Visibilidad de las bibliotecas universitarias argentinas en los informes de evaluación externa de la CONEAU 1998-2006 trabajo de grado
| Main Author: | Texidor, Silvia |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report PeerReviewed application/pdf |
| Bahasa: | es |
| Terbitan: |
, 2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://eprints.rclis.org/10708/1/Texidor_Visisbilidad_de_las_bibliotecas_universitarias_en_los_informes_de_la_CONEAU.PDF http://eprints.rclis.org/10708/ |
Daftar Isi:
- :The university library serves a central role within the university without whose existence this could not fully comply with two of its core functions: teaching and research. The institutional assessment of the universities is a practice installed in Argentina since the decade Ninety university libraries have not been outside this quality policy. The research was analysed and forty two external evaluation reports issued between 1998-2006 with the aim of 1 °) know the existence and type of information on university libraries, state and private mentioned in the external evaluation reports, according to features formal emission and content, 2 °) know the opinion of the directors of university libraries evaluated on the evaluation process and the institutional influence of the external evaluation on the university library and 3 °) to hear the opinion of those responsible for universities libraries evaluated. The method used is the documentary analysis and content analysis, research was conducted on all reports issued until 31-12-2006. The study focuses on the analysis and systematisation of references to: budget, collections, human resources, infrastructure and equipment, computer equipment and services. These variables are desegregated for thirty-four indicators. The main findings are as follows: a) the external evaluation reports contain scant mention of disparate and libraries evaluated and references abound in subjective and lack of real evidence; B) reports from the libraries of private universities mentioned twice information those of state universities; c) lack of a standard evaluation and presentation violates the visibility of libraries; d) head librarians argue that the institutional assessment helps the awareness of the library within the university, but the model existing evaluation is very immature and lacks a structure involving every step of the process; e) the top management of the university, the “rector”, not yet sufficiently involved with the library of its own university.