Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this original research is to gauge the level of academic libraries' strategic credibility by analyzing whether strategic planning goals align with annual reports. Design/methodology/approach A modified replication of a study by Jarvenpaa and Ives was used. A random sample of 28 ARL libraries was taken from ARL membership. Library directors were contacted for a copy of both a strategic plan and an annual report. A two‐way comparison was conducted between three groups using content analysis. Findings Analysis of strategic plans and annual reports revealed that the majority of the libraries in the study produced strategic plans. However, most libraries no longer produce annual reports. Canadian strategic plans were user‐centered, whereas US plans focused on “hot topics”. Themes emerged from the analysis of strategic plans including space planning, offsite storage, assessment, development, and personnel. Research limitations/implications Determining the level to which ARL libraries have strategic credibility is difficult to surmise, since the anticipated number of annual reports did not materialize. Further research is needed to compare what impact strategic plans and marketing strategies have on fundraising. Practical implications Several tactical methods libraries can implement in order to get the attention of potential donors and funding agencies to support projects and programs include the hiring of a library development officer, contracting with a marketing firm, and greatly improving the quality of communication to clientele. Originality/value The paper presents original research and is of value to academic library leaders who want to know about current trends in communicating strategic goals and objectives to their clientele.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".