Page 228 - Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.47, 2021
P. 228

227
                           Extended English abstracts of articles published in the Chinese edition of Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.47, 2021  227


               framework of academic libraries in China to cope with the challenges of the new era, new
               technology and new demands.
                 This paper first introduces the development of quality evaluation of the academic library. As
               early as in 1911, libraries in western developed countries began to carry out library evaluation.
               From 1930s, the evaluation object of library has developed from static book collection system
               evaluation to dynamic library work process evaluation, and the evaluation content and scope
               have become more extensive. This is the rise and development period of the quality evaluation
               of academic library. Since the 1970s, the period of library evaluation has changed from objective
               resources and components to output benefits. The evaluation of academic libraries in China began
               in this period. The period of total quality evaluation began in the middle and late 1980s. The total
               quality management of library is deeply rooted in the human mind. The library quality evaluation
               is divided into two development directions: performance assessment and outcome assessment.
               In this period, the quality evaluation of academic libraries in China has also made some practical
               achievements.
                 Then this paper focuses on the construction process of the quality evaluation index system
               framework of academic library. Firstly, by using induction method, the evaluation indexes of ISO,
               Steering Committee of Academic Library and information work of the Ministry of Education
               and public library are combined to get the index with higher repeat. Secondly, according to
               the problems and characteristics of academic libraries in China, this paper designed indicators
               according to the essential attributes, main functions, core elements and main work contents of
               academic libraries. Thirdly, the “three-dimensional” (form, content, utility) evaluation of the
               evaluation object in the theory of “Academic All-round Evaluation System” is combined with the
               indicators. By using the concept analysis method, the relationship between the first-class indicators
               is clarified, and the second-class and third-class indicators are derived from the first-class
               indicators by using the deductive method. Fourthly, based on the statistical data of the Steering
               Committee of Academic Library and information work of the Ministry of Education, Jiangsu
               Province, Hubei Province, Jiangxi Province, etc., the feasibility of this method is preliminarily
               tested. Fifthly, after the test on three different types of the university library, this paper absorbs
               reasonable opinions, and optimizes the index system framework.
                 Finally, this paper introduces the SME quality evaluation index system framework of Chinese
               academic libraries. The SME system covers three aspects: the support force, the management
               service force and the social effect force. The index system is good in logic, highlights content and
               utility indicators, weakens formal indicators and increases qualitative evaluation indicators, which
               can be applied to different levels and types of Chinese academic libraries. The authors hope that
               the SME quality evaluation index system framework can provide corresponding guarantee for
               the future development of the university smart library, the construction of the double first-class
               university initiative and the improvement of standardization level of the academic library.
   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233