Investigating the relevance of quality measurement indicators for South African higher education libraries

Abstract

This study investigates the relevance of quality measurement indicators at higher education libraries for faculty academics, librarians, and students. The study followed a mixed-method design with a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data collection. Faculty academics, librarians and students ranked the existing quality measurement indicators for South African higher education libraries. The findings revealed that for library quality measures to meet the needs of faculty academics, librarians, and students, the resources must be accessible both physically and virtually, and staff should be accountable and willing to offer services responsive to the users' needs and expectations of a safe, secure, and comfortable library space, be it physical or virtual. The qualitative data highlighted the importance of adequate resources and the adoption of new developments as measures for quality. Quality measurement indicators must include elements such as adequate funding; relevant resources aligned with teaching and learning programmes; programmes that are integrated into teaching plans; effective supplier collaboration with respect to the process of acquiring relevant learning materials; effective student training; communication of the value of library services and alignment with the student learning outcomes; research support in a digital environment with e-tools and website navigability; research data management; and open access, which is a prominent role of the library. Based on the data, there was a quality measure (process) that was commendable even though it did not form part of the existing quality measures nor a service whose relevance was assessed. The separation of undergraduate and postgraduate learning spaces was amongst those services that ranked quite high from the students' responses (qualitative data). Even though there were differences emphasized on each indicator by either faculty academics or students, there were also discrepancies in the interpretation of what each quality indicator means to each study population group. As the study of this nature has recommendations and gaps identified in terms of research findings, it is quite important to record that there was a series of gaps that were identified in terms of library expectations and perceptions. These gaps were suggested as part of further research that must be conducted to fill the void in terms of library users’ voices in the development of higher education library measurement indicators.