Critiquing Advocacy Research Findings: An Illustration from the OCLC Report, From Awareness to Funding: A Study of Library Support in America

Abstract

The library profession needs to improve its ability to critically examine advocacy research and statistical studies. More proactive evaluations of claims made in advocacy campaigns and research reports will help improve the overall quality of library advocacy and fortify the institutional standing of libraries. As an illustration, this paper provides an in‐depth assessment of a measurement scheme used in the OCLC study From Awareness to Funding (2008).

Keywords:

• advocacy research
• library research methods
• library assessment
• library statistics
• library evaluation
• performance assessment

Notes

1. Mathematicians refer to such as scale as “dimensionless.”

2. Readers familiar with statistical methods will recognize this idea as similar to expected frequencies and observed frequencies involved in calculating a Chi Square distribution.

3. This figure purposely matches the average number of visits reported in the OCLC study. The hypothetical data created for table 2 were based on this actual average.

4. Visits data are presented throughout the OCLC report, typically expressed in three digits including one decimal place. The report describes these data as “number of library visits,” “annual library visits,” and “frequency of library visits,” implying that these data are counts of library visits. Nonetheless, these data are averages. In all such cases, the report should specify this (OCLC, 2008, pp. xiii, 2–10, 2–19, 2–26, 2–23). Elsewhere in the report visits data are accurately specified as averages (OCLC, 2008, pp. 2–17, 2–24, 2–43, 2–45).