In a message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2002 3:10:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, Chris Pickford <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Peter asks a fair question, and makes some valid points about PIs. However,
> we are trying to shift away from counting what's easy to using the available
> data to measure impact and outcomes. Much, much harder - but also so much
> more worthwhile!
>
Definitely it is harder to measure the impact and the outcomes that may result from how archives, libraries and museums are used. This would require long term tracking and contact with the user. Some of the impact is measurable. For example a group wished to have a house or structure listed on the National Register their success is easily measured since the structure is either listed or not listed. The role of the agency is easily documented by the list of resources provided as evidence of the structure's worthiness.
I know how difficult this is because 20 years ago when I worked for a public library in Texas. Every October for a 2 week period we were required to collect statistical data. This was difficult for my division because we were an archival/local history/reference area. we were only allowed to count the initial contact with the patron. We were not allowed to calculate how long they were with us (usually for several hours), how many follow-on contacts we had etc.
Well I wish all good luck with this endeavour and look forward to following it as it moves towards a conclusion
peterk
|