SPEC Kit 330: Library Contribution to Accreditation · 45
If you selected “Other activity” above, please specify that activity below. N=1
Associate director served on campus task force and reviewed draft of portion of campus report.
16. Did the library staff work with the institutional research office to prepare for the visit or to prepare
the report? N=31
Yes, to prepare the report 11 36%
Yes, to prepare for the visit 9 29%
No 18 58%
If yes, how closely did the library staff work with the institutional research office? N=13
Both served on Self Study Coordination Team.
Current preparation for SACS: IR staff are available for consultation and will review compliance reports before broader
campus review.
Data collection process conducted in library’s Program Management Office in coordination with librarians working in
the academic department.
Institutional Research Office met regularly with library participants and provided guidance on report and site visit
preparations including providing list of possible questions that could be asked at the site visit.
Our Associate Director of Information Services was on the university-wide accreditation committee that worked with the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools on the university’s accreditation process.
Our AUL worked directly with Assistant Director of Institutional Research on the compliance report for sections
pertaining to the library or sections where the library contributed information for the report.
Our institutional research office was not the lead on the reaccreditation process or in preparing the final report. Two
of our Associate Provosts were tasked with leading this process and preparing the final report. The institutional
research office was certainly involved — most heavily in the documentation phase at the beginning of this process. The
University Librarian was on the campus Steering Committee for the reaccreditation process, and the Director of Planning
and Assessment was on the “roadmap”/documentation working group that was most involved with the institutional
research office.
Provided data and information. Revised text drafted by institutional research office.
Provided examples of evidence in support of the specific institution-wide criteria listed in #8 above.
The Associate University Librarian for Research &Instructional Services was a member of the institutional accreditation
self-study committee in which capacity he worked with the faculty chair of the accreditation committee. There was a
member of the institutional research office on that steering committee, but we did not have much interaction with them
otherwise.
The Head of the Architecture Library worked closely with the College of Architecture on four accreditation reports and
visits: NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board) ACEE (American Council for Construction Education) NASAD
If you selected “Other activity” above, please specify that activity below. N=1
Associate director served on campus task force and reviewed draft of portion of campus report.
16. Did the library staff work with the institutional research office to prepare for the visit or to prepare
the report? N=31
Yes, to prepare the report 11 36%
Yes, to prepare for the visit 9 29%
No 18 58%
If yes, how closely did the library staff work with the institutional research office? N=13
Both served on Self Study Coordination Team.
Current preparation for SACS: IR staff are available for consultation and will review compliance reports before broader
campus review.
Data collection process conducted in library’s Program Management Office in coordination with librarians working in
the academic department.
Institutional Research Office met regularly with library participants and provided guidance on report and site visit
preparations including providing list of possible questions that could be asked at the site visit.
Our Associate Director of Information Services was on the university-wide accreditation committee that worked with the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools on the university’s accreditation process.
Our AUL worked directly with Assistant Director of Institutional Research on the compliance report for sections
pertaining to the library or sections where the library contributed information for the report.
Our institutional research office was not the lead on the reaccreditation process or in preparing the final report. Two
of our Associate Provosts were tasked with leading this process and preparing the final report. The institutional
research office was certainly involved — most heavily in the documentation phase at the beginning of this process. The
University Librarian was on the campus Steering Committee for the reaccreditation process, and the Director of Planning
and Assessment was on the “roadmap”/documentation working group that was most involved with the institutional
research office.
Provided data and information. Revised text drafted by institutional research office.
Provided examples of evidence in support of the specific institution-wide criteria listed in #8 above.
The Associate University Librarian for Research &Instructional Services was a member of the institutional accreditation
self-study committee in which capacity he worked with the faculty chair of the accreditation committee. There was a
member of the institutional research office on that steering committee, but we did not have much interaction with them
otherwise.
The Head of the Architecture Library worked closely with the College of Architecture on four accreditation reports and
visits: NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board) ACEE (American Council for Construction Education) NASAD
