The Position and Prospects of Academic Libraries: Strengths and Opportunities

Abstract

Its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) 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 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 essential to the effective development of academic library strategy. This research is unique in applying SWOT analysis to academic libraries collectively.

The approach is to select four items of long-term significance in each SWOT category across two articles. Strengths and opportunities are the focus of this first article, preceded by context, a literature review, and overview of the SWOT analysis methodology. The strengths identified are centrality, values, collaboration, and reinvention, while the opportunities are the post-COVID world, digital scholarship, open scholarship, and learning space. The second article will examine weaknesses and threats, discuss the whole SWOT analysis and offer a framework for future strategy development, and positioning based on ten proposed strategic directions.

Keywords:

• Academic libraries
• opportunities
• strategic positioning
• strengths
• SWOT analysis

Introduction

Many organizations in different fields of endeavor, including academic libraries, use the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis technique. In doing so, they seek to improve their situation by leveraging strengths, addressing weaknesses, taking opportunities, and mitigating threats. The purpose of the current research 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 premise is that an understanding of these elements, their overlap, and the interplay between them is essential to 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. Having digested the impact and implications of the factors identified in the SWOT analysis, it offers a framework for future strategy development, and positioning based on ten proposed strategic directions. By applying the SWOT analysis methodology to academic libraries as a collective, it builds on a previous literature review that examined their positioning (J. Cox, 2018) and provided an analysis of how the higher education environment influences library strategy (J. Cox, 2021).

Context is vital to any SWOT analysis and the employment of this technique in relation to academic libraries collectively proceeds from an understanding that each library, institution, and geographic region is influenced by its particular circumstances. These are sometimes transient but often embedded over a longer term. Higher education provides the key operating context for academic libraries and has undergone some profound changes in recent decades. They include increased marketisation which has generated strong local and global competition between institutions, a culture of accountability, tight resourcing, a more diverse, pressured and demanding student body, and a heightened emphasis on equality, diversity, and inclusion. To these can more recently be added radically changed approaches to teaching, learning and research in the immediate wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. For academic libraries, all of this means increased competition for resources, new user expectations and service demands, a more global outlook, and an imperative to harness technology effectively rather than be bypassed by it.

A rapidly evolving operating environment can change what is valued and what confers advantage, compromising former strengths but also creating opportunities from apparent threats and pitching values against simply value. For example, the original dominance of the printed collections model largely gave academic libraries a monopoly position regarding access to information. This was before online networks and digital content opened up access and convenience for users, rendering printed collections instead an often challenging and space-intensive resource to manage. On the same continuum, however, libraries adapted their buildings, capitalizing on the opportunity to reduce the footprint required for printed materials, to become flexible, interactive, and highly popular learning spaces. More generally, the increasing recognition in recent times of the obligations of higher education toward the public good as a counterweight to the previously dominant adherence to market forces has aligned well with library values of service and good citizenship.

This research is unique in that it uses a well-known methodology, SWOT analysis, as a framework to understand the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats affecting the status and prospects of academic libraries today. The current analysis is based on an extensive review of the literature and takes a long-term strategic perspective. The academic library literature contains examples of SWOT analysis being applied to individual libraries, technologies, techniques, or geographic regions but not to academic libraries as a collective entity. In this study the approach is to make a tight selection of four items of long-term significance in each SWOT analysis category. The analysis spans two articles due to the quantity of material involved and in order to enable an appropriate level of commentary and interpretation per item. It is recognized that strengths and opportunities are related and these are the main focus of this first article, preceded by a general literature review and an overview of the SWOT methodology. The second article (Cox, 2023) identifies and analyzes weaknesses and threats, which are also closely linked, ahead of a discussion of the whole SWOT analysis, proposed framework of strategic directions, and conclusion spanning both articles.

Literature review

This review of the literature provides background for the subsequent analysis by identifying a selection of English-language publications across related topics. Beginning with the ways in which academic libraries have used the SWOT analysis technique, it then covers historical and contemporary overviews of academic libraries, explorations of their future, and the perspectives of different stakeholders.

SWOT analysis in academic libraries

The volume of published literature about the use of SWOT analysis in academic libraries is small and its more common tendency is toward the immediate and operational rather than any longer-term strategic perspective. The American Library Association (2018) has published a SWOT template within its Advocacy University. Harris (2018) includes a literature review that examines the pros and cons of the SWOT analysis technique and its application to academic libraries, while noting some specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Jamaican academic libraries are the focus of the analysis by Harris. Kumar (2012) and Al Hijji (2012) also apply SWOT analysis to a group of academic libraries in a region, covering Kerala and Oman, respectively, while O’Connor (2016) offers a compilation of factors from a range of libraries, primarily in Ireland. Examples of the use of this technique at individual libraries include the University of Lisbon (Sanches, 2018), Adelphi University (Smith, 2011), and the then University of Glamorgan (Atkinson, 2003). The other notable use of SWOT analysis is in relation to specific technologies and techniques, including social media (Fernandez, 2009), MOOCs (Kaushik, 2018), market analysis (Smith, 2011), bureaucracy (Jordan-Makely, 2019), and digital library development (Cervone, 2009).

Historical overviews of status

In the absence of a SWOT analysis of academic libraries collectively, overviews of their activities, imperatives, status, and operating environment are of interest. A sense of history offers a valuable starting point. Atkins (1991) surveys the status of the academic library and its relationship with the parent institution in the United States from 1638 to 1991. He highlights some more recent trends, including increased reporting distance between president and librarian, a rise in accountability and a decline in institutional support for library budgets and resourcing needs. Weiner’s (2005) literature review finds close linkage between the evolution and fortunes of the library and those of its parent institution in the United States.

The Cambridge History of Libraries in Britain and Ireland provides insights into the evolution of UK academic libraries and Mowat (2006) reviews the period since the 1960s. He emphasizes the shift away from collections as the main barometer of library effectiveness, also noting increased collaboration between libraries, the rise in access to digital information, and changes in library staff organization and numbers.

Contemporary overviews of status

Recent overviews of the academic library shed light on its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Budd (2018) offers valuable commentary about the evolving status of academic libraries and the challenges they face. Coverage includes historical perspective, relationship to the parent institution and campus communities, the economic environment and the influence of developments in scholarly communications and technology. Gilman and Lynch (2017) edited collection opens with a chapter on historical context and contemporary challenges before moving to institutional governance, funding, staffing identity and diversity, library as place, and a vision of future roles.

A themed issue of the New Review of Academic Librarianship presents 18 articles on positioning the academic library within the institution (Appleton, 2021). The collection emphasizes how academic libraries have adapted strategically to the challenges of aligning with the evolving priorities of their parent institutions. An OCLC, Inc. report focused on research support captures the complexity of the campus operating environment in which libraries position themselves (Bryant et al., 2020). Library leadership perspectives are captured in a triennial survey of U.S. library directors conducted since 2010 (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020b). This offers a current and longitudinal view of how directors see key issues such as their relationship with their supervisor, library status in the institution, and priorities regarding service provision and collections expenditure. A collection of short interviews with 30 academic library leaders from nine countries offers a more international overview (Lo et al., 2019).

Academic library futures

Lewis (2016) outlines a future agenda involving some continuity but much change and, indeed, significant disruption. He urges a focus on what libraries can uniquely and best do to enable learning and research by redefining their role on campus in response to external changes. Also, a collection of 21 essays published by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (Allen, 2015) is future-oriented. Coverage includes developments in higher education, technology, library positioning, and partnership on campus, competition, opportunities, values, and leadership.

A report commissioned by the Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) presents a U.K. perspective (Pinfield et al., 2017). It identifies a multiplicity of trends driving the future for academic libraries, while confronting issues of identity, perception, alignment, and competition on campus, before concluding with recommendations. An article based on this research considers further how libraries see the future, including their level of readiness for change and ability to provide leadership (A. M. Cox et al., 2019).

Current trends as influencers of the future situation for academic libraries are the subject of two biennial publications from ACRL, each established over a decade ago. The C&RL Top Trends in Academic Libraries identifies about ten trends with a brief commentary (ACRL Research Planning Review Committee, 2022). Common themes include change management, technology, scholarly communications, and developments in higher education. More detailed analysis is available in the ACRL Environmental Scan (ACRL Research Planning Review Committee, 2021). Last published in 2017, the NMC Horizon Report: Library Edition offered a valuable identification of, and commentary on, key technological trends impacting libraries (Adams Becker et al., 2017). The annual EDUCAUSE Horizon Report focuses on emerging technologies expected to impact higher education significantly and potentially presenting opportunities and threats for academic libraries (Pelletier et al., 2023).

The results of surveys of the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic highlight expected longer-term ramifications for U.S. and U.K. academic libraries respectively (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020a; Greenhall, 2020). These include digital acceleration and improved positioning in the institution alongside increased budgetary pressures. A survey by LIBER provides European coverage, although the focus is more immediate-term (Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche, 2020). Aside from surveys, some editorials and opinion pieces regarding post-COVID disruptions, challenges, and opportunities have also emerged (Appleton, 2022; C. Cox, 2020; C. Cox & Felix, 2020).

Stakeholder perspectives

A triennial Ithaka S + R survey has tracked the research practices and behaviors of U.S. faculty since 2000, shedding light on how they view the evolving role and value of the library (Blankstein, 2022). Elsewhere, a literature review of how faculty and students perceive the skills, roles, motivations, and behaviors of academic librarians has found a gap in perceptions compared with how librarians see themselves (Fagan et al., 2021).

The perspective of institutional leadership receives attention in a number of studies. SCONUL initiated a study into the view from above in 2016 (Baker & Allden, 2017). Coverage includes views of the role of the library in learning and research, its positioning in the institution, and strategic alignment. Issues regarding the visibility of libraries and their directors in relation to campus priority issues emerge as a particular theme. Another SCONUL study on mapping the future also includes interviews with campus leaders and identifies similar issues, along with concerns around communication, branding, and competition (Pinfield et al., 2017). Gwyer (2018) includes a historical view of the status of the academic library and institutional leadership perceptions across more than 50 years. She highlights concerns regarding outdated perceptions or inattention to the library, blurred identity, level of connectivity with the wider institution, and a decline in influence. A 2016 survey of U.S. institutional leaders finds very traditional perspectives on academic libraries and limited recognition of their role in areas related to student success (Murray & Ireland, 2018).

Proving and communicating academic library value to stakeholders is challenging. Changes in higher education have implications for what is valued in the institution (J. Cox, 2021). Oakleaf (2010) promotes a focus on linkage of library value to priority outcomes for institutions, notably student success, faculty research, and institutional reputation. A subsequent ACRL study on academic library impact emphasizes ways of communicating value in relation to student success and includes interviews with provosts who urge more effective messaging (Connaway et al., 2017).

Analytical framework

The exact origins of SWOT analysis are uncertain (Helms & Nixon, 2010), but appear to date back to the late 1960s (Learned et al., 1969). Panagiotou (2003) defines it as “concerned with the analysis of an organization’s internal and external environment with the aim of identifying internal strengths in order to take advantage of its external opportunities and avoid external (and possible internal) threats, while addressing its weaknesses” (p. 8). Strengths are areas in which an organization performs especially well, possibly distinguishing itself from its competitors. Weaknesses are deficits or limitations inhibiting the progress of the organization. Opportunities in the operating environment offer the potential for advancement and positive development. Threats are the opposite as they bring the possibility of damage or other negative impact.

The four dimensions of SWOT analysis are certainly not mutually exclusive and there is often an element of fluidity and interplay between them. An obvious contemporary example is the COVID-19 pandemic, which represents both a threat and an opportunity for change. Sarsby (2016) encourages deeper analysis through matching and converting. Matching seeks to make direct connections between opportunities and threats as external factors and internal strengths and weaknesses, while converting focuses on how to turn weaknesses into strengths and threats into opportunities. This mingling of internal and external factors promotes complementarity with another tool, Political, Economic, Social and Technological (PEST) analysis. Martinez and Wolverton (2009) observe that PEST analysis focuses on the environment in which an organization exists, while SWOT analysis concentrates on its own capacity and resources for change. Their combined use can therefore create a strong sense of the inside and outside of an organization.

SWOT analysis has many potential applications but comes to the fore in informing big decisions and setting strategic directions. Schooley (2019) sees its value prior to exploring new initiatives but also when considering changing a plan in midstream. Ojala (2017) cites a range of possible business uses, including strategic planning, competitive intelligence and resource allocation. Writing from an academic library perspective, Harris (2018) emphasizes how the understanding of the internal and external environment that SWOT enables is vital to strategy formulation, decision making, and strategic planning.

Despite its popularity, SWOT analysis has numerous limitations too. Its relative simplicity may be a deficit, with potential for it to be applied in an unstructured way (Panagiotou, 2003). It is possible to end up simply with lists of factors which on their own will not adequately explain a situation or reliably inform strategy formulation (Harris, 2018). An output of this nature will require significant effort to analyze the relative importance of the different factors, to identify links between them and to understand the external environment better, possibly through a PEST analysis (Kaspar, 2018). Furthermore, over-familiarity with one’s own organization can lead to subjectivity, wrong assumptions, and bland interpretations (Ojala, 2017). Alternative approaches include Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats and Strengths—Underlying Planning (WOTS-UP; Rowe et al., 1982) and Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses and Strengths (TOWS; Weihrich, 1982). The former begins with weaknesses rather than strengths, while the latter puts external factors first.

Application of SWOT analysis to this research

This research applies SWOT analysis to academic libraries collectively in ways which leverage its benefits and address its limitations. An extensive review of the literature rather than a subjective approach has informed the choice of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as has consultation of three business frameworks, linked to and aiming to enhance the SWOT methodology.

The Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organization-supported (VRIO) framework (Barney, 1991, 1995) is focused on assessing the capacity of an institution’s resources and capabilities to give it a competitive advantage. Another model, Resources, Processes and Values (RPV), builds on this by supporting the examination of an organization’s ability to handle disruptive change (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000). Its premise is that “resources (what a firm has), processes (how a firm does its work), and values (what a firm wants to do) define an organization’s strengths as well as its weaknesses and blind spots” (Christensen et al., 2004, p. xvii). VRIO and RPV emphasize the identification of internal strengths and weaknesses. They are complemented by Porter’s Five Forces model (Porter, 1979), which is also centered on competitive advantage but looks outward toward opportunities and threats. The forces are competitive rivalry, threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, and the threat of substitution. This model promotes the analysis of a whole industry sector and optimal positioning within it.

Each of these frameworks advances SWOT analysis by facilitating a deeper assessment of situation, prospects, competition, and positioning according to defined criteria. They have strongly informed the selection of 16 factors in this study, four per SWOT dimension, according to the following criteria:

• long-term influence on academic library strategy and positioning

• broad significance and operation at a macro scale across the whole library

• reflection of key global and higher education developments

• prominence in the library literature

There is a reflective discussion of each of the factors identified across two articles, including analysis of how they are interconnected and the strategies they prompt. The approach taken ensures a linkage of internal and external factors within each of the articles, with the first covering strengths and opportunities and the second (Cox, 2023) weaknesses and threats.

As for any SWOT analysis there is overlap at times across the different dimensions. For example, the longevity of academic libraries as a strength can also feed into a weakness in terms of the somewhat traditional and limiting views of the library held by others on campus. In turn, the opportunities of technology can promote the threat of disintermediation, with users growing in self-sufficiency and bypassing the library. The two articles acknowledge these overlaps, while aiming to examine the nature and significance of each SWOT factor ahead of a full collective discussion and proposal of ten strategic directions in the second article. Strengths and opportunities are the focus of this initial article.

SWOT analysis

The remainder of this paper consists of the first part of the SWOT analysis of academic libraries, covering selected strengths and opportunities, four in both cases. The analysis follows a common structure. Factors chosen as strengths or opportunities are listed under that heading, followed by a table summarizing them, their positives, 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.

Strengths

Four strengths, summarized in Table 1, emerged as most influential:

Table 1. Strengths and their implications.

Strength	Positives	Counterweights	Strategy implications
Centrality	Mission-critical contribution Mid-campus location Vital connector role	Risk of complacency Assumption of support	Emphasize value Maximize social capital
Values	Engender trust Public good alignment Compatibility with campus community	Demanding to uphold May generate conflicts	Promote values Link to institutional strategy
Collaboration	Strategic alignment Institutional citizenship Effective partnerships	Big investment Diluted recognition	Communicate benefits Assert identity and credit
Reinvention	Evolving value proposition Collections to users Providers to partners	Value less tangible, owned Legacy commitments	Sell the change Contain legacy functions

Table 2. Opportunities and their implications.

Opportunity	Positives	Counterweights	Strategy implications
Post-COVID	New directions, greater flexibility E-everything, open impetus Library more valued	Budget uncertainty Digital-first costs	Seize the moment Maximize new appreciation
Digital scholarship	Embedding in research cycle Library as research partner Funding potential	Specialist skillsets needed Infrastructure costs	Advertise contribution clearly Promote partnership
Open scholarship	Momentum for systemic change Libraries at center Multi-stakeholder support	Academic and publisher resistance	Prioritize library agency Work locally and globally
Learning space	Libraries at learning epicenter Learning journey partnerships Community, well-being functions	High capital investment needed	Advocate for space transformation Emphasize wider learning context

• 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

Centrality

The academic library has traditionally been considered to occupy a central position on campus, both physically and in terms of the institutional mission. The often-quoted phrase “heart of the university” as a description of the library, credited to Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University in the late nineteenth century, captures this idea. Three interlinked factors, namely close association with scholarship, the importance of collections for access to knowledge, and the prominence of library buildings have combined to create this sense of centrality to teaching, learning, and research.

Salisbury and Peseta (2018), writing about academic libraries and the idea of the university, see the library as “ubiquitous, enduring, and ever-present in the reality of institutions” (p. 247). Printed collections put libraries in a key role from early in the history of universities. The growth in emphasis on research from the late 19th century onwards established a dependence on access to large local collections (Atkins, 1991). Growing collections in turn translated into large, imposing buildings, commonly at a central campus location and symbolically representing a cumulating scholarly and cultural record (Dempsey & Malpas, 2018).

The traditional centrality of the library to scholarship continues to serve it well, generating positive contemporary perceptions and associations. Interviews with university leaders in the United Kingdom and Canada acknowledged the key role of academic libraries in their institutional missions, including language such as “engine” and “nerve center,” while also noting their potential for further contribution (Baker & Allden, 2017; Robertson, 2015). A diversity of areas of vital academic library contribution is evident in a report on The Value of Academic Libraries by Oakleaf (2010) and, specifically for research, in a more recent study published by Research Libraries UK (Evidence Base, 2021).

A position of neutrality complements the centrality of the academic library, enabling its staff to exert positive influence on campus. Being of no specific discipline but available to all disciplines enables library staff to act as observers, connectors and relationship builders. They often have a greater awareness than others of student needs, preferences, and behaviors with regard to learning and engagement through observing these at close quarters. Library staff are also able to make connections between faculty and students, and especially across faculty in different disciplines (Fagan et al., 2022).

The academic library’s “heart of the university” status is now disputed in a digital era of greater user choice and self-sufficiency regarding access to information. Warnings of the need to avoid complacency are accompanied by exhortations to prove library value rather than assume that it is understood by stakeholders (Murray & Ireland, 2018; Oakleaf, 2010). Effectively promoting the value generated by the library, including via its connector role, is therefore a strategic imperative. Nevertheless, academic libraries continue to enjoy a level of recognition of their centrality to the institution that other departments may envy.

Values

The values of the library profession and the actions they generate represent a source of positive sentiment and support toward academic libraries. The ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education cite “professional values of intellectual freedom, intellectual property rights and values, user privacy and confidentiality, collaboration, and user-centred service” for academic libraries specifically (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2018). These are supplemented by the values of librarianship in general, notably those identified by the American Library Association (ALA, American Library Association, 2006), which include access, democracy, diversity, the public good, and sustainability. Gorman (2015) adds stewardship, literacy, and rationalism, while individual libraries have their own areas of emphasis, including “integrity, trust, creativity, and openness” (Stanford University Libraries, 2023) and innovation and critical thinking (University of Toronto Scarborough Library, 2023).

Living up to these values can be difficult, but they are enduringly relevant, hard to dispute, and typically resonant with campus communities. Values-based library practices include leading roles in open access to scholarly outputs, providing a place of welcome to a diversity of communities, preserving the records of the past, promoting critical thinking, and committing to establishing the truth. Ovenden (2020) emphasizes the issue of trust and the confidence people feel in libraries as a major strength. He contrasts the responsible commitment of libraries toward long-term access and preservation of information with the short-term profit focus of commercial companies. Although the context was public libraries, a finding that 78% of American adults believed that libraries pointed them to reliable and trustworthy information is noteworthy (Geiger, 2017). The values of academic libraries are highly compatible with a movement toward refocusing higher education institutions on the public good as they become increasingly aware of their obligations toward society, social justice, and the environment.

Library values generate challenges too. They may bring libraries into conflict with the enduring expectations of marketisation as a driving force for many parent institutions. This conflict has caused unease for library staff (Pinfield et al., 2017), while Fister (2015c) sees a tension between value and values, and between specific local and wider global needs. The values of the library can also operate in conflict with each other, for example pitting the fight to control fake news against the avoidance of censorship (De Paor & Heravi, 2020), or service enhancement through artificial intelligence against privacy concerns (Griffey, 2019). Library values are demanding to uphold and Ettarh (2018) identifies an issue of “vocational awe,” which may daunt staff or prevent them from asserting their rights. Enacting the values of academic libraries requires focus in the face of competing pressures. These values nevertheless represent a significant asset, characterized by their durability and ongoing resonance with the mission of higher education. Promoting academic library values more assertively is strategically important, as is linking values-based actions more closely with institutional strategies.

Collaboration

Academic libraries exhibit a strong orientation toward collaboration with each other and with others. Neal (2015) puts it well when he observes that “Cooperation is part of the professional DNA of academic libraries” (p. 314). This inclination toward collaboration begets the notion of good institutional citizenship among library staff. Budd (2018) urges the academic librarian to be a citizen of the institution, while Hanson (2005) promotes the stance of being a university person first and a library professional second. This in turn links into the importance attached by libraries to aligning closely with the institutional mission. The ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education include institutional effectiveness as one of nine principles, with a list of performance indicators focused on alignment and impact (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2018).

The broad remit of academic libraries offers opportunities for multiple connections, partnerships, and contributions across campus. These are often centered on student success and have moved well beyond working with faculty to embed information literacy into the curriculum. Fister (2015a) identifies collaboration around the first-year experience, academic writing centers and disability support. New partnerships have emerged in research support too. Maps of stakeholders in research information management (Bryant et al., 2017) and research data management (Pinfield et al., 2014) show academic libraries working with a range of entities. These include the research, registrar and communications offices, records management, legal advice, and human resources.

Academic libraries have shown a willingness to share their space with other units, perhaps to an extent greater than is the case elsewhere on campus, drawing favorable attention from institutional leadership. Cooperation with each other has also brought benefits, realizing cost savings via the procurement and management of shared infrastructure such as library systems, digital resources, and collaborative storage of print archives. Collaboration strengthens academic libraries as well as supporting their institutional missions. Better solutions and greater innovation emerge through the sharing of expertise and diverse perspectives, enabling complex and larger-scale issues for the institution to be addressed through effective partnerships (Atkinson, 2018, 2019). Academic libraries are able to build networks across the organization, develop their strategic alignment and enhance their profile.

Challenges also accompany collaboration. It can involve accommodating to different working cultures and practices, compromising the identity of the library and ceding local control (Atkinson, 2019). There usually needs to be a significant input of time and effort to make collaboration work. The library’s contribution may receive less recognition in a multidepartmental collaboration. The library strategy needs to prioritize communicating the benefits arising from the partnerships they lead or participate in and to assert their own identity and credit within them.

Reinvention

The future of academic libraries has been questioned at regular intervals, including in a book by Thompson titled The End of LIBRARIES that was published in 1982. Four decades later, they continue not only to exist but to prosper in many new roles, having proved their adaptability in the face of change. The most fundamental change they have encountered in recent decades has been the emergence of digital as the dominant format for the publication and consumption of information. The primary response has been to shift the focus from collections to users, or from what libraries do to what users do (Jaguszewski & Williams, 2013). The emphasis has swung toward contributions to teaching and research, opportunities for partnership, use of library space for creative experiences, and facilitated access to mostly remote digital collections.

Reimagined and innovative library roles in teaching and learning are evident. Academic libraries have, in many cases, transformed their buildings into social, interactive, and dynamic spaces for learning and creativity (Blummer & Kenton, 2017). There is a focus on digital literacy that encompasses dimensions such as content creation, communication, collaboration, and digital citizenship (B. Alexander et al., 2017). Computational research has also generated new library engagement through digital scholarship and data management roles, including participation in geospatial mapping, text analysis, and interface design (Mulligan, 2016). Engagement across the enitre research lifecycle is taking place as academic libraries assert roles as initiators and partners, not simply service providers (Posner, 2013).

Academic libraries have fundamentally repositioned themselves in the institution by measuring their contribution to the academic mission in a diversity of ways (J. Cox, 2018). They offer a radically different value proposition. An outward-looking, engagement-focused approach has evolved their identity, accompanied by adaptations of language and branding, with terminology such as service and support giving way to expertise and partnership (J. Cox, 2016). One study posits a range of alternative paradigms, including the library as platform, infrastructure, or digital third space (Pinfield et al., 2017).

In the face of major change and redefinition, it is important to note that some constants remain. Printed materials continue to be used and to require curation. Perceptions of the library may still be somewhat rooted in previous models, with an enduring focus on buildings (Greenhall, 2020) or on their information buyer role (Blankstein, 2022). The new value proposition is more diffuse and may be less easily recognizable, especially as delivery is often shared with other parties and library ownership of services is less obvious. Communicating changed roles and contributions is an important part of the academic library strategy, as is controlling the amount of resource consumed by legacy functions so that capacity can be maximized toward the opportunities described in the next section.

Opportunities

These are the four primary opportunities selected and summarized in Table 2:

• 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.

Post-COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic upended higher education in early 2020, as the word “crisis” was in frequent use but sat also alongside a feeling of opportunity to accelerate change and to embed new ways of operating. Library leaders sensed a moment of possibility, despite many immediate difficulties, to review strategy and direction and to invest resources differently (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020a; Lutz & Schonfeld, 2020). Academic libraries were well positioned to facilitate the digital shift when COVID-19 struck. The digital libraries and infrastructures they had built over previous decades enabled a level of business continuity valued by their campus communities and appreciated by institutional leadership. COVID highlighted the value of academic libraries to their institutions, enhancing the perception of library directors as institutional leaders and showcasing library staff expertise (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020a; Greenhall, 2020). This has created a platform for positive positioning of the library in the institution in post-COVID times.

The pandemic reinforced the importance of academic library buildings as places of study, with pressures to maximize access throughout it as their social and well-being functions were emphasized (A. Cox & Brewster, 2020). Many academic libraries played leading roles in the provision and management of additional study spaces on campus. Cox and Felix (2020) see longer-term potential for libraries to manage study spaces across the campus as a network, standardizing the facilities available and offering students greater choice of study locations.

The digital shift has been especially pronounced for library collections. C. Cox (2020) uses the term “e-everything” to highlight the acceleration toward access to online, open resources. Increased online learning has given academic libraries opportunities to leverage existing digital collections and to supplement these with access to open educational resources and increased digitization of special collections and archives. The pandemic has strongly promoted open access as the race to develop vaccines created a push for greater collaboration, faster sharing of research, and more open disclosure of findings. Remote working, essential during COVID-19, has become mainstreamed, resulting in more flexible operations and greater choice in hiring, which is now less tied to the geographical location of candidates.

The pandemic has, of course, confronted academic libraries with serious problems too. These include: budget reductions (Frederick & Wolff-Eisenberg, 2020a; Todorinova, 2021); copyright, licensing and e-textbook pricing as obstacles to digital-first access (C. Cox, 2020; Greenhall, 2020); and ensuring balanced and equitable implementation of hybrid working (Bergenäs & Dorthé, 2021). All of these will preoccupy academic library staff, but the experience of COVID-19 has already wrought major change and offers significant opportunities for future operation, positioning, contribution, and identity. Strategically, it will be vital to seize this moment of opportunity and to capitalize on the new appreciation of the library by stakeholders.

Digital scholarship

The work of researchers has changed in opportune ways for academic libraries. Research is now more internationally collaborative and interdisciplinary, while technology has promoted new forms of computational, data-driven scholarship. The confluence of technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and new levels of computing power has enabled the processing and analysis of vast quantities of data. This transformation of research has generated the term digital scholarship. Key features of the new research environment are an appetite for datasets and other digital sources and the generation of a range of interim materials for sharing and curation. Dempsey (2016) notes the opportunity for libraries to embed themselves in new researcher workflows to assist with the creation and use of institutionally produced materials. Researchers have also identified the need for support from academic libraries as they are challenged with managing large and growing datasets, resulting in increasing requests by scholars for advice on publication, presentation, and archiving of research materials (McRostie, 2016).

Academic libraries are well placed to contribute strongly to digital scholarship (L. Alexander et al., 2014; J. Cox, 2016; Evidence Base, 2021). Archives and rare books or other materials are vital sources for many digital projects. Staff expertise in cataloging, curation, and sharing of information maps well to metadata, digital preservation, and open access. Library investment in, and skilled deployment of, infrastructure for digital preservation, publishing, and data curation creates a vital resource for all disciplines. The neutral space of the library, coupled with the connector roles and collaborative tendencies of library staff, helps to bring together diverse communities, often scattered across different disciplines and campus locations.

All of these activities generate valued contributions to research projects, with library expertise in high demand (Evidence Base, 2021; Owen, 2017). They embody a close connection between what researchers want to do and what academic libraries can offer them. The opportunity exists for libraries to redefine their relationship with the academic community, opening up additional sources of funding via inclusion in grant applications and setting forth a new value proposition with positive implications for perceptions and positioning in their institutions. A key shift is toward partnership, with libraries taking active roles in research projects as collaborators across the entire research cycle (Greenhall, 2019).

Participating and partnering in digital scholarship is exciting and enhancing for libraries and their institutions but can be difficult too. Some obvious problems include funding the required staffing and infrastructural resources in times of budgetary constraint, hiring and retaining people with the necessary skillsets, and obtaining due recognition for library contributions to research (Posner, 2013). Communicating the library offering clearly and assertively and securing acceptance of new partnership roles require emphasis in the library strategy.

Open  scholarship

The strong momentum behind open scholarship in recent times represents a significant opportunity for academic libraries. Open scholarship is a global movement which “reflects the idea that knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared, transparent, rigorous, reproducible, replicable, accumulative and inclusive” (Parsons et al., 2022, p. 314). It spans all scholarly activities, including open research and open education. Libraries are finding themselves at the forefront of initiatives to effect change in the scholarly communication system by challenging established practices and promoting institutional participation in scholarship on a shared and global basis.

Until recently, academic libraries found few partners in the campaign for open access but this has now changed. Higher education institutions see sharing of teaching and research resources through open scholarship as part of a renewed emphasis on inclusion and the public good in their core missions (Fitzpatrick, 2019). Research funders expect public engagement and open sharing of outputs, reflected in initiatives such as Plan S (cOAlition, 2018). Governments have been similarly supportive in individual countries and at international level.

Support for open scholarship provides academic libraries with a fresh mandate for action across a range of areas. Library advocacy and funding deployment for bibliodiversity is important in sustaining a range of publishing models. The publishing role of academic libraries is significant in delivering open access, curation, and economic savings through institutional repositories, research data management infrastructures, and open educational resource platforms. Training and awareness-raising are key to changing behaviors and cultures, and academic libraries provide a lead in many areas. These include support for open access publishing, developing open educational resources, which provide opportunities to reduce costs for students while promoting pedagogical innovation, and sharing research data.

Obstacles to change abound. Academic staff are vital to embedding open scholarship practices, but this may not be an immediate priority for them. The current publishing system is strongly entrenched and researchers are often conservative towards it, with majorities expecting commercial publishers to remain prominent in the future (Blankstein, 2022; Technopolis Group, 2020). Publishers have a vested interest in maintaining a profitable status quo for as long as possible, retaining commercial advantage through open access agreements which may be less transformative than they seem (Farley et al., 2021).

The climate surrounding open scholarship as a driver of change in the scholarly communication system remains favorable, however, creating a moment of opportunity for academic libraries to direct their strategic priorities toward thought leadership and sense-making on campus (ACRL Research Planning Review Committee, 2019) and beyond. Harrison (2018) rightly identifies scholarly communications support as the future of academic librarianship, deserving the same emphasis as a professional concern that information literacy has long enjoyed.

Learning space

A range of factors in higher education has converged to place a high premium on the type of learning space primarily provided on campus by the library building. Odonnell and Anderson (2022) identify these factors as new approaches to pedagogy, advances in technology, the influence of neoliberalism, and a heightened institutional focus on the student experience. In combination, these and other developments in higher education (J. Cox, 2021) have created opportunities for a transformation of library buildings and a reconceptualization of the role of the library as a key enabler of effective learning. Active, social, technology-enabled learning needs the right physical environment, and transformed library space has proved vital.

Academic libraries have adapted and in several cases transformed their buildings to facilitate new approaches to learning (Blummer & Kenton, 2017; Fister, 2015b; Mathews et al., 2018; Odonnell & Anderson, 2022). Resulting features include pervasive technology, makerspaces and other facilities to foster creativity, places for group work, and a diversity of spaces to meet preferred learning styles. Another feature is the hosting of a range of campus services to support student learning success, notably information technology, academic writing, mathematics, and assistive technology. This offers opportunities for new partnerships across the student learning journey.

The traditional strengths of the library building help its parent institution to create a place of community. Library buildings provide a place that is open, accessible, neutral, social, and conversational, enabling people to be creative, to belong and to be themselves through the many ways in which they correspond to the characteristics of Oldenburg’s third place theory (Lewis, 2017). There are opportunities to foster a greater sense of well-being for students experiencing many stresses, including high fees, examinations and a challenging job market (Johnson & Crenna-Jennings, 2018). The library building as a learning space has increased in value, representing a major asset to the institution in support of new pedagogies and evolving imperatives in higher education. Usage is stable or rising (A. M. Cox & Benson-Marshall, 2021), libraries are providing a compelling location to keep students on campus (Lefebvre, 2018), creative partnerships are developing (Nichols et al., 2017), and there is a positive repositioning of the library as a flexible platform for learning (Mathews et al., 2018).

A point of concern is that progress in transforming buildings is slow, evidenced by an estimate that only around 10% of U.S. libraries may have been replaced or significantly renovated between 2000 and 2015, with intensive and often lengthy advocacy needed to generate the capital funding required (Lewis, 2017). That advocacy will be most effective if framed in the wider context of benefits for the institution and evolving approaches to learning in higher education.

Summary

This is the first article in a two-part SWOT analysis of academic libraries in general, aiming to inform their strategy development and positioning. It has outlined the key influences of the evolving higher education environment as their main operating context. A literature review has summarized the use of the SWOT analysis technique in academic libraries, while highlighting overviews of their status, directions and environment, followed by a description of the SWOT methodology and how it has been applied specifically to the current analysis.

Each of the four SWOT dimensions in this analysis encompasses a selection of four major factors of long-term significance shaping academic libraries. Strengths and opportunities are related and have been the focus of this first article. The four strengths identified are:

• 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

These are the four opportunities selected:

• 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.

The second article (Cox, 2023) in this analysis will examine weaknesses and threats, again selecting four factors in both cases and considering the nature of each as well as its implications for academic libraries. It will conclude with a discussion across all of the SWOT dimensions, considering collectively the 16 factors identified as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The emphasis will be on their linkage, impact, influence, and significance for academic libraries, thereby informing ten strategic directions proposed for future positioning.

Acknowledgment

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

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.