The U.S. Department of Education's plan to remove library data as part of the main postsecondary data system has sparked intense backlash from academic library officials.
Data about approximately 3,700 academic libraries that the federal government collects as part of the longitudinal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is “critical to understanding the value that libraries provide to institutional missions. “There are,” said a joint public comment letter from the American Library. Association, Association of University and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, and Southeastern Research Libraries Association. They called on the U.S. Department of Education to maintain a library research component as part of IPEDS.
Library surveys have been part of IPEDS for 10 years. IPEDS is a system of 12 interrelated annual surveys that track and compare fundamental institution-level data such as graduation rates, spending, and enrollment.
Library officials say the survey data reinforces the recognition of academic libraries as essential components of higher education institutions that support information literacy, faculty research and student success.
Maintaining comprehensive data on the reach of academic libraries is especially important at a time when public skepticism about the value of higher education is growing and misinformation is widely available, library organizations say. said.
“Providing open and publicly accessible data about higher education is critical to gaining and maintaining transparency and public trust,” the organizations said in the letter. “With trust in American higher education visibly declining and the crisis of misinformation and disruptive emerging technologies on the rise, media and information literacy is more important than ever.”
The letter was one of 747 public comments submitted in response to the proposal before the comment period closed this month. Many of the comments came from people and organizations associated with academic libraries who opposed this regulatory change.
The American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities also submitted a joint letter. It called on U.S. Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to maintain the library portion of the IPEDS study “in support of the Library Association's findings.”
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which administers the IPEDS survey, is seeking approval to discontinue the library survey before it begins collecting data for 2025-26 in August this year. The proposed changes stem in part from concerns about cost.
“Given all the demands on IPEDS, NCES must manage the budget, staffing, and burden for IPEDS data collection, including prioritizing the data collected,” the NCES annual report and report states. Josue Delarosa, Director of Information Staff, said in an email. “This includes considering adjustments to IPEDS to stay within budget, work within existing staffing levels, and minimize the burden on the higher education institutions providing the data.”
He said that despite removing the library survey, IPEDS will continue to collect data on staff numbers and the services and resources provided by academic libraries.
“NCES considers multiple factors before making adjustments, including legal requirements, policy implications/use of data elements, usefulness of data as consumer information, and data that responds to current questions in postsecondary education.” “I do,” Dela Rosa said. “Based on our analysis, we concluded that academic library research needs to be phased out.”
“Important” data
Since 2014, data collection on academic libraries has been a required part of the annual IPEDS survey, which is required by law to be completed by all degree-granting institutions eligible for federal financial aid. Library surveys include the number of physical and electronic library books, serials, media, and databases. Academic libraries that spend more than $100,000 annually will also be required to report operational data such as salaries, wages, benefits, and total expenditures.
The U.S. Department of Education's 2018 report on the history and origins of the IPEDS survey items explains, “Together, these data provide an overview of the state of academic libraries nationally and by state.”
But if the proposal is approved, it would not be the first time the government has changed how academic library data is collected and monitored.
According to the NCES website, from 1966, when the government first began collecting academic library data, to 1988, NCES conducted academic library surveys in three-year cycles within the framework of the Higher Education Integrated Information System. From 1988 to 1998, the Library Survey became part of IPEDS, and data were collected in two-year cycles.
The situation changed again between 2000 and 2012, when the survey remained on a two-year cycle but was conducted independently of IPEDS. In 2014, the library survey was reintegrated into his IPEDS collection, which is now collected annually along with 11 other components including surveys on admissions, human resources, and student financial aid.
“Over the 35 years I have worked in libraries, this data has been leaked to various institutions,” said an anonymous public comment letter submitted to the Department of Education in March. “Now that it has found a home in IPEDS and has been incorporated into and incorporated into other parts of academic library data, it is very important to preserve it. We use it all the time for benchmarking and evaluation. In this world of data-driven decision-making, where most things are driven by the bottom line, IPEDS Academic is the way we operate. A central data repository, such as library data, is required. ”
“I'm willing to accept that burden.”
Judy Ruttenberg, senior director of academic and policy at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), said the proposal didn't really explain why NCES wanted to remove the academic library survey from IPEDS, so she took the issue seriously. He said he was trying to bury it. blank.
“We are left with two thoughts: data is underutilized and collecting data is becoming a burden,” she said. (The burden on survey respondents is certainly one of the reasons NCES cited in its response) Inside higher education Regarding why you want to remove library components. )
Ruttenberg said that while the library study is detailed and will take time to complete, the amount of public comment “indicates that the library community is willing to accept that burden.” He added that “in fact, data is being used all the time” to analyze trends such as the growth of library and institutional research and its relationship to student success metrics.
“We are here to work with the department to find out what we can do to streamline things,” she said.
ARL collects data (some similar to IPEDS data) on 127 member institutions in the United States and Canada, but its scope is not as large as that obtained from the IPEDS survey, which accumulates data from thousands of academic libraries. . and placing it in the broader context of trends in higher education.
“When an entire institution responds to the IPEDS survey, it remains an important touchpoint in campus communications,” Ruttenberg said. “The people who fill out these surveys talk to each other. It's important that these different survey respondents communicate with each other. This is a touchpoint for the institutions responding to the surveys to understand themselves. , it is important that libraries participate in that conversation.”
Excluding library data from IPEDS surveys not only deprives libraries of visibility and the ability to demonstrate their effectiveness, but also has the potential to disrupt a rapidly changing information market.
“Many of the library vendors that our libraries subscribe to and purchase resources from use IPEDS data when setting their prices,” Ruttenberg said. “What we're going to lose is some of the transparency in that market, which is really important…the visibility of costs across those sectors.”