Contact Us | Members Only | Site Map

Association of Research Libraries (ARL®)

  Statistics & Assessment Contact:
Martha Kyrillidou
Annual Surveys
Survey Coordinators

Survey Coordinators & SPEC Liaisons Meetings

Share Share   Print

Friday, January 25, 2013
Sheraton Seattle, Ravenna Room
Seattle, Washington
3:30–5:00 p.m.

The meeting will include discussion of the recent revisions of the annual surveys and how they are contributing to the data-collection efforts.


Friday, June 22, 2012
Hilton Anaheim, Carmel Room
Anaheim, California
3:30–5:00 p.m.

An update on the upcoming revisions to the ARL Statistics and the ARL Annual Salary Survey will be provided.


Friday, January 20, 2012
Fairmont Hotel, Continental Room
Dallas, Texas
3:30–5:00 p.m.


Friday, June 24, 2011
Loews Hotel, Terrebonne Room, New Orleans
2:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.

This ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons meeting focused on the recent analysis of feedback and charting of future directions undertaken by the ARL Statistics and Assessment Committee and the Task Force on Reviewing the ARL Statistics, the ARL Annual Salary Survey, and the ARL Supplementary Statistics. The group also was informed about the status of the annual surveys as well as the upcoming availability of SPEC Kits as digital publications and the call for SPEC Kit proposals for 2012. The survey coordinators engaged in a discussion of the issues related to the revision of the annual statistical surveys.

Many thanks to Kirsten Kinsley and Rachel Besara (Florida State) for providing the following notes.

Gordon Fretwell updated us on changes to the NCES ALS:

  • Discussion are underway to turn this survey into an annual (currently it is biennial)
  • The data will go into a production cycle so that it is available in 12 months.
  • NCES subcontracts to the census data.
  • A campus coordinator rather than one person in the library will be the key holder. It will probably be from the office of Institutional Research. They will check the data and hit the submit button.
  • We are attempting to establish a good connection between ALS and ARL. ACRL stats might go away if ALS goes yearly. We want the definitions for these annual surveys to be the same when the same questions are being asked.
  • At least some of the most recent ALS data may migrate into the IPEDS surveys.
  • It's going to take time. The federal report is going to be evolving with libraries over time.

SPEC Kits (Martha):

  • Progress has been made to make SPEC Kits electronically available through the Tizra platform.
  • Lee Anne George has created a list of topics and is soliciting a call for proposals for ARL SPEC Kits.

Update on ARL Annual Statistics (Martha):

  • Expect the ARL index out the first week of Aug; final data verification underway.
  • Salary statistics just published for 2010-2011.

Revision process for the ARL Survey (Martha K. & Consultant, Gordon Fretwell reported):

During May in Montreal, the Board Committee on Statistics and Assessment plus the ARL Task Force on the Review of the Annual Surveys met to review the ARL Annual Salary Survey, ARL Statistics and the ARL Supplementary Statistics (2011-2012). Both groups are chaired by Bill Potter (Georgia). See Attachment C for a summary of conversations with ARL Directors, look at the Statistics & Assessment page on the ARL website for all the notes about the revisions, etc. that have occurred. Next steps include phonecalls to address major revisions in questions related to (a) content to be convened by Cynthia Archer (York), (b) services to be convened by Bob Fox (Louisville), (c) job categories to be convened by Joan Giesecke (Nebraska), and (d) special collections to be convened by Anne Kenney (Cornell).

A. Content: Gordon displayed a grid format for discussion purposes only. It included two dimensions: 1.) resources: digital, print, micro format, film, magnetic, and other, 2) whether resources were: owned, leased, shared (consortial, storage, leased, services), or free. We assume everything on here has been processed by the library.

Discussion on Content:

  • Duplication represented convenience in the past. Is duplication today redundant? Colleen Cook (McGill) asked, “What is the breadth and depth of content?” With the current rubric, one can't see if there is duplication. Everything/anything must fall under just one category. Concern is about the importance of the distinction between leased and/or shared items. Gordon argues that duplication in different branches represents the necessity of convenience.
  • How does one distinguish what's on offer and what's owned (How do resource sharing programs such as Florida’s UBorrow program figure in?) One director said we need to think about what we own and what we offer.
  • Can you get insurance documentation from these statistics? (Jim Self, U. of Virginia) Conclusion seemed to be that one will have to keep more specific data for insurance purchases.
  • Comparative documentation may prove difficult with survey changes (longitudinal comparisons between “old” survey data with “new” survey data ).
  • The new stats won't be retroactive to describe the collection until you have a content management system that allows that.
  • Gift books goes in books/owned based on his own thoughts. Free would apply to gov docs. (Gordon talking)
  • How does one count the constant fluctuation in number of digital books? (Ameet Doshi Georgia Tech). Are the counts just a snapshot in time?

Note: Expenditures survey items only slightly revised.

B. Services--new section! Convener Robert Fox (Louisville)

Discussion of Services: What and how do we count services?

  • Exhibits: how do we count them? What about virtual as well as physical exhibits? How is comparing number of exhibits helpful? Exhibits are more than just special collections.
  • Development work? How much is being done? Suggestions of staff doing development work was mentioned.
  • Mediated delivery v. Usage metric (How many sessions of instruction, and how many people attended?)
  • ILL mediated -- Non- mediated Borrowing?
  • Library tutoring -- what about partnerships?
  • Technical assistance (troubleshooting with technology) needs separate from directional?
  • Virtual Reference is more prominent...
  • What about outreach? How do you count that?
  • Counting Services Question May Revolve Around Asking: Is this information relevant to Provost?

C. Job categories in the Salary Survery--convener Joan Giesecke (Nebraska)

Discussion of Job Categories for the Salary Survey: What are we calling new positions and what responsibilities do they have with them?

  • How does one count shared roles: reference librarians who are subject specialists and vice versa? Many said that there is a difference.
  • Need to distinguish librarians from other staff, such as development officers.
  • Supervisors v. Non supervisors? What do we do with coordinators, communication director, team leaders, officers who are department heads who do not supervise?

Note: Some elements may be dropped from the survey. Would not expect tremendous change.

2010-2011 stats are not changing. This revision process will occur over a two year period with the expectation that the committee will have a new survey form ready by May 2012. The survey coordinators asked that we make sure to have a roll out timeline. They asked that we provide the new form before the beginning of the fiscal year the data is being gathered for. This means we might have a longer time lag with the possibility of two survey forms available at the same time (both the old and the new). They asked that the survey be vetted carefully before going live. The challenge is balancing the tradition/historical data with the needs of the future.


Friday, January 7, 2011
San Diego Convention Center, Room 28A
3:30–5:00 p.m.

A meeting of the ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons was held on January 7, 2011, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in San Diego in conjunction with the ALA Midwinter Meeting. The discussion focused on the upcoming work of the Task Force on Reviewing the ARL Statistics, the ARL Supplementary Statistics and ARL Annual Salary Survey. Gordon Fretwell agreed to serve as consultant to the ARL Statistics and Assessment Committee to move this work forward. People attending the meeting were invited to come prepared to address the following questions:

  1. Regarding the Annual Salary Survey:
    a) Are there job categories that no longer make sense, either by their definition or the number of staff to whom the categories apply? Which ones?
    b) Are there new job categories that you feel are needed in order to adequately describe work being done as research libraries transition to their future state? How do you describe them?

  2. Regarding the annual Library Statistics compilation:
    a) Are you asked to report statistics, which you feel are meaningless in research libraries as they transition to their future state? Which ones? Are you also asked to report them to the federal ALS survey (Statistics Canada for Canadian libraries)?
    b) Are there new statistics/metrics that are helpful to describe the transition research libraries are making, which are not collected currently? What are they/how would you describe them?

  3. Regarding Special Collections (If convenient, please discuss this with either the Head(s) of Special Collections and/or the Director of the Library prior to midwinter):
    a) With specific regard to special collections (however organized within your library), do you feel the single statistic now collected (linear feet of manuscripts) is adequate?
    b) What metrics do you feel can contribute to a broader picture of their breadth, size, use and intellectual/scholarly importance?


Friday, June 25, 2010
Hilton Washington
Gunston Room
1919 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20009
3:30–5:00 p.m.

This meeting will focus on the analysis of the ARL profiles. A group of Research Library Leadership Fellows engaged in exploring metrics from the qualitative descriptions will discuss their efforts. Also, discussion will attempt to engage issues related to the below observation by Carole Pilkinton (Notre Dame):

"A question has come up about ARL counting standards for e-books, and I wondered if a discussion about this issue would fit into your agenda for the Friday meeting at ALA. The specific question concerned Google Books that are digitized and in the public domain...about a million books meeting this definition are hosted by Hathi Trust, and bibliographic records are available. If an institution were to import copies of these records in their own online catalog, with links pointing to the digital full text hosted by HathiTrust, would these 'count' as part of the library collection? Any discussion about how others are counting e-book collections would be very useful. Some services such as Ebrary provide thousands of e-book records to be imported into a catalog for patron-initiated purchase--we don't actually own the book until it is purchased, but technically we are providing access to the full text from each of those thousands of records. Do these records count since we are providing 'access' to the text? I'm sure there are other questions as well. If you think this is a good agenda item, it might even be a good idea to send out a message ahead of time to collect responses from ARL stats folks who might not be attending the meeting."

PowerPoint presentations from the ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons Meeting are now available for download:

Lee Anne George was also available to discuss SPEC Kit topics.


Friday, January 15, 2010
InterContinental Hotel
Griffin/Robinson Room
Boston MA
3:30–5:00 p.m.

A discussion focusing on the ARL Supplementary Statistics and the new variable of "titles" kept us engaged during this session. The latest PDFs of the ARL Supplementary Statistics are available on the Web.

In particular, issues related to digital library statistics as articulated by Stephen Paul Davis (Columbia U) below captured our attention:

"From his information and other info I've gathered, I would say the two places where the whole concept of counting digital collections starts to fray are:

  • institutional repositories
  • library-hosted/sponsored publishing initiatives

The nature of IR content is changing and at this point I think the best approach would be to work on breaking these stats out of the libraries 'digital collections' stats entirely, preferably before the next round of stats, because they really represent something new and are going to present different issues over time. Separating them out will also help demystify cases like ours where our Columbia Teachers College Library has dramatically more digital collections than Columbia Libraries--because any individual or entity in their organization who chooses to self-submit content--large or small--to their repository has suddenly created a 'collection.'

Also, it might be useful to break out library-supported open-source publishing efforts, e.g., library-press collaborations focused on publishing. These initiatives have entirely different goals from building library collections. Treating open-source publication hosting separately might have the beneficial effect of highlighting important open-access publishing efforts."


Friday, July 10, 2009
Palmer House Hilton
Wabash Parlor
17 East Monroe Street
Chicago IL
3:30–5:00 p.m.

A close look at the ARL Statistics data-entry interface and its capabilities was offered during this session. An exploration of how the ARL Statistics data-collection activity relates to potential LibQUAL+® data-collection activities through the newly developed StatsQUAL platform was presented by Gary Roebuck; a truly hands-on, let-me-show-you-the-tricks-of-the-system, session. Staff from Notre Dame demonstrated the system they have developed to manage electronic resource usage statistics. Colleen Cook (Texas A&M and Chair of the ARL Statistics and Assessment Committee) briefed the community re the latest developments of the ARL member libraries profiles.


Friday, January 23, 2009
The Curtis Hotel
Denver CO
3:30-5:00pm

During the January ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons meeting, Paul Hanges presented on ClimateQUAL, Bruce Thompson on LibQUAL+ Lite, and Julia Blixrud on the ARL Ad Hoc Task Force on Best Practices for Counting Serial Titles.

Note: Debra Engle (University of Oklahoma) will report on a study about the use of telephone interviews in ARL Libraries at the annual conference because she did not attend ALA Midwinter; Lee Anne George (ARL) will provide an update on the ARL SPEC Kit program by e-mail because she did not attend ALA Midwinter.


Friday, June 27, 2008
Doubletree Guest Suites Anaheim Resort
Tuscany D/E Room
Anaheim CA
3:30-5:00 p.m.

A meeting of the ARL survey coordinators and SPEC liaisons was held at the ALA Annual Conference in June. Julia Blixrud led a discussion of the latest ARL Statistics data collection and the challenges and opportunities the new way of accounting for serials brings to our libraries.

An ad hoc ARL Task Force on Best Practices for Counting Serial Titles has been formed to develop recommendations for counting serials. The group met for the first time at the ALA Annual Conference and is holding a second meeting in August. The results of this task force will be disseminated through the annual ARL Statistics webcast later this fall.


Friday, January 11, 2008
University of Pennsylvania
Houston Hall
Hall of Flags Room
Philadelphia PA
3:30-5:00 p.m.

The ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons Meeting took place on January 11 and reviewed the new data-entry interface and discussed the challenges the group is facing with the changes in the definitions for serials in the ARL Statistics. The group confirmed that the changes are in the right direction, that e-books may also need to be addressed in the future, and that collecting data separately for branch libraries like law and health science library statistics may be counter-productive.


Friday, June 22, 2007
Marriott at Metro Center
Montreal Room
Washington DC
3:30 to 5:00 p.m.

At the ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons meeting held during the ALA convention in Washington DC, we covered important issues related to changes to the annual ARL Statistics.

Colleen Cook (Texas A&M), Chair of the Statistics and Assessment Committee walked survey coordinators and other interested ARL staff members though the recently adopted action agenda for new ways for ARL to measure collections.  

These actions were:

+ the launch of a new Expenditures Index and its use for any public reports (reserving the Membership Criteria Index for non-public uses);

+ the development of a services-based index that combines three factors (collections, services, and collaborative relationships);

+ revision of definitions for collection-related data categories and experiment with a variety of new measures, including usage data,  strength of collections, and service quality measures; and

+ collection of qualitative data to develop a profile of ARL member libraries.

The action agenda implements significant changes in ARL’s approach to  measuring collections. The full details of the implementation plan as distributed at the ARL Business meeting and related documents are available on the ARL Web site at:

http://www.arl.org/stats/aboutstats/tfnewways.shtml



Friday, January 19, 2007
Hotel Andra
Ballroom
3:30 to 5:00 p.m.
Seattle WA

At the ARL Statistics and Survey Coordinators meeting held on January 19 in Seattle, Nancy Turner (Syracuse) made a presentation on “E-Metrics Services and ARL Statistics.” Her PowerPoint presentation is available at http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/NancyTurner.ppt. The survey coordinators discussed the need for more systematic review of the evaluation methods available for electronic resources (e-metrics) and how some of the proposed revisions will be affecting the annual data collection activities. For more information, see Martha Kyrillidou, “The Impact of Electronic Publishing on Tracking Research Library Investments in Serials,” ARL: A Bimonthly Report, no. 249 (Dec. 2006): 6–7, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlbr249serials.pdf.


Friday, June 23, 2006
Royal Sonesta Hotel
Evangeline Suite
3:30 to 5:00 p.m.
New Orleans LA

At the survey coordinator meeting in January, there were round table discussions of the ARL Supplementary Statistics definitions. I would like to thank the following people for providing notes from the table discussions:

  • Gayle Baker, Professor & Electronic Services Coordinator, University of Kentucky
  • Catherine Davidson, Associate University Librarian, Collections, York University
  • Paul Beavers, Director of Information Services, Wayne State University
  • Irma F. Dillon, Manager, Management Information Systems, University Libraries, University of Maryland
  • Flo Wilson, Deputy Librarian, Vanderbilt University
  • Dawn Lowe-Wincentsen, Coordinator for Assessment and Staff Development, Florida State University Libraries

These notes (which can be found as a PDF file here) will be informing revisions of the ARL Supplementary Statistics definitions for next year.

We plan to continue our discussion at the upcoming ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons Meeting. In addition to discussing these issues, Damon Jaggars from the University of Texas will make a brief presentation on the experience of the Research Libraries Leadership Fellows and their learning coming out of a group project for assessing the 21st Century Research Library.

Minutes from the June 2006 Meeting

The Round Table discussion on the proposals forwarded from January are included here. These notes provide additional feedback on desired revisions to the ARL Supplementary Statistics (E-Metrics) survey. A request was made that any revisions be incorporated at least one year in advance of the mailing of the survey, so that libraries can adjust their practice before they are asked to report the data. This request will be honored and we will not be making changes to the 2005-06 Supplementary Survey though the proposals discussed to date are being reviewed by ARL staff and a revised survey will be available for comment by January 2007.

From: “Martha Kyrillidou” <martha@arl.org>
Sender: <statslmgr@arl.org>
Subject: notes from survey coordinators round tables by Jim Self
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:27:55 -0400

The following notes on the discussion held at the survey coordinators meeting are provided by Jim Self (University of Virginia):

  1. Questions 1-3, 7-8 should use terminology consistent with the regular statistics, i.e., they should say electronic ‘serials’ instead of electronic journals.
  2. The number of electronic serials should be de-duped, so the same journal is not counted repeatedly if it is available on multiple platforms.
  3. We are dubious as to the utility of questions #4 and #9—number and cost of electronic reference resources. We think the questions should be dropped.
                       

From: dlowewin@mailer.fsu.edu
Subject: notes from survey coordinators meeting on 6/23/06
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:18:57 -0400

for number 16c. “Amen” get rid of it

question 1, are agreggators really on a 1:1 ratio to full text journals and to paper journals? When the formats create so many differences in the same title, why are we still counting all things as if they were print? Why do we concentrate on print vs. electronic? isn’t a journal still a journal no mater what its format?

The statistics we gather should be important to our users. Measure access available and dollars spent

On question 3. What about overlap titles? Should we only count unique titles? Is that even possible? There was also a thought at the table that free journals are becoming more and more scarce and will soon become extict or close to it. We did agree that the language should be the same language throught the entire question/definition.

Question 4 - We agree with Catherine Davidson’s last suggestion, have a list of what is an aggregator, and what is not so that all answers may be standardized, and therefore comparable to one another.

Question 5 - The point is counting the books, not how they are aquired, so yes, count e-books

7-10 - agreement that they coorespond to questions 1-5, but think that it should still be broken out by resource type.

11. to the note about separating staff questions out we say, it is still a question no matter who asks it.

12. a clearer definition here, possibly a list of what is what as in question 4 so that we are all measuring the same thing.

13-15. It is hard to compare to others if we are not all counting the same resources. Possibly also provide a list here so w can follow it, and all be on the same page.

The Point: We need a model, a definition or lists of what is what so that we are consistent across all libraries in what we are measuring, otherwise comparison is impossible.

-Dawn Lowe-Wincentsen
Florida State University

Thank you for your contributions as we are trying to resolve the challenge of describing electronic resources in an ever changing environment. Please reserve time in your calendar for the survey coordinators meeting at ALA
Midwinter.


Friday, January 20, 2006
The St. Anthony Hotel
Travis Room
3:30 to 5:00 pm
San Antonio TX

We look forward to seeing you at the upcoming survey coordinators and SPEC liaisons meeting. Apart from a regular update regarding the status of the annual surveys and the SPEC surveys, we will focus the discussion on developments in the area of standardizing usage statistics for electronic resources and the ARL Supplementary Survey.

In particular, we will have two presenters, Tim Jewell (U. of Washington) and Oliver Pesch (EBSCO), who will share with us the latest developments in the “Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative”(SUSHI)

http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/ermi2/sushi/

We will also engage in round table discussion regarding various definitional issues we are facing in the ARL Supplementary Statistics with

  • ebooks;
  • ejournals; and
  • digital library collection metrics

Friday, June 24, 2005
LeMeridien Hotel
Salon Rooms I and II
3:30 to 5:00 pm
Chicago IL

We look forward to seeing you at the upcoming survey coordinators and SPEC liaisons meeting. Apart from a regular update regarding the status of the annual surveys and the spec surveys, we will continue to focus the discussion on the new ARL Supplementary Survey that attempts to collect data related to electronic resources (E-Metrics); the Visiting Program Officer activities of Steve Hiller (U. of Washington) and Jim Self (U. of Virginia); and the latest developments of the work of the Task Force on New Ways of Measuring Collections.

Minutes from the June 2005 Meeting

The ARL Survey Coordinators and SPEC Liaisons meeting took place at ALA in Chicago.  A preliminary draft report on the new ARL Supplementary Survey – E-Metrics data collection was distributed to the participants.  The meeting also included:


Friday, January 14, 2005
Omni Parker House
Kennedy Room
3:30 to 5:00 pm
Boston MA

We look forward to seeing you at the upcoming survey coordinators and SPEC liaisons meeting. Apart from a regular update regarding the status of the annual surveys and the spec surveys, we will focus the discussion on the new ARL Supplementary Survey that attempts to collect data related to electronic resources (E-Metrics).

If any of you would like to share your stories ‘this is the way we are doing’ it or ‘that’s how we plan to do this next year’, we would like to hear from you. Please let us know if you would like to share your experiences with this new survey.

Minutes from the January 2005 Meeting

We discussed the process of collecting e-metrics supplementary statistics and enjoyed a presentation by Kris Brandriff and Kate Hayes, National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD, U.S. Department of Agriculture where they introduced a system they developed for doing the E-Metrics data colection. The powerpoint from their presentation demonstrating the system they have developed is available at:

Introducing EMET: NAL’s E-Metrics Database
http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ARL_Presentation2.ppt

and a sample report of what their system can produce is also available at: http://www.arl.org/stats/ARL_Report.pdf

A number of issues emerged from the discussion. Many libraries are finding that they need to establish a task force to coordinate this kind of data collection. Issues related to whether certain data elements need to be reported in a cumulative fashion or on an annual basis need to be clarified in the instructions. A closer link between the ARL Supplementary Statistics and the COUNTER Code of Practice needs to be developed. The need for software development and standards development that would facilitate the data collection across products, vendors and publishers needs to be explored. Issues related to the standardization of serial subscriptions and what we mean by serial subscription are going through an evolution – the notion of a ‘continuing resource’ is emerging in our bibliographic standards.

The meeting concluded with the annoucement that on Friday, June 24, 2005, in conjunction with ALA in Chicago we will be offering a workshop on Webmetrics from 9:30am to 3:30pm. More details about this event will be available soon. We will hold our regular survey coordinators and spec liaisons meeting from 3:30 to 5:00 as usual.


Friday, June 25, 2004
Embassy Suites International Drive
Citrus/Lake Room
3:30 to 5:00 pm
Orlando FL

We will focus the discussion on the new ARL E-Metrics Supplementary Survey.

Jim Self (U. of Virginia) and Fern Brody (U. of Pittsburgh) will share with us how they have organized their units to collect the needed data elements and potential uses they foresee.

There are clearly a lot of definitional issues related to the new supplementary data collection as we are uncovering from the phone interviews, as well as, some proposed solutions. The ARL Statistics and Measurement committee discussed some of these issues during the May ARL Membership Meeting and provided advice on future steps. A more systematic conceptual understanding of these issues will be documented in a white paper during the coming months.

In the meantime, our goal is to continue to build consensus on the best way of defining and measuring the new electronic environment through the upcoming ARL Supplementary E-Metrics Survey that will be mailed to all members libraries later in the summer.

Resources from the June 2004 Meeting

Improving Statistics Collection at Pitt, by Fern Brody
http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/Fern_Brody_ImprovingStats.ppt

The New Metrics at UVa, by Jim Self
http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ARLPresJune04x.ppt


Friday, January 9, 2004
San Diego Marriott
New York/Orlando Room
3:30 to 5:00 p.m.
San Diego CA

This is a meeting for all survey coordinators but would like to focus our discussion and attention on E-Metrics related issues. We would like to ask you to bring with you examples of statistics that you use for describing electronic services and resources for a sharefair experience. Please send me an email if you plan to do so.

We would like to have a discussion on how you determine the cost-effectiveness of electronic resources at your library. Brinley Franklin, Director at the University of Connecticut and Chair of the ARL Statistics and Measurement Committee, has been invited to present at the summer 2004 IFLA conference on the topic of cost-effectiveness of electronic resources. We would like to have a sense of all of your perspectives on this topic as during difficult financial times budget cuts often affect the untouchable (?) electronic resources.


Friday, June 20, 2003
Toronto Convention Center
Room 715B
3:30-5:00 p.m.
Toronto ON

Our focus will be a brief update on the developments of the SPEC and Statistics and Measurement Programs. The bulk of our discussion will focus on the recent decisions of the ARL Statistics and Measurement Committee that will impact the annual statistical surveys in 2004 (a year from now). For your information, a copy of the agenda of the ARL Statistics and Measurement Committee meeting held recently in Lexington, Kentucky, is located here.


January 24, 2003
Hawthorne Suites Hotel
Franklin B Room
3:30 pm to 5:00 pm
Philadelphia PA

A brief update regarding ARL Annual, as well as, SPEC surveys will be followed by presentations regarding two ‘new’ New Measures Initiatives:

Lisa O’Connor and Julia Blixrud will describe SAILS, the most recently developed ARL New Measures Project. For additional information on SAILS, please see the following article in College and Research Libraries by Lisa G. O’Connor, Carolyn J. Radcliff, and Julie A. Gedeon “Applying Systems Design and Item Response Theory to the Problem of Measuring Information Literacy Skills” College & Research Libraries, Vol. 63, No. 6, November 2002.

Brinley Franklin will describe the work done at four academic health sciences libraries in relation to evaluating networked electronic services usage patterns and how this work will be modified for a pilot across a group of ARL libraries. See: “Networked Electronic Services Usage Patterns at Four Academic Health Sciences Libraries,” by Brinley Franklin and Terry Plum, delivered at the Northumbria Lite conference, August 22, 2002.


Friday, June 14, 2002
Sheraton Altanta Hotel
Atlanta 4/5 Room
4:30-6:00pm
Atlanta GA

The largest part of the meeting will focus on presentations of the ARL
Emetrics project led by Sherrie Schmidt and Rush Miller and completed
under contract by the Information Management Use and Policy Institute of
the School of Information Studies at Florida State University.
Background information, project findings and detailed reports from the
pilot activities covering May 2000 to December 2001 are available here.

During the June 14 meeting various libraries that have been engaged in
the collection and testing of the proposed measures will present the
processes and mechanisms they have established to collect and utilize
data on electronic resources and services.

In particular, Irma Dillon (University of Maryland), Kurt Murphy
(Arizona State), and Gordon Fretwell (University of Massachusetts) will
present their institutional experiences.

Sue Phillips will also be available to discuss the latest developments
with the revision of the NISO Library Statistics standard.


Friday, January 18, 2002
Marriott Hotel
La Galerie V Room
4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
New Orleans LA

We look forward to seeing you in conjunction with ALA Mindwinter for a
brief update and a presentation by Doug Jones on his ‘new measures’
investigation in relation to the library’s impact on research.


Friday, June 15, 2001
Hyatt Regency
Seacliff A Room
3:30 pm - 5:30 pm
San Francisco CA

The meeting will feature a presentation from the technical services pilot cost
study currently under way at five institutions led by Dilys Morris;
updates on New and Old Measures and Spec Kit surveys.


January 12, 2001
Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel,
Monet III Room
4:00 - 6:00 pm
Washington DC

AGENDA

Discussion on Higher Education Outcomes introduced by Carla Stoffle:
Karen Williams and Julia Blixrud will facilitate a discussion on learning
outcomes and Doug Jones will facilitate a discussion on research outcomes.

Update on Other New Measures and Related Projects and Annual Statistical
Surveys by Martha Kyrillidou

Update on Spec Kit Surveys by Lee Anne George


Friday, July 7, 2000
Chicago City Centre Holiday Inn
Ohio Room
4:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Chicago IL

AGENDA
1. Welcome, Overview, Introductions

2. SPEC Survey update (Lee Anne George)

3. The Perennial Question: How to count electronic serials? (Julia Blixrud)
Please come prepared to share with us:

# what electronic products your library subscribes/buys;
# where in the ARL Statistics survey do you report them;
# (both in terms of expenditures and physicalities);
# what are some of the problems you encounter in ‘counting’ electronic serials.

NOTE: this was originally planned in February 2000 but due to time constraints
we were not able to discuss it at that time.

4. Update on New Measures Initiatives: The SERVQUAL pilot project
(Colleen Cook and Bruce Thompson)


Friday, January 14, 2000
Menger Hotel
Ballroom B
5:00 pm - 6:30 pm
San Antonio TX

AGENDA

1. Welcome, Overview, Introductions

2. SPEC Surveys update (Lee Anne George)

3. ARL annual surveys update (Martha Kyrillidou)

4. The Perennial Question: How to count electronic serials? (Julia Blixrud)

Please come prepared to share with us:
what electronic products your library subscribes/buys
where in the ARL Statistics survey do you report them (both in terms of expenditures and physicalities)
what are some of the problems you encounter in ‘counting’ electronic serials


January 29, 1999
Crown Plaza Hotel
Constitution Room
4:30 pm - 6:00 pm
Philadelphia PA

Discussion Topics:

1. Counting Electronic Resources: What’s Possible, What’s Not
2. Developing New Measures: Report from a Tucson Retreat

Updates from ARL:

1. Statistical Surveys
2. SPEC Surveys
3. General news


Friday, June 26, 1998
Marriott Metro Center
Salon A
4:30 p.m.
Washington DC

AGENDA
I. Welcome and Introductions
Sharing of information on use of statistics on campus

II. Status of Annual Surveys
1. Annual Salary Survey
Additional questions on demographics
2. ARL Statistics
Eliminate question on reserves, clarify serials count
3. Law and Medical
Changes similar to main
4. Supplementary
Revisions to remove external hardware questions
5. Preservation
No changes, but optional questions remain
6. E&G Report
will not follow time series

III. Schedule for 1998-99

IV. Research Library Investments in Electronic Resources
Project Update - Tim Jewell

V. Counting Serials
Discussion paper from Julia Blixrud

VI. ARL Statistics and Measurement Program Plans for 1997
1. Workshops
2. Survey Coordinator Web Page

VII. Performance Measures

VIII. ARL activities update


Friday, January 9, 1998
New Orleans Convention Center
Room 40
4:30 - 6:00 p.m.
New Orleans LA

AGENDA

Update on statistical publications Changes to the interactive ARL statistics web site Data gathering for electronic resources Group discussion of ideas for other measures

If you have any internal data gathering forms that you are willing to share, let me know.

** Deadlines are imminent for both the salary survey and for the main, law, and medical statistics.

To close the books on the datafile for salary, we need all corrections ASAP.

In order to develop the index calculation, we’d like to have all the main statistics data in before Christmas.
Thanks for your cooperation.

** The revised questionnaire for the supplementary statistics is in final production and will be distributed
and on the web site before the end of the month. It will have a deadline of February 28.