The LibQUAL+ Phenomenon: Who Judges Quality?

All Other Judgments Are Not Essentially Irrelevant

It is possible to level a more fundamental critique at LibQUAL+. Do libraries not have an inherent value that is independent of how customers perceive their services? Is it really true that “only customers judge quality and all other judgments are essentially irrelevant?”⁶ What is wrong with counting the number of volumes or interlibrary loan requests, or having highly trained reference librarians? The great libraries of the world are great because of their extensive collections and knowledgeable librarians. No one is going to argue that Harvard Libraries or the British Library is inferior because some patrons perceive shortfalls in service.⁷ LibQUAL+ is based on the perceptions of a given library’s customers. Behind these perceptions, however, lies an objective value, one that is there whether perceived or not. A student may greatly appreciate the care with which the reference librarian handled his question, but if the answer to the question is wrong, is this good service?

William B. Edgar has made these same observations in an article that supports the idea of functional and technical quality.⁸ Functional quality is how service is delivered; this describes the manner in which the staff deliver the service. Technical quality is the actual objective service delivered. This is a judgment about the content of the services delivered, not the way in which it is delivered. This would include the extent of the book and journal collections, the knowledge of the reference staff, and the operability of the OPAC.

All other judgments are not essentially irrelevant. Customers are best able to judge how a service is delivered through their own perceptions. With their professional training, however, librarians are in many ways better positioned than the customers to judge the overall quality of “what” is delivered; that is, they can best judge the technical quality of a library. Undergraduate students would have a hard time putting an overall value on a library’s collection, and even faculty members only know the collection in their areas of specialty. Librarians, however, are in a good position to judge the content of a library collection, the skill and ability of the reference staff, or the content of an instruction session.

Imposing a business model on libraries has been beneficial for library management. It is important to know what our patrons or customers think about the value they receive from the library. Customer assessment, however, needs to be balanced with the traditional measures of quality and librarian expertise. Library services assessment now is a permanent feature of libraries, and LibQUAL+ has gained the leading reputation in the field. Libraries recognize that it is cost-effective, fairly easy to administer, and allows one to compare results with one’s peers. If the survey yields a sufficient number of responses, the library can drill down to data about a particular library, a particular discipline, or a subgroup within the faculty or student body. This gives us data we can act upon to bring about beneficial change to library operations. Having said all of this, the caveat is always that there should be follow-up assessment. Assessment is an ongoing process, and many libraries now view it this way.

References and Notes

1. Valarie A. Zeithaml, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry, Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations (New York: Free Pr., 1990), 16.
2. A. Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry, “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research,” Journal of Marketing 49, no. 4 (1985): 41-50.
3. Amy E. Knapp, “We Asked Them What They Thought, Now What Do We Do? The Use of LibQUAL+ Data to Redesign Public Services at the University of Pittsburgh,” in Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action, ed. Fred M. Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, and Consuella A. Askew, 157-72 (New York: Haworth, 2004).
4. Jeff Gatten, “The OhioLINK Libqual+ 2002 Experience: A Consortium Looks at Service Quality,” in Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action, ed. Fred M. Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, and Consuella A. Askew, 19-48 (New York: Haworth, 2004).
5. Lorraine J. Haricombe and Bonna J. Boettcher, “Using LibQUAL+ Data in Strategic Planning: Bowling Green State University,” in Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action, ed. Fred M. Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, and Consuella A. Askew, 181-96 (New York: Haworth Information Press, 2004).
6. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, Delivering Quality Service.
7. This is not to say that Harvard and the British Library always offer the greatest service. I have a colleague who experienced bad service at the British Library. She used the British Library in the 1970s for her dissertation research in Victorian literature because it and no other library had the sources she needed. It was not infrequently that she was told “the book you want was lost during the bombing raids of World War II” when the library clerk did not feel like retrieving it. A week later the same book would mysteriously reappear.
8. William B. Edgar, “Questioning LibQual+: Expanding its Assessment of Academic Library Effectiveness,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 6 (Oct 2006): 445-65.

Pages: 1 2