1. Supported self-evaluation in assessing the impact of HE Libraries Sharon Markless, King’s College London and David Streatfield, Information Management Associates

2. Why supported self-evaluation?  No established tradition in HE libraries of evaluating impact  Problems of engaging busy people with a difficult process- and for the long term How to effectively overcome both these challenges?

3. Developing the approach: Stage 1 The Effective College Library Project: case studies in 6 colleges to develop and evaluate specific aspects of practice. Contribution to our approach:  production of a prototype model of the process of impact evaluation (key steps);  importance of understanding aims of the library service;  value of researcher/librarian partnership.

4. Developing the approach: Stage 2 School self-evaluation materials: Generic materials based on research and development. Sets of performance and impact indicators plus data collection guidance and tools Contribution to our approach:  workshops vital to support use of materials and get people started;  use of research to guide generation of PIs;  need to provide tools for data collection

5. Developing the approach: Stage 3 Health and public library research and development initiatives: cycles of workshops to introduce the model, supplemented by on-line support and a growing range of materials Contribution to our approach:  refining the model to work in, and be relevant to, different contexts;  visible power of the supported action research to motivate and enable change.

6. The Impact [Implementation] Initiative LIRG/SCONUL  22 university teams – 2 annual cycles  focus on information literacy, supporting research, providing electronic services  18 finished the cycle  3 workshops per year + distance support  Visits offered  Structured reports from each site

7. The Supported Self-evaluation approach  Use of impact model: coherent and systematic approach  Workshops  Materials, especially examples and data collection  E-support between workshops  Teams within each participating library  Self-evaluation: libraries’ own objectives, impact indicators and data gathering  Range and changes in facilitator roles

8. Underpinning principles  capacity for enhancing work/the service  owned/adapted by practitioners (empowerment)  practitioner-formulated approaches within a coherent framework  tapping research cross different disciplines to help get at impact  work within a supportive team  a real initiative with no extra time or money provided; have to fit it into already busy lives to be sustained

9. An approach at three levels  Action research undertaken by each team within each participating HE library  Sharing/reviewing impact indicators, data gathering tools and problems across participating libraries  Evaluating the impact model together with the approach as an experimental programme of change

10. End eval. Start eval. Progress check Review Intro. event

11. Review of the approach/lessons learned 1 Power of supported self-evaluation:  Re-focussed practitioners away from process to impact  Effected real development/change  Enabled practitioners to demonstrate impact

12. Review of the approach/lessons learned 2 Participants recognised:  Collaboration/networking is critical  Need to focus on one aspect of provision in depth  Importance of a framework and structure  Value of examples, especially research tools  Problems of academic cooperation, particularly in data collection  Challenging and stressful nature of engaging with impact

13. Review of the approach/lessons learned 3 Facilitators learned:  Critical role of the workshops in the process  Need a range of facilitator skills and roles (research; facilitation; change management) and ability to shift between them  Hard to negotiate effective levels and types of support (coercion v empowerment!)  Need to offset low uptake of offered support

14. Organisational and Structural factors  When to evaluate impact? Problems of the planning cycle; impact may take time!  Sustaining the work; what might be needed for institutionalisation? “Influencing academics and getting change at Academic Boards was harder to do than the evaluation.”

15. General issues to consider if adopting this approach  Importance of framework and structure  Cross-site collaboration: timing; type and focus  Reporting the process and the outcomes (deadlines, ownership)  may increase uncertainty/cognitive dissonance for participants as deep challenge

16. Issues to consider if adopting this approach 2 What do we sacrifice by enabling teams to ‘do their own thing’ albeit within a framework?  Consistency, validity + rigour versus real development+ empowerment  Benchmarking/ comparability of outputs versus local context  Facilitating versus enforcing

17. Project process and materials VAMP Website