Evaluation of Library and Information Services

Citation

Calvert, P. (2001), "Evaluation of Library and Information Services", The Electronic Library, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 352-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/el.2001.19.5.352.1

There are two main reasons for evaluating a library or information service: to convince funders and customers that the service is delivering the benefits it is intended to produce; and to aid library managers allocate resources efficiently and effectively. That means that all library managers will be concerned with evaluation in some form or another, and this excellent little book provides guidance for those with little experience in evaluating their service. The primary focus of this book is the services provided for customers (or “users” as Crawford prefers to label them). The difficulties with making a qualitative assessment of information services has been appreciated for some time now, and the Northumbria Conferences have brought attention to the solutions being tried around the world.

For those with some prior knowledge or experience in library evaluation, the most challenging current task is deciding how best to evaluate the huge range of new services provided in electronic form, whether this be in a digital or conventional library setting. Crawford places some degree of emphasis on the measures suggested by the Equinox project based at the Centre for Research in Library and Information Management at Manchester Metropolitan University < http://equinox.dcu.ie/>. As Crawford correctly states, the evaluation of electronic resources is still in its early stages of development, so it would seem that the best ways to investigate evaluation is with qualitative methods. Unfortunately the customer’s lack of computer skills may affect the results of qualitative investigations. Once the profession has a better understating of the nature of electronic library services, there is a large range of possible measures available. Crawford predicts that “performance measurement for the electronic library will be much more of an overtly accounting exercise than previous forms of evaluation or performance measurement” (p. 118). This is because it is easier to allocate specific unit costs to electronic services, whereas this is hard to do in a traditional service, and funding agents will want to use the cost data to know if their dollars are being turned into positive outcomes that customers want and need.

One specific part of the text that many readers will find useful is the guidelines about using children in qualitative research. This is quite a problem that needs careful thought and I much appreciate Crawford’s balanced advice.