Academic Libraries Report Minimal Standardization and Oversight of LibGuide Content

Sarah Bartlett Schroeder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29955

2021-09-15

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Abstract:A Review of: Logan, J., & Spence, M. (2021). Content strategy in LibGuides: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), Article 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102282 Abstract Objective – To determine what strategies academic libraries use to govern creation and maintenance of their LibGuides. Design – Online survey questionnaire. Setting – A selection of academic libraries that use Springshare’s LibGuide system, mainly in the United States and Canada. Subjects – Academic libraries with administrator level access to LibGuides at 120 large and small, private and public schools. Methods – Researchers made their online questionnaire available on a Springshare lounge and recruited participants through electronic mailing lists. Respondents were self-selected participants. The survey consisted of 35 questions, including several about their institution’s size and type, the number of LibGuides available through their library, and how their guides are created and reviewed. There was space available for comments. The survey stated that the researchers’ goal is to complete an “environmental scan of content strategies” in LibGuides at academic institutions. Main Results – Of the 120 responding institutions, 88% are located in either the United States or Canada and 53% reported that they do have content guidelines for LibGuide authors. Content guidelines might include parameters for topics, target audiences, or purpose. Parameters for structural elements, including page design, content reuse policies, naming conventions, and navigation, were most commonly represented at those institutions that reported having guidelines. Seventy-seven percent of respondents reported that their LibGuides do not go through a formal review process prior to publication. Regarding LibGuide maintenance, 58% reported that LibGuides are reviewed as needed, while 27% indicated a more systematic approach. In most cases, the LibGuide reviewer is the author, though sometimes a LibGuide administrator may take on a review role. The most common considerations for LibGuide review are currency, accuracy, usage, and consistency. Of the responding institutions, 74% reported that they do not conduct any user testing of their guides. Two of the biggest barriers to introducing and maintaining LibGuide guidelines identified in the survey were lack of time and a sense of librarian ownership over content and workflow. The strong culture of academic freedom may make some librarians resistant to following institutional guidelines. Survey respondents noted that, where content guidelines are present, they tend to address “low hanging fruit” issues, such as page design and naming conventions, rather than more complex issues around tone and messaging. Conclusion – Content creators tend to have many competing priorities, so a workflow and guideline system might help librarians spend less time on their guides. Despite a large amount of research on LibGuide best practices regarding content strategy, few institutions seem to be taking systematic steps to implement them. Further research examining the experiences of LibGuide authors and administrators and on the effectiveness of content strategy practices is necessary.

English Else