Sasaki: New Neighbors in Academic Libraries by Sasaki

New Neighbors in Academic Libraries

Contents

St. Edward's University Munday Library

The Numbers

The Spaces

The Neighborhood

The Future

Introduction

New Neighbors: We Asked

The Neighborhood

The Future

Who Responded: Institutions

Types of New Neighbors

Getting Their Foot in the Door

Welcome to the Neighborhood

26 Culture Fit

Future Desire for New Neighbors

Who Responded: Library Staff

Engaging with Technology

Connecting Community

Supporting Student Success

Academics and Administrative

Spreading Out

Fitting In

Final Thoughts

Context In a 2015 survey we conducted of academic librarians, 56% of respondents indicated that they anticipated a new department or partnership developing within the space of their existing library, while 73% indicated that they shared their space with at least one or two non-library programs or departments.

Taking cues from that earlier survey, the report you're reading now examines the current zeitgeist of programming within academic libraries, with a particular focus on this growing trend of programs, departments, or initiatives colocating in the library. The identity and services of libraries have evolved right along with technological advancements— reflecting changes in interactions and how users interact with information, and the universities' pedagogical shifts. Librarians have progressed from being gate keepers, to information facilitators, and, more recently, to community engagers. These shifts are apparent both in the roles and attitudes of librarians and in the library’s physical space. 2

The innate nimbleness of librarians has never been more important, as the pervasive digital age has sometimes brought calls of the library's impending obsolescence. Far from approaching obsolescence, libraries have long kept a finger on the pulse of their institution, preempting and reacting to the fast-changing landscape of higher education. This adaptability was clear in our 2015 survey, in which librarians indicated they had taken on additional responsibilities in 11 out of 12 categories of common tasks, such as circulation, archival processing, and research. This report explores how new services, programs, and departments shape, benefit—and sometimes hinder—the mission of the academic library.

Clockwise from left: University of Missouri Kansas City Miller Nichols Library and Academic Commons Tecnolรณgico de Monterrey New Main Library Salisbury University Guerrieri Academic Commons St. Edward's University Munday Library

Introduction

The last few decades have seen a noticeable trend of programs not traditionally associated with the scholarly quietude of the library being housed within the library’s physical space. Writing centers, honors programs, makerspaces, tech support desks, performing arts spaces, and many others are increasingly taking up residence within libraries. While patrons may not take special notice of the presence of such programs, the spatial and cultural implications to the workloads and experiences for librarians and to the identity of academic libraries is a mostly unexamined topic. The State of Academic Librarian Spaces, the results of a survey we conducted in 2015, discusses the existence and implications of these collocations. We intended that survey to create a baseline of data that analyzed how the physical environment of librarians impacted their work. We asked respondents several questions about the nonlibrary programs sharing their space, focusing primarily on academic enrichment programs (writing and math centers, tutoring, and so on). In analyzing the results, we were astounded at the variety of wholly unique configurations shared by our respondents, many of which did not fit the categories we offered. Realizing that we needed to explore this topic more fully, we issued a more in-depth survey focused specifically on these programs and relationships. This report explores 4

those results, demonstrating how the rich and nuanced diversity of partnerships and collaborations emerging within the library—what we have dubbed new neighbors— hints at larger campus-wide shifts in ideas about pedagogy and the changing learning landscape. As we analyzed the data for this survey, a few clear trends bubbled to the top. First, the motivations behind these partnerships and the library’s central role in sponsoring them often reflected shifts in pedagogy and changing ways that information and knowledge is disseminated, shared, and transferred on campus. Educators and students alike increasingly rely on a diverse range of media for learning and instruction—of which the written word is only one. Digital platforms, audio and video, virtual 3D environments, rapid prototyping technology, and more are all playing their part in revealing new and different relationships and patterns in the world around us. The library, often viewed as the heart of knowledge on any college campus, seems the natural home for many of these new learning environments and information platforms. The survey also gives insight into the shift toward increased interdisciplinary initiatives on campuses today. Anthropology, literature, psychology, economics, engineering, public health—these are but a few of the departments and programs that are coming together within the library to explore the

seams between traditionally distinct disciplines. The future, for many in academia and industry alike, is to be found in weaving new, innovative ideas from the warp of one disciplineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fabric with the weft of another. These partnershipsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;these new neighborsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are a developing part of the present and future of academic libraries. That is not to say, however, that their acculturation into the library is not without growing pains. Over half of the survey respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangement of spaces within their library and how that arrangement impedes their ability to effectively serve library patrons. This statistic alone suggests that further explorations and innovations are in store for academic libraries.

Salisbury University Academic Commons

At the conclusion of this report, we offer a few thoughts on the important role that architects and campus planners, in close collaboration with university and library administrations, play in shaping and bettering the library experience for all. These summarizing thoughts, however, are meant merely as provocations: to offer new perspectives on familiar spaces, to encourage deeper dialogue between stakeholders, and, ultimately, to help all of the programs that call the library home to more effectively achieve their goals.

Who Responded Institutions

We disseminated this survey through several American Library Association (ALA) e-mail list-servs, representing academic, research, university, and college libraries. We received a total of 370 responses during the several-week period in early 2017 that the survey was open. The survey asked respondents to provide demographic information about themselves and their institutions. This information, anonymized before analysis, provides useful context for the issues and trends identified throughout the survey.

Size-wise, the student populations of responding public and private institutions are almost perfect inverses of each other. WASHINGTON

MONTANA

On the Map

OREGON

Represented in this survey are 46 US states. The largest concentration of responses is from the northeast and mid-Atlantic region, with 110 responses. Additionally, the survey collected 35 non-US-based responses, consisting primarily of respondents from the Canadian provinces.

IDAHO

NEVADA

Number of Respondents

0 1-10

11-20 21+

WYOMING

UTAH

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO

ARIZONA

304

respondents specified their location

118 are primarily residential institutions 96 are primarily commuter institutions 84 are split equally between residential and commuter institutions 6

NEW MEXICO

ALASKA

HAWAII

Institution Type and Size

166 Public Institutions 1%

132 Private Institutions 5%

15%

14%

Of respondents, 45% identified their institutions as private, 35% identified their institutions as public, and 20% did not respond to this question. We intended to examine private and public institutions separately to be consistent with the 2015 survey. However, the 20% non-response rate on this question made that approach difficult. As such, this report analyzes all responses as an aggregate, with only anecdotal differentiation between institution types.

2% 2%

13%

11%

85% >5,000

17%

80% <5,000

Of the private institution responses, 80% indicated their student population was 5,000 or less. Conversely, 85% of public institution respondents indicated their institutions had 5,000 or more students.

67%

28%

Institution Size

< 1,000 1,001–5,000

5,001–10,000 10,001–20,000

20,001–30,000 30,000+ MAINE VERMONT

NORTH DAKOTA

MINNESOTA

NEW HAMSPHIRE

WISCONSIN

SOUTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN

RHODE ISLAND

PENNSYLVANIA

IOWA

NEBRASKA

OHIO ILLINOIS

CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY DELAWARE

MARYLAND

WEST VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

INDIANA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW YORK

3 32

1 7

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NORTH CAROLINA

TENNESSEE OKLAHOMA

ARKANSAS

SOUTH CAROLINA

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

NON-US RESPONDENTS

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

FLORIDA

Who Responded Library Staff

Almost 90% of respondents have a

new neighbor in

their library space. Libraries are continuing to offer more to their patrons, with 87% of respondents indicating they had added services or activities outside their library's traditional services that are staffed by library and/or non-library employees. How do library staff interact with these new services? One major influencer of perceived professional and spatial relationships with new neighbors is the respondent's job title and years of experienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; senior library staff often had more insight into changes at the institution or staffing level, while their junior counterparts were more likely to select "I don't know" to the same questions.

Percentage of Career Spent At Same Institution Director/Dean/ University Librarian

100%

100% 71%

56% 33%

respondents (23%) 0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field 100%

Manager

100% 66%

50%

58%

respondents (12%) 0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field 100%

Supervisor

100% 100% 100% 75%

50%

respondents (3%) 0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field 100%

Librarian

173

50%

100% 51%

48%

57%

respondents (53%) 0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field 100%

Specialist

100% 100% 100% 100%

50%

respondents (2 ) %

0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field

Career Consistency Most of our respondents have spent the majority of their careers in academic libraries at their current institutions. This is noteworthy, as this trend holds true across all years of experience and almost all professional titles, except for Director/Dean/University Librarians and Assistant Directors. In an era when professionals often change jobs every three to five years, this correlation demonstrates the flexible nature of librarians in their dedication to their students and willingness to accommodate to their changing needs.

Assistant

100%

100% 100% 66%

50%

respondents (2%)

0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field

Other

16 respondents (5%)

100%

100% 100% 50%

50% 0%

0-4 5-9 10-15 16+ Years in the Field

Library Staff Size by Institution Size 16 2 1

2 1

30,000+

1 1

5 3

1 2

20,001– 30,000

2 1

2 7

2 1

4 6

Institution Size

10,001– 20,000

1 1

4 5

5,001– 10,000

21 8

1,001– 5,000

1 13

<1,000

4 1 1

9 25

8 3

3 3

30+

Don't know

2 1

1–5

6–11

12–20

Staff Size Correlation of Library Staff to Student Population There is a clear positive correlation between full-time staff size and institution size. Part-time staff size has a looser correlation to institution size, but is most consistently reported as 20 or less employees. With the exception of a high number of respondents from the 1,000-5,000 student range, the graph shows a general increase in student workers by institution size.

21–30

Employee Type Student Part-time Full-time 9

New Neighbors We Asked

In our previous survey of academic librarian spaces, 30% of respondents anticipated new neighbors entering the library’s footprint. The brief list of academic support or enrichment services provided in the questions of the survey proved insufficient in describing the breadth of services that libraries are taking on. For this survey, we expanded the provided list of space types significantly, ranging from technology to social spaces to enrichment programs. This expanded list proved insufficient for our respondents, who supplemented the original list with an additional 135 spaces. This impressive response, once again, demonstrated the ever-broadening scope libraries are being asked to incorporate. In an attempt to provide a glimpse into the library staff’s experience with having non-traditional library services in the library’s space we asked a variety of questions, including: What services or activities outside traditional library services have been added to your library? Who staffs these services? What type of working relationship does the library staff have with the staff of these new neighbors? Are you satisfied with your relationships with these new neighbors?

What We Heard “Sharing our building has made us truly the center of campus.” “I don't see it as sharing the library's space; I see it as building an academic support team for student success in the university's premier student space — the library.” “Partnerships are crucial as libraries move ahead. We cannot be a lone silo on the edge of campus any longer.” “Our gate count has gone up, and students have access to onestop academic support. I think the arrangement works well for all.”

Salisbury University Guerrieri Academic Commons

Types of New Neighbors

We've culled the list of nearly 150 space types from the previous page into 30 categories. These are further grouped into four themes based on the intention of space typesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; representing major shifts in the services and programs that academic libraries are supporting. This page offers a quick overview of these four space types, while the following pages offer more granular assessments of the librariansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences with these four main space types.

Supporting Student Success This category consists of spaces that support students' academic success through tutoring, advising, counseling, and assistive services. These spaces also include special subject research centers that the library hosts in support of specific academic focus areas.

Engaging with Technology These spaces provide access to a wide range of technology. This category includes both traditional computer labs, and more flexible and unstructured spaces to support innovation labs and makerspaces.

Connecting Community Spaces in this category demonstrate the multipurpose nature and heart-of-campus identity that libraries are cultivating. Spaces such as galleries, lounges, and cafĂŠs provide flexible environments for students and other library patrons to engage with one another.

Institutional Support Housing student services, this category offers discrete services that are often less easily integrated into the fabric of their hosting librariesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space.

Clockwise from left: University of Hartford Harrison Libraries TecnolĂłgico de Monterrey New Main Library Dixie State University Centennial Commons University of New Brunswick Hans W. Klohn Commons

Engaging with Technology Makerspaces are the fastest growing technology space in academic libraries. Makerspaces are the fastest growing technology space in both public and private institutions, making up 53% and 66%, respectively, of technology spaces currently in the planning phase. With 24 makerspaces in the planning phase, in comparison to only four established for six or more years by both public and private institutions combined, this growth shows a strong correlation with pedagogies focusing more today on hands-on learning and making, and group learning over individual learning.

What We Heard

high-tech tools, and for being hotbeds for collaboration and inventive thinking.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our IT team has always shared parts of the building, but recently has taken more and more space. Overall, having IT in the building has improved services.â&#x20AC;?

While makerspaces are in the limelight now, the majority of more traditional technology spaces, such as technology and media centers, printing services, and technology support, have been established in libraries for six or more years. As changes in technology and patrons' needs are difficult to predict, academic libraries that prioritize flexibility as a design element are better prepared for the uncertain programmatic and equipment needs of the future.

These flexible and innovationinspiring spaces are often known for housing 3D printers and other 100

Number of Respondents with Technology Spaces

Trends in Technology Neighbors 80

Technology and media centers make up 62% and 78%, respectively, of all technology spaces for public and private institutions respectively. This majority is dated as these two types of spaces make up more than 85% of all technology spaces that have been established for more than six years in both public and private institutions. Makerspaces are the third most prevalent type of technology space and, as mentioned above, this is mostly the result of recent investments. Public Private

73 57

5 1

PRINTING/RESOURCE SERVICES

18 17

GIS LAB

"MAKERSPACE"

TECHNOLOGY AND MEDIA

TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT

27%

56%

PUBLIC

53%

20%

PRIVATE

>Tech Investments More Than 10 Years Ago

Timing of Technology Investments

<Tech Investments Less Than 5 Years Ago

Private institutions added technology spaces into their libraries much earlier than public institutions. However, this does not impact the overall prominence of these spaces in either institution type. Of the new neighbors documented in this survey, technology spaces make up just less than 30% of the new neighbors for both public and private institutions.

What are Technology Spaces? GIS Lab: A computer lab that supports geographic information systems (GIS) and statistics software. Makerspace: A flexible space, often associated with technology such as 3D printers, providing readilyavailable materials and tools to support inquiry, innovation, and group work.

Printing/Resource Services: Either self-service stations or a public-facing desk for printing and copy services, which may include student ID stations.

Technology and Media Center: A standard computer lab and resources for digital media use that may include projectors, audio/video recording, and virtual reality hardware. Technology Support: Typically a front-facing desk with back rooms to serve as a helpdesk, repair support, or technology equipment checkout location. 15

Connecting Community Community connection spaces, such as cafĂŠs and galleries, make up 25% of reported new neighbors.

Collaboration and Staffing These spaces earned the highest satisfaction rating and second highest collaboration rating of space typologies explored in the survey. This may be due to library and nonlibrary staff being reported as almost equally responsible for these community spaces at both public and private institutions.

Collaboration Breakdown by Institution Type

52%

Non-Library Staff Libraries are continuing to embrace their third-space identity, a role most of our respondents indicated is realized through the incorporation of cafĂŠs, galleries, and lounges. These communityfostering spaces have been in libraries longer than most other new neighbors for both public and private institutions. Almost 60% of public institutions and over 80% of private institutions have had this type of space for longer than six years. The longevity of these spaces is attributable to numerous influences, but one clear theme arose from the comments of our respondents: community spaces invite more people into the library.

42%

Both

Library Staff

PUBLIC

34%

often/almost always collaborative

PRIVATE

42%

NonLibrary Staff

Both

49%

Library Staff

72% of public institution respondents and 70% of private institution respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with their relationship with these types of spaces. 16

What We Heard “The café makes the library more of a third space. The gallery draws constituents from off campus.”

“Most of the new “Having the gallery neighbors were and the art is nice, brought in when the but necessities building was built. like study and It was intentionally instruction space designed to house were sacrificed to additional services have it.” beyond the traditional library.”

What are Community Spaces? Gallery: Walls dedicated to displaying artwork and other exhibits.

Student Wellness: Nap rooms or rooms to checkout nontraditional library resources.

Café: Counter service for light fare or coffee.

Performance Space: Larger space with either fixed or flexible seating to facilitate performances.

24-Hour Study Space: Safe and controlled study area for students. Flex Space: Unstructured conference or meeting rooms of medium to large size.

Counseling/Mentoring: Smaller rooms for individual or smallgroup counseling or mentoring services.

Student Lounge/Learning Commons: Diverse seating and spatial layout to accommodate students’ varying studying and relaxing habits.

Supporting Student Success Academic success spaces are often thought to be strongly linked to a library’s mission, yet our survey finds that only 29% of respondents ranked their collaboration with these spaces as "often" or "almost always." The library has consistently been the space for patrons to expect the newest information and resources to be made readily available. This expectation makes the relationships between libraries and academic success centers, such as subjectspecific tutoring and general skill development services, intuitively symbiotic. Although many respondents indicated that spatial layouts for this type of new neighbor are sometimes cumbersome or confusing for users, they consistently felt that tutoring and advising services were aligned with the library’s mission of supporting students to succeed. We explore possible reasons for this disconnect between intent and execution in "The Neighborhood" section of this report.

What We Heard “The library is always full of students since it contains classrooms, a tutoring/learning center, and the computer commons.” “Tutoring and writing center satellite offices are well-received by students. Giving up student study space for these services can be challenging.” “Students that visit these offices often discover spaces and services in the library of which they were not aware.”

PRIVATE

of private institutions had these types of spaces in their libraries for more than six years.

PUBLIC

of public institutions had these types of spaces in their libraries for more than six years.

spaces are currently in the planning stage by public institutions, which is more than double the number that are in the planning stage by private institutions.

What are Student Success Spaces? Academic Advising: Open space or meeting rooms for students to meet with academic advisors, which may also accommodate group meetings and first-year support programs.

Language Lab: Staffed spaces that provide resources, including computers, books, and meeting rooms, for students to practice language skills independently and in groups.

Assistive Services: Space associated with or housing the institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office of Disability Services, which may include meeting and office space, walk-up counter services, and technology rooms.

Math Center: Computers and meeting rooms with whiteboards for students to receive tutoring, work on problem sets, and have access to reference materials.

Career Center: Offices and a shared space for students to receive group and individual support, including resume reviews, interview preparation, and career counseling.

Public Speaking: Small- to medium- to large-sized meeting rooms for students to practice public speaking. Rooms may be soundproof and often include audio/visual technology to support presentations.

Special Subject Research Center: Meeting and office space for subject experts to support and provide access to subject-specific materials and research resources. Tutoring Center: Mixture of enclosed and open spaces for personal and group tutoring. These spaces may have resources for specific disciplines and support established tutoring or student academic success programs. Writing Center: Open areas or meeting rooms, often with dedicated staff, resources and reference materials for students to receive personal or group writing support and assistance. 19

Academics and Administrative Growth Trends Private institutions have incorporated these types of spaces earlier than public institutions. Over the past five years, public institutions have experienced three times the growth of this type of space as that of private institutions.

Public Private

35 30

Number of Spaces

These types of space make up 10% of both public and private institutions’ new neighbors.

25 20 15 10 5 0

3 1 Currently in Planning Stage

This category serves as a catch-all for academic and administrative departments. The placement of administrative and academic departments and offices indicate a shift in how institutions view their libraries' real estate. Many respondents indicated these spaces were ill-placed or had been poorly incorporated into the library’s footprint. Exceptions to this were archives, some classrooms, and the teaching support centers— which have been more seamlessly incorporated. Respondents who were least satisfied in their relationships with this type consistently commented that these departments were often brought in without consulting the library staff. These types of space make up 10% of both public and private institutions’ new neighbors.

What We Heard “Having services co-located also means that professionals can share knowledge and can more easily pass a student between experts without losing them.” “Much of our ‘shared space’ was essentially taken over by the campus with very little library input.”

PRIVATE

Private institutions have only one space in the pipeline (1%), with 10 developed in the past five years (13%).

PUBLIC Public institutions have three spaces in the pipeline (4%), with 31 developed in the past five years (42%).

0-5

6-10

10+

Years

What are Academic and Administrative Spaces? Academic Departments: Faculty offices and administrative support for academic disciplines or special programs, such as honors programs. Administrative Departments: Offices, reception areas, and desks for walk-up services for administrative departments ranging from the president, to records management, to financial aid, to multicultural and international student life.

Archives: Reading rooms, offices, and storage space for archival collections that can include textiles, paper and digital records, and photography. These spaces often require separate climate control and security from the rest of the library. Campus Police: Offices, meeting spaces, and often service counters for campus police, which usually requires adjacent parking.

broader implementation. Teaching Support Center: Space dedicated to faculty and staff skill development, including offices, small meeting rooms, and lounge areas. Testing Center: Spaces of varying size, either equipped with tables and chairs or set up more like a computer lab, to support a spectrum of testing types.

Classrooms: Teaching spaces ranging in size, seating configurations, and technological resources, which often feature cutting-edge tech resourcesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; serving as test-cases before 21

The Neighborhood We describe the non-traditional programs and services housed in the library as new neighbors not only to indicate their spatial proximity, but also to account for the environment, relationships, and community these spaces create within the library. To capture those aspects, the survey asked respondents to identify the decision-making body responsible for bringing these programs, departments, or initiatives into the library, as well as how the library’s space responded to accommodate the spatial needs of these new neighbors. We concluded the survey with questions about the respondents’ experiences and their outlook for the future of the services their library offers. This line of questioning provides a glimpse into complexities behind decisionmaking and design challenges libraries face.

What We Heard “Consolidation of existing spaces and systematic weeding disrupts future initiatives, mainly due to staff availability.” “Synergies with [new neighbors] are good mostly for getting students in the library and becoming familiar with it.” “While it has at times been challenging to make space for our building partners, it has forced us to think hard and creatively about our library collections, student study habits, and workflows to make use of the building’s space as efficiently as possible.” “Students call it all ‘the library’ and assume we are all working together (not unreasonable), but get confused with which service desk to approach.”

St. Edward's University Munday Library

Getting a Foot in the Door Ranging from positivity and shared responsibility to frustration and disenfranchisement, the language used by respondents to describe how decisions were made around initiating new neighbors into their libraries shed valuable insight into this process. Library staff and administration are satisfied more often when they invite a new neighbor into their space, and felt under-appreciated when the university administration was seen as the sole party responsible for decisions.

Comments addressing instances when university administrations were the primary decision-maker illuminated issues and additional burdens the administration hadn’t taken into consideration, such as budgets, spatial layouts, and interdepartmental staff relationships and operational issues. The spectrum of satisfaction is not perfectly linear, as respondents often clarified that the decisionmakers changed depending on the type of new neighbor or the decision-making involved.

What We Heard “Some programs were library initiatives; others were imposed by [the] college administration.” “These are great potential partnerships, but most were not planned either in terms of space or collaborations. They mostly just live here.” “Not in the library’s control.”

University Admin

(66 respondents)

Library Admin

(46 respondents)

Regardless of space type, university administrations make up over 30% of the decision-making to initiate new neighbors into the library.

+ 4

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Know (37 respondents)

Incoming Program

(8 respondents)

Library Staff (14 respondents)

Other

(28 respondents)

Culture Fit What We Heard

Of new neighbors initiated by library staff, 60% are associated with a positive/ enhancing impact on the library’s mission, while those initiated by university administration make up 63% of all spaces with a negative/ hindering impact on the library’s mission. This split is unsurprising, as the decision-making process impacts the success or perceived success of a new neighbor in the library, and is inherently perceived as a more positive experience when the library staff and administration feel involved in or responsible for the decisions made.

"Our mission is student success, so collaborating and providing better academic services and support is a great thing." "We need to make some small changes to fully realize the vision of these relationships, but everyone is on board to do so."

When this issue is parsed by institution types, the positive association with new neighbors persists, as over 50% of all respondents from both public (53%) and private (59%) institutions indicated that they consider their new neighbors to have positive/enhancing impacts on their library’s mission.

“I think the library sharing space is really important; [however], the way these departments currently work with my library is counterproductive to the mission.”

Impacting the Library's Mission Of the respondents who indicated that university administrations were responsible for initiating new neighbors into the library, 55% felt the new neighbors had either a neutral or hindering impact on their library’s mission. This is a higher level of negative association to new neighbors than when initiated by either the library administration (36% neutral or hindering) or library staff (15% neutral or hindering). It is clear that respondents, representing library staff and administration, can more easily see and experience the positive impacts of their new neighbors when they are involved.

Who Made the Decision?

University Admin Library Admin Library Staff

Incoming Program Other

respondents

Hindering 26

Over half of both private and public institutions see their libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission enhanced by their new neighbors.

PUBLIC

53% 59%

PRIVATE

respondents

Enhancing 27

Spreading Out Spatial layouts heavily factor into how successfully new neighbors are accommodated into the library. Space for library staff, noise concerns, and the navigability of the library, are the most prominently discussed spatial layout concerns shared by our respondents. Library staff space, something we studied in depth in our 2015 survey, continues to be a limitation that burdens library staff, many of whom describe their office space as cramped or overcrowded—often in comparison to the office space afforded their new neighbors. The issue of noise is mostly associated with spaces such as cafés or galleries that bring people into the library for more social activities and that produce ancillary noises in their otherwise regular activities (such as cappuccino makers and exhibit installations). Some of these issues may have clear solutions, but, in the case of an existing building, many of them are the result of spatial limitations of the

existing facility, which our respondents readily admit. Most respondents see renovations as the best solution to their layout struggles, and renovations were the second-most selected response for how best to incorporate new neighbors. The bottom line is that accommodating the increasing number and diversity of new neighbors often requires more square footage. In the case of renovations, close analysis of existing programs to determine latent opportunities for shared facilities and resources can often free up space. And, naturally, brand new construction or additions to the existing library's footprint enable the largest square footage gains and opportunities to fully reassess spatial programming.

What We Heard “Having services co-located also means that the professionals can share knowledge and more easily pass a student between experts without losing them.” “It will look ugly very soon: a mix of new and old; and fitting in technology workspaces strains flow and aesthetics.” “Our building is quite beautiful, but our expansion options are limited.” “We have many legacy architectural limitations that would take [a] major renovation to overcome.” “[I] would like [the] space re-examined.”

Almost 50% of respondents from both public and private institutions are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their libraryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spatial layout.

Comments on this topic identified many areas of concern, resulting in a wide range of responses about satisfaction.

Satisfied/ Very Satisfied

30%

PRIVATE

OVERALL

40%

PUBLIC

Satisfied/ Very Satisfied

OVERALL

14%

Neutral

22%

Neutral

47%

Dissatisfied/ Very Dissatisfied

47%

Dissatisfied/ Very Dissatisfied

Fitting In Having more space is often appreciated, but how the space is designed determines satisfaction.

When it comes to incorporating new neighbors, every library has its success stories and its ongoing challenges. Several respondents indicated that though they could always use more space, how new or existing space is structured has the biggest impact on resolving issues associated with work space, noise levels, navigability, and more.

What We Heard “The library is cramped and desperately needs more space, but it is not our neighbors' fault. The neighbors are fine, but it is a challenge and frustration when space is so limited.” “We all have extreme pressure to contribute to student success and retention without adequate space and resources." “The bringing-in of partnerships has created opportunity for renovations that would not occur otherwise.” “The library is willing to reduce physical collections space, but we want to have control over our own space usage rather than having changes dictated by outsiders.”

Changes to Accomodate New Neighbors

Who Made the Decision

Survey responses showed a clear hierarchy of strategies for finding space for new neighbors, regardless of the decision-making entity that invited the new program.

University Admin Library Admin Library Staff

Reduction of Collection Space

123 respondents: 31%

Incoming Program Other Don't Know

Renovations

92 respondents: 23%

16%

18%

15%

18%

3% 4%

2% 5%

24%

Reduction of Study Spaces

84 respondents: 21%

28%

Reduction of Staff Space

65 respondents: 16% 14%

17% 11%

14%

51%

45%

4% 7%

7% 10%

29%

38%

17%

Removal of Existing Programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Space 21 respondents: 5%

Building of an Addition

15 respondents: 4%

14% 33%

20%

39%

24%

20% 5%

24%

7% 7% 7%

Welcome to the Neighborhood Of respondents, 53% said they would like additional new neighbors in their libraries. Throughout the survey, our respondents identified the challenges and benefits of having new neighbors present in their libraries. Given the opportunity, more than half indicated that they would want to continue to add new neighbors to further develop their library’s role as a hub of information and services. Respondents who already have a new neighbor are 6 to 10% more likely to want additional services or programs to enter their library’s space than respondents who did not already have a new neighbor.

What We Heard “I don’t know if our library could support it!” “I am proud of how our library has managed our new initiatives and maintained our academic integrity.” “We love our new neighbors and most library staff members are in agreement that deeper collaborations would lead to a better student experience."

“Sharing the space has been advantageous for students and faculty in providing a one-stop location for many necessary services. It has also drawn attention to the library services and resources, and allowed us to more readily communicate with other learning commons personnel so that we can support each other's service points."

Salisbury University Guerrieri Academic Commons

Conclusion In the concluding thoughts of our previous survey, we meditated on the importance of academic libraries making incremental progress towards far-off goals—of having a plan, and sticking to it. The value of that approach has only been strengthened by what we have learned from this new survey. Respondents, from small and large schools alike, expressed delight in the benefits of successful partnerships that fall in line with larger strategic goals, while also recounting tales of programs that felt shoehorned into place—often due to mismatched priorities and poor communication between stakeholders. As we explore how these partnerships can be successful, it is important to discuss why programs are collocating to the library to begin with. The creation and sharing of knowledge is evolving at a faster and faster pace, and libraries and their staff are increasingly asked to support resultant changes in pedagogy— from creating space for group study, staffing makerspaces and hosting events, to welcoming and engaging with diverse groups of new neighbors. This plurality of roles was made clear in our 2015 survey, wherein 68% of respondents indicated that their roles and/or titles had changed in the last 10 years.

At face value, this continual expansion of roles and new neighbors may appear to be additive (that is, building upon an existing framework). While not technically wrong, that perspective oversimplifies the remarkable changes that academic libraries are undergoing. Placed in a historical context, the evolutions of the past few decades amount to no less than a transformative reconception of the academic library and the mix of programs that call it home. In the face of these rapid and continual changes, perhaps it is time for a larger reconsideration of the administrative and operational structures of the library in order to accommodate these new paradigms. Conversation and intentionality will continue to bridge the gap between a successful partnership and a forced fit. An old Chinese adage says, “the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago; the second best time is now”—and that rings true for starting conversations between the appropriate stakeholders for future endeavors on campus. It is in these big-picture discussions that

Tecnológico de Monterrey New Main Library

potential opportunities for crossdisciplinary or cross-departmental partnerships arise—teasing out latent synergies that can flourish with smart space planning and shared resources. Another crucial perspective we reiterate from the previous survey is that of the patrons’ perception. While the delineations between departmental or operational responsibilities may be clear to library staff, the average student with a question looks to the first staff member they see for the answer. This is an important reminder that, though individual goals of a given program or department may vary, the library is still a neighborhood. Regardless of what brings different entities inside the boundaries of the library, each entity should be united in their mission of cultivating and maintaining a successful environment in which students, faculty, and community patrons can learn, grow, and thrive.

These existential evolutions have many spatial implications. Programming for libraries is increasingly focused on groups of users—whether it is a four-person study group or a community performance—as opposed to the individual. In our 2015 survey, 79% of respondents indicated that the library in which they work had been built prior to 1985. As designed, most of these libraries emphasized spaces for individual users. The pendulum has been swinging back from that design approach for the past few decades, taking the shape of renovations that introduce social atrium spaces, group-study lounges, and cafés, and reflecting larger changes in pedagogy. Through our work with colleges and universities in recent years, we have identified a few themes that impact the success of academic libraries’ expanding missions. We offer a few of these summarizing points below, as food for thought in considering the day-to-day operations of your institution, or as provocations when 35

exploring changes at the physical and organizational scale. The Library as a Hybrid Environment Libraries have long been perceived as silent havens for peaceable study, but with the changing modalities of learning they must adapt to accommodate a variety of knowledge platforms and differentsized study groups—from individuals to groups. This diversity directly translates to a building with a variety of acoustical zones and spatial environments. Similarly, as new neighbors are brought in to intermix with library programs, the library environment must balance the acoustic behaviors of diverse and sometimes competing neighbors—think café and performance spaces cohabitating with quiet study areas. This acoustic environment has spatial implications for immediate program adjacencies, as well as for the library environment as a whole. Done right, this balancing act of space typologies yields a sublime experience for students, staff, and other patrons. Aligning Space Programming with Diverse Voices As the library’s program diversifies beyond books, library staff, and collections, the process for programing a library is more complex and involves more stakeholders. It follows, then, that the process for programming a library, either a renovation or a new facility, is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Defining a library’s program is intimately tied to supporting the goals of the institution’s overall strategic academic direction, and as such involves different stakeholders at different institutions. This process 36

may take more time than it has traditionally, as it involves entities that have not previously been partnered together. The rules of engagement need to be tested— and, in many ways, created anew. Administration and Operations The plethora of new neighbors entering the space of the library begs the question—who runs the library? How do all of these new neighbors operate within and alongside the library in one facility? This survey has outlined the ways in which administrative and operational forces can, at times, both unite and divide any given library’s entities. If the ultimate goal is to create a singular experience for patrons, then it benefits all concerned to partner together and share resources for an enhanced total experience. Many of these relationships can be forged and formalized at the planning and design stage—with the objectivity of a design firm exploring and supporting the best solutions for all parties—but new neighbors must continue to nurture these new relationships after construction is complete and the doors are open. Though libraries have long been core to the success of higher education institutions, never has the demand placed upon them been stronger nor more varied. Continued success will increasingly depend on an understanding of the big-picture context of evolving pedagogies, as well as innovations in the day-to-day operations of the library and its new neighbors. As the neighborhood continues to grow, an intentional approach to programmatic and operational decision-making, paired with a celebration of the nimbleness inherent in the library science profession, will prepare today’s

TecnolĂłgico de Monterrey New Main Library

academic libraries for the challenges of tomorrow. If you would like to learn more about our work, or to discuss opportunities for advancing your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success, contact us at media@sasaki.com or visit www.sasaki.com.

Sasaki Team: Joanna Chow Terri Dube Lan Ying Ip Bryan Irwin Aliza Leventhal Zach Loudin Neda Movaghar Melody Park Megan Root Anna Scherling Cassandra Thompson

CONTACT 64 Pleasant Street Watertown, MA 02472 +1 617 926 3300 media@sasaki.com www.sasaki.com