Research Libraries 2 (June 1941). Burns, Norman. “Accrediting: Its Response to an Evaluating System of Higher Education." Unpublished paper, n.d. Canadian Association of College and University Libraries, Canadian Community College Library Committee. Standards Recommended for Canadian Community College Libraries. Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Association of College and University Libraries, 973. Clapp. Vernon W., and Jordan, Robert T. "Quantitative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic Library Collections." College and Research Libraries 26 (September 1965). Dickey, Frank, and Miller, Jerry. "Federal Involvement in Nongovern- mental Accreditation." Educational Record 53 (Spring 1972). Downs, Robert B., and Heussman, John W. "Standards for University .l Libraries." College and Research Libraries 31 (January 1970). Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Fisk, Robert S., and Durgen, E. 0. Academic Collective Bargaining and Regional Accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, 1977. Gardner, Jeffrey G., and Webster, Duane E. The Collection Analysis Project: An Assisted Self-Study Manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, January 1980. Geiger, Louis G. Voluntary Accreditation: A History of the North Central Association. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Bantu Co., 970. Gelfand, Morris A. "A Historical Study of the Evaluation of Libraries in Higher Institutions by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1960. 224 . "Techniques of Library Evaluators." College and Research Libraries 19 (July 1958). Givens, Johnnie E., and Sivells, Wanda K. "Accrediting Agencies and Library C00peration in Education." Library Trends 24 (October 1975). Grinnel, John Earl. "The Rise of the North Central Association." North Central Association Quarterly 10 (January 1936). Koerner, James. "The Case of Marjane Webster." Public Interest 20 (Summer 1970). Lancaster, F. W. The Measurement and Evaluation of Library Services. Washington, D.C.: Information Resources Press, 1977. , and Cleverdon, C. W. Evaluation and Scientific Measurement of Libraries and Information Centres. Noordhoff International Publishing, 1977. Larson, Rolf S. "Accreditation: Some Professional Problems. " Learning Today 5 (Summer 1972). Lyle, Guy R. The Administration of the College Library. New York: H. W. Wilson,il974. McInnis, R. Marvin. "The Formula Approach to Library Size: An Empirical Study of Its Efficiency in Evaluating Research Libraries." College and Research Libraries 33 (May 1972). Meder, Albert E., Jr. "Accrediting Agencies and the Standards." Drexel Library Quarterly_2 (July 1966). Middle States Accreditation of Colleges and Schools, Conmission on Higher Education. Standards for Middle States Accredita- tion. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 1978. Mills, Henry C. "The Effects of Accreditation Procedures." Journal of Higher Education 31 (June 1960). Morein, Grady; Sitts, Maxine K.; and Webster, Duane E. Planning Programs for Small Academic Libraries: An Assiste -Study Manual. Washington, D. C: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries, January 1980. Morein, Grady, and Webster, Duane E. The Academic Library Development —- Program: A Guided Self-Study for the Small and Mid-Size Aca- demic Librayy. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library Resources, August 1977. 225 New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Inc., Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Standards for Accredi- tation: Institutions of Higher Education. New England Asso- ciation of Schools and Colleges, March 1970. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Guidelines for Institutions Offering_Advanced Degree Programs. Chicago, Illinois: North Central Association, 1969. Handbook on Accreditation: Evaluation Guide for Institu- tionaliAssessment. Bohlder, Colorado: North Central Asso- ciation, 1976. Information Needed About Off-Campus Programs: Supplement to the Commission's Statement of Off-Campus Programs. Boulder, Colorado: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 1978. . Manual for Chairing a North Central Team. Boulder, Colorado: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 1979. Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Colleges. Accreditation Handbook. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, 1978. Accreditation Standards. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Association of SCh001$ and Colleges, 1977. Instructions to Members of Evaluation Committees. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Association of SchoOTs and'Colleges, February 1979. Ottersen, Signe. "A Bibliography on Standards for Evaluating Libraries." College and Research Libraries 32 (March 1971). Oulahan, Courts. "The Legal Implications of Evaluation and Accredi- tation.“ Journal of Law and Education 7 (April 1978). Pattillo, Manning M. "The Appraisal of Junior Colleges and College Libraries." College and Research Libraries 17 (September 1956 . Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Chicago, Illinois, March 26-27, 1909. Proffitt, John R. "The Federal Connection for Accreditation." IDS Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979). 226 Pugsley, R. S. "The Consumer Interest in Voluntary Accreditation.“ The North Central Association Quarterly 51 (Spring 1977). Rogers, Rutherford 0., and Weber, David C. University LibraryrAdmin- istration. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1971. Selden, William K. Accreditation: A Struggle Over Standards in Higher Education. New York: harperTE’Broihers, 1960. Semrow, Joseph. "Accreditation: Self-Study and Dn-Site Evaluation Report Models for Use by Traditional and Nontraditional Institutions." Unpublished paper written for North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 1979. Southern Association of Colleges, Commission on Colleges. Standards of the College Delegate Assembly. Southern Association of COTleges and Schools, December 1977. Sturt, Dewey B. “Accreditation--Its Problems and Its Future." Teachers College Record 62 (May 1961). Tanis, Norman E., and Jacobs, Karl J. "Strengthening the College Library." Drexel Library Quarterly 2 (July 1966). Thrash, Patricia A. "Accreditation: A Perspective." The Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979). "Evaluation of Libraries in the Accrediting Process From the Standpoint of the Accrediting Association." Paper pre- sented at the ACRL/COPA Institute on Libraries and Accredi- tation in Institutions of Higher Education, New York, June 27, 1980. Totten, Herman L. "Identification of Library Elements in Statements of Accrediting Standards, A Review of the Literature." Unpublished paper prepared as a working paper for the ACRL ad hoc Committee to Revise the 1959 Standards for College Libraries, March 1974. ERIC Document ED., 121-350. Trivett, David A. Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility. ERIC/Higher Educaiion Research Report No. 9. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education, 1976. Troutt, William E. "Regional Accreditation Evaluative Criteria and Quality Assurance." The Journal of Higher Education 50 (March/April 1979). Vaughn, John W., and Manning, Thurston E. "The North Central Associa- tion of Colleges and Schools." North Central Association Quarterly 52 (Winter 1978). 227 Wallace, James O. "The Practical Meaning of Library Standards." In Quantitative Methods in Librarianship: Standards Research Management. Editediby Irene Broden Hoadley and Alice Clark. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1972. ‘ Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. Handbook of Accredi- tation. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, January 1979. White, Lucien. "Seating Achievement in Larger University Libraries.“ College and Research Libraries 28 (November 1967). Yates, Dudley V. "An Analysis of Bases Used by Library Evaluators in the Accrediting Process of the Southern Association of Col- leges and Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Univer- sity, 1973. . "The Impact of Regional Accrediting Agencies Upon Libraries of Post-Secondary Education." Paper presented at the Bien- nial Conference of Southeastern Library Association, Knoxville, Tennessee, November 3-6, 1976. ERIC, ED., 135. Young, Kenneth. "COPA: A New Force on the National Scene." North Central Association Quarterly 42 (Winter 1978). . "New Pressures on Accreditation." Journal of Higher Education 40 (March/April 1979). Ziemba, Walter J. "Changes in the Policies and Procedures of the Accrediting Process of the Commission on Colleges and Univer- sities of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1909-1958." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. Zook, George, and Haggerty, Melvin E. The Evaluations of Higher Institutions, I, Principles of Accrediting Higher Institu- tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936. "G;