AALL Professional Development Listserv on the ABA 2003 Annual Questionnaire

During the time period September 15 - September 26, 2003, AALL held a Professional Development Listserv on the ABA 2003 Annual Questionnaire. The listserv was sponsored by the Academic Law Libraries SIS Statistics Committee to serve as a forum for discussion on the new changes made to the ABA 2003 Annual Questionnaire. Darin Fox and Leonette Williams, both from the University of Southern California Law School and co-chairs of the ALL SIS Statistics Committee, served as moderators of the listserv. In their introduction to the listserv, the moderators offered the following categories to participants as issues for discussion: (1) the new changes to the questionnaire; (2) whether the instructions for filling-in the questionnaire are self-explanatory or need revision; and (3) whether the changes match the goals of the association. In other words, does the questionnaire gather information that is important and relevant to the process of setting standards for accreditation and comparing law libraries. During the two week life span of the listserv, approximately two dozen of the 174 participants who had signed up for the listserv actively engaged in the discussion.

The two most heavily discussed issues on the listserv concerned title counts and alternative measures of law library quality. There were also a number of issues mentioned ranging from the counting of wireless access to the lead time for new questions to the distribution of the compiled questionnaire data in Excel.

I. Title Counts - there were two separate threads of discussion relating to title counts. First, one member asked whether web-based resources should be counted in Question 4 relating to a title count of non-book titles. Second, one member suggested that a count of “unique titles” provided by a law library is one important measure of library quality.

1. Counting Web-Based Resources - One member asked whether web-based resources should be counted in Question 4 relating to a title count of non-book titles. One member responded that her school does not count individual titles in web-based resources in Question 4. One member responded that web-based serial titles can be counted in the serial subscription section if those titles are cataloged. One member added that the use of software, such as SFX, that automatically adds titles from aggregate databases may present a problem. Should multiple instances of an electronic title be counted if they appear in separate aggregate databases? One member responded that her school treats electronic titles which are cataloged as “multiple copies” where the title is already held in another format. In other words, her school only counts “unique” electronic titles. One member added that there are three different types of publications (databases, journals, and monographs), and each presents its own problems when trying to count them.

2. “Unique Titles” - One member suggested that a count of “unique titles” provided by a law library is one important measure of library quality. It was suggested that “unique titles” include (1) Current Question 1 (book titles), (2) Current Question 2 (microform titles), (3) Current Question 4 (Other Non-Book Titles), plus (4) any electronic titles which are cataloged, which the library provides access to, and which are not already counted in 1-3. There were several responses. Two types of problems with this approach were suggested. Both revolve around web-based resources. First, it is difficult for some libraries to know which web-based resources to count. Some libraries may share a central university catalog, and they may be a member of a university consortium which subscribes to resources. If the law library did not pay for a specific title and did not catalog it, yet it appears in the shared university catalog, should the library count it? Second, it may be difficult and expensive for some libraries to catalog the titles of web-based resources, such as HeinOnline or JSTOR.

II. Alternative Measures of Library Quality - The second major thread of discussion involved alternative measures of library quality. There were three separate threads of discussion. First, what can we learn from other questionnaires used by other library organizations? Second, what is the purpose and what are the uses of the Annual Questionnaire?

1. Questionnaires Used by Other Library Organizations - One member suggested that we might look to other questionnaires, such as the ARL questionnaire or the LibQual+ process. Another member questioned the inclusion of these types of surveys in the ABA questionnaire, stating that service and quality are defined differently given our locations, goals, institutions, target patron groups, etc. One member commented that the ABA/AALS site inspections serve as a decent quality instrument to measure law schools. Further comments included that over time new questions added to the questionnaire sometimes become dated. What was seen as new, interesting, and a measure of quality has quickly become standard in all law libraries, for example integrated library systems. Another member questioned how one questionnaire could possibly provide a useful basis for comparison purposes when library services and materials provided through consortia or through affiliation with university libraries is vastly different. Specifically regarding electronic title counts, one member suggested that the ARL survey provides a better mechanism for comparison. She stated that it requires schools to count electronic titles purchased as part of an aggregated database, and it also requires that duplicate subscriptions should be counted so that the total count includes all means to access a title.
2. Purpose and Uses of the Annual Questionnaire - One member asked “who wants to know these things?” Another member responded that the ABA Questionnaire is a reflection of the measurements that over many years law librarians have said were appropriate. Another member suggested that the ABA Questionnaire originated as a mechanism for the ABA to collect information to insure that law libraries are meeting ABA standards. However, the Questionnaire has expanded to become a tool for law libraries to compare themselves for administrative purposes.
3. Staffing and Expenditures - One member suggested emphasizing staffing and expenditures as ratios to the size of the faculty and student body, instead of emphasizing volume and title counts. It was further suggested that a ratio of total library expenditures to faculty and student body might be the best comparison since, for example, cost of living differences impact salary comparisons.

III. Other Issues Discussed - Many other questions were raised on the listserv. Below is a brief summary of each.

1. Technology Sections - Question 5 - One member suggested that it is difficult to count the total number of simultaneous wireless users because wireless vendors no longer provide the maximum number of users that can connect to their equipment. This school’s wireless network can support thousands of simultaneous users, yet the school has only 650 students. It was suggested that this specific part of Question 5 be removed from the questionnaire or that the question ask for the percentage of the student body that is registered to use the wireless network. Another member suggested that it might be difficult for schools to determine the percentage of students registered and suggested that this question may be irrelevant in a few years since all schools will likely have a wireless network.
2. Time to Prepare - One member suggested that the ABA give one full year’s notice to libraries before a new question appears in the Annual Questionnaire. This would give libraries a chance to prepare and to begin gathering statistics that must be reported in future years. One member responded that it might be difficult for the ABA to pilot newly proposed questions, but the various listservs could be used to promote awareness of proposed questions.
3. Work Study Hours - One member asked whether Question 25 should include the “work study” hours of student workers or just those hours paid by the Library. A member responded that the purpose of the question is to describe the total staffing level of the library. So, work study hours should be included.
4. Federal Depository Holdings and Title Counts - One member asked whether government documents which are cataloged should be included in Question 6. There was no discussion of this issue.
5. Software Which Accompanies Books or Looseleafs - One member asked whether software which accompanies other materials should be counted separately. If so, how? There was no discussion of this issue.
6. Distribution of Final Data Compilation Tables in Excel - One member asked whether the final data compilation tables could be distributed in Excel format. This would allow libraries to sort data more easily and make comparisons among schools of similar size. There was no discussion of this issue.
7. Aggregate Resources - Two members asked whether there should be a separate section of the Questionnaire on Aggregate Resources. Is Question 16 sufficient? Is Section 2, Information Access, the best place to include more information on this issue? There was no discussion of this issue.