Running head: DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services

Team 5
Azra Basic, Holly Larson, Dawn Osborne
LI810XU
July 25, 2013
Emporia State University

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services

Purpose of Research
Libraries offer a variety of services and programs to their patrons, from borrowing books
and free access to computers to reference and customer services (researching topics, getting help
from a librarian). Though, while libraries do their best to address the needs of both their patrons
and the community-at-large in a timely, pleasant, and cost-efficient manner usually getting it
right the simple truth is that libraries do not always hit the mark the first time around. While
patrons are likely to overlook an occasional misstep without making too much of a fuss over it,
when a pattern of continued failure begins to emerge patrons begin to feel unwanted and
uncared-for, often resulting in a slow (yet steady) decline in both patronage and funding both
public and private. The first step in identifying areas of critical failure within the library system
is an accurate assessment of the situation. The question then becomes: How does the library
conduct its evaluation in a manner both timely and accurate, while simultaneously addressing the
needs of patrons, library administrators, and the constraints of ever-tightening budgetary
concerns alike? In the business world, entrepreneurs have traditionally made use of a process
called SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to evaluate the likelihood of
their own continued success when faced with increasing competition in the marketplace. With
for-profit businesses many of them online now beginning to offer services traditionally
offered only by libraries, it has become necessary for libraries to reevaluate themselves and their
services in order to compete more effectively against the new forces rising to take their place, or
risk becoming irrelevant to their own patrons. The objective of this study will be to determine
whether or not the use of a SWOT thereby taking a more business-like approach toward
addressing the issues that face many libraries today will improve a librarys services as it

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

attempts to more adequately address the needs of its patrons. A review of the related literature
suggests potential benefits for both the librarians and patrons; therefore, this study will attempt to
identify some of the potential benefits for implementing a SWOT assessment within a library
system. Furthermore, the study will strive to answer the following questions:
What values do libraries provide patrons through the services offered?
What are appropriate metrics and measures for evaluating a librarys services?
How should libraries manage and operate their services to provide more and continued
value to their patrons?
Because the research will primarily explore issues of the perceived benefits and potential
applications of a SWOT analysis relating to a generic library system, a qualitative approach will
permit research subjects to express themselves freely while simultaneously allowing the
researchers to provide structure to both the studys body and its conclusions.
Research Paradigm
As it continues, the research design and paradigm of this project will broaden its
analytical framework to make use of a mixed-method approach. Thus far, the research for the
Literature focused on gaining sufficient knowledge of the most effective qualities shared among
successful libraries, through an operational application of standard SWOT principles to the
programs and services each library offered. At the project's inception, the initial questions were
broad in nature; and continuously refined throughout the research process. This approach, also
known as Constructionism, is a better fit for this research paradigm than the Objectivism
approach since the librarys social phenomena is not an independent variable from its patrons.
The definition of a Constructionist approach is An ontological position (often also referred to as

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

constructivism) that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being
accomplished by social actors (Bryman, 2012, p. 710).
In this project, the Constructionist approach is part of the creative, administrative, and
subsequent analytical phases of the survey. The surveys data is then further developed through
the use of the quantitative method. The nature of the surveys questions will then provide
specific quantitative data use to develop the SWOT. Finally, in the analysis stage many of the
surveys questions will have a number value assigned to each possible answer, thereby allowing
the researchers to more easily quantify the respondents answers simply by adding up the
quantitative totals of their answer score. Through quantifying the data at this point it will be
easier to see trends start to take shape within the results and transfer the information into the
SWOT models questions asked within Table 1 below. (SWOT is found at the ALA site:
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/advocacyuniversity/frontline_advocacy/frontline_public/goi
ngdeeper/swot)
Table 1: SWOT analysis

STRENGTHS
What are your librarys strongest
contributions to your community?
What does your library do that no one else
does?
What do your users like best about your
library?

WEAKNESSES
In what areas does your library have fewer
resources than you need?
What else needs improvement?
What do your users wish you did better?

OPPORTUNITIES
What could you do if only your library had
the resources to do it?
What is happening in the world now that

you would like to take advantage of?

How can your strengths open doors to

opportunities for your library?

THREATS
What is happening in the world that could
impact your library negatively?
What library services are provided
elsewhere with greater ease for users?
What weaknesses leave you vulnerable to
cuts in or competition for your services?

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

Though much of the survey is quantitative in nature, other questions will make use of
either or both the theoretical and qualitative approaches to information gathering, as a general aid
to understanding how the survey participants selected their answers to each of the questions from
among those available. Later analysis of these responses will provide useful insights into the
respondents perceived needs as they relate to the surveys questions and the projects stated
goals, which the researchers will then use in the formulation of meaningful theories regarding the
projects subject matter and the participants responses to the survey. This, in turn, will provide
researchers with the information necessary to further refine the projects objectives, and will
serve as the basis for subsequent construction of end-stage information gathering and analysis.
Although this projects paradigm primarily takes a Constructionist approach to its
research, when it comes to assessing the qualitative, theoretical informational sections of the
survey it will be necessary to rely in large part on the use of interpretivism. This will aid the
researchers in identifying, understanding, and assessing the underlying conditions underpinning
the responses of the survey participants. This will also aid the researchers in the creation of the
assumptions required for the development of theories essential to accurately identifying the
concerns of survey participants, thereby enabling the creation of the projects final phases and
leading to its successful conclusion. Though there is an inherent danger in using subjective tools
to measure objective data, any theories or concepts derived from the careful analysis of the
information gathered will have support through the projects accumulated research data, as well
as the results of the survey. It is worth noting here that all of the research team members are
currently active participants in a number of library environments outside the scope of this
project, having been employed at a variety of public and private institutions for a number of
years. Additionally, some team members have specific, specialized training in the use and

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

analysis of a SWOT assessment in a business environment. It is, therefore, posited that these
experiential factors lend credence to the application of interpretivism when analyzing the more
subjective pieces of the projects research puzzle.
Lastly, because of the scope of the topic, an inductive approach, defined as An approach
to the relationship between theory and research in which the former is generated out of the latter
(Bryman, 2012, p. 712), will incorporate the research design. This approach fits well in the
projects mixed-methods model: Although the research design has a sound application of wellestablished information-gathering techniques, it will be difficult to either prove or disprove a
complete hypothesis in a project with such a limited scope and timeframe. Also, it is possible
that a single transferable theory may not readily present itself. However, through the
comprehensive analysis of the data concepts should be generated that will accurately represent
the findings of the research. The researchers concluding theories and/or concepts will then be
used to assist libraries in improving the quality of programs and services offered to their patrons.
Finally, the research conclusions will produce concepts that will be at least in part readily
transferable in a generic form to libraries not connected to this research project; this
generalization of the projects resultant concepts and theories as they apply to multiple libraries
will lend external validity to the research findings.
Research Design
The approach of this research design is a mixed-methods approach to research to gain the
required information to create a well developed SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
and Threats) assessment within the Salt Lack City Public Library (SLCPL). Creating a literature
review strengthened Team 5's knowledge on what types of programming libraries use and also
how to use a SWOT effectively.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

With this knowledge and the research results, Team 5 can then use a SWOT analysis
within the SLCPL to articulate the results; basing the research on both logistic analysis of the
SWOT, and its structured development to evaluate its usefulness within the library. A SWOT
analysis may be used for not only a business, but products, places, or even a person. It involves
specifying the objective and identifying the internal and external factors which are favorable and
unfavorable to achieve that objective.
Necessary Permissions
Team 5 will attain the needed permissions from the ESUs Internal Review Board (IRB)
through applying for approval to use Human Subjects (see Appendix D). As part of this process,
Team 5 must pass a training test with a minimum of 80% and also prove access to the Salt Lake
City Public Library (SLCPL) and information and consent process for prospective participants.
To start, first contact is through an introductory email sent to the SLCPL administration. Sent
later, a letter (using an ESU letterhead) will officially request the use their facilities (see
Appendix C). Also, as part of the IRB, is an Informed Consent document (see Appendix A) to
inform prospective participants of what the research involves, their participation requirements,
any benefits and/or liabilities, and an estimate of time requirement. This Informed Consent form
must be read and signed by each participant before taking the survey.
Participant Sampling Method
This study aims to gather detailed qualitative and quantitative information from patrons
and staff of the Salt Lake City Public Library (SLCPL) regarding their opinions and insights
towards the programs and services offered through the library. Since opinions and insights can
vary greatly individuals, it is important that the researchers seek out participants from varying
backgrounds.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

This study means to gather information on services and programs through the use of
individuals having the most experience with them the patrons and staff. Participants will be
selected using the Convenience sampling method, meaning A sample that is selected because of
its availability to the researcher (Bryman, 2012, p. 710). Though, a diverse sample is also
desired since it will represent a larger range of responses and insights. For this reason,
researchers will promote the questionnaire through posters (see Attachment E for example) and
encourage the library staff to support the research survey.
The Research Method, Data Collection and Survey Instrument
This study has five discrete phases, each designed to serve a specific, individualized
function which will eventually lend itself to the creation of a single, unified whole at the
completion of the project. The first phase of research will be the creation of the survey (in which
to gather all subsequent research); the majority of the questions are to be answerable by a fixedchoice response, and also with inclusions of some general sorting questions. The protocols and
guidelines for how to conduct the research will also be generated at that time. The second phase
will be the actual implementation of the research design: This will take the form of traveling to
the SLCPL, identifying the target groups at the SLCPL that fit the research parameters,
presenting them with and explaining the survey in a clear and concise fashion, and answering
any immediate questions research participants might have. The surveys will be accessible via
SurveyMonkey on public computers the SLCPL makes available for use by Library patrons.
(SurveyMonkey is an internet accessible tool capable of collecting and sorting survey responses
through a wide variety of customizable filters.) The questionnaire will then remain available to
SLCPL employees and patrons from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013. At the conclusion
of the second phase, researchers will retrieve all completed surveys, having answered any

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

questions regarding the study (specifically paying attention to the issues of anonymity and the
security of individual identities), remove all remaining physical copies (if any) from the environs
of the SLCPL, and delete the survey from the Librarys computers. (These last two tasks will
prevent the corruption of research data by accidentally incorporating information received after
the last scheduled date of the information-gathering phase.) The projects fourth phase will deal
largely with retrieving the data from completed surveys, collating and recording the data, and
finally analyzing the data through the use of qualitative analysis. In this phase, the team will also
generate theories regarding the viability of using a business-model SWOT assessment to improve
programs and services at a public library; this is to be accomplished through the use of a mixedmethod analysis of all available data. In the fifth and final phase of research, a written report
will provide information on the SWOT's viability within a library environment. This will
include an actual SWOT assessment based on the information provided by the survey
participant's responses, and will also include any theories discovered. The final conclusions are
to be presented to the SLCPL Board of Directors at their meeting in February 2014.
Pre-testing the Questionnaire
A fundamental step in the development of a successful research survey is to field-test it
prior to its inclusion in the upcoming project (Bryman, 2012). Testing a questionnaire is a prerequisite for research involving the use of survey analysis as a key component of its information
gathering, for several reasons: First, testing identifies any poorly worded questions, misplaced in
order of significance, or whose instructions are unclear (Bryman, 2012). Testing will also
identify any typographical errors in the questionnaire, covering everything from the proper
spelling and use of each word, up to and including an examination of each questions grammar.
In addition, testing a survey allows for careful construction of its format; from the font size to the

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

10

style of script to the width of its margins and everything in between, testing the questionnaire
provides the researcher with the opportunity to see how the survey actually looks, sounds, and
performs under real-world conditions. The ability to judge the performance of a survey prior to
using it in the research is especially important; as this gives the researcher the chance to identify
which questions respondents are either reluctant or unable to answer. Most likely, if multiple
respondents ignore or have problems with the same question it should be reevaluated. Though, if
participants are ignoring entire sections of the survey, then the issue may be the overall
construction of the survey, and may indicate flaws (such as needing an inordinate amount of time
to complete, or of being too complex for the subjects the survey targets) that could require
extensive revision. Finally, testing a survey provides the researcher an opportunity to determine
areas to possibly pre-code within questionnaire, and can save the investigators a great deal of
both time and aggravation during a projects analytical phase (Bryman, 2012).
To meet the generally accepted standards requiring the testing of a questionnaire prior to
its use, each team member will pre-test the questionnaire; taking it to a public library other than
the SLCPL, and taking care to avoid known employees and patrons of the SLCPL (to avoid
possible future data contamination when presented at the SLCPL). The team members anticipate
that this field-testing will take no longer than a week; though, if necessary, more time can be
allocated. During pretesting, one or two staff members and patrons from the targeted library
(again, not the SLCPL) will complete the questionnaire. Each respondent, in advance, has
knowledge that they are completing the questionnaire solely for the purposes of analyzing the
surveys content, construction, and ease of understanding. Respondents will assess the
questionnaire after completing it, giving feedback regarding any potential additions, deletions,
modifications, or clarifications considered needed within the survey instrument.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

11

Once the process of field testing is complete, each team member will report the results of
their testing and suggest any necessary modifications to improve the survey instrument. An
additional period of testing may be required if determined that adjustments to the survey must be
made although this will largely depend on the overall viability of the survey in whole or in part
after evaluating the surveys performance during the initial testing cycle. Once the
modifications are complete, and the team believes the survey instrument will properly meet the
projects research goals, the questionnaire will then be taken to the SLCPL, and the information
gathering phase of the project will begin.
Parameters of the Research
As mentioned in the literature review, much of the information on improvement of library
services and programs using a SWOT is anecdotal. The results of this questionnaire may
possibly add to that anecdotal literature. However, the results may also serve as a tool to inform
the SLCPL of which services not only well developed; but also, which must be updated, created,
or dropped. Such feedback may possibly spur discussion or even action to improve upon the
libraries services and programs.
In the creation of the instrument, Team 5 believes that the development of the SWOT
through the information attained from the survey questions may provide ideas for future
programs and services. The consideration of the potential influences on the use of a SWOT and
possible future programming changes within the library should not be a detrimental risk by the
research team. Additionally, new ideas concerning the use of a SWOT to help the programming
may be revealed to the research team from the answers provided in the questionnaire. Such
information might be useful for future research; thus, it is the intention of the team to share the
questionnaire results with the SLCPL, the information concepts may be utilized by other public

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

12

libraries. The questionnaire itself may inspire improved library services and programming to its
patrons.
The objective of the research problem is to determine which services and programs the
library offer its patrons, and how the patrons respond (positive, negative, or neutral) to them.
Results from this questionnaire will hopefully reveal enough data about what the SLCPL
programming offered is doing correctly and not. This data will allow the research team to assess
the information, making observations on differences between the services that work, and do not
work, within the library system. It is not within the scope of this research for the team to make
recommendations for future library services or programs or the effectiveness of the SWOT.
However, the library itself may choose to utilize the resulting survey data in such a manner.
Significance of research
The significance of the research is the results of the SWOT analysis. These results,
arrived at through the extensive study of literature and the knowledge obtained through this
research project, allow the development of the SWOT and the ability to assess its usefulness.
There are no limits to the significance in this research; it may be adaptable to other libraries and
other such businesses (like art, history, or science museums), where a business is willing to do
the extensive investigation to get relevant information. Ultimately though, the significance of
the research is not what the results are of the research, but how individuals interpret and use
them.
Ethical Considerations
Every research project carries with it at least a nominal risk of causing harm to the very
subjects it is attempting to study; it is, therefore, incumbent upon those individuals conducting
research to identify and mitigate any potential flaws in either the design or the execution of the

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

13

research, in order to safeguard the wellbeing of its research subjects. In addition, it is also
critical that all members of a research team familiarize themselves with any guidelines and
protocols native to the research topic, including the geographical area and the subject groups that
the researchers intend to study. Failure to correctly identify and adhere to previously established
guidelines could not only increase the level of risk to a studys participants, but might also
invalidate the findings of the research, as well (Bryman, 2012).
In an effort to eliminate the potential hazards to either the value of its study or to the
participants in its research, Team 5 has identified the following areas of potential risk and has
taken steps to conduct this research in an ethical, successful manner:
Harm to Participants - ensuring the wellbeing of participants is the first priority in this
study. According to Bryman (2012), harm to participants can entail a number of facets,
including physical harm; harm to participants development; loss of self-esteem; stress; and
inducing subjects to perform reprehensible acts (p. 135). Team members will properly store
and secure all collected data. Respondents are voluntarily completing an online questionnaire
that is not financially driven, and have an option not to participate in the research, as well. It is,
therefore, unlikely for the survey respondents to be affected by this study in a harmful way.
Anonymity and data storage - having in mind a public library setting, this questionnaire
design is to provide a high level of anonymity which reduces social anxiety for its respondents.
As part of the research, participants will not have their name recorded. Additionally, any other
personal information is to have encoded identifiers (e.g. pseudonyms and/or reference numbers).
This will also eliminate some concerns regarding data storage. A secure off-line computer will
store the encrypted data, with access to the stored data limited to research members using
secured logins and passwords.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

14

Informed Consent - provided to all participants, an Informed Consent document must be

read and signed. The participants must be at least 18 years of age and must be considered legally
competent. The participants may be either employees or patrons of the Salt Lake City Public
Library (SLCPL); however, minors, due to the survey's concepts and methods, will not
participate. Participants informed consent must be based on a clear understanding of what
participation in the research involves; they must also understand they have no obligation to
participate in the research if they have no wish to do so. Finally, for participants having further
questions regarding the study, the Informed Consent document includes both a phone number
and email address. All team members will be responsible for both maintaining this email address
and for answering any questions from survey participants.
Guidelines and Protocols - Each team members will pass testing on the research
guidelines involving human subjects as provided by both the SLCPL and The Emporia State
University (ESU). Team members will also obtain the necessary approvals from each division in
the Library choosing to participate in the research, as well as from each of the interest groups
electing to respond to the survey.
While researchers can never wholly guarantee the safety of the participants in its study,
through the careful application of research design and execution Team 5 is confident it will
provide a reasonable level of protection to its survey participants, and has, therefore, successfully
met the burden of conducting its research in a safe and ethical manner.
Limitations
The purpose of this research is to describe or understand the dynamics of a public library
as seen through the eyes of survey respondents. The teams findings will be in harmony with the
views of the participants, ultimately providing results as free from bias as can reasonably be

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

15

managed. The studys participants will ultimately be the final arbiters of the projects credibility
witnessing for themselves the changes (or lack thereof) in SLCPL policies and programming as
compared to their own anonymous responses. It is, nonetheless, incumbent upon the researchers
to demonstrate they have made a good-faith effort to present conclusions free of thoughtless
errors.
Credibility, therefore, is perhaps the single most crucial variable involved when assessing
the reliability of any research; from the earliest stages of its development to the last sentence on
its final page, research is trustworthy only if the researchers have gone to great lengths to limit
potential biases in their work. With this in mind, Team 5 has worked diligently to develop and
adhere to protocols designed to identify possible shortcomings in the studys design or execution.
Although rarely is it possible to produce research that is inherently without flaws the members of
Team 5 have actively sought to identify any shortcomings in its study, and has corrected them
where able. Unfortunately, it is often the case that some limitations must simply be
acknowledged once identified as no corrective action is possible given the impact such changes
would have on the research. Team 5 has taken this approach where necessary; therefore, this
portion of the study will identify those shortcomings native to the research design, paradigm, and
team composition for which it has been unable to take corrective action, as well as identifying
and acknowledging those limitations for which mitigating steps are already in place to prevent
their potentially negative impact on the studys outcome.
One primary limitation the team identified early on in the process was the
acknowledgement that all team members are Library and Information Science graduate students
at ESU. The potential for unwitting bias is strong here as it is possible that preconceptions
whether valid or invalid of which library services or programs should receive the most

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

16

attention (favorable or otherwise) might unknowingly taint the entire process. However, having
become aware of this possibility and in an effort to avoid omitting important research data as a
potential negative consequence the members of Team 5 have committed to remaining vigilant
in adhering to the studys guidelines in all phases of the research, regardless of where that
research leads. In addition, team members will take notes on the work in each phase, aiding bias
identification and elimination and ensuring the inclusion of all viable data. Finally, Team 5 will
utilize elements of both the qualitative and quantitative approach to information gathering and
analysis; this mixed-method approach will lend added support to the teams conclusions by
reducing the potential effects of bias during the phase of information analysis.
Another important limiting factor to note is the small sample size, which could be
expanded through the number of participants or libraries (to create multiple SWOT analysis's).
The SLCPL is a sample of convenience as opposed to a random sample. This means that the
results of this study cannot necessarily be generally applied to libraries at large, only suggested
as Bryman (2008) states: findings can be generalized only to the population from which [the]
sample was taken (p. 187).
Another limiting factor is the use of a questionnaire as the primary tool for information
gathering. The results could be strengthened further if team members made use of subject
interviews, instead of relying solely on a survey to generate data. Doing so could have added
material qualitative data and greater understanding of the participants motivations, providing
valuable insight on everything from a respondents preferred library service options to why the
time they choose to participate in the study in the first place. Research bases its quality on the
ability to its transferability and application to similar situations. Limiting participants to only

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

17

staff and patrons (18 years and older) from the SLCPL may compromise the transferability of the
research, along with the feasibility of the SWOT analysis as an effective research tool.
The study also runs the risk of limiting the number of its participants by administering the
survey via the computers provided by the SLCPL, as some potential respondents may not
possess a high enough level of computer literacy to feel comfortable answering the survey
electronically. Additionally there is always the issue of non-responses to consider; it is difficult
to make generalizations from the data when a sizeable proportion of the survey population
chooses not to respond to a particular question. (Nevertheless, the views of non-responders have
the ability to relate critical information to the design of future efforts, by highlighting the
presence of potentially weak portions in the current research project (i.e., overall questionnaire
length or the construction of individual questions contained in the survey).)
This study also faces the prospect of receiving a suboptimal number of responses from
which to retrieve data, due primarily to the studys limited budget and narrow information
gathering window. It is impractical to do more than speculate on how a SWOT analysis might
have influenced participants long-term thinking over an extended period, given this projects
relatively short life span. Many of the insights that come from experiential interventions such as
this one may not show up until long after the intervention ends.
Finally, respondent subjectivity is another of this studys limitations to consider, as well.
It is entirely possible indeed, quite common for individuals to filter their understanding of a
question through the prism of their own experiences and subsequently base their replies on what
they merely perceive to be the question, instead of answering the question actually asked. Very
little can be done to alleviate the problem, since, even the simple act of explaining a question to a
respondent can skew the resulting data and lead to false conclusions.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

18

Regardless of how thorough the design of a research project or how flawlessly executed,
often there are unforeseen limitations which inhibit the projects development, data collection, or
information analysis. To that end, Team 5 has endeavored to identify the potential limitations
existent in its research and has taken steps to mitigate their impact on the project when possible
to do so.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

19

Appendix A
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
Title of Study: Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services
Principal Investigators:
Dawn Osborne
Orem, UT

Azra Basic
SLC, UT

Holley
Ogden, UT

Background: You are invited to take part in a research study. Before deciding to participate, it
is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please
take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask a researcher if there is
anything that is not clear or if you would like more information.
Purpose of the Study: This study is about library services and programs offered. It is being
conducted by the above principal investigators through Emporia State University, Kansas. The
purpose of this study is to examine the Salt Lake City Public Libraries services and programs
and recommend changes as needed.
Study Procedure: You will be asked to complete a survey, which will take 20-30 minutes to
complete. The survey includes questions about which services and/or programs you use and do
not use. Other survey questions will address your perceptions of how well they work for what
you want and what else you expect from them.
Risks: No risks are anticipated from taking part in this study. If you feel uncomfortable with a
question, you may skip that question or withdraw from the study altogether. If you decide to quit
the study your answers will NOT be recorded.
Benefits: There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However,
the information obtained from this study may benefit the Salt Lake City Library to continue to
improve their services and programs.
Confidentiality: Every effort will be made to preserve your confidentiality. No names will be
requested within the survey and responses will be kept anonymous.
Person to Contact: Should you have any questions about the research or any related matters,
please contact the researchers at: osbornedr@familysearch.org, 801.221.4814/801.240.8839.
Institutional Review Board: If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject,
or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the Investigator, please contact
the Emporias Institutional Review Board Office at 620-341-5351.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

20

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide

whether or not to take part in this study. If you do decide to take part in this study, you will be
asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part in this study, you are still free to
withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. You are free to not answer any question or
questions you choose.
Costs to Subject: There are no costs to you for your participation in this study.
Compensation: There is no monetary compensation to you for your participation in this study.
Consent: By signing this consent form, you acknowledge that you have read this information
and agree to participate in the research, with the knowledge that you are free to withdraw your
participation at any time without consequences. Also, by signing this consent form, you affirm
that you are at least 18 years of age.

Signature _____________________________________________ Date __________________

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

Appendix B
Pretest Questionnaire

21

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

22

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

23

Appendix C
Letter Requesting Use of Library Facilities

July, 20 2013

Main Library
210 East 400 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear Director,
Re: Application for use of facilities to conduct a research study
To follow up on our earlier email communication, we would like to formally request use of
computers in your facility to conduct a survey on library services and programs to develop a
SWOT model. The results are intended to see whether application of SWOT analysis can be
used to enhance libraries transition from an average information facilitator to a community
builder. We hope the findings will help enlighten librarians, researchers and patrons to target
libraries programs, producing generations of passionate readers and knowledgeable, engaged
communities.
The purpose of this research study is to give insights on current trends within market planning;
particularly those utilizing marketing functions as a critical element of strategic planning and
execution within a Library. The project will be conducted by Emporia State University SLIM
students Azra Basic, Dawn Osborne and Holly Larsen.
For this survey, we request two computers, preferably easily located in the library. In this study,
participants must be 18 years and older. An Informed Consent document will be presented to
potential research participants before the survey begins. The consent document will use
appropriate language for the participant population. Technical jargon will be avoided.
Each survey will take approximately 30-40 minutes to conduct. We will maintain a clean space
and check in and out directly with both you and the reference desk on a daily basis. Since this is
a computer based survey, the survey will be set up in a way that the potential participant must
click on a button or type in a response indicating that he/she has read the consent/assent
information and agrees to participate (along with the paper form). Once the button is selected,
the potential participant will be redirected to the research survey questionnaire. That is, the
survey questions are not viewed by participant until he/she clicks on or types in a response to
indicate his/her voluntary participation. The survey will also indicate that refusal to participate
or discontinuing participation at any time without penalty.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

All information will be kept confidential and no names will be used. Also participant will be
able to print their completed questionnaire if they would like to keep a copy for themselves (at
our cost).
The proposed time frame for the surveys availability is: September 1, 2013 to December 31,
2013.
The results of this study will be presented to the SLCPL Board of Directors in February 2014.
The final report will be available in the March 2014.
Sincerely,

On behalf of LI81XU Research Team 5

Utah Valley University Library
800 West University Parkway Orem, UT 84058
Telephone:
Email address:

24

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

25

Appendix D
Application for Approval to use Human Subjects
For R&G Use Only
Date approved: __________________ Approved by: ________________________
Protocol No. ____________________
Full Review _____ Expedited Review _____ Exempted Review _____

This application should be submitted, along with the Informed Consent Document and
supplemental material, to the Institutional Review Board for Treatment of Human Subjects
Research and Grants Center, Plumb Hall 313F, Campus Box 4003.
Before approval can be given to use human subjects, applicants must review the Human Subjects
Training Module and achieve at least 80% on the Human Subjects Training Quiz. Instructions
for the Training Module and Quiz are available at: http://www.emporia.edu/research/irb.htm.
Human Subjects Training Quiz was taken on: 07/15/2013.
Score (will be entered by Research and Grants Center): _____
1.

Name of Principal Investigator(s) (Individual(s) administering the procedures): Dawn

Osborne, Azra Basic, and Holley Larsen

2. Departmental Affiliations: School of Library and Information Science

3. Person to whom notification should be sent: Dr. Rajesh Singh
Mailing Address: School of Library and Information Management Emporia State University
1200 Commercial Street Emporia, KS 66801
Telephone: (620) 341-5181 Email address: rsingh1@emporia.edu
4. Title of Project: Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services
5. Funding Agency (if applicable): N/A
6. This is a: _____dissertations _____ thesis __X__ class project _____ other research study
7. Time period for which you are requesting approval (maximum one year): from August 1,
2013 to August 1, 2014. If the research project extends past the end date requested, you will
need to submit a request for a time extension or an annual update. This form is available at:
www.emporia.edu/research/docs/irbmod.doc.
8. Project Purpose (please be specific):
The primary goal of this study is to determine if the use of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) assessment within a library setting to improve their services and

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

26

programs. Particular attention will be paid to the types of services and programs patrons use
most, what their opinion of the service is, and ways in which the library can improve and/or
build upon them.
9. Describe the proposed subjects: (age, sex, race, expected number of participants, or other
special characteristics, such as students in a specific class, etc.)
Patrons and Staff of the SLCPL (Salt Lake City Public Library). Age: over 18 years old. Any
sex or race. Expected number of participants: Pilot study = 12 (twelve). Research sample = 75
(seventy-five).
10. Describe how the subjects are to be selected. If you are using archival information, you
must submit documentation of authorization from applicable organization or entity.
A random sampling technique for qualitative research will be employed. The participants will
depend on who enters the library and is willing to fill out the survey.
11. Describe in detail the proposed procedures and benefit(s) of the project. This must be
clear and detailed enough so that the IRB can assure that the University policy relative
to research with human subjects is appropriately implemented. Any proposed
experimental activities that are included in evaluation, research development,
demonstration, instruction, study, treatments, debriefing, questionnaires, and similar
projects must be described here. Copies of questionnaires, survey instruments, or tests
should be attached. (Use additional page if necessary).

The results of this study are intended to be a springboard for further research and use of the
SWOT within library systems. The benefits are intended to show, from both patrons and staff
view library services and programs in general, and what they believe should be improved or
offered in the future. Possible ways in which libraries can use this information is to evaluate the
SWOT to know not only what they could improve; but also, what they are doing well. Reporting
the results of this survey to the SLCPL Board of Directors may focus their attentions on the
importance of the libraries services and programs.
A research questionnaire will be administered to a random sample of participants. An Informed
Consent document (see Appendix A) will be given to each participant including information on
the nature, purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study; in addition, the estimated time
required assurances of confidentiality, and contact information of both the principle investigators
and the IRB office. Signatures will be gathered from those over 18 (under 18 will not be allowed
to participate).
A copy of the questionnaire is attached (see Appendix B).
12. Will questionnaires, tests, or related research instruments not explained in question
#11 be used? ____Yes __x__ No (If yes, attach a copy to this application.)
13. Will electric or mechanical devices be applied to the subjects? ___Yes __x__ No

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

27

14. Do the benefits of the research outweigh the risks to human subjects? __x__ Yes ___ No
(If no, this information should be outlined here.)
15. Are there any possible emergencies which might arise in utilization of human subjects
in this project? _____Yes __x__ No (If yes, details of these emergencies should be
provided here.)
16. What provisions will you take for keeping research data private/secure? (Be specific
refer to the section Safeguarding Information in the IRB Policies.)

Questionnaire responses and other data gathering instruments and procedures are
designed to limit the personal information required, and only collected if essential to the
project.
Names, places, and other identifying characteristics are not requested in the
questionnaire. Information, such as age, sex, and marital status will be encoded.
All obsolete data stored on any storage medium and other records will be destroyed after
the completion of this project.
Security of the transfer, storage and handling of data will be maintained. Access to the
data will be locked, and access will be limited to the three members of Group 5 (Dawn
Osborne, Azra Basic, and Holley Larsen) and their professor, Dr. Rajesh Singh.

17. Attach a copy of the informed consent document, as it will be used for your subjects.
See attached form (Appendix A)
INVESTIGATORS ASSURANCE: I certify that the information provide in this request is
complete and accurate. I understand that as Principal Investigator I have ultimate responsibility
for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects and the ethical conduct of this
research protocol. I agree to comply with all of ESUs policies and procedures, as well as with
all applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding the protection of human subjects in
research, including, but not limited to the following:

The project will be performed by qualified personnel according to the research protocol,
I will maintain a copy of all survey instruments, interview questions, data collection
instruments, and information sheets for human subjects,
I will promptly request approval from ESUs IRB if any changes are made to the research
protocol,
I will report any adverse events that occur during the course of conducting the research to
the IRB within 10 working days of the date of occurrence.

Signature of Principal Investigator

Date

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

28

FACULTY ADVISORS/INSTRUCTORS ASSURANCE: By my signature on this research

application, I certify that the student investigator is knowledgeable about the regulations and
policies governing research with human subjects and has sufficient training and experience to
conduct this particular study in accord with the approved protocol. In addition,

I agree to meet with the student investigator on a regular basis to monitor study progress,
Should problems arise during the course of this study, I agree to be available, personally,
to supervise the principal investigator in solving them,
I understand that as the faculty advisor/instructor on this project, I will be responsible for
the performance of this research project.

Faculty advisor/instructor on project (if applicable)

Date

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

Appendix D
Sample Poster

29

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES

References
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

30