Report on the Self-evaluation of Year One
Analysis of the Self-Evaluation questionnaire survey concerning
Year One of Branching Out: responses from project participantsReport
Briony Train
CIRT (Centre for Information Research)
School of Information Studies
Faculty of Computing, Information & English
University of Central England in Birmingham
Perry Barr
Birmingham
B42 2SU
Tel: 0121 331 6732
Fax: 0121 331 5675
Email: [email protected]
September 1999
This report comprises an evaluation of the Branching Out Self-evaluation questionnaire..
The Self-evaluation questionnaire was distributed in September 1999, towards the end of the first year of Branching Out, the three-year training programme which aims to enable libraries ‘to develop new approaches to involving readers in contemporary literature.’ Compiled by Opening the Book, the aim of the survey was to evaluate the impact thus far of this large-scale project on all participating public librarians, their respective library authorities and their perceptions of its wider impact across the English library community.
This is one of a series of surveys which is being devised both by Opening the Book and by the University of Central England over the course of the three-year project. Data collected is being analysed by UCE and will, upon conclusion of Branching Out, be used as part of a larger report assimilating all evaluative material covering the experiences of the Branching Out librarians.
This report will be circulated to all Branching Out participants, the project Director and her team, and the project Management Board.
Self-evaluation questionnaire.
Opening the Book devised a questionnaire (Appendix One) for completion by Branching Out representatives in September 1999. It was distributed via mailshot on 6th September, for return on 15th September, at a core training day devoted to an evaluation of the first year of the project.
In addition to completing the questionnaire, representatives were required at the training day to work in one of seven groups and make a brief presentation, ‘to evaluate: how you’ve used what you’ve learned, dissemination and your role as a change agent.’ The notes made by the groups for these presentations are included as Appendix Two.
2.1 Dissemination of self-evaluation questionnaire
Although the 34 Branching Out participants represent the 33 English public library authorities selected for the project plus the National Library for the Blind [NLB], the UCE team agreed to omit the NLB from the analysis for this Branching Out research. Much of the Self-evaluation questionnaire refers to networking with – and cascading information to – other authorities, and the NLB, the only library of its kind, is clearly detached from this process.
As the response rate to this questionnaire was 100%, the findings in this report are therefore based on data provided by all 33 public library representatives.
2.2 Details of questionnaire
Please refer to Appendix One for a copy of the Self-evaluation questionnaire.
The questionnaire was designed to provide baseline data and a comprehensive record of the impact of Branching Out to date on the participants, their authorities and the English public library service as a whole.
Divided into seven sections, the document sought information on the following areas:
- Skills addressed in Branching Out training to date
- Skills not yet addressed in Branching Out training
- Workload
- Dissemination
- Impact
- Changes contributed to in Year 1
- Any other comments
2.2.1 Sections One and Two
...were quantitative in nature, consisting of a series of closed questions asking respondents to rate their competency in terms of the skills for which they had either already received training (Section One) or those which will be addressed in the remaining two years of the project (Section Two). As Moore (1987) states, the advantage of this style of questioning is that it provides
…a range of answers and this reduce[s] the chance of the respondent overlooking something and they reduce the possibility of obtaining ambiguous answers.(p.17) 2.2.2 Sections Three to Seven
...collected entirely qualitative data, allowing respondents to provide information in their own words. As Moore (1987) confirms:
When it comes to collecting information about differing shades of opinion, the format of multiple-choice questions ceases to be appropriate. [p.17] This less structured style of questioning undoubtedly requires more time and effort from the respondent in order to complete it. All Branching Out participants have a large workload and very little time to give detailed written answers to questionnaires. Any analysis of qualitative data collected for this project must take this potential limitation into consideration.
32 respondents completed this section.
Figure 1. Skills addressed in Branching Out training to date
Questions
very competent
quite competent
adequate for task
Un-developed
Total no. of respondents
Knowledge of literature networks
2
17
11
2
32
Basic research skills
6
6
16
4
32
Presentations on Branching Out/reader development
5
20
7
0
32
Cascading Branching Out to other staff
6
20
5
1
32
Knowledge of literature and the Web
2
9
15
6
32
Understanding how to target promotions
4
15
6
7
32
Keeping up to date with contemporary literature
8
10
10
4
32
Assessing books for Forager
3
17
10
2
32
Influencing your authority’s selection process to buy a wider range of fiction/poetry
8
11
10
3
32
Developing a regional reading promotion network
3
12
10
7
32
Integrating Branching Out into your authority’s planning process and everyday work
6
13
9
4
32
Total no. of responses at each level of competency
53
150
109
40
As Figure 1 reveals, participants felt on the whole fairly competent in most areas of this skills assessment. The largest group of responses falls at the second level of competency, i.e. quite competent, and the smallest group at the undeveloped level.
Areas of particular interest have been highlighted on the table. For example, 16 participants – exactly half the group of respondents for this question – believed their research skills to be only adequate.
Areas where participants felt themselves to be quite competent include cascading information to other staff, and making presentations in the field of Branching Out or reader development. In the latter area no respondent regarded his/her competency as undeveloped.
Three areas in which more than five respondents described their skills as undeveloped are those which referred to their ‘knowledge of literature and the Web’, their ‘understanding [of] how to target promotions’, and their ability to develop ‘a regional reading promotion network.’
Areas in which one quarter of the group regarded themselves to be very competent are ‘keeping up to date with contemporary literature’ and ‘influencing your authority’s selection process to buy a wider range of fiction/poetry.’
Figure 2. Skills not yet addressed in Branching Out training.
Questions
very competent
quite competent
adequate for task
Un-developed
Total no. of respond-ents
Writing about books in a reader-centred way
0
10
10
12
32
Working with reading groups
4
6
8
15
33
Publicity and media skills
2
10
11
10
33
Designing training sessions
3
10
9
11
33
Delivering training sessions
6
10
8
9
33
Fundraising skills
0
3
7
23
33
Working with designers
0
6
5
22
33
Project management skills
5
11
7
10
33
Evaluation skills
2
10
12
9
33
Total no. of responses at each level of competency
22
76
77
121
The skills which had not been addressed in Branching Out training at the time of the completion of this questionnaire are largely undeveloped: 121 responses fell into the undeveloped category, whereas only 22 were very competent.
Again, figures of particular interest are highlighted on the table. Areas in which no respondent believed him/herself to be very competent were ‘writing about books in a reader-centred way’, ‘fundraising skills’ and ‘working with designers.’
Furthermore, the latter two categories were also those in which the largest two groups of respondents believed their skills to be undeveloped.
4.1 Time allocated to Branching Out workload
All 33 respondents completed this section.
Figure 3: Are you giving less than, equal to or more than one day per week equivalent to Branching Out?
As Figure 3 illustrates, 12 of the total 33 respondents were finding it difficult to allocate one day per week to the Branching Out project. Comments from this group included:
Considerably less! Despite all exhortations/threats etc., I am, like many others, forced to prioritise what I do and when I do it. Less…the problem is, that although work is very supportive, no one ever actually says ‘you don’t have to do a) or b) or c) because you’re having to do Branching Out work’ – so you end up first piling Branching Out work on top of everything else that’s given to you!
However, the remaining 21 were currently working at least one day per week. Within this group, nine are exactly fulfilling the project requirement. Comments from those who were managing to work one day per week on Branching Out included the following:
Just about one day per week on average although commitment tends to come in blocks rather than evenly spread out
Over the last 3 months it has averaged out at a day a week
After several false starts I am ensuring that I work the equivalent of one day per week on Branching Out issues and reader development work.
The remaining 12 were allocating more time than the project requirement. Comments from this group included the following:
In November/December, I totalled approximately 18 hours per month. By June/July, this had risen to approximately 42 hours (without reading for Forager). Things are escalating with obvious implications for relief staffing in the day job.
Usually more than one day per week equivalent – probably closer to about six days per month recently.
- Size of Branching Out workload
All 33 respondents completed this section.
Figure 4: Do you have a manageable amount of work or is there always too much to do?
As the wording of this question did not specifically refer to the workload specifically created by the Branching Out project, there were two possible interpretations of the word ‘workload’: some respondents considered only the work generated by Branching Out, whereas others thought more generally about their overall workload.
As Figure 4 illustrates, 24 of the total 33 respondents felt that their current workload was unreasonably large. Comments received include the following:
Always too much
My workload is too great
I find it really really hard to find the time for Branching Out
Clearly, for many participants it is difficult in just one day to keep up to date with all ongoing Branching Out work, which might at one time include:
Forager content creation
Loud and Proud training plus follow-ups
Loud and Proud promotion plus training and support
Research
Planning for Writer’s Eye
Cascading
Local support to libraries and staff
Miscellaneous paperwork
However, analysis of the responses to this question must take into account the fact that many participants clearly only have too much Branching Out work to do because of the workload they were already committed to prior to the project:
All things are relative – for me it is too much taken alongside my already heavy workload as a senior manger
I feel as though I’m juggling too many balls in the air…
The trouble is there’s lots of other work/projects too!
The workload was not insurmountable for all participants; for some it varied in size from day to day:
There are times when there appears to be too much to do but it evens out over the months.
At times it is too much…
The second group of nine respondents who regarded their workload as ‘About right’, ‘Stretching but achievable’ or as a ‘manageable amount’ were in the minority.
Who knows about Branching Out in your authority/region?
5.1.1 Library staff
A wide range of library staff were shown to be aware of the project. Respondents chose to mention, for example, the Head and Deputy Head of the Libraries Service, the Libraries Senior Management team, a number of specialist and ethnic minority services, senior library assistants and all para-professional staff. Regional training and development officers had also been informed in a limited number of authorities.
5.1.2 Professional bodies
One respondent referred to their regional branch of the Library Association as a recipient of detailed Branching Out information. No other participant referred to their regional branch or to any other specific groups within the LA, or other professional bodies.
5.1.3 EducationRespondents cited a wide range of educational bodies who had received project details: schools, adult education workers, the Local Education Authorities [LEAs] and local universities.
5.1.4 Local government and communityEfforts had been made in a number of authorities to inform local government representatives and councillors.
5.1.5 Arts boards, arts providers
Typically respondents had notified their regional arts boards. In addition some participants had included theatres and the local museums service on their mailing lists.
5.1.6 Media
A number of Branching Out authorities had distributed the original press release, and a smaller group had worked in more detail with local press and radio in order to promote the work of the project.
5.1.7 Media
Local booksellers had been sent information or, in some cases, involved in Branching Out promotions. A small group of Branching Out librarians had also informed their local or regional fiction supplier.
5.1.8 Members of the public
A number of participants had informed some members of the public via their reading or writing groups.
5.2 Who doesn’t know about Branching Out in your authority/region?
The degree of dissemination outlined in section 6.1 is not present in all authorities. For example, approximately half of the group highlighted the fact that there were library staff within their authority who were unaware of the Branching Out project. Many of these staff could be described as para-professional, i.e. are not professionally qualified librarians:
…particularly library assistants who may have heard the name but don’t know much about it. Front-line library staff
However, there are also a number of references to a larger staff group who were currently unaware of Branching Out which included:
Some professional staff, some front-line staff, and
The majority of staff in the central library.
Clearly, not all library staff in the participating authorities were aware of the details of the Branching Out project.
After library staff, the main groups which Branching Out representatives felt to be unaware of project details were:
- County Council committees/departments
- Elected members/councillors
- Regional arts boards
- Bookshops
- Local media (press/radio)
- Arts providers: theatres, arts centres
- Members of the public: service users and non-users
All 33 respondents completed this section.
In this section respondents were invited to give three examples of their perception of the impact of Branching Out, ‘both inside and outside your department and authority.’ Key themes to emerge from this data were:
- personal development
- professional development
- reader development
6.1 Impact on personal development
Reference was made by a small group to opportunities for personal development. For example:
On a more personal level I am reading much more widely and am learning to consider and appreciate the reading experience
One participant referred to ‘the confidence and knowledge I’ve got from Branching Out.’
6.2 Impact on professional development
6.2.1 Stock selection
Branching Out had clearly had a significant impact on stock selection processes which had been completely revised in many cases:
Persuading community librarians to change from buying stock on individual library budgets to working in four teams – fiction, non-fiction, children’s, audio/video, to buy across the authority.
The project has led to changes in the way that some fiction is purchased and generally raised awareness, although not universal enthusiasm, for this material.
I was able to introduce a ‘fiction selection panel’ to replace our old way of buying fiction…
6.2.2 Impact on colleagues
As all Branching Out participants are required to disseminate information pertaining to the project as widely as possible, it is essential that the impact of the project reaches all non-Branching Out library staff. One respondent referred to the regular meetings she had hosted on the subject of ‘Dissemination’ which ‘had got all these new ideas talked about and discussed by all levels of staff’, and as she acknowledged, ‘this paved the way for the huge scale of change we have achieved.’
It must be recognised that this degree of cascading had not necessarily been a part of the culture of an authority – or even branch – in the past, and therefore that additional work was inevitable if a new project is to have an impact on the library staff. Fortunately, however, participants were recognising that Branching Out training
…has helped enormously in relating to the question of front-line staff and helping to enthuse and encourage them to explore new ranges of reading.
6.3 Reader development
6.3.1 The ‘reader-oriented’ approach
Significant in the data collected in this section was the repeated reference to the ‘reader-oriented’/’reader-centred’ approach to librarianship. One participant even stated that she had learned
To think about the reader rather than just the book
6.3.2 Reading groups
Many Branching Out authorities now have reading groups where previously there was no such group. Reasons for this ranged from ‘Branching Out gave me information about how other groups have operated’ to ‘[I] saw how many successful reading groups [there were in the] rest of the country, and had confidence to try it in [my own authority].’
6.3.3 External impact of the project
Although Section 6.2 revealed that there were a number of external organisations who are as yet unaware of the specific details of Branching Out, the reader-centred project is nonetheless clearly reaching many of these areas:
We have tackled a town hall launch, a roadshow, ASDA Big Read days, a family literacy festival and a royal visit!
6.3.4 Promotions
Branching Out trains librarians to develop fiction promotions which target the audience, the reader, rather than simply focusing on a more traditional, genre-related approach. One participant, for example, referred to Hits and Misses, a promotion she and a colleague developed, using a trolley of titles which library users have encouraged or discouraged others to read. As she explained,
This was a colleague’s idea but I was able to use my knowledge of similar promotions discussed at Branching Out training days to advise her about wording and location..
On the whole, the impact of the Branching Out project was entirely visible to the project participants, and all were able to provide at least three examples to support their view.
All 33 participants completed this section of the questionnaire, which sought information concerning fundamental changes Branching Out participants felt that they had contributed to in Year One of the project. Respondents were asked to describe the areas in which change had been effected and to indicate to what extent they felt that the change process had been developed to date.
The role which respondents felt that they were playing in the change process is extremely varied:
- enabler
- trainer
- informer
- advocate
- monitor
- team leader
- manager
- facilitator
- chair at meetings.
Although many changes were referred to in this section, the majority can be divided thematically as follows, beginning with the most frequently cited:
7.1 Stock selection
More than two-thirds of the group cited stock selection as one of their chosen areas for change. More specific requirements ranged from alterations to the existing branch/authority stock management policy to a desire to ‘increase stock turn and stimulate issues, to offer readers more choice.’
Two participants hoped for ‘a more streamlined/effective/co-operative approach to selection’, ‘to spend more time on new titles and genres.’ This would model the approach to selection by Oxfordshire authority, whose project ‘Unclassified’ aimed
To demonstrate the impact of an integrated approach to selection and promotion.
In implementing these changes, respondents hoped not only ‘to extend reader choice’ but more significantly to bring about ‘changes in culture to stock selection and the librarian’s role.’
People involved in the change process included stock selection teams and/or stock managers in almost all cases, although a smaller group of respondents suggested that the work of ‘staff at all levels including managers’ was required.
The level of change in current stock selection practice achieved to date within these authorities varied greatly, although a large proportion of respondents believed that they had almost completed the change process.
7.2 Staff training and support
Almost two-thirds of participants looked to Branching Out to help them to change and improve the current level of staff training and support in the field of reader development.
At a fundamental level, respondents would like to ‘improve the image of reading amongst staff’ and to encourage ‘reading amongst employees.’ On the whole, however, the desire was more in terms of providing staff with the knowledge necessary to cascade the message of Branching Out to service users. Terms used included ‘re-skilling’, ‘training’, ‘cascading’, ‘empowering’, ‘persuading’.
Development groups had been established in several authorities in order to ‘retrain key staff in the Branching Out philosophy’, or in some cases changes were being planned within the structure of existing arts/literature working groups.
The majority of those involved in these changes were managers or senior branch staff. However, a small number of authorities had also included literature development officers in training issues.
On the whole, the level of change achieved to date in this area was low.
7.3 Reader Development as central to the librarian’s role
A desire to improve the status currently held by reader development was cited by a number of participants, who would like
To make reader development a mainstream part of the librarian’s duties, to widen the library reader base
To establish an ongoing commitment to reader development in the region
To persuade senior management that reader development is an important part of the service.
In authorities where reader development was already firmly on the agenda, respondents would like:
To provide a shape and cohesion to existing work in reading development.
At a more practical level, one respondent would like to bring.
…reader development to the attention of those who influence spending.
Staff involved in this process included library assistants, managers, senior managers, the literature support group, reading group facilitators and even Local Education Authorities and arts councils.
A great deal of work was still needed in order to implement change in this area in the majority of authorities, although one respondent who had informed the ‘Head of Culture and Tourism’ suggested that the process in their authority was almost complete.
7.4 Increased number of fiction promotions
Fiction promotions are an essential part of the work of Branching Out, and each authority participating in the project is receiving support in developing and publicising a number of such projects. There were a number of changes in process in this area. One participant wanted to develop promotional standards for his/her authority, in order to create consistently ‘exciting/relevant/plentiful’ promotions.
A larger group wanted to make more use of national promotions, perhaps increasing the strength of external partnerships in order to do so. In accordance with the work of Branching Out, other respondents would like to promote contemporary fiction and to create
More reader-centred promotions.
Staff at all levels were involved in work being carried out on fiction promotions, and one authority in particular was making use of a wide range of people from outside the library network, informing:
…the reader in residence, non/ex users, new writers or poets, writing groups, reading groups, publishers.
With one exception, the degree of change achieved to date in this area was extremely low, never exceeding 25%. However, one authority had entirely changed its standard promotional practice and had used Branching Out in order to become involved in a national project.
7.5 Strengthening of networks/ literature development groups
In this section a number of participants acknowledged the lack of strong networks in the field of literature development. One described a need for
…greater involvement at a regional level and the formation of a literature support/development group.
Calls were also made for ‘better regional networking’, ‘more inter-authority co-operation’ and ‘closer links with regional and local arts officers/boards’. One participant believed her authority to be 40% through the process of developing a
network of organisations involved in reader development,
whereas those authorities whose networks were clearly at a more advanced stage, wanted to develop existing relations with the local literature network.
A reasonable degree of change had been achieved in the area of networking, and a number of external organisations had clearly been involved.
7.6 Developing an improved service to young people (18-40)
Relatively frequent reference was made to the need for changes to be made to the existing service provision for young people between the ages of 18 and 40. Indeed, one of the original aims of the Branching Out project was
…to work especially with people aged 18-30 (25-34 is the age group currently most under-represented among readers who use libraries).
Some members of the group were concentrating on creating changes to their service which were more attractive to people aged between 18 and 30, whereas others broadened this to include users or non-users aged up to 40.
In general, respondents did not yet feel that their work had attracted young people to the library service, although one authority, involving all staff in the process, regarded their revised stock selection and promotional practice as factors of their 80% change.
7.7 Support of reading groups
Respondents here were divided into two groups: those who had already established reading groups within their authority and were looking to develop means of providing
Continuing support for newly formed readers’ groups,
and those who wanted either to create an entirely new reading group programme or to ‘establish reading groups in all libraries.’
People whom participants wished to involve in reading groups ranged from established reading group members and the public in general to community librarians and book publishers.
7.8 Raising the profile of the public library service
Reader development was clearly being used by a number of respondents in order to raise the profile of their library service and to attract new membership. Participants wanted to develop
…a greater recognition for the adult service, with a view to changing people’s perception of libraries.
A desire was also expressed to identify the needs of non-users in order to increase library issues.
Participants were unanimous in their decision that all staff should be involved in raising the profile of the library. People they hoped to recruit outside the library were members of the local County Council and the media.
At this relatively early stage of the project, little change had been achieved in this area.
7.9 Additional changes sought by participants
Changes referred to by a smaller number of respondents included the following:
- attracting funding
- using new technology in reader development
- increasing the current contact with publishers.
30 respondents completed this section.
Almost all participants provided very detailed responses to this request for further comments. The questionnaire provided a list of possible subjects to consider (see Appendix One), but in addition some respondents referred to a number of other areas which they regarded as higher priorities. The most frequently cited subject areas are covered below.
8.1 Networking within Branching Out
Communication was undoubtedly good between participants, who made frequent reference to a strong working relationship:
I wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to see others and share ideas and fears.
Best opportunity for networking and sharing ‘best practice’ I’ve ever had!
Great group of people.
However, certain participants, while acknowledging the benefits of such relationships, found them difficult to maintain:
…[I] would like to know more about what’s happening elsewhere…[I]feel there are some BOuters I’ve had very little contact with.
Certainly, maintaining regular contact was less straightforward for some participants than for others: not all had access to electronic mail or even fax machines.
8.2 Core Training Days
The largest section of comments concerned the Branching Out core training days.
8.2.1 Travelling
In Year One of the project there were ten core training days, and as participants are based at libraries throughout England, a great deal of travelling was involved, which for some people
…is becoming a drag (and for some an expensive one too). Considerations should be given to settling on a more limited number of locations, acceptable to everyone.
If travelling time could be reduced in any way e.g. more use of Midlands area, that would be helpful.
Instead of this travelling some participants would have preferred
…fewer national meetings and more regional ones where we would work on practical initiatives.
8.2.2 Quality of training
Many positive comments were made concerning the quality of core training day sessions:
The training days give me a buzz, an adrenaline rush, and an urge to go out and change attitudes, ask questions, develop ideas.
Opening the Book trainers are brill!
For some participants, however, the quality has not been consistently good:
Some speakers have been excellent but the quality and level of some other days has varied.
There was also a group of respondents who felt dissatisfied with the quality of training received to date, which at times
…has not seemed relevant or appropriate.
Another participant made the following comment:
Up to present I, personally, feel I haven’t learnt a good deal from the core training days.
8.2.3 Level of training
A further problem which emerged from the comments made in this section was that a number of participants were dissatisfied with the level at which some training sessions were pitched:
Several training sessions seem to have been pitched at the lowest common denominator.
Even when the group has been divided according to their level of experience and skills, participants were aware
…that the advanced group had higher expectations and ambitions than the training delivered.
However, some participants acknowledged that pitching the days at an appropriate level to suit all members of the group could be problematic, as they were
…all at different stages within authorities, different levels of expertise – [this is] good for exchanging ideas and knowledge but difficult in constructing some of the training days to appeal to some levels.
- Depth of training
A number of references were made to the often superficial coverage of subjects at core training days. Examples of comments received include the following:
…the core training days try to cover too many different topics in one day.
I feel that at every core training day something new comes up, and we don’t consolidate what has gone before.
- Evaluation
Evaluation was clearly a matter of concern for many project participants, who felt that there was a lack of opportunity for them to provide feedback on the training they had received.
The training days have been largely useful – although I do feel that their usefulness has been taken on trust in that there hasn’t been too much opportunity to comment/evaluate.
A second participant suggested that
We need more chance to discuss the project – we have not yet had the opportunity to voice our problems, concerns etc. at any great length and one slot every quarter in each core training day would be valuable.
- Consultancy days
At the time of the completion of this questionnaire, a number of the authorities involved in the project had not yet arranged their consultancy day from Opening the Book and were therefore unable to comment. Those who had, however, were positive in their reactions:
The consultancy days are an excellent resource.
Consultancy days: very useful as [they were] targeted to the organisation and a specific audience. As well as helping us in projects…the biggest impact has been in encouraging staff to introduce small-scale reader promotions.
8.3 Visible outcomes of Branching Out
A number of references were made to a need for the project to produce a more tangible, ‘concrete’ outcome:
…we do need to begin to see some concrete actions which are clearly associated with Branching Out.
I understand why we have proceeded slowly during Year One, but feel that we now need to show something more concrete.
However, certain participants acknowledged that promotions they had already worked on had satisfied this need for ‘proof’ of outcome:
The Writer’s Eye promotion has helped in the North West authorities to see something concrete coming out of Branching Out.
- Priorities for Years Two and Three
Participants stated a wide range of priorities for the remaining two years of the project. These focused in particular on training. Respondents felt that there was a need for training in the following areas:
- ICT: web page design, database construction
- Marketing: fundraising, designing promotions, organising events
- Training the trainers: to achieve effective cascading of Branching Out principles to others
- More effective work with external organisations – booksellers, publishers, regional arts boards
- Establishing more effective means of pooling resources - e.g. ‘production of shared information packs’
Participants also wanted to prioritise the national promotional projects:
They are tangible. The benefits can be seen and explained. Other organisations in each region can visit to see how they operate.
9. Conclusions
9.1 Response rate
The 100% response rate to the questionnaire is a clear indication of the high level of participants’ commitment to the project. Comments from respondents reinforce this:
Brilliant project, superb high-quality training and excellent self-development for me. First and foremost Branching Out has given me a renewal of enthusiasm for books, reading and reader development.
Branching Out is fulfilling all expectations. It is a wonderful opportunity for library authorities and I am confident that it will have a very positive impact.
9.2 Training
As Section 3 revealed, half of the group regarded their research skills to be only ‘adequate.’ Further training is clearly necessary in this area, particularly as years two and three of the project will require all participants to design and evaluate their own areas of research.
9.3 Dissemination of the project
Also pertaining to the skills assessment (Section 3), Figure 1 revealed that the majority of participants believed their cascading skills to be ‘quite competent’ or ‘very competent.’ However, in Section 6.2, a number of respondents admitted that there were many people who had not yet received full details of the project, including many library staff and representatives from the following areas:
- County Council committees/departments
- Elected members/councillors
- Regional arts boards
- Bookshops
- Local media (press/radio)
- Arts providers: theatres, arts centres
- Members of the public: service users and non-users.
In a number of authorities, the details of the Branching Out project were clearly being cascaded not only internally within the library authority but on a far wider scale via a series of complex external networks. However, a comprehensive level of dissemination has not yet been achieved.
9.4 Travelling involved
A number of participants were unhappy with the amount of travelling required to core training days or regional meetings. As the project involves representatives from library authorities throughout England, some degree of travelling will clearly be necessary in order that participants are able to meet and pool resources, an aspect of Branching Out they clearly find to be invaluable:
Best opportunity for networking and sharing ‘best practice’ I’ve ever had!
Fortunately, the travelling time involved in years two and three of the project should be reduced, as there will be four fewer core training days, and the focus of the remaining time will be on regional meetings – which will involve fewer long journeys.
9.5 Overall impact of the project
For all Branching Out participants the impact of the project had been considerable. A number of changes have been achieved in all authorities, but areas in which attitudinal changes are particularly notable are those of stock selection and reader development.
The Oxfordshire approach to stock selection as developed by Opening the Book and Oxfordshire Libraries has had a clear impact on many Branching Out authorities. Participants in these authorities believed that as a result of training in this area their selection practice had dramatically changed over the first year of the project:
The project has led to changes in the way that some fiction is purchased and generally raised awareness…
I was able to introduce a 'fiction selection panel' to replace our old way of buying fiction.
Also present in the data collected in Section 7 was a repeated reference to the 'reader-oriented'/'reader-centred' approach to librarianship. Participants felt that they had learned
To think about the reader rather than just the book.
This would seem to be evidence of the gradual move towards reader development as an integral part of the public library service, a move which the Branching Out project is clearly working towards.
A number of recommendations to make the Branching Out project more effective have emerged from this research.
- More focus at core training days: respondents repeatedly requested a more in-depth coverage of subjects at core training days. Although the training programme for a project as large as Branching Out will inevitably be intensive, perhaps more time could be spent ensuring that participants feel sufficiently confident and able not only to cascade information but also to pass on the training to all relevant staff within their authorities.
- Time management training: a number of participants have difficulty coping with the workload which they feel that Branching Out has generated in addition to their original workload. Further training is required in order to encourage a number of participants to integrate Branching Out more thoroughly into their existing workload in order to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort. However, it is not within the remit of Branching Out to provide such training, and all participating library authorities are responsible for recognising and meeting any such training needs within that authority.
- To continue research into personal development: the Self-evaluation questionnaire was an attempt to evaluate participants’ learning process over the first year of the project. Further research is required in order to develop means of researching this impact in more detail over the remaining two years of the project. All research into personal development could be assimilated in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the impact which this unique project has had on its participants.
Moore, N. (1987) How to do research. London: The Library Association
Opening the Book (1998) Press release: Branching Out
SCL (1998) The Society of Chief Librarians’ Application for A4E Funding (Branching Out)
Van Riel et al. (1999) ‘Unclassified’: a new approach to promoting contemporary fiction in large libraries. Branching Out stock selection training document
