This is the message from my IFLA colleagues Ulla Wimmer and Theo Bothman. Wimmer is secretary of the IFLA Statistics and Evaluation Committee. Bothman works with FAIFE and the IFLA world report.
- By all experience, a survey on a global scale cannot be done by volunteer work (i.e. the Standing Committee) alone.
- The project [“Global Statistics for IFLA World Report” ] was started on the assumption that it would be possible to gather the data as part of the World Report Survey with input by the Section SC.
- As this option is no longer available, an alternative plan is needed, which combines resources by volunteers and a professional structure / paid workforce.
- Suggestions by the Professional Committee are highly appreciated.
My answer would be:
At the moment, the quantity and quality of statistical information on libraries varies enormously between countries. A handful of countries run advanced statistical systems with comprehensive coverage of their public, academic and special libraries. School libraries, which tend to be small and poorly staffed, is still a statistical problem, however.
The most advanced countries (based on web information) seem to be Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Sweden, Canada (some states) and Australia (some states) could be added. Let me call them group 4.
The least developed countries have no available statistics whatsoever. In a few cases they publish some library data in statistical yearbooks or reports on cultural statistics. But people do not have time to visit the few big libraries that receive such publications in order to dig out a few numbers. Let me call this group 1.
Between the top and the bottom we find two intermediate groups.
Group 3 consists of countries with well-developed library systems and some good statistics at the national level, like Great Britain, Germany, Italy, much of Eastern Europe, the United States, Chile, Singapore and others. The main problem, seen from abroad, is the lack of extensive, user-oriented web publishing of the data.
Group 2 consists of countries with more uneven and fragmented library systems. The public library sector tends to have greater difficulties than academic and special libraries. But even the latter library types may suffer from a lack of national-level coordination. The quality and quantity of library statistics depend heavily on the size and strength of library organizations at the national level.
Data must be collected, processed, published and applied by someone. That someone may for instance be
- a specialized public agency (like the Institute of Museum and Library Services for public libraries and the National Center for Education Statistics for academic and school libraries in the United States)
- the central bureau of statistics (like in Japan)
- the relevant government ministries (public libraries in Finland)
- the national library (academic libraries in Finland, all libraries in Norway from 2010)
In this situation information on Groups 1-3 must be gathered locally, by people who live in the country, who are familiar with its statistical system and who can follow the constant changes that are likely to occur. Alle these countries are trying to improve their systems, from wherever they happen to be.
Group 4 is different. Information from Group 4 is available on the web to all interested parties. There is just so much data available. What we find in these countries is not a lack of data per se, but a shortage of statistical analysis, debate and practical use. There is too little processing going on. Improving this situation, through workshops, lectures, publications, web debates, and so on, must also be done through local initiatives. Each country has its own library community. It is possible and useful to visit the discussions that go on in neighbouring countries. But it is almost impossible to be an active participant in several discussion communities at the same time.
The strategy, or set of actions I believe in, are:
- study the statistical system in your own country
- share that information on the web
- use a place that is easy to locate and easy to link to
- report on current library statistics from time to time
- interpret the data from time to time
I do not believe that a centralized approach, with one data base, standardized reports, a fixed set of indicators, an elected governing board, and so on is sustainable under today’s conditions. A distributed network of volunteers, with a tiny bit of coordination from the central node, would be viable, however. If two or ten or twenty people are willing to participate, I’ll be happy to do some coordination and networking.