The Position and Prospects of Academic Libraries: Weaknesses, Threats and Proposed Strategic Directions

Abstract

This is the second article in a two-part SWOT analysis of academic libraries. The purpose of this research is to guide strategy development, decision making and advancement of positioning by identifying and analyzing the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats impacting academic libraries. Its premise is that an understanding of these elements, their overlap and the interplay between them is an essential foundation for the effective development of strategy. The research is unique in applying SWOT analysis to academic libraries collectively.

The second article focuses on weaknesses and threats. Weaknesses are identified as conservatism, stakeholder misperceptions, economics and diversity. Declining position, identity blurring, competition and uncertainty constitute the key threats. Examination of these factors is followed by a discussion of the whole analysis and a proposed framework for future strategy development and positioning, based on ten strategic directions emerging from the analysis. These are: active positioning; knowing the territory; being politically attuned; prioritizing outward engagement; maximizing social capital; communicating value and identity; embracing uncertainty; addressing diversity deficits; leveraging change in scholarly communications; and maintaining long-term perspective.

Keywords:

• Academic libraries
• strategic positioning
• SWOT analysis
• threats
• weaknesses

Introduction

This article is the second in a two-part SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of academic libraries. It examines weaknesses and threats, complementing the focus of the first article (Cox, 2023) on strengths and opportunities. The purpose of the overall analysis is to guide strategy development, decision making and advancement of positioning by academic libraries by identifying and analyzing their key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Its emphasis is on understanding these elements, their overlap and the interplay between them as an essential foundation for the effective development of academic library strategy. The study aims to cultivate a deeper appreciation of the internal and external factors shaping the situation of academic libraries and informing their strategic positioning. This research is original in applying the SWOT analysis methodology to academic libraries collectively, as distinct from its previously reported use in relation to individual libraries, countries or areas of practice.

The first article set the context, reviewed the literature, introduced the SWOT analysis technique and described some specific features of its application to this analysis, before selecting and examining four strengths and four opportunities. Strengths emerged as centrality, values, collaboration and reinvention, while the opportunities identified were the post-COVID world, digital scholarship, open scholarship and learning space. The second part of the study turns the focus on weaknesses and threats, followed by a discussion of the whole analysis which covers 16 factors identified across all four SWOT dimensions in terms of their interaction and influence on academic libraries. A framework for future strategy development and positioning, based on ten strategic directions, is proposed ahead of some concluding comments.

It is important to be aware that, although SWOT analysis is a well-established methodology commonly used in strategic planning, it has some deficits too. It carries risks of subjectivity, bias, and over-simplification, sometimes only generating lengthy and unstructured lists of factors which lack the required depth of understanding of context and interconnectivity for strategy development. The current study seeks to avoid falling into those traps in applying SWOT analysis to academic libraries in general. The number of factors in each SWOT dimension is limited to four. Each has been selected following an extensive reading of the literature and consultation of three business frameworks which were described in the first article and add deeper analysis to the SWOT technique: VRIO (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organisation-supported) (Barney, 1991, 1995), RPV (Resources, Processes and Values) (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000) and Porter’s Five Forces (Porter, 1979). Inclusion is driven by the long-term influence a factor exerts on academic library strategy, status and positioning, as well as its broad significance and operation at a macro scale across the whole library.

Commentary on each factor takes account of wider contexts, especially the higher education environment, and interconnections with other factors chosen in this analysis. This approach recognizes that strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are not mutually exclusive but may interact dynamically to shape each other and indeed evolve on occasion from inclusion in one of these four dimensions to categorization in another of them. Finally, it is noted that strengths and weaknesses tend to focus more on internal influences than threats and opportunities which emphasize external factors (Panagiotou, 2003; Sarsby, 2016). This analysis therefore ensures a balance of forces from within and without in each article by its coverage of strengths and opportunities in its first part and of weaknesses and threats in this second article.

SWOT analysis

The next sections of this paper comprise the second part of the SWOT analysis of academic libraries, covering selected weaknesses and threats, four in each case. The analysis follows a common structure. Factors chosen as weaknesses or threats are listed under that heading, followed by a table summarizing them, their negatives, counterweights and strategic implications. Each selected factor is then discussed in more detail, expanding on the summary text in the tables to draw out the significance of the item in question and the evidence supporting its inclusion.

Weaknesses

Four weaknesses have been selected as having greatest significance:

• an overly conservative and cautious approach, failing to exploit opportunities fully and discontinuing past activities too slowly

• underestimation of actual and potential library roles by stakeholders, compromising academic library influence and resourcing

• an economic situation in which often static budgets chase sustained rises in expectations and costs, especially for journal content

• a significant deficit in the diversity of academic library staffing and collections, negatively impacting service development and user experience (Table 1).

Table 1. Weaknesses and their implications.

Weaknesses	Negatives	Counterweights	Strategy implications
Conservatism	Hesitancy towards opportunities Slow discontinuation Inward focus	Reflects campus mindset Successful reinvention	Cultivate experimentation Strengthen external engagement
Stakeholder misperceptions	Dated, narrow perceptions Underestimation Benign neglect	Positive sentiment towards library	Communicate impact Emphasize institutional priorities
Economics	Declining share of budget Dysfunctional journals market Value harder to prove	Consortium purchasing Others questioning journal costs	Promote stakeholder understanding Explain costs, choices, value
Diversity	Staffing unrepresentative of users Collections bias Very slow change	Institutional and societal EDI focus	Prioritize intentional diversity plans

Conservatism

A somewhat conservative, overly cautious, approach may slow the progress of academic libraries and prevent them from reaching their full potential. This conservatism manifests itself in various ways. There can be a slowness to appreciate major change early on, exemplified by what Lancaster (1978) perceived as a myopic view of the beginnings of the shift from paper to online communication in the late 1970s. Even today there is sometimes a library staff defensiveness towards print which views digital formats as rivalrous rather than complementary. Conservatism may be contributing towards a slow engagement with artificial intelligence (Wheatley & Hervieux, 2020). Discontinuing past activities is a challenge for libraries and Peter Drucker’s concept of planned abandonment has featured very rarely in the library literature (Martin & Sheehan, 2018). A reluctance to let go of what has worked in the past risks reducing the scope for creativity and adaptation in a fast-changing environment.

The effectiveness of strategic planning may be limited by the mindset and tendency towards internal focus shaping how it is undertaken. Budd (2018) observes a librarian tendency towards linear thinking, seeing things in isolation, and not linking developments in the outside world to the local environment. This has some resonance with the findings of Saunders (2016) whose analysis of 63 academic library plans revealed an inward focus on library functions such as collections and space. Only 17 (27%) of the plans made explicit connections with the wider institutional plan. The 2019 Ithaka S + R survey of US library directors is interesting in its reporting of how director time is distributed, with over 40% committed to administration and leadership of the library as opposed to less than 20% spent on wider campus engagement (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020b). The distributed nature of resources and influence on campus makes relationship-building especially important to advance the library agenda (Bryant et al., 2020). Any inclination to hang back from full engagement with the wider campus carries risk.

Conservatism has not prevented major progress by academic libraries. Their successful reinvention in recent times has been credited as a strength in this study, as has their initiative in engaging in and often leading collaborations, partnerships and convergences on campus. A level of caution is often appropriate when parent institutions and academic staff are slow to change. Nevertheless, a more adventurous, entrepreneurial and experimental mindset could enable faster progress, alongside a greater willingness to disinvest from past activities without major loss. This could realize greater creativity and innovation, with a move towards more risk-taking and acceptance of failure or imperfection. Projecting a greater confidence towards the rest of the campus and directing more time towards engagement beyond the library could also help to overcome the stakeholder misperceptions identified in the next section.

Stakeholder misperceptions

The perceptions of key stakeholders about what academic libraries actually do and can potentially offer to the institution are often inaccurate or incomplete. They commonly reflect a lack of understanding and tend towards a significant underestimation of the library role. This can bring consequences in terms of the visibility of the library, its influence on campus, the extent to which its contribution is appreciated and ultimately the resources allocated to it. Academic libraries often occupy a distinctive place in the minds of senior institutional leaders and administrators who are likely to have used them during their own time as students. As a result, many may hold dated perceptions of the library. Senior figures may exhibit at best a benign neglect (Fister, 2015) or, more unhelpfully, an indifference towards a department which some take for granted, seeing it as low-profile, not a problem and neither a strategic concern nor a risk (Baker & Allden, 2017). The ratings by institutional leaders of the contribution of libraries towards strategic priorities are concerning. More than 200 US provosts surveyed in 2016 most commonly perceived libraries as only “somewhat involved” in retention, student academic success, faculty research productivity, and accreditation (Murray & Ireland, 2018).

A similar pattern is evident in academic staff perceptions. Traditionalism shows itself in the predominant faculty view that the content buyer role is the most important library function, a rating consistently expressed in the Ithaka S + R survey of academic staff in the US since 2003 (Blankstein, 2022). Frustratingly, research support ranks lowest with equal consistency. Student perceptions are shaped by a limited knowledge of library staff and their roles, based typically on experience of only a narrow range of available services and a tendency not to ask for help (Fagan et al., 2021). There is also, however, plenty of positive stakeholder sentiment. Many of the studies mentioned show that administrators and leaders value the work of academic libraries, including their strong customer focus (Baker & Allden, 2017; Connaway et al., 2017; Fister, 2015; Robertson, 2015). Faculty are often loyal supporters and appreciative of librarians (Atkins, 1991; Fagan et al., 2022). Students see the library as a place for productivity and they increasingly recognize librarians’ teaching roles (De Rosa et al., 2014; Fagan et al., 2021).

Misperceptions nevertheless persist, with negative consequences, and there is an imperative to combat this source of weakness. A strategic approach to effective communication, linking a broad range of library activities to outcomes related to institutional priorities, is important. Prioritizing strong and proactive engagement with the wider institutional agenda and leveraging intelligence about learning and research is something for which library staff are well placed, given the diversity of the audience with which they interact.

Economics

Higher education institutions have experienced a very difficult economic climate in the past two decades. The impact on academic libraries has been severe and more than 80% of US library directors surveyed have identified lack of financial resources as a key constraint (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020b). Inflation has made an unwelcome return to levels unseen for decades. This will further erode the purchasing power of libraries, coming on top of an ongoing reduction in their share of the institutional expenditure budget which now stands at less than 2% for members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), half its 1982 level (Rauf, 2017).

The cost of content, particularly journals, is at the core of libraries’ economic struggles. Björk (2021) provides a stark analysis of the scholarly journal publishing market. Price competition is low, driving costs well above inflation across many decades, with publishers in control and libraries effectively locked into ongoing subscriptions due to high academic demand. Recurrent subscriptions therefore account for an increasing proportion of library materials budgets, 73.8% for the US in 2020 (American Library Association, 2020). Technology costs are also increasingly recurrent. High recurrent costs and limited income generation can fuel a view of academic libraries as cost centers primarily, epitomized by Munn’s (1968) “bottomless pit” terminology. Administrator focus may be more on costs than benefits and this, allied to stakeholder perceptions, described earlier, of the library as low-profile and having moderate impact on strategic priorities, can be dangerous. Proving library value becomes an imperative (Oakleaf, 2010) but can be difficult to achieve in hard economic terms.

The link between library value and outcomes such as student success is focused more commonly on correlation than hard proof. It is often very difficult to connect library contributions uniquely and in isolation with, say, student retention which involves many parties (Allen, 2014). Library value was solid and tangible when traditionally associated with buildings and physical collections but is now softer and more subtle when mediated via technology, partnerships and third parties. The challenge of proving economic value is compounded by a lack of confidence among library staff in their proficiency with rigorous research methods, including statistical and data analysis (Cheng & Hoffman, 2020).

Academic libraries confront numerous economic vulnerabilities. Optimal use of resources will continue to be imperative, including consortium purchasing arrangements, shared services and the shifting of journal expenditure from subscriptions to open access publishing. Open scholarship has helpfully generated questions about journal costs from others, including governments and research funders. Prioritizing the communication of value to stakeholders proactively and on their terms merits repetition here. This could be complemented by a concerted effort to cultivate a deeper understanding of the costs and choices confronting the academic library to inform its future resourcing.

Diversity

The killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis in May 2020 and the ensuing wave of Black Lives Matter protests worldwide heightened awareness of racial inequality, including in higher education, with institutions committing to address instances of racism in their history. Longstanding deficits in academia include the foregrounding of “white bourgeois men from western Europe and North America” (Connell, 2019, p. 35) as the leading figures credited with knowledge creation and literary achievement, under-representation of knowledge from other sources, and the dominance of English as the language of publication.

Diversity is a core value of librarianship, but academic libraries have inherited the vulnerabilities of their parent institutions. A lack of ethnic diversity stands out in the staffing profile of libraries in general. Figures for those identifying as White were recorded at 87.8% for credentialed librarians in the US in 2019 (Deards & Puente, 2020) and at 96.7% for respondents to a UK survey of the library and related fields workforce in 2015 (Archives and Records Association UK and Ireland and CILIP, 2015). For academic libraries specifically, a 2017 Ithaka S + R study found that White staff accounted for 71% of the total, 82% of professionals and 89% of leaders at 98 responding ARL members (Schonfeld & Sweeney, 2017). This homogeneity is at odds with the increasing diversification of the student body, often rendering academic libraries unrepresentative of their main user base. Academic library collections are key sources of knowledge production but are also prone to bias and unrepresentativeness. Contributory factors include the traditional favoring of the majority culture by the parent institution, selection processes lacking diverse perspectives and domination of journal budgets by a few major publishers (Wilson, 2022). Under-representation of material from the Global South can negatively impact research and learning, with local collections strongly influencing the inclusiveness or otherwise of academic program reading lists.

Despite much concern in the profession, progress towards improved diversity has been slow. A study of 74 EDI strategies from ARL libraries finds plenty of statements of support but a shortage of concrete action plans, with only 16% of libraries committed to assessing progress (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020c). Deficits in staffing and collections diversity and indeed in awareness of same, allied to slow progress in addressing them at a time of heightened institutional and societal concern about social justice, represent a significant weakness for academic libraries. Tackling these deep-rooted problems will call for extra effort and leadership prioritization, including appropriate resourcing of intentional strategies, in turn backed by action-oriented and systematically assessed diversity plans, as developed in other sectors (Alburo et al., 2020). Ultimately, the key may be to view diversity as a customer-based business decision, not just a value (Stoffle & Cuillier, 2010).

Threats

These are the four threats selected as most influential

• a declining position in the institution, with the library lower down the hierarchy and enjoying less independence and share of institutional expenditure

• less clarity of identity and unique value proposition in the digital world, combined with reduced visibility and recognition in newer organizational configurations

• competition for influence and resourcing from within the institution, and for service provision to users from without

• global uncertainty and political, economic, social and technological disruption, creating a very challenging operating environment (Table 2)

Table 2. Threats and their implications.

Threats	Negatives	Counterweights	Strategy implications
Declining position	Lower in institutional hierarchy Reduced visibility Less influence, budget	Alignment with academic units	Focus on institutional priorities Capitalize on COVID gains
Identity blurring	Less distinctive brand, value Credit diluted Professional identity unclear	Longevity, established presence	Promote distinctiveness Communicate unique role, value
Competition	Contested service ownership Rivalry for position, resourcing Disintermediation	Enduring trust in library	Evolve value proposition Balance collegiality with competition
Uncertainty	Unstable environment Changes beyond library control AI, scholarly communication shifts	Previous resilience and adaptability	Embrace uncertainty Shape change Use values as anchor

Declining position

The former dominance of print gave academic libraries a leading position in their institutions as they exercised a monopoly on access to knowledge and were the key agents in its preservation, operating as independent units on which a major part of the academic mission depended. Today academic libraries occupy a less lofty position on campus. They still retain their centrality, but this is based on a more diffuse and less tangible value proposition than before in a changed campus environment which has appreciably reduced their influence, thereby posing a threat to their future success. The signs of a decline in status are evident, especially in the reporting line of the library director. Only four of 88 UK directors surveyed in 2017 and ten of 662 in the US in 2019 reported to the head of the institution (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020b; Gwyer, 2018). The US survey also found that fewer than half of the directors strongly agreed that they were perceived as a member of the senior academic leadership of their institution in 2019, down from over 60% in 2013.

A further source of concern is the location of the library in the organizational structure. It is no longer an independent unit and is typically grouped with other departments under a member of the institutional leadership team, usually but not always aligned with the academic management structure. These new organisational configurations, arising as institutions have grown in size and complexity, have tended to move the library director further away from the top table (Gwyer, 2018). The consequences of decline are clear. Positioning affects the recognition, resourcing and prospects of academic libraries and their place in the power structures of the institution (Atkins, 1991; Corrall, 2014; Cox, 2018). Limited influence is evident in a survey of UK library staff in which only just over 40% of respondents believed the library is involved in institution-wide decision making (Pinfield et al., 2017). The library budget now accounts for half of its 1982 share of institutional expenditure (Rauf, 2017), with slim prospects for improvement (Cooper et al., 2022).

Academic libraries can nevertheless improve their positioning and mitigate the threat posed by further decline. Those US library directors with a well-developed strategy to meet changing user needs are more likely to feel part of the institutional leadership (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020b). Related to this, there are benefits to be gained by a constructive response to the urging by university leaders for directors to prioritize the needs of the institution over those of the library (Baker & Allden, 2017; Cooper et al., 2022). There is also the opportunity to build on increased recognition following a strong academic library performance during the COVID pandemic (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020a).

Identity blurring

Identity has been defined as clarity about who you are, what you do and who benefits, such that users understand what the library is and has to offer (Walters & Jackson, 2013). Academic libraries have shown strength in reinventing themselves in the digital world, offering new value to users. This value is, however, often delivered in partnership with others, frequently mediated by technology rather than in person, and less obviously identified with the library than before. The identity of academic libraries is therefore less distinctive and more blurred with other entities, creating a threat in terms of insufficient recognition, support and realization of full potential.

Library work has changed, and so have the people doing it in terms of their origins, collaborators and configurations. Diversification into areas such as digital literacy, open scholarship and digital scholarship makes it harder to identify staff through a set of core skills. In a 2017/18 survey of qualified librarians only ten of 53 skills, aptitudes, and knowledge areas were identified as core by more than 50% of the participants (Saunders, 2020). Seven of the ten core areas were generic, including teamwork and customer service, rather than specific to academic libraries. Another survey of over 700 information professionals generated many definitions of professional identity (Campbell-Meier & Hussey, 2019). Library staff themselves appear to be struggling to recognize and project a distinctive identity.

Collaboration with different parties on campus is essential to many newer areas of library work. Staff from other units are often hosted in the library building, providing support in areas such as academic writing, mathematics and study skills. Lewis (2016) sees this as a strengthening trend to support student success, while acknowledging a blurring of boundaries between the library and other service providers. This blurring is also linked to an earlier trend towards organizational convergence with other services (Bulpitt, 2012). Convergence may be seen to have influenced a further dilution of the library identity, including occasional grouping in the institution’s organizational structure with student services or teaching and learning functions rather than with the whole academic mission.

Identity blurring poses a threat for academic libraries. Their unique contribution may be hidden among multiple, sometimes higher-profile, partners and not appropriately credited in the institution. Users may not recognize the library offering fully, with uptake falling below its potential. None of these outcomes is helpful towards the resourcing, influence and effectiveness of the academic library. Despite their longevity as an established campus presence, academic libraries need to be sensitive to the blurring of their identity and its possible consequences. Clear and effective communication of the library’s distinctive value, purpose and relevance to users requires ongoing effort, using compelling language to harness coherently the best elements of its traditional and newer offerings.

Competition

Competition in higher education is not new but has intensified in recent decades. Reduced direct financial support by governments in many countries has been a key factor, leaving institutions to compete against each other for funding, faculty, students and global ranking position. This in turn has generated intense local competition within campuses. Beyond resourcing, there is rivalry for position. Exclusive service ownership by any unit is increasingly rare and collaborators can also be competitors. Academic libraries need to work with a range of parties, notably research offices, teaching and learning support units, information technology teams, and academic departments. Some of these entities may strive to assert leadership at the expense of the library.

Another driver for increased competition has been a gradual breaking down of the distinction between academic and administrative functions, opening up a “third space” (Whitchurch, 2008). Areas of joint engagement for library, academic and other staff include learning skills development, student well-being, and institutional research. This third space presents opportunities for libraries but also challenges through contested leadership and bypassing by “unbounded” (pp. 10-11) professionals from other units who may show greater agility in engaging with institution-wide issues (Whitchurch, 2013).

Academic libraries face even stronger and often more agile, well resourced, competition from providers beyond their campuses. At the forefront is Google, offering fast and convenient discovery and access to academic literature. Commercial publishers are highly active competitors too, seeking to support scholarly writing workflows through reference management platforms, alongside a host of other productivity tools for discovery, analysis, publication and outreach (Kramer & Bosman, 2015). Disintermediation is a key threat posed to libraries by competition. Over a fifth of respondents to the 2021 Ithaka S + R US faculty survey strongly agreed that the role of the librarian is much less important due to ease of access to academic content online (Blankstein, 2022). Users are increasingly self-sufficient in areas formerly requiring library intervention, and a diverse choice of easily accessible networked services from external suppliers is available to them for increased productivity. External third parties, delivering services at scale, can forge relationships directly with users, bypassing the library in areas of interest to it.

Evolving and adapting their value proposition has proved a valuable strategy for academic libraries against internal and external competition. It will continue to be important to highlight the distinctiveness of the library offering, leveraging the enduring high levels of trust in libraries. Finding an appropriate balance between collaboration and competition on campus will need attention. Complementing and adding value to the services of external providers may make more sense than competing with them, except in selected areas where highly strategic and effective above-campus collaboration can be realized (Dempsey, 2018).

Uncertainty

The world faces a number of destabilizing forces at this time of writing, among them war, climate change, energy shortages, price inflation, unsustainable development, and post-COVID adaptation. Higher education, the key operating environment for academic libraries, has for some time experienced uncertainty regarding funding, student recruitment, accountability, competition, online learning and student mental health (Cox, 2021). Uncertainty, a heightened experience for academic libraries since the 1990s (Neal, 2015), is not new, but constitutes a threat to effective operational and strategic planning, positioning and communication.

Academic libraries confront uncertainty in both the immediate and longer terms. External factors present a particular challenge as they are largely beyond library control. Global issues such as energy poverty and rising inflation threaten daily operations and core services, including opening hours and access to scholarly content. Sustainability calls for ongoing attention, along with adaptation of buildings and operations. The post-COVID world is a source of uncertainty regarding changes in user behavior, optimal use of library space, and less personal relationships with stakeholders (ACRL Research Planning Review Committee, 2022).

Two increasingly strong but uncertain influences are noteworthy. Firstly, artificial intelligence (AI) has excited mixed emotions in the library community, ranging “from techno-optimism to the fear of machines surpassing librarians” (Gasparini & Kautonen, 2022, p. 20). AI has the potential to change the nature of what a library is, what roles it performs (or no longer performs), what people expect of it and who uses it, with machines as well as humans among the clientele for its collections (Cox et al., 2019). Skills gaps, job losses and disintermediation are possible. Ongoing changes in scholarly communications could profoundly change library roles in managing collections. This will be especially so if open access to scholarly content becomes universal. Such a scenario seems feasible at some point, although progress towards it will probably be uneven and its timing will be difficult to predict. The buyer role of academic libraries, strongly recognized by faculty (Blankstein, 2022), and the extent of their own collection control and curation activities could be diminished.

Uncertainty is an ongoing fact of life for academic libraries and represents a threat to their current and future work. The best strategy may be to embrace it, taking an agile and creative approach to service development (Stoffle & Cuillier, 2010). There are opportunities to shape change, for example by engaging actively with AI vendors (Griffey, 2019) and by adopting local strategies to support the transition to universal open access (Lewis et al., 2022). Traditional academic library values and characteristics, notably generosity, openness and focus on the public good, also provide a vital anchor in turbulent times, as will previous experience of adapting to major change.

Summary of SWOT factors

This two-part SWOT analysis of academic libraries has selected 16 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, as summarized below.

Strengths

• the central place the academic library occupies in the institutional mission and physically on campus

• the enduring relevance and resonance of library values and the trust they engender among the campus community

• the predisposition towards collaboration and partnership with others and with each other to positive effect

• the ability to adapt to an evolving, predominantly digital, environment by reinventing the role and value proposition of the academic library

Opportunities

• the disruption to existing paradigms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, opening the way to take new directions or accelerate ongoing changes

• digital scholarship as a re-shaper of library roles, and especially partnerships, in transformed research

• the potential of open scholarship to realize a new scholarly communication system and culture

• reconceptualized library buildings as dynamic, flexible and technology-enabled learning spaces, facilitating multidisciplinary creativity and collaboration

Weaknesses

• an overly conservative and cautious approach, failing to exploit opportunities fully and discontinuing past activities too slowly

• underestimation of actual and potential library roles by stakeholders, compromising academic library influence and resourcing

• an economic situation in which often static budgets chase sustained rises in expectations and costs, especially for journal content

• a significant deficit in the diversity of academic library staffing and collections, negatively impacting service development and user experience

Threats

• a declining position in the institution, with the library lower down the hierarchy and enjoying less independence and share of institutional expenditure

• less clarity of identity and unique value proposition in the digital world, combined with reduced visibility and recognition in newer organizational configurations

• competition for influence and resourcing from within the institution, and for service provision to users from without

• global uncertainty and political, economic, social and technological disruption, creating a very challenging operating environment

Discussion

It is opportune to reflect on how the factors just summarized combine, interact and sometimes even conflict with each other to shape the academic library. The point that each library has its own characteristics and influences based on its particular circumstances needs to be reiterated, but it is likely that many of the 16 factors in this SWOT analysis will be recognisable to the majority of academic libraries. Some are common to other sectors too, notably post-COVID disruption, competition and deficits in staffing diversity. Others are more specific to academic libraries, for example their very strong culture of collaboration, the extent of the trust they enjoy through their values, and the dynamics of the journals market at the center of their economic model.

This discussion begins by highlighting those factors exerting the strongest influence on the directions, priorities, profile and status of the academic library. It then examines the often-complex interplay and tension between the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, noting a number of contradictions in their effects. Finally, it proposes a framework of ten directions for future academic library strategy and positioning.

Most influential factors

One overarching influence stands out as highly significant across many of the 16 factors identified. This is the rise of access to digital information and online information services which has had a major impact on academic libraries, unfavorable in some respects but advantageous in others. The headline effect is often the loss of the monopoly on access to information enjoyed by academic libraries in the print-only era, resulting in a decline in position, a diminution of influence, a less clear identity and a greater vulnerability to competition. More positively, however, the predominantly digital model has facilitated a reinvention of the role of the academic library. This has opened up new engagement opportunities, including beneficial partnerships in teaching and research, thereby realizing a more versatile and broadly-based value proposition.

Other, more deeply rooted, factors continue to exert a positive influence on the academic library. Its centrality to the institutional mission gives it a strong association with scholarship as well as a position of importance for students and of support among the academic community. This centrality often extends to the location of the library building within the campus and many such buildings have been transformed or newly developed as enablers of the more social, participative and creative approaches to learning now favored. The library as a vital and often unique place of community and collective academic enterprise for the whole campus has been recognized even more fully through the pandemic experience. Trust in academic libraries continues to be high, reinforcing the goodwill and support they enjoy and strengthening the position of their staff as partners, connectors and relationship builders across disciplines. Their values are very much in tune with the recent increased focus on social responsibility and the public good by their parent institutions.

This SWOT analysis has surfaced negative influences too. Caution towards change or discontinuation limits agility towards new opportunities and makes it harder to match more flexible competitors. A tendency to prioritize attention towards internal matters detracts from stronger visibility and impact across the institution. This feeds a propensity among stakeholders to take the academic library for granted and to underestimate the full range and value of its evolving contribution. Consequences include lack of attention from above, bypassing by other units more effective at selling themselves, slippage down the organizational hierarchy and a significantly reduced share of the institutional budget. Loss of resourcing is even more keenly felt when confronted by a dysfunctional market for procuring key content, notably journals. There are also major obstacles in achieving due recognition for often intangible value, and in diversifying a stubbornly homogenous staffing profile.

Interplay and contradiction

It is tempting to see a linear progression from strengths and opportunities to positive results and from weaknesses and threats to negative outcomes. There is, however, a complex interplay between the 16 factors identified, with sometimes contradictory effects and an occasional blurring of categorizations across the four SWOT dimensions.

The common recognition of the centrality of the academic library to the work of the organization stands in contrast with the tendency of institutional leadership to give it low attention. Similarly, the goodwill typically extended to the academic library might be expected to translate into increased resourcing support, but the library’s share of the institutional budget has been in decline. This benign neglect may reflect another contradictory reality, captured by Budd (2018), that the academic library “belongs to everyone and to no one” (p. 213). Collaboration, identified as a strength, has also been associated in this analysis with less favorable outcomes than expected, sometimes contributing to a blurring of identity, highlighted as a threat which can dilute the recognition, credit and status of the library. The reinvention of academic libraries has happened despite their inclination towards conservatism. Despite this, many people at all levels continue to associate them more with their established book brand than with the new and varied value proposition they offer.

The values of academic libraries are a real asset but can also be a source of contradiction. Diversity is one of these values but is noticeably lacking in the staffing composition of many academic libraries. Neutrality does not appear to be an appropriate stance to take in the face of fake news, in work undertaken to decolonize collections, or in the development of critical librarianship (Drabinski, 2019). Service is another core value and is a term used with frequency, pride and positive intent by the library community. However, it can be viewed by others as somewhat passive and reactive, such that its use may work against the desire to project an image of active partnership in the academic mission. Access as a library value is strongly championed in the desire for open access to scholarly information, but it remains counterintuitive that academic libraries continue to reinforce the strength of commercial publishers through high annual payments.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are porous and there is scope for factors in each of these categories to move to a different one. The most obvious one is the post-COVID environment, identified as an opportunity for positive change in the current analysis but with the potential to become a threat if budgets are severely cut. Uncertainty, categorized as a threat, could in turn generate exciting opportunities if artificial intelligence pushes libraries up the value chain and universal open access emerges to deliver a more sustainable economic model for scholarly content. There should also be a possibility of converting stakeholder perceptions from weakness to strength through a sustained effort of more effective marketing and communications, something which features in the list of strategic directions proposed next.

Ten strategic directions

The SWOT technique is commonly used in strategy development and this analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats impacting academic libraries prompts some thoughts around their future strategy and positioning. It is important in any discussion of the future to remember the very final factor identified, uncertainty. The sudden onset and major impact of the COVID pandemic is proof that external events are often beyond the control of institutions, while changes in the higher education environment continually and dynamically shape academic libraries. There is, nevertheless, scope for academic libraries to influence external developments, notably scholarly communications and artificial intelligence. They can also exert a much higher level of control over internal factors such as how they use their time, prioritize their resources and communicate to their audiences. The focus here is on proposing strategic directions which this analysis indicates could advance status and positioning. Some selection or combination of them may match the specific needs and situation of an individual academic library.

Active positioning

The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford English dictionary, 2022) defines positioning as “the action of putting a person or thing in a certain position, esp. an effective or advantageous position; (also) the fact of being in a certain position or location.” This definition captures well the sense that positioning may either be an action through which academic libraries can actively influence their status in the institution or it could represent a situation in which they may find themselves placed according to experience or perhaps the perceptions of others. A highly active approach to positioning holds far greater potential than passive acceptance and is a common thread in many of the strategic directions outlined below.

Knowing the territory

Higher education is the primary operating environment for academic libraries and has been subject to major change in recent times, driven by a combination of political, economic, social and technological factors. Sensing how higher education is moving needs ongoing effort and is key to developing library strategy and prioritizing directions to take. The same is true in relation to the institutions in which academic libraries are based. It is worth investing continually in acquiring a deep political as well as technical understanding of the mission, pressures, opportunities and organizational dynamics of the parent institution to maximize library impact and influence.

Being politically attuned

Atkins (1991) observed three decades ago that academic librarians considered politics to be demeaning. Some may do so today too, but the reality is that a strong appreciation of, sensitivity towards, and engagement with institutional politics is vital. Academic libraries find themselves in a competition for resources and influence in institutions which typically operate in a decentralized manner. Knowing who to work with, how to influence situations, when to act, and how to advance an agenda involves political astuteness and relationship building. It also means asserting credit for achievements, and striving to ensure that the library is appreciated by the academic community and closely aligned with it in the organisational chart.

Prioritizing outward engagement

Linked to the previous point, it may be worth reviewing the balance of time spent by the library director and leadership team on business internal to the library and on engagement externally with the campus at large. While internal matters will always need attention, studies referenced in this analysis have highlighted a perception that the library ought to engage more with institutional priorities and with helping to address problem areas across the wider campus. A re-balancing of how time is used has potential to yield greater influence and to shape a fuller appreciation by stakeholders of the library contribution.

Maximizing social capital

A recent book highlights the significance of the social capital built up by academic libraries and its role in shaping their future value proposition in a context where the mission of higher education institutions is evolving towards a more social and democratic focus (Schlak et al., 2022). The importance of relationship building and social participation on and beyond the campus plays to library strengths as places of community and interdisciplinary interaction. Library staff perform important connector roles in bringing people together and in engaging local populations, including marginalized groups, as trusted partners. There is an opportunity to leverage this position of connectedness and its value towards an increasing social emphasis in institutional strategy.

Communicating value and identity

The contribution of the academic library to the institution is frequently underestimated, its role commonly misunderstood and its identity often unclear to its stakeholders. This has negative consequences and finding ways of addressing it represents a priority. A sustained and strategic approach to communicating the value and successes of the contemporary academic library and the distinctiveness of its contribution, identity and strengths should have positive impact. Concise messaging and use of clear language to engage and even surprise recipients are important considerations, along with strong linkage of library initiatives to institutional priorities. Promulgation of library value and identity via wider higher education channels may also pay dividends.

Embracing uncertainty

There may be a desire for a period of stability after so much recent upheaval and change, but this seems unlikely. Change has become a constant, and academic libraries “should be positioning themselves not for a one-time shift but rather for a process of continual realignment” (Cooper et al., 2022, p. 23). This is challenging but can bring opportunities. An example would be a determination to capitalize on the openings for real change and improved library standing in the institution post-COVID. More broadly, embracing uncertainty and impermanence could cultivate a more adventurous mindset and a greater willingness to experiment, accept ambiguity and unlearn or disinvest from past activities whose value has diminished.

Addressing diversity deficits

Academic library staffing is lacking in ethnic diversity, even more so at senior levels, and is significantly unrepresentative of its user base. This is already a very serious issue which has potential to become much more damaging, divisive and alienating if unaddressed. Rectifying this deficit is not easy and progress has been slow. There is a sense that action plans have been devised but that far stronger intent is needed to implement them and to prioritize progress towards a more diverse workforce, thereby bringing a range of perspectives and experiences to service development and decision making. Increasing the inclusivity of library collections is another challenging but vital concomitant priority.

Leveraging change in scholarly communications

Academic libraries have long labored under the constraints of a largely unchanged scholarly communication system. The move towards open scholarship, strongly supported by governments, research funders and higher education institutions, promises a transformed academic publishing and reward system. This represents a major opportunity for academic libraries to shape scholarly communications for the benefit of many parties, themselves included. Universal open access is a prize well worth fighting for and merits full engagement, including inter-institutional collaboration, early planning for long-term changes in roles, and a revised interim deployment of funds to support a new future model (Lewis et al., 2022).

Maintaining long-term perspective

Change, uncertainty and instability confront academic libraries, raising anxieties for their future, especially among those who work in them. It is important to remember, however, that the academic library can draw on great longevity, an established position on campus from the beginning, and the experience of successfully navigating turbulent times in the past. Its values should rightly be reappraised in new contexts, but they provide a vital anchor and a source both of internal strength and of external respect. A long-term perspective should underpin strategy and positioning so that evolution can happen with a confidence based on solid foundations of continuity and change.

Conclusion

Its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats shape the academic library in terms of what it is and does, how it is seen, where it excels and struggles, and its potential for advancement or decline. The overall picture emerging from the 16 factors identified in this SWOT analysis is multifaceted.

On the one hand, the academic library is an established presence, a democratic place on campus, usually liked, trusted, respected for its compatible values and strong service ethic, and viewed as a decent citizen of the institution with an outlook oriented towards support, collaboration and the public good. It has reinvented itself to deliver a more versatile value proposition and enjoys new opportunities in a transformed environment for learning, research and scholarly communications. Conversely, academic libraries tend to be underestimated, taken for granted, a bit low-profile, pushed down the organizational hierarchy in recent times and less influential, especially in terms of resourcing. A more blurred identity, coupled with a sense that their value is less tangible than before, can obscure a full appreciation of their unique contribution, while their progress is challenged by high costs, deficits in diversity and strong competition.

This study has selected 16 factors, four for each SWOT dimension, which exert powerful influence on academic library status and development. These factors were chosen with due consideration of frameworks for assessing competitive advantage, particular attention to those themes most prominent in the literature, and recognition of the major influences in the higher education environment. The need to acknowledge the diverse circumstances of individual institutions, regions and libraries has featured repeatedly, accepting that the factors selected here are not universally applicable. The interplay between academic library strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats has been a key focus throughout. This can be complex, and it is important to understand how the different factors may interact in ways which can sometimes generate unexpected effects and outcomes.

The premise of this SWOT analysis is that a deep understanding of the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats impacting academic libraries can vitally and valuably inform library strategy development and positioning within the institution. This understanding needs to be situated in a full appreciation of the campus, higher education and global environments. The study puts forward ten strategic directions from which academic libraries may wish to choose and pursue where relevant, with the aim of advancing their position in what Appleton (2018) correctly identifies as a competitive internal market for resource, visibility and attention. The situation beyond the campus is also challenging, uncertain and fast-changing. Nevertheless, academic libraries, if they can mitigate the weaknesses and threats they confront, have much to build on through their established strengths and the opportunities available to them.

Acknowledgement

I am deeply grateful for an outstandingly helpful peer review of the original manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.