A Rapidly Escalating Demand: Academic Libraries and the Birth of Black Studies Programs

Contributors

Martin David Kruskal

A Review of the Literature on Assessment in Academic and Research Libraries, 2005 to August 2011 Jon R. Hufford (bio) Introduction Assessment in United States higher education has become very important in recent years. Virtually all colleges and universities are now striving to prove through empirical evidence that they are committed to improving student learning. Created in late 2005, the US Department of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education was charged with the task of "developing a strategy for higher education to meet the needs of America's population and address the economic and workforce needs of the future."1 The Commission's final report, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of United States Higher Education, makes several recommendations for reform and states in a summary that "improved accountability is vital to ensuring the success of all the other reforms we propose. Colleges and universities must become more transparent about cost, price, and student success outcomes, and must willingly share this information with students and families." Though the report was not an early wake-up call for assessment, since articles on the need and importance of assessment in higher education had been published in the literature before 2006,2 it was an important document on the topic from a political and administrative perspective and has had a significant impact on campuses across the nation. This is because, in response to the Commission's report, the regional accreditation organizations made changes in their standards, and these changes have been directly responsible for the trend toward assessment. As might be expected, some of the standards of several of these regional organizations relate to academic libraries and have changed the way they are assessed. This article reviews the literature on assessment in academic and research libraries that has been published since the Commission on the Future of Higher Education was created in 2005 and up until August 2011. Much has been written about assessment [End Page 5] over the years. The author felt that coverage of the literature of the most recent six years would include sources that would still be reasonably relevant for academic professionals in 2011. The author was also interested in providing an examination of the coverage since the Commission's report to disclose new developments, ideas, and directions in the assessment of academic and research libraries. Also, to offer a competent and manageable review of the literature, the article focuses on assessments concerned with the management or administration of libraries and their collections, public services, and issues or projects affecting more than one department within a library. Assessments in the acquisitions and technical services areas have been excluded. The author's goal was to treat the topic comprehensively. However, some sources were not considered significant enough to be included, and it is possible that other sources that perhaps should have been included were inadvertently left out. A representative selection of noteworthy older monographs and textbooks generally recognized for their contribution to academic and research library assessment has been included, along with a selection of publications on assessment in higher education that provides a more comprehensive perspective of the topic. Though the majority of the sources reviewed in this article were published in the United States and cover developments in the United States, some sources published in international or foreign publications that cover developments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or South Africa were included because they discuss developments similar to those taking place in American academic and research libraries and provide important insights into the topic. Assessment is often equated with evaluation. To education professionals, assessment occurs when a researcher wants to discover what a student knows or can do, while evaluation is used to determine the value of a course or program. Authors of books focused on academic and research libraries normally use evaluation when they discuss the measurement (or evaluation) of a library's operations and services. In The Measurement and Evaluation of Library Services, F.W. Lancaster explains in his definition of evaluation that it "consists of the comparison of performance with the objectives of the agency, in order to determine (a) whether there has been any change in performance for a...

ESA HISTORICAL RECORDS COMMITTEE (Established 1944) Newsletter

Notes on Contributors

4 - Emerging technologies for academic libraries in the digital age

In the fall of 1968 Antioch College (Yellow Springs, Ohio) gave birth to the Afro-American Studies Institute. This Marxist-led program was one of the first Black Studies programs in the country.1 By the end of 1968, Yale University began the implementation of its Black Studies program, financed in large part by the Ford Foundation.2 Nearly 20 years later, around 1988, the first doctoral program in AAS was established. It was not Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Columbia that would have that honor; it was established at Temple University with Molefi Asante at the helm as chair of the department. The curriculum at Temple was designed to reflect an explicit philosophical and methodological commitment to Afrocentricity. In contrast to conventional wisdom, Afrocentricity—with its focus on reclaiming precolonial African civilizations and culture devoid of class contradictions—was not the predominant philosophical approach as Black Studies entered the ivory tower in 1968. By what strange assortment of events did Afrocentricity come to occupy an intellectual space in Black Studies? Was it the result of a convergence of cosmic accidents (such as Cleopatra’s nose) that lead to its emergence as a school of thought in Black Studies?3 Was it an instance of divine providence by the Egyptian god Osiris, Allah, or Yahweh? Was it the result of the “cunning of Reason” or just the “march of history?” Was it simply an act of pure genius on the part of Molefi Asante and other Afrocentrists?

In 1969, Bryn Mawr College hired the notorious Communist Herbert Aptheker to teach the inaugural course in what would become the Black Studies Program. Using primary sources, this essay examines the decision to hire Aptheker and what this decision can tell us about campus politics during the late-60’s/early-70’s. A sharp divide can be seen between conservative and leftist students, parents, alumnae, and even those unassociated with the College who felt it their civic or academic duty to object to or approve of the decision to hire Aptheker. As an institution of learning, Bryn Mawr’s decision of how to teach about those whose experiences have been marginalized deals with questions of who is telling whose history and how that history will be told – in particular, whether to instate a Black Studies Program with courses integrated into the general College curriculum, or have the courses separated in a potential Black Studies Department. Ultimately, this essay argues that the melee surrounding the Aptheker appointment was a product of the racial tension on-campus and amongst those with a stake in the History the College was constructing.

Column description. Special Libraries, Special Challenges is a column dedicated to exploring the unique public services challenges that arise in libraries that specialize in a particular subject, such as law, medicine, business, and so forth. In each column, the author will discuss public service dilemmas and opportunities that arise in special libraries. Special or subjectmatter librarians interested in authoring a piece for this column are invited to contact Ilana Stonebraker at stonebraker@purdue.edu. This column is written by Jonathan M. Torres. Jonathan M. Torres is Business Research and Instruction Librarian at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He received his MLIS from Rutgers University

About the Authors

A Brookings Institution Press and National Academy for Social Insurance publication This book presents a cross-cutting assessment of disability income policy in public and private programs in the United States and in European countries. It evaluates whether there is a crisis in disability benefit policy, drawing on an in-depth review of Social Security disability programs by a panel of national experts. In addition to highlighting the panel's findings and recommendations for reform, the authors debate issues in financing and delivering quality health care through Medicare and Medicaid for working-age persons with disabilities, and they examine new developments in how Workers' Compensation organizes and finances cash benefits and health care for workers injured on the job. These developments in benefits and health policy for disabled workers are examined in light of budget constraints and challenges posed by today's rapidly changing labor market. The book concludes with a provocative discussion of "where are the jobs?"--an assessment of growing wage inequality between less skilled and highly skilled workers and the implication of labor market trends for goals of promoting employment among persons with chronic health conditions or disabilities. The contributors include Monroe Berkowitz, Rutgers University; Richard V. Burkhauser, Syracuse University; John Burton, Rutgers University; Philip de Jong, Institute for Law and Public Policy, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Alan Krueger, Princeton University; Katherine Newman, Harvard University; Van Ooms, Committee on Economic Development; Dallas Salisbury, Employee Benefit Research Institute; Leslie Scallet, Mental Health Policy Resource Center; and the Honorable Bruce C. Vladek, Health Care Financing Administration.

Purpose: This study assesses the perception of librarians toward the diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic libraries in Nigeria. Methodology: A questionnaire survey comprising 24 questions was distributed to librarians across selected institutions at the end of the 2024 academic session. Findings: Findings indicate that librarians do not yet fully recognize the transformative potential of AI, highlighting a gap in awareness and training. The study reveals a need for continuous professional development to keep pace with AI advancements and their applications in library services. Additionally, while library users express interest in AI-driven services, few academic libraries in Nigeria have implemented such programs. Implication: This research contributes to the limited literature on librarians' perceptions of AI and offers practical recommendations for integrating AI into academic libraries to enhance efficiency and user satisfaction. Originality/Value: A coordinated effort involving policymakers, library administrators, and educators is essential to harness AI's full potential and ensure sustainable growth in the digital era. Keywords: Artificial intelligence: Academic libraries, Librarians’ perceptions; Nigeria, AI adoption

Online searching of bibliographic databases has become on essential adjunct to reference service in academic libraries. The question of financing this service is explored, focusing on factors of costs user fees. The philosophy expressed is that online searching should have dual support-the library budget and the user fee. Experience with this service at New York University is described.

What would it look like if an academic library turned outward and helped transform its campus community? This is the question that several librarians at Rutgers University Libraries asked when we began deploying tools created by the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation to conduct community conversations with the aim of recalibrating our interactions on campus. The conversations have brought together people from across the university to discuss their aspirations and concerns. These conversations serve as a springboard for unleashing new possibilities as academic libraries span boundaries and occupy a more visible, catalytic role on campus. Last fall, ALA launched a national partnership with the Harwood Institute. The Harwood Institute helps organizations “turn outward” toward their communities through the use of conversations where they gain the “public knowledge” they need to align their work more closely with their community’s aspirations. ALA’s joint initiative, “The Promise of Libraries Transforming Communities,” is developing a national plan to advance community engagement and innovation and transform the role of libraries in their communities. Although a few public libraries have previously used the Harwood framework, Rutgers has pioneered applying this approach in an academic library.

Sustainability, encompassing environmental, economic, and social dimensions, is central to creating a more inhabitable future, and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) address multifaceted challenges, including information access and education inequalities. Libraries, particularly academic libraries, have a core mission to provide and disseminate sustainable information, positioning them as key contributors to achieving the SDGs. This comparative study investigates the diverse roles of academic libraries in advancing these goals across Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Greece, North Macedonia, and Türkiye, chosen for their regional proximity and similar socio-cultural and librarianship contexts. Drawing upon survey data, the study explores the involvement of academic libraries in sustainable development within these countries and the factors influencing their engagement. Despite a low response rate, the findings highlight a growing awareness among academic libraries and librarians toward sustainable development, revealing diverse strategies, successful approaches, and challenges encountered. Ultimately, the study underscores the vital role of academic libraries as catalysts for knowledge dissemination, community empowerment, and innovation in advancing the global sustainability agenda, offering valuable insights for policymakers and library stakeholders.