影响评估与国际图联

IF 1.8 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Performance Measurement and Metrics Pub Date : 2019-07-08 DOI:10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008
D. Streatfield, S. Markless
{"title":"影响评估与国际图联","authors":"D. Streatfield, S. Markless","doi":"10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to describe the evolving IFLA approach to impact evaluation through three of its international programmes: Freedom of Access to Information, Building Strong Library Associations (BSLA) and the International Advocacy Programme (IAP). This review positions these three programmes within the wider discourse of the international evaluation community.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nEach of the three programmes is considered in turn to show what they were trying to achieve and how thinking about impact evaluation at IFLA is evolving.\n\n\nFindings\nThis paper reports key evaluation findings for relevant phases of the BSLA and IAP programmes in general terms.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe views presented are those of the evaluation consultants who advised each of these programmes (and in the cases of BSLA and the IAP conducted the programme evaluations).\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe processes described and the conclusions drawn should be of interest to anyone involved in international or national library evaluation, especially of public libraries, library associations and national libraries.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe paper suggests that more systematic impact evaluation of public libraries, library associations and national libraries is necessary to ensure their future survival.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe authors were uniquely placed to see and participate in IFLA impact evaluation discussions over the past decade.\n","PeriodicalId":44583,"journal":{"name":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact evaluation and IFLA\",\"authors\":\"D. Streatfield, S. Markless\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this paper is to describe the evolving IFLA approach to impact evaluation through three of its international programmes: Freedom of Access to Information, Building Strong Library Associations (BSLA) and the International Advocacy Programme (IAP). This review positions these three programmes within the wider discourse of the international evaluation community.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nEach of the three programmes is considered in turn to show what they were trying to achieve and how thinking about impact evaluation at IFLA is evolving.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis paper reports key evaluation findings for relevant phases of the BSLA and IAP programmes in general terms.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe views presented are those of the evaluation consultants who advised each of these programmes (and in the cases of BSLA and the IAP conducted the programme evaluations).\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe processes described and the conclusions drawn should be of interest to anyone involved in international or national library evaluation, especially of public libraries, library associations and national libraries.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThe paper suggests that more systematic impact evaluation of public libraries, library associations and national libraries is necessary to ensure their future survival.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe authors were uniquely placed to see and participate in IFLA impact evaluation discussions over the past decade.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Performance Measurement and Metrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Performance Measurement and Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文的目的是描述国际图联通过其三个国际项目不断发展的影响评估方法:信息获取自由、建立强大的图书馆协会(BSLA)和国际倡导计划(IAP)。这一审查将这三个方案置于国际评价界更广泛的讨论之中。设计/方法/方法依次考虑这三个项目,以展示它们试图实现的目标以及国际图联对影响评估的思考是如何发展的。研究结果本文报告了总体而言BSLA和IAP项目相关阶段的关键评估结果。研究的局限性/影响本文所提出的意见是为每一个方案提供咨询的评价顾问的意见(在BSLA和IAP进行方案评价的情况下)。实际意义本文所描述的过程和得出的结论应该对任何参与国际或国家图书馆评估的人,特别是公共图书馆、图书馆协会和国家图书馆的人感兴趣。社会意义对公共图书馆、图书馆协会和国家图书馆进行更系统的影响评估是保证其未来生存的必要之举。原创性/价值在过去的十年中,作者处于独特的地位,可以看到并参与国际图联的影响评估讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact evaluation and IFLA
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolving IFLA approach to impact evaluation through three of its international programmes: Freedom of Access to Information, Building Strong Library Associations (BSLA) and the International Advocacy Programme (IAP). This review positions these three programmes within the wider discourse of the international evaluation community. Design/methodology/approach Each of the three programmes is considered in turn to show what they were trying to achieve and how thinking about impact evaluation at IFLA is evolving. Findings This paper reports key evaluation findings for relevant phases of the BSLA and IAP programmes in general terms. Research limitations/implications The views presented are those of the evaluation consultants who advised each of these programmes (and in the cases of BSLA and the IAP conducted the programme evaluations). Practical implications The processes described and the conclusions drawn should be of interest to anyone involved in international or national library evaluation, especially of public libraries, library associations and national libraries. Social implications The paper suggests that more systematic impact evaluation of public libraries, library associations and national libraries is necessary to ensure their future survival. Originality/value The authors were uniquely placed to see and participate in IFLA impact evaluation discussions over the past decade.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Performance Measurement and Metrics
Performance Measurement and Metrics INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: ■Quantitative and qualitative analysis ■Benchmarking ■The measurement and role of information in enhancing organizational effectiveness ■Quality techniques and quality improvement ■Training and education ■Methods for performance measurement and metrics ■Standard assessment tools ■Using emerging technologies ■Setting standards or service quality
期刊最新文献
First-gen and the library: a survey of student perceptions of academic library services Predicting student success with and without library instruction using supervised machine learning methods What space are you looking for? An evaluation of organizational climate and its relationship with job burnout in hospital and college libraries Revise, redUX, re-cycle: iterative website usability studies in an assessment cycle
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1