This paper will argue that social network theory offers a rich conceptual and methodological framework for understanding the relational value of library services, particularly in emerging engagement-centered views of librarianship. Although activity- and outcome-based models of assessment are still important in the assessment of library activities, a social network view of library relationships is an essential complement in providing a more complete view of library value and will complement other work in this area such as human capital valuation and the relational capital components of the values scorecard. Relational aspects of library value are, at present, understudied. Furthermore, this paper will discuss practical approaches for applying concepts from social network analysis in the assessment of library services.

1. SOCIAL NETWORKS
AND RELATIONAL
CAPITAL IN
LIBRARY SERVICE
ASSESSMENT
PAUL J. BRACKE
ASSOCIATE DEAN, PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
11TH NORTHUMBRIA CONFERENCE
22 JULY 2015

2. RENEWED INTEREST
IN LIAISONS
• Shift to Engagement Models
• Deeper collaborations in research
and instruction
• Embedded Instruction
• Curricular Integration
• Member of Research Teams
• How do we understand the value
and impact of these emerging roles?

3. VALUING LIAISON
WORK
• Values Scorecard Dimensions
• Relational Capital
• Library Capital
• Library Virtue
• Library Momentum
• Libraries are “fundamentally relationship
organizations”
• Not understanding value of relationships
is a problem in understanding value

4. RELATIONAL CAPITAL AND
LIBRARY ASSESSMENT
• Relational capital is the set of all
relationships between firms,
institutions, and people
• Literature on Intangible Assets
•White 2007; Asonitis and
Kostagiolas 2010; Kostagiolas
and Asonitis 2009; Corrall 2014

5. RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING AS
ENABLING INFRASTRUCTURE
“Focusing on outputs rather than inputs
takes time and presumes a clear
understanding of academic goals and the
means with which to measure progress.
Obviously such an approach would have to
be adapted to particular circumstances and
institutional priorities and be built upon
enabling prerequisites.” - Kenney

6. INVISIBLE WORK
• “Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The
Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work”
(Star and Strauss 1999)
• What counts as work?
• What is the relationship between visible
and invisible work?
• Many reasons for invisibility, including
disembedding background work
• Workers are visible, but their work is
invisible or simply an assumption

7. SOCIAL NETWORKS
AND INVISIBLE WORK
• “Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social
Network Analysis to Support Strategic
Collaboration” (Cross, Borgatti, Parker 2002)
• Coordination and work increasingly occur
through informal networks of relationships
• Promoting effective collaboration
• Supporting critical boundary-spanning junctures
in networks
• Ensuring integration within groups

8. SOCIAL NETWORKS
• Social network theory provides a theoretical
framework and methodological tools for
understanding social structure through the analysis
of patterns of social relationships.
• Network approaches have become central in a
number of disciplines for understanding social
relationships and phenomena.
• Social network analysis has become central to
organizational studies in understanding how work
gets done, how people learn in an organizational
context, how innovation spreads, and many other
topics.

9. REPORTS ON LIAISON
ROLES
• Research Library Issues 265 - ARL (August
2009)
• Re-Skilling for Research by Mary Auckland –
Research Libraries UK (2012)
• New Roles for New Times: Transforming
Liaison Roles in Research Libraries by Janice
M. Jaguszewski and Karen Williams – ARL
(2013)
• Leveraging the Liaison Model by Anne R.
Kenney - Ithaka S+R (2014)

10. THEMES
1. Need to Change to
Engagement Model
2. User-Centered
3. New Staffing Models
4. Relationships and
Partnerships

11. NEED TO CHANGE
“Continuing refinement of
liaison roles is the recognition
that the current liaison model
is inadequate to the new
demands and expectations.”
(Kenney)

12. ENGAGEMENT MODEL
“With increasing pressure on researchers to
plan and manage their output, and a growing
adoption of open access publishing, research
libraries are now compelled to understand and
support all processes of instruction and
scholarship, which calls for an engagement
model. An engaged liaison seeks to enhance
scholar productivity, to empower learners, and
to participate in the entire lifecycle of the
research, teaching, and learning process.”
(Jaguszewski and Williams)

13. USER-CENTERED
APPROACHES
“The overarching framework for all changes is an increasing
focus on what users do (research, teaching, and learning)
rather than on what librarians do (collections, reference,
library instruction).” (Jaguszewski and Williams)
“Without a good and current understanding of researchers’
information need and information seeking behavior there is a
danger that Subject Librarians will be unable to deliver the
support and services that are really needed… respond
accordingly, not by trying to restrain and mould researcher
behaviour to the old modes of service and support, but by
embracing the new ways and designing innovative and
responsive approaches.“ (Auckland)

14. NEW STAFFING
MODELS
• Liaison work is not just about
subject liaisons, but also about
emerging functional specialties
• “Interdisciplinary research teams
on campus will benefit from an
interdisciplinary staff of library
professionals.” (Jaguszewski and
Williams)

15. RELATIONSHIP
BUILDING
• Strong partnerships are
foundational to transforming liaison
roles and are “necessary building
blocks” for transformational efforts
• “Deep networks” are assets that are
“often genuinely valued by the
students and faculty and envied by
other campus professionals.”

16. HOW TO MAKE THE INVISIBLE
WORK OF LIAISONS VISIBLE?
• Relationship building activities clearly important
in reports, but also invisible – A Black Box
Process
• We can (and should) inventory and measure
librarian interactions with members of their
community, but this doesn’t answer more
fundamental questions
• How do we know that liaisons are building the
deep networks necessary to participate in the
entire lifecycle of the research, teaching, and
learning process?

17. MAPPING SOCIAL NETWORKS
TO LIAISON ACTIVITIES
• Social network theory
• Provides a framework for understanding this invisible work
that is critical to the success of new liaison models
• Furthermore, social network theory is intended to facilitate
understanding the complexity and interconnectedness of
social relationships and can “make invisible work visible.”
• Social networks can be characterized by understanding:
• Transactional content of network ties (e.g., influence,
services),
• The nature of ties between actors (e.g, intensity,
reciprocity)
• The structural characteristics (e.g., position of actors,
connectedness, inbetweeness)

18. NETWORKS AND
RELATIONAL CAPITAL
• Being able to characterize the roles and placement of
librarians within broader academic networks complements
other approaches to measuring liaison productivity and
documenting the relational capital of the library
• Understanding the nature and structure of academic
networks would help with:
• Placement and roles (as service providers, collaborators,
bridge builders, connecting to external resources, etc.) of
librarians within broader academic networks
• Impact of liaisons (and other library staff)
• Clarifying roles and expectations for relationship- and
network-building within the library.

19. NEXT STEPS
• Many possible approaches to applying SNA
• Pilot study at Purdue: Research Networks Evaluation
• Capturing interactions and collaborations across the
research lifecycle through survey and diaries
• Leveraging data set of RDM interactions
• Bibliometric networks (librarians as co-authors)
• Analysis of grant proposals

20. REFERENCES
Research Library Issues, no. 265 (Aug. 2009): Special Issue on Liaison Librarian Roles, Washington, DC.
Available at: http://publications.arl.org/rli265/.
Asonitis, S. & Kostagiolas, P.A., 2010. An analytic hierarchy approach for intellectual capital: Evidence for the
Greek central public libraries. Library Management, 31(3), pp.145–161.
Auckland, M., 2012. Re-skilling for research. London, UK: Research Libraries UK, (January 2012). Available at:
http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RLUK-Re-skilling.pdf.
Corrall, S., 2014. Library service capital: The case for measuring and managing intangible assets. In Libraries in
the Digital Age (LIDA) Proceedings, 13. Available at:
http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida/article/view/169/141.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. & Parker, A., 2002. Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to
support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), pp.25–46.
Jaguszewski, J.M. & Williams, K., 2013. New Roles for New Times: Transforming Liaison Roles in Research
Libraries, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/nrnt-liaison-roles-
revised.pdf.
Kenney, A.R., 2014. Leveraging The Liaison Model: FROM DEFINING 21ST CENTURY RESEARCH LIBRARIES
TO IMPLEMENTING 21ST CENTURY RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES. Ithaka S+R, p.11. Available at:
http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/SR_BriefingPaper_Kenney_20140322.pdfnhttp://www.sr.ithaka.o
rg/blog-individual/leveraging-liaison-model.
Kostagiolas, P.A. & Asonitis, S., 2009. Intangible assets for academic libraries: Definitions, categorization and
an exploration of management issues. Library Management, 30(6/7), pp.419–429.
Star, S.L. & Strauss, A., 1999. Layers of Silence , Arenas of Voice : The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1995), pp.9–30.
White, L.N., 2007. Unseen measures: the need to account for intangibles. The Bottom Line, 20(2), pp.77–84.