One way to create flexibility in a research framework is to build upon an individual library’s current strengths and experience. The advisors noted the importance of relating research studies to library institutional engagement and strategic planning, allowing libraries to participate in those studies that best align with their own strategic priorities. Such an approach would help mitigate differences in sizes, types, and locations of libraries, so that each might build from its predetermined priorities.
Much thoughtful conversation also explored how libraries might be able to define their own areas of expertise and decide how they might both give and receive through a multi-part research framework. Asking, “What can I contribute?” or “Here’s what I need to learn that is outside my comfort zone,” could be an effective way to self-define an entry point into the research framework. Working from each library’s current needs could help level the field among library types and sizes in attaining strong across-the-board participation. It might surface a number of promising practices that can inform the research framework. In addition, early adopters of some of the new program ideas and formats might likewise step up and provide initial data upon which to build.
What are your library’s greatest strengths and weaknesses in regard to programming?
Read responses and provide your own feedback using the comment box below. Comments are moderated and will be posted within 24 hours. Please let us know whether you would like to make your comments public or keep them private.