 Okay. Hi, everybody. It is 2.45 and I am really excited to get started and share some of the findings from our survey of library deans and directors at academic institutions, which is being published today. This is a great big room and I'm thrilled that we're going to be recording the session, so very few people actually have to show up in person. But I think the quality of the discussion is going to be very strong and I'm really looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts and reactions to some of the findings that we have today. I'm Roger Schoenfeld. I'm the, for those who don't know me, I'm the director of Ithaca SNR's library and scholarly communications program. The talk that I'm going to give today is from a study that my colleague Christine Wolfe, who is blissfully offline enjoying her honeymoon right now, was the principal author of, so I'm happy to be here to represent what I think is a really fine piece of work and an important piece of work. What I'm going to try to convince you of today is that we've heard a variety of things from library directors in the course of this project and other work that my colleagues and I have been doing in recent years. And in this project, I think we have gotten a slightly clearer shape of how the strategic trajectory of academic libraries is proceeding and some of the constraints that library leaders are feeling. And I want to have a chance to share with you some of what we're seeing but also, as I say, to hear if this resonates or not. The work that I'm sharing today was sponsored by EBSCO and Elsevier and JSTOR, so just to give you a sense of that and our gratitude for them for their support of the work, which really, as I say, gets at some of the directions that libraries are proceeding in. The project, one of the real positive characteristics about the project is that we achieved an incredibly high level of response from the library director community. When we had the survey open in December and November, just this past semester, we had essentially half of academic library directors in the United States chose to participate. It was a little bit higher among the doctoral institutions and just a little bit lower among the masters and baccalaureate institutions. And I'll talk a little bit in a couple of places about where we see some interesting distinctions between those two groups. One or two caveats, you'll notice that it does not include community colleges, which I think is something we would like to address in the future. But we do have really strong levels of participation among the directors at institutions that grant a baccalaureate degree or higher. One of the things, just in terms of basic descriptive statistics, one of the things that we had not asked in the past and surveyed for the first time in this particular cycle was how many years the respondent had been in their position as director of their library. And you can see that more than a quarter of our respondents have been in their position for two years or less. And more than half, a bit more than half, have been in their position for five years or less. So you can see some of the turnover that we're aware of anecdotally, the wave of retirements that some of us have certainly spoken about. You can really see that present in some of the participation numbers for this project. So the reason why we surveyed library directors and not librarians overall or another kind of category is that in this project, we've mostly been interested in the strategic directions, the resource allocations, and some of the staffing directions that libraries are taking. And I'm going to cover a few areas in the talk today. It's very clear that we're seeing an increase in resource allocation towards what we might call services as opposed to collections. Very clear that we're seeing a deep commitment to student success building on some of what we all just heard about from Allison's talk. We're seeing collections continue to transform and some indications of some next directions that directors might wish to take with collections. We're continuing to see a strong pivot away from discovery and a way from the library as a discovery starting point, which is something that we've been tracking for a number of years now. And interestingly, we're also seeing a number of consistent indications that there's been a decrease over the last three years since our previous survey cycle in perceptions that directors have of the support that they receive from their institutions. And so all of those things together, you can see this kind of fairly coherent strategic shift, pivot, if you like, transformation, from a more collections-oriented mindset towards a more research support, teaching support, learning support kind of mindset. But it's clear that we're in a period of change where the perceptions of institutional support are not what they have been in the past, or there's a number of institutions where it's declined. And I think that's something that probably deserves a bit of reflection and discussion because we're in the midst of a process rather than at an end point at certainly most of our institutions. So a big part of the vision that I want to talk about today is the increasing resource allocation towards what I'm calling services. And I'm really using services as a catch-all for all of the things other than collections that a library does. That's maybe a little bit of a shorthand. For each of these, I'm just going to share a subset of the findings. And if you're interested, you can dive in in much greater depth to the report which has been published to our website or the data set which we'll be releasing in the coming months. So here's a good example of a question that speaks to this. My library is systematically increasing the share of staffing and budget devoted to developing and improving services that support teaching, learning, and or research. And this is a pretty broad question. You can see that more than 50% of the doctoral university directors agree strongly with that statement. It's a bit lower at the baccalaureate and master's degree. Institutions, very, very few respondents disagree with that statement. And this is one of a series of statements where we're trying to kind of get at the sort of way that resources staffing budget are being reallocated. We kind of track the vision that the directors have a little bit less in terms of asking them what is your vision and a little bit more in trying to understand how they're making resource reallocations and how they expect to do so. Here's a similar kind of question in some ways. To the best of your knowledge, will your library add or reduce employee positions in any of the following areas over the next five years? So it's not a, and this is the share responding to a variety of different kinds of positions saying that they plan to add staffing in those areas. So I'm not sure if everyone will be able to read all of the items here well, but the first item is instruction, instructional design, and information literacy services. That's right there up at the top. Then it goes to specialized faculty research support, things like digital humanities, GIS, et cetera, digital preservation and archiving distinctive collections like archives and rare books, and assessment and data analytics. You can see that many of these have either increased or declined just a little bit, but the basic rank order hasn't changed all that dramatically over the last three years. We did introduce two new items this cycle, human resources and talent management, and where did it go, finance and business operations. Just to give a sense of where that is. We also asked where they would reduce staffing, and you can see that that clusters in a different set of areas. Clusters with reference access services, technical services, collections development and print preservation and print collections management. And unsurprisingly, not all, but most of these functions are more print oriented, more tangible collection oriented. That's where there's a pretty, pretty stronger sense of a willingness to make reductions. Now what's interesting is that now this is going back to the additions where they would add staffing. What's interesting is that when you look at the doctoral institutions, they're rather different than the masters and baccalaureate institutions. So instruction and instructional design is sort of equal for all three groups of responding directors. But when you look at specialized faculty research support, the doctoral institutions pop all the way out. Almost 70% of directors at doctoral institutions are planning to staff up in that area. And as you can see, other areas related to distinctive collections, special collections, preservation, assessment, et cetera. There's a much stronger sense of adding staff at the doctoral institutions in a variety of fairly consistent areas. Now at the same time, interestingly, so we asked this strongly worded statement, my library has a well-developed strategy to meet changing user needs and research habits. And I have to say I'm a little bit discouraged to see that at the baccalaureate and the master's institutions, we've actually climbed down a little bit from where we were in 2013. The doctoral institutions have continued to increase. But we don't see much more than 50% even of the doctoral institutions agreeing strongly with this statement. And so there's something to reflect on that there is a pretty clear sense of strategic reallocation among the doctoral institutions towards a certain kind of service portfolio. But that said, there's not as much confidence that there's a well-developed strategy for meeting changing user needs. And that sets against one against another to some degree. So I'll toss out a couple of questions. We'll see if you're interested in engaging now or if you want to hold questions until the end. I'm realizing maybe with the microphones where they're positioned, maybe we'll hold questions until the end. But I think there's a couple of questions that the slides have just shared, that the findings have just shared raised. One is, is it possible to pursue this fundamental strategy across different kinds of institutions to really clear where the doctoral institutions are going or relatively clear? It's much less clear when we look at the findings how the other kinds of institutions, what directions they are pursuing. And of course, the direction towards services is a direction that puts libraries in some of the same spaces as instructional technology or teaching and learning center puts the library in some ways in the same spaces that some other academic support services are placed as well. So there's some interesting questions about how the scope and partnership of those different organizations fit together. So I want to talk about another part of the vision, which is the library director's deep commitment to student success. So for all of the somewhat different perspectives that I was just sharing, when we ask a strongly worded statement like supporting student success is the most important priority for my library, we can get 90% of master's degree directors, master's degree granting institutions directors agreeing strongly with that statement, 70% or so of doctoral institutions, 85% of baccalaureate institutions. It's one of the strongest, most consistent findings across the survey. But when we ask in some ways a similar question, my library has clearly articulated how it contributes to student success. We see those numbers fall down 30, 40 percentage points. So from 90% among the master's institutions towards 50%, from 75% for the doctoral institutions to about 55% of institutions directors feeling that they have clearly articulated to the rest of the campus ultimately and perhaps to their own staff as well how they contribute towards student success. And I think that mismatch is a bit of what ACRL with the assessment and action program, what some of the other project information literacy too have been really pushing towards is how do we determine and articulate what that contribution should be and what in fact it is. And here's an area where I'm going to show you faculty members with the red bars and then library directors with the blue bars. So the faculty members are from our survey a year ago of faculty members across the United States. And library directors is of course what you've just seen. And the question is the undergraduate students at my institution have poor skills related to locating and evaluating scholarly information. It's a pretty blunt statement. And as you can see the faculty members 50%, 60% of them depending a little bit on institutional type agree strongly with that statement. The library directors not so much. The mismatch is perhaps greatest at the doctoral institutions where you can see that it's about 25% to about 55% in terms of the gap. Now the timeline of when this research took place may be worth mentioning. So the faculty members, the research took place a year ago in I believe the October to December range of 2015. The library director research took place in November and December 2016 where as you know sort of issues around fake news and so forth were much more part of the national attention. And so it's actually a little bit counterintuitive that the library directors are if anything more sanguine than the faculty members about the students' research skills. And there are differences here of course. The library directors are methodologically identified as one per institution. The faculty members are composed as a random sample of faculty members from across all institutions. So there's a little bit of caution that needs to be applied here. But you can see a pretty substantial difference here. And it's one that we will see again in a couple of other slides related to student success. And I think that's something that I really want to emphasize is that in this area we are not seeing as much consistency between the faculty members and the library directors as I might have expected. So here are two kind of parallel, they're not parallel, but they're related questions. Use a 10 to 1 point scale to indicate how well each of these statements describe your point of view. And the one is that librarians here significantly contribute to student learning by helping them find access and make use of a range of resources in their coursework. And then the second one is librarians here contribute significantly to student learning by helping them develop their research skills. And again, bearing in mind the caveat that the projects have slightly different methodology, you can see library directors by acclamation agree quite strongly with this statement. Faculty members above both statements, faculty members are a little bit more mixed. It's not that they strongly disagree, but their level of agreement is certainly rather lower. So there's some differences in terms of perceptions, maybe the library directors, maybe they respond a little bit more aspirationally to some of these claims, whereas the faculty members have a little bit more of their own sense of their students. We could speculate about some other causes of this mismatch, but you can see fairly consistently in questions where we've asked library directors and faculty members for similar views on issues connected to student learning, research skills, student success, that there are some pretty meaningful differences in the responses. That said, library directors clearly have a deep commitment in the libraries of our community, clearly have a deep commitment to student success. And I think it raises some interesting questions about how libraries have articulated that contribution, what kinds of challenges are faced in articulating that contribution in the actual context of the politics of a given campus or given institution. And of course the question about why there's this gap, what causes it, what libraries can do, if anything, to address that gap, there certainly is quite a bit of work that is taking place, has taken place on these kinds of topics. And I think I hope our research helps to drive home some of the importance of the issue here. So I want to talk now about how some of the ways that collections are continuing to transform. This is an area where of course we've been through some really, really widespread transformations in the last 10 or 15 years. And most of what I'm going to show you here is not some of the more, to be honest, not some of the most radical transformations that one might argue are taking place right now. So one might argue that some of the most radical transformations are shifts at some institutions ultimately away from collecting full stop. Shifts towards, away from library-driven collecting and towards more demand-driven acquisitions. Shifts towards much more cooperative collecting. Shifts towards licensing as against collecting. You can make a pretty strong argument that there are widespread transformations that either are ongoing or are on the horizon. But what I want to share with you is something a little bit more mundane is really what's happening with collecting budgets. And I think this is interesting too. So we've been asking for three cycles of this survey, so over the course of six years, the share of the library's materials budget that's spent on the following items. And this is an average across all of the institutions that responded. So, and this is an estimate, right? We weren't gathering budget, detailed budgetary information. We were gathering directors' best estimates of what they're spending their resources on. And you can see that the online journals has not increased dramatically over the course of six years. It's at about 60% of the budget, again on average, across the participants. You can see print books is declining a bit. E-books have increased a bit. Print journals declining a bit. But fundamentally, you know, the online journals continue to be the lion's share as I'm sure is not a surprise to anyone in this room of library materials budgets. What I do want to call to your attention though is the all other items, right? Because all other items is an awful lot of things that libraries, many libraries care quite a bit about, right, and as I'll show you in a minute, they care more and more about, or say they care more and more about. And it's curious that at least at the director level when they're offering up these estimates of what they're spending their budgets on, that we see it's almost an afterthought. We spend 5% again on average of our budget on everything else other than books and journals, right? Maybe that's accurate at many of your institutions. Maybe it's not. That to me is actually a really interesting question to dig into. I won't spend a lot of time on this only to say that we also ask directors for their predictions and their predictions seem to have some validity to them. They're predicting that the digital journals are going to continue to increase as a share of budgets, that digital books, e-books are gonna continue to increase as a share of budgets. The print things are going to continue to decline as a share of budgets. And all other items is going to be more or less flat. So again, just coming back to that question about, are we mostly about books and journals or are we in whatever print or digital format? Or are we taking a broader minded approach to collecting scholarship and cultural heritage? So I think that's something of what that might, what we might be thinking about there. Now, in terms of the strategy that directors tell us they're pursuing, we asked these two strongly worded statements. My library is systematically reducing the staffing and budget related to our general collections. I sometimes hear directors say that, at least aspirationally, we would like to do this. We'd like to cut down on what we spend on our general collections. We'd like to increase, the second item is, we are systematically increasing the staffing and budget devoted to rare special and other distinctive collections. And you can see that about a quarter of doctoral institutions agree strongly that they're trying to reduce the share of resources devoted to their general collections. And about 35% or so are trying to systematically increase the resources devoted to distinctive collections. It's by no means, neither one of these is as dramatic or as uniform of a strategy as sometimes we hear proposed or hear discussed. That said, these are the directions, as best we can tell them, that they're inching towards. So this is the share that strongly agree with these statements. The share that agrees somewhat with them is of course higher. But there's some, I have to say, there's a directionality, but there's also a, it's maybe a looser directionality than some might expect. Here's a case where the directors seem to have gotten much more confident over the last three years. Does your library have formal collections management policies for when and how to de-accession print materials that are available digitally? And here we've jumped up from 25, 30, 40% agreeing strongly to 50, 60, 70% agreeing strongly with this. So to all of you who have made an investment in thinking about collections management in a more systematic way over the last three years, you see yourself reflected in the findings here. Here's another item that I've sort of foreshadowed a little bit. As scholarship moves steadily away from its exclusive dependence on text, right, towards things like the fact that this session is being recorded and will be made available as a video, libraries must shift their own collecting to include new material types. When you pose a question that way, you get fairly strong majorities agreeing strongly with it, which is not as you saw reflected in their sense of budget allocations, right? Their sense of budget allocations was that the share devoted to text would remain approximately 95%, and the share devoted to all other things would remain approximately 5%. So it's interesting to think about, you know, this is again when I referenced a little bit earlier the difference between asking about, you know, what is your vision? This is a little bit about maybe someone's vision, but when you ask about resource allocations, you get a slightly, or in this case, a dramatically different answer. And I don't mean to suggest that one is right and one is wrong, but you can see that how you ask the question gives you rather different answers, right? And here just one more item. How much of a priority is each of the following functions in your library? The news on this slide is on the last item, purchasing print books to build research collections. I could not have foreseen that this was going to almost double from 2013 to 2016, right? In 2013, we had a really interesting story to tell, which was that the first item, it's all about facilitating access, and then the last item, it's not about collecting at all if you look across libraries broadly, was sort of an interesting kind of modern narrative, but it seems like a lot of libraries have really recognized that for whatever vision they may have for the long run about building print collections that in the near term, the format transition from eBooks, from print books to eBooks may not be proceeding as rapidly as some would expect. We have a number of findings that get at that, and it's sort of a moment where maybe the hype cycle, we're at a little bit of a trough of a hype cycle about the format transition for books. So there's a lot of things to ask about here. Whether we anticipate this emphasis, this claim about moving to new material types, whether we think it will actually develop or whether we think it maybe is something that sounds good, but is really beyond the capabilities of a lot of our libraries, whether new formats like video and so forth may never to the same extent be integrated into local collections practices. I think these are, we're starting to have some not just vision but evidence about what's going on in these areas. And I think there's also some questions about, although directors say they expect, I showed you in a previous section, directors expect that aggregate spending will increase for services, for non-collections considerations, but they don't seem to expect, other than on the staffing side, they don't really seem to expect to spend less on general collections. It's not very widespread or very high levels of confidence being expressed. So there's a little bit of, where's the money coming from? Is it coming from increased allocations from general university appropriations? Is it coming from outside external funding that library directors are securing? There's a sense of putting more into services and less into general collections, but the reallocation is on the staffing, not on other parts of the budget, at least as best as we can tell right now. And I think that has interesting implications, not just for libraries, but for publishers as well. So one of the things that we've been tracking for a while is where libraries are with discovery. Discovery, as you all know, is a fast-changing factor for scholars and for students. The environment for discovery is reshaping itself as new services are regularly introduced. And one of the things that is now emerging as a consistent finding over six years of these surveys is that library directors are de-emphasizing their commitment to serving as the starting point and serving as the switch, the router in the researcher's workflow. This is, to me, is really interesting because there's a strategic role there that 10 years ago, many directors were saying, things like we have to compete with Google, and there have been an array of services that have been developed and that libraries have offered that are designed to offer a single search box on the library homepage for all the collections, these kinds of services. And yet at the same time, we're seeing a kind of steady decline in the sense of this as a strategy. Let me share some findings. So it's strategically important that my library be seen by its users as the first place that they go to discover scholarly content. Now, this isn't so much about what they do. This is about how the library is perceived, right? This is ultimately a question about, about sort of a question about campus politics and user perceptions. And we had very high level of agreement when we first asked this question in 2010. And it has steadily, not dramatically, but steadily been declining through 2013 and then 2016. And it's been declining not just at small colleges, not just at large universities, really across the board. So I think that's actually pretty interesting. You might expect that in three years from now we're gonna be below 50% at all three of these institution types. That wouldn't be a surprise. Now, this question is much more pointed about the services and collections that the library offers. My library is always the best place for researchers at my institution to start their search for scholarly information. So this is less about politics. This is about, I'm the information expert on my campus and I'm going to assert that this is the best place for researchers to start. And you can see that although baccalaureate and master's institutions have more or less held steady with a slight decline over three years time, the doctoral institutions have fallen off at a somewhat greater clip. So we're now less than four out of 10 directors at doctoral institutions willing to go on record making that statement strongly. Which I think is interesting sort of in light of some of the findings that we just heard in the last session about where is the right place as it were the correct place to start one's research. Now, here's another item that the reason we added this item, I'll just sort of share a little bit of the kind of thinking that went into it. The reason that we added this item when we did was that we were interested in whether the library was going to, we were really interested in the connection between scholarly communications, kind of transformative agenda for scholarly communications and the role that the library might play with respect to discovery, right? So the idea here is identical online copies of the same item exist. So that might be that they exist on ProQuest and on EBSCO, let's just say, or it might be because they exist on an institutional repository and on ScienceDirect, or it might be because they exist on ResearchGate and on SpringerLink, right? Like it could be any two or more places and the question was whether it was important that the library be able to guide users to one of those preferred sources. Now I think in every single one of the three examples I just named, you probably as a library would have a preferred source, I suspect. But what we're hearing here is that whether you do have a preferred source or not, the sense that it's important to guide users to that preferred source has fallen off steadily, right? So we're now approaching a third of respondents who are saying that that is an important function for the library to serve. Now you could argue that that might not be the best way to achieve sort of a transformative scholarly communications agenda and I don't mean to push that that is the right way to do it. But it's clear that the directors don't seem to be endorsing that as the strategy that they see that you see. So, this has implications not just for a kind of transformative agenda for scholarly communications, though I do think it does have implications there. It also has implications for how you connect into student success and information literacy and those research skills, right? I mean, we are, if discovery is decreasingly the province of the library, which I think is what we're beginning to pick up fairly consistently from the library director respondents to the survey, then what are the strategies for what it means to offer information literacy instruction for engaging inside of a classroom in partnership with a faculty member for contributing to student success? It's not to say that libraries don't have strong answers to those questions, but it's not, those answers are probably not rolled out nearly as uniformly as some of these directionalities that I'm suggesting might indicate they should be. So, I think that's another interesting area that I'd love to hear reactions to. And then finally, because I didn't want to start on a down note, so now we're going to end in some way there. But I don't want to frame this as a down note. I think it's really important to recognize that the leaders of academic libraries have been pursuing a transformation agenda that's really no less wide-ranging and comprehensive than the transformation agenda of any other participant in the information industries over the last 10 years, right? I mean, the transformations are equally complex and equally ambitious. And so, when we think about that sort of cyclically or where are we in that process? How are we going? I think it is important to check in. Now, this is just the perception of the library directors, not the perception of provosts or faculty members or others, but I do think it's important to check in on how do we feel like we're doing. So, I'll show you a series of questions that ultimately point to the same conclusion, which is that we're not doing as well as we were, we're a little tired. Some of us are, that is. So, here the item is I'm considered by academic deans and other senior administrators to be a member of my institution's senior academic leadership. And, you know, whether a library director should be or shouldn't be, this is just measuring whether they feel that they are seen that way. And you can see a very consistent decline, not a radical decline, but a consistent decline across institutional types. You can also see that there's a pretty substantial difference between doctoral and masters in baccalaureate granting institutions, right, where about three quarters, two thirds to three quarters of doctoral institution directors agree strongly with this statement, but only a little more than a third of baccalaureate directors agree with that statement strongly. So, quite different institutional contexts in that respect. Here's one that's also declined. This one in some ways is perhaps more telling. My direct supervisor and I share the same vision for the library, right? And now, you know, look, I mean, we all have a direct supervisor, and you know, there's always some difference in perspective there, but it is interesting that this has declined, especially not especially the masters in baccalaureate institutions, but even at the doctoral institutions. Again, maybe not a radical decline, but a consistent one across institutional types. Here's a new item that we added, and I have mixed feelings about this based on the findings, but we wanted to try to get at how the library's position on campus was connected with its budget allocation, right? It's kind of a complicated thing. How do we, how is our budget connected to the way that we're perceived by the resource allocators at our institutions? So, the way we framed it was our university's budget allocations to the library in recent years have demonstrated that it recognizes the value of the library. It may be that that's a slightly confusing formulation, but the idea was, are we just going up or down depending on what the university's budget is doing? Or is there kind of a recognition of the value that the library especially is adding? And you can see that that's more of the case among our doctoral respondents, where about a third agreed strongly with that statement. Then it is among our masters in baccalaureate respondents where it was only about one out of five who agreed strongly with it. There's a lot of folks who fell very much in the middle on that statement, and that's a sense that maybe there was something a little bit off about the question, but it is something that we were trying to get at and hoping to be able to explore. We also asked, what are the primary constraints on your ability to make desired changes in your library? And once again, this has been consistent over time. Once again, lack of financial resources tops the chart. But interestingly, lack of employee skills in second place, a clear second place, and then a number of them that fall, maybe not in a long tail, but follow their inadequate cross-institutional collaboration, general resistance to change, and challenges in implementing new technologies are the three that follow. Now, this question has some very interesting differences for doctoral institutions in particular. So you can see that doctoral institutions are just a little bit less likely to say lack of financial resources, not dramatically so, but a little bit less likely than the others, and they're substantially more likely to say lack of employee skills in key areas, which tracks back to some of those questions we were looking at earlier where you could see just how many positions they were hoping to add or redefine in some of these new sort of services areas as I've talked about them. And then the other thing that is fascinating to me is the fourth item, general resistance to change, where no one is higher than about a third or 40%, but you can see that as the institution's size gets bigger, which is a general pattern between baccalaureate and master's and doctoral institutions, you can see that the director's sense that there is a general resistance to change is growing commentarily. And so that raises some questions for me about whether that's just the leader's distance, the director's distance from the people on the front lines as it were, or whether it's about the complexity of managing large organizations, or whether there are different cultures, maybe there's more likely to be like a faculty culture in some of the doctoral libraries and would be present in some of the smaller institution libraries, I'm not sure if that's the case, but there are some interesting differences there. So these declines that I'm calling out here are not dramatic, I don't want anyone to hear me say that the headwinds are being faced uniform, like that's not the point that we think the findings make, but we do think that they give a sense that some portion of academic libraries, 10 or 15 or whatever it is percent, the directors are reporting to us a noticeable decline in institutional support or institutional recognition over a three year period, and I think that raises some questions about whether is it just a blip, is it just a sort of oscillation, or is this the leading indicator of something? I don't mean to suggest that it is, I have no way of knowing, but I think that's something that really bears watching. Is it something that we would just expect to happen occasionally given the nature of the strategic transformations we're navigating? Is it something that we would, maybe there are some environmental factors associated with budget constraints and political dynamics over the last three years, I'm not sure, but there are some questions about what those mean and how to interpret them. And of course, question that follows is this something that libraries should work, that library leaders should work to reverse? And it's, I think probably a lot of the work that one does is at least indirectly aimed at trying to reverse this, or bolster the position of the library, but it does raise some questions about, specifically with things like my direct supervisor and I share the same vision for the library, when we see answers on that type of item declining, is that something that the director or the library team or others on campus indeed should work to reverse? And I think that that item in particular raises some interesting questions given the nature of this fairly clearly articulated set of visions of moving towards more of a services kind of role, more of a research and teaching and learning support or engagement role than a collections role. And that navigating that, the politics of that, the university academic leadership dynamics around that are clearly some of the issues that are challenging to some of our respondents. So I am going to stop there. So what I wanna let you know, I didn't, I'm sorry, I didn't think to bring a slide with the URL, but you all are very, very good web users. And so if you go to sr.ithaca with a K, ifithacawithaK.org, you can find it'll be right there on the homepage, the full report, the full publication and take a look at it, share it with others. I hope you find the findings useful and I appreciate the chance to present to you today. Thank you.