ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


4 5 0  /  C & R L News

The W ay

I See It

Rethinking the librarian's 
role on accrediting teams

By Ralph A. Wolff

A view fro m  a n  accreditation 
official

F
or years librarians have commonly been a
part of evaluation teams sponsored by re­
gional accrediting associations which ar

sponsible for accrediting an entire institution.
How well does regional accreditation evaluate
the effectiveness of libraries? How well do li­
brarians function within the context of regional
accreditation? This is my answer to both ques­
tions: There is plenty of room for improvement.
The time has come to critique the role that li­
brarians play on accreditation teams and dis­
cuss ways in which librarians can be more ef­
fective in asking a different and wider range
of questions, and can be more fully integrated
into the overall functioning of visiting teams.
The opinions that follow are personal and do
not necessarily represent those of the com­
mission I serve.

From hundreds of institutional self-studies
and visiting team reports, a picture emerges
that is very different from our traditional as­
sumptions of the role and importance of the
library in the life of an academic institution.
While we might like to believe that the library
serves as the intellectual center of a college or
university, too often a library is viewed as a
place to study rather than a rich intellectual
resource crucial to a student’s education. Rarely
does an institutional self-study or visiting team
report address the role the library really plays

 in the life of students and faculty.
An institutional self-study typically includes

a full chapter on library and learning resources.
Yet it is heavily—if not exclusively—directed 
to descriptions of holdings, bibliographic and 
other services, staffing, facilities, budgets, and

 

e 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

operational issues. Little evidence is typically 
available in a self-study about actual library use 
by students and faculty, or of student and fac­
ulty perceptions about the library. Library 
evaluators often do not challenge libraries to 
develop meaningful evidence of library effec­
tiveness. Instead, they use resource indica­

reto­ rs to determine quality and effectiveness. 
In this regard, neither accrediting associations 
nor library evaluators are challenging librar­
ies enough.

Library reviews typically look at aggregate 
holdings. Yet during institutional reviews we 
have found whole disciplines that view library 
support as nonessential. Remarkably, deans of 
professional schools at a number of institutions 
have indicated that students really need rely 
only on textbooks and faculty handouts to meet 
curricular objectives. What of our implicit as­
sumption that higher education involves the 
study of more than textbooks, and should in­
clude exposure to the current and historical 
literature of the field? Are there really some 
disciplines that do not need library support? 
Librarians evaluating library services should 
reach beneath the veneer of aggregate hold­
ings to assess the role and effectiveness of the 
library for all schools and programs. This is an 
issue that should be discussed with institutions 
but is currently not addressed either in the self- 
study or visit process. Perhaps this is partly a 
case of unclear expectations. A librarian serv­
ing on a team may believe that other team 
members representing different academic dis­
ciplines will address library resources in their 
fields, whereas these evaluators assume that 
the librarian will address such issues. Much more 
attention must be placed on the effectiveness 
of the library for different programs and schools, 
especially those with a strong professional or 
technical orientation.

Ralph A. Wolff is associate executive director, Accrediting Commission fo r  Senior Colleges a n d  Universities, 
Western Association o f  Schools a n d  Colleges



July/August 1 9 9 2 /4 5 1

Librarians serving on evaluation teams tend
to focus most of their time within the library, 
meeting almost exclusively with the library staff. 
This creates a narrow perspective about the
library and yields little information about how
the library is perceived by those outside. As a
result, library evaluators often become severely
isolated from other team members and from
the work of the rest of the team. This phenom ­
enon often parallels the isolation of librarians
from their faculty colleagues on a campus. Ac­
cre d itin g  ag e n cies sh o u ld  w o rk  to b rea k
dow n this isolation by rethinking w hom  the
library evaluator interviews during a visit and
how  the library evaluator functions in relation
to other team members.

A num ber of institutions have developed
programs to serve adult students on and off
campus, yet rarely is the same scrutiny given
to library support for off-campus students as
those on campus. Institutions often fail to pro­
vide even basic library instruction or support
to off-campus students, expecting students to 
rely on the collections of other institutions. My
experience has been that this leads to a condi­
tion of “out of sight, out of mind,” with faculty
ultimately diluting course requirements to limit
the need for library research. Often reference
and bibliographic services are not readily avail­
able through other institutions. Library evalua­
tors with little experience of off-campus pro­
gram issues tend to focus only on resources
and services to on-campus students, and con­
tribute to institutions abdicating responsibili­
ties for off-campus library services.

The advent of new  technologies for the li­
brary has created the potential for the transfor­
mation of the library. The possibilities are ex­
citing. At some point in the near future, online
access to bibliographic—if not full-text— re­
sources will be a necessity for students in some
disciplines. Institutions serious about creating
“lifelong learning skills” so frequently a part of
institutional mission statements may need to
consider the role of library and information lit­
eracy as a means of fulfilling this goal. These
n ew  tech n o lo g ies also give rise to rec o n ­
ceptualizing the role the library can play within
the institution. No longer will libraries be pas­
sive resources; they have the potential to be­
com e a dynamic part of the learning process. Yet
both librarians and faculty often are not well-
equipped to embrace these new roles and fünc-
tions. We see too little evidence of the library being
integrated into curriculum development strategies,

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

academic planning efforts, or even the increas­
ing and commendable efforts to improve fac­
ulty teaching effectiveness. Far greater leader­
ship will need to be displayed by accreditation 
teams in suggesting new approaches for address­
ing the implications of technology.

While we m ight like to believe 
that the library serves as the 
intellectual center o f  a  college or 
university, too often a library is 
viewed as a p lace to study rather 
th a n  a rich intellectual resource 
crucial to a s tu d e n t’s education.

In conclusion, librarians are vitally impor­
tant to the accreditation process and to improv­
ing our institutions. But these critical issues 
should be discussed, and new  ideas should 
be developed that challenge libraries to gather 
meaningful evidence of library effectiveness 
and encourage integration o f the library into 
the academ ic quality d eb ate w ithin institu­
tions. ■