SPEC Kit 349: Evolution of Library Liaisons · 17
variety of supervisors. In nearly half of the responding
libraries, the liaison’s primary supervisor provides the
main evaluation. However, nineteen libraries (28%)
indicated that, while a liaison’s primary supervisor
conducts the evaluation, other library leaders pro-
vide input to the evaluation. Half of the respondents
reported that the liaison’s evaluation is completed
based on evaluation criteria that include the liaison
functions. Nearly a third reported that liaisons and
their supervisors set goals on which the liaisons are
evaluated. Other libraries use peer review and quan-
titative data to inform the evaluation of individual
liaisons’ success.
Sixty-three of the responding libraries (94%) do col-
lect statistics that document liaison activities, which
can be used to gain insight on the effectiveness of both
individual liaisons and entire liaison programs. Most
libraries collect data beyond the required ARL statis-
tics in order to gain a broader view of the activities
conducted through liaison relationships. The types
of liaison activities on which statistics are collected at
most responding libraries include classes and instruc-
tion sessions, research consultations, reference ques-
tions, outreach activities, number of searches con-
ducted, collection development spending, circulation
data, grant funding received, number of web-based
learning objects created, and uses of objects created.
Beyond collection of these types of statistics, fewer
libraries consistently evaluate the effectiveness of
the overall liaison program. In fact, responses were
evenly split between those libraries that do conduct
formal evaluations of liaison programs (32 or 49%)
and those that do not (34 or 51%). These numbers are
consistent with the findings from the 2007 report
however, current data suggests that many libraries
are moving beyond collecting numbers, which was
the main means of evaluation reported in the 2007
SPEC Kit, and are starting to try to measure the over-
all impact of their liaison programs. Over half of the
current survey’s responding libraries (63%) conduct
user surveys about their liaison programs, and over a
third (38%) interview members of their constituent de-
partments. About a quarter (28%) also document de-
partmental meetings attended by librarians, conduct
focus groups, and use other methods of exploring the
impact of their programs, including external reviews
with community leaders, working with library sci-
ence graduate students to review liaison programs,
and using matrices to gauge overall engagement.
As libraries think about how to evaluate the impact
of their programs, they look for a number of different
things as indicators of success. Nearly all the respond-
ing libraries use the development of new partnerships
across campus as a major indicator of success (58 or
95%). The majority of libraries also look at the growth
rate of research consultations (85%) and classes (80%)
as indicators of success. A third also use professional
recognition (39%), the retention of liaisons (33%), and
additional funding from the university or institution
(31%) as further indicators of liaison program success.
Challenges and Benefits
In the 2007 survey on liaison services, the top three
challenges for liaisons were described as establish-
ing and maintaining contact with faculty, time con-
straints and competing responsibilities for liaisons,
and internal and external communication. The current
survey data indicate that these are still challenges, and
perhaps even more so. The two words that appeared
most frequently in responses about the top challenges
for library liaisons were “balance” and “scalability.”
Library liaisons are balancing a workload that often
includes responsibilities beyond liaison activities, and
are also trying to balance the more traditional types
of liaison work, such as reference consultations and
collection management, with growing new areas of
liaison engagement, such as scholarly communica-
tion and data management consulting. A number of
respondents mentioned that getting liaisons to un-
derstand these new areas of service and integrate
them into the liaison role is a challenge, as it requires
constant learning, growing, and training. Perhaps
because of this, many respondents also mentioned
communication issues, inconsistency within liaison
programs, and a lack of understanding about the value
and abilities of liaisons both internally and externally
as major challenges. One respondent succinctly stated
that the challenges with governing and growing li-
aison programs can fit into three categories: people,
time, and money.
Although there are clear challenges as liaison
programs move into new and uncharted territory,
variety of supervisors. In nearly half of the responding
libraries, the liaison’s primary supervisor provides the
main evaluation. However, nineteen libraries (28%)
indicated that, while a liaison’s primary supervisor
conducts the evaluation, other library leaders pro-
vide input to the evaluation. Half of the respondents
reported that the liaison’s evaluation is completed
based on evaluation criteria that include the liaison
functions. Nearly a third reported that liaisons and
their supervisors set goals on which the liaisons are
evaluated. Other libraries use peer review and quan-
titative data to inform the evaluation of individual
liaisons’ success.
Sixty-three of the responding libraries (94%) do col-
lect statistics that document liaison activities, which
can be used to gain insight on the effectiveness of both
individual liaisons and entire liaison programs. Most
libraries collect data beyond the required ARL statis-
tics in order to gain a broader view of the activities
conducted through liaison relationships. The types
of liaison activities on which statistics are collected at
most responding libraries include classes and instruc-
tion sessions, research consultations, reference ques-
tions, outreach activities, number of searches con-
ducted, collection development spending, circulation
data, grant funding received, number of web-based
learning objects created, and uses of objects created.
Beyond collection of these types of statistics, fewer
libraries consistently evaluate the effectiveness of
the overall liaison program. In fact, responses were
evenly split between those libraries that do conduct
formal evaluations of liaison programs (32 or 49%)
and those that do not (34 or 51%). These numbers are
consistent with the findings from the 2007 report
however, current data suggests that many libraries
are moving beyond collecting numbers, which was
the main means of evaluation reported in the 2007
SPEC Kit, and are starting to try to measure the over-
all impact of their liaison programs. Over half of the
current survey’s responding libraries (63%) conduct
user surveys about their liaison programs, and over a
third (38%) interview members of their constituent de-
partments. About a quarter (28%) also document de-
partmental meetings attended by librarians, conduct
focus groups, and use other methods of exploring the
impact of their programs, including external reviews
with community leaders, working with library sci-
ence graduate students to review liaison programs,
and using matrices to gauge overall engagement.
As libraries think about how to evaluate the impact
of their programs, they look for a number of different
things as indicators of success. Nearly all the respond-
ing libraries use the development of new partnerships
across campus as a major indicator of success (58 or
95%). The majority of libraries also look at the growth
rate of research consultations (85%) and classes (80%)
as indicators of success. A third also use professional
recognition (39%), the retention of liaisons (33%), and
additional funding from the university or institution
(31%) as further indicators of liaison program success.
Challenges and Benefits
In the 2007 survey on liaison services, the top three
challenges for liaisons were described as establish-
ing and maintaining contact with faculty, time con-
straints and competing responsibilities for liaisons,
and internal and external communication. The current
survey data indicate that these are still challenges, and
perhaps even more so. The two words that appeared
most frequently in responses about the top challenges
for library liaisons were “balance” and “scalability.”
Library liaisons are balancing a workload that often
includes responsibilities beyond liaison activities, and
are also trying to balance the more traditional types
of liaison work, such as reference consultations and
collection management, with growing new areas of
liaison engagement, such as scholarly communica-
tion and data management consulting. A number of
respondents mentioned that getting liaisons to un-
derstand these new areas of service and integrate
them into the liaison role is a challenge, as it requires
constant learning, growing, and training. Perhaps
because of this, many respondents also mentioned
communication issues, inconsistency within liaison
programs, and a lack of understanding about the value
and abilities of liaisons both internally and externally
as major challenges. One respondent succinctly stated
that the challenges with governing and growing li-
aison programs can fit into three categories: people,
time, and money.
Although there are clear challenges as liaison
programs move into new and uncharted territory,