Prove It?

Whether you’ve been in this profession for one year or thirty, you are probably familiar with discussions about academic libraries “proving their worth.” Often, these conversations mention assessment in the form of statistics and reports, which are shared with administration, professional organizations, and other partners.

Putting “value” aside for a moment, statistics can be really helpful in showing us where we can make things easier for our communities. Signage needs, collection gaps, staffing level adjustments, and more issues often come through in records of desk interactions. Getting into a habit of recording transactions can illustrate helpful trends or patterns over time.

However, when “value” is brought back into the equation, metrics can be a source of stress. Does a 10-minute interaction carry the same weight as several brief directional questions? Are my statistics (or quantities of records, reports, metadata, etc.) being compared with someone else’s? Do statistics really show the worth of the library, and does that transfer to the worth of those who work there? The list goes on. Some may readily dismiss these concerns; after all, statistics are a way to illustrate the kinds of support libraries provide.

Even so, it is not unreasonable that these questions will arise because higher education is experiencing a time of “opportunities” (aka challenges, often worrying ones) that impact academic libraries. A recent issue of Pennsylvania Libraries: Research and Practice included a first-person account of one librarian’s experience navigating such challenges. Often, budgets are at the heart of decisions we don’t have much input on.

Constant requirements to “prove” worth in today’s higher education landscape seem in opposition to libraries as a public good, or as partners and contributors by their very nature. Value assessment based on numbers can also downplay the behind-the-scenes work that supports the gate counts, collection additions, transaction records, and instruction sessions. The authors of “Invisible Labor, Invisible Value,” published in College & Research Libraries, surveyed library workers and shared their findings and analysis on this pitfall of traditional assessment methods. It’s encouraging that this topic continues to appear in professional presentations and literature. The 2024 book Toxic Dynamics: Disrupting, Dismantling, and Transforming Academic Library Culture touches on the value (and devaluing) of all kinds of library work; the chapter “Believe Me” is one example.

Admittedly, this leaves more questions than answers. How can libraries surface invisible labor and create less anxiety around statistics? Anecdotal reporting, narratives shared with colleagues, and similar efforts move toward this, but it’s hard to build consistency around that practice if it’s an additional task for the person or team involved. Perhaps a better question: Can value-proving and worth-showing be reframed in a way that doesn’t imply a deficit? After all, whether it’s answering database questions or diving into a complicated system migration, library workers are providing help and expertise that is, of course, valuable.

---

Clarke, R., Stanton, K., Grimm, A., & Zhang, B. (2022). Invisible Labor, Invisible Value: Unpacking Traditional Assessment of Academic Library Value. College & Research Libraries, 83(6), 926. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.6.926

Frutchey, J. (2024). Carry That Weight: The Journey of an Academic Librarian. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research and Practice, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2023.288

Meulemans, Y. N., & Carr, A. (2024). Believe Me: Exploring How Leaders Generate Toxic Cultures in Academic Libraries. In R. Michalak, T. A. Dawes, & J. E. Cawthorne (Eds.), Toxic Dynamics: Disrupting, Dismantling, and Transforming Academic Library Culture (pp. 237–250). Association of College and Research Libraries. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/publications/4f16cb38v