A taste of access to library resources at public postsecondary institutions Sam Winemiller

In the U.S., available library resources differ in shape and scope between individual postsecondary educational institutions, but especially between types of institutions. Differences in access to academic library support are drawn along socioeconomic and racial lines and reflect lasting structural injustices.

In the case of public colleges and universities, at least some cause for these discrepancies resides in differences in federal funding received by different types of institutions. During the 2020-2021 academic year, 2-year public colleges, most of which are community colleges, received 5% of their overall revenue from the federal government, compared to 4-year public colleges, which received 8.1% of their total revenue from the federal government. This equated to $5419 of federal funding per full-time equivalent (FTE) student for 4-year colleges, and $1183 of federal funding per FTE student for 2-year public colleges, meaning 4-year colleges received 458% more federal funding per FTE student than 2-year colleges on average (2022 Digest of Education Statistics Table 333.10). In 2020-2021, public 2-year colleges served 40% of all Black students, 44% of all LatinX students, and 43% of all Native American students enrolled in public postsecondary education, compared to 33% of all white students (2022 Digest of Education Statistics Table 306.50).

Although the statistics above compare 2-year and 4-year institutions, I was interested in the differences in available library resources between different types of 4-year public colleges and universities, as well as those available at 2-year public colleges. So I explored a dataset compiled by ACRL from the Academic Library Component of the IPEDS 2021 survey that, importantly to this project, lists the average amounts of certain library statistics according to the four basic Carnegie classifications for postsecondary institutions: Associate's, Baccalaureate, Master's, and Doctoral.

Adopting D’Ignazio & Klein’s (2020) description of “data visceralization,” I wanted to allow folks to “taste” the differences in available library resources between these institutions. I adjusted variables from the survey data above to ratio form and assigned them to ingredients in this decadent brownie recipe. Through flavor and texture, each batch of brownies reflects student experience in terms of average availability of library resources at a given type of institution, distinguished by basic Carnegie classification: Associate's, Baccalaureate, Master's, and Doctoral.

This process not only required a bit of baking, but also required a bit of math, and creative assignment of library resources to baking ingredients. I needed to keep most of the structural ingredients the same to preserve some level of experimental and physical consistency between the four different bakes, so butter, eggs, and flour all remained the same across each batch. Here is some explanation of the other ingredient decisions and the math involved.

First, I assigned electronic library collections to the chocolate bar. This ingredient does a lot of the heavy lifting in this recipe. It delivers the intense chocolateness one expects in a good brownie, despite the fact that it isn't the most traditional of the ingredients. Similarly, in the digital age, we rely heavily on libraries' electronic resources, although they're not necessarily the quintessential element we associate with libraries.

Next, I assigned the proportion of students per full-time equivalent (FTE) library staff to sugar. Although chocolateness may be the flavor that distinguishes brownies from other baked goods, it wouldn't really accomplish its purpose as a dessert without sugar. The same is true for libraries. Information resources distinguish libraries from other types of academic services, but it's the library staff that facilitate libraries' ability to accomplish their purpose.

I assigned the number library branches on campus to vanilla extract. Vanilla extract is a subtle ingredient that may not make a big difference, as long as there is a requisite amount in the recipe, but it can also add a nice layer of complexity. Many colleges and universities are well served by a single library, but multiple branches can add specificity and optionality to the student experience.

I assigned physical library collections to cocoa powder. This is a key ingredient in the coloring and flavor foundation of what we expect in a brownie. Although not as punchy as the chocolate bar, some would argue that cocoa powder is more essential to the nature of a brownie. This might also be said about a library's physical collections. People generally expect to find books in libraries and heavily associate libraries with books, even if they don't rely on them in the same way that they rely on electronic resources.

Finally, I assigned library expenditures per student to salt. This ingredient does a lot of work behind the scenes in terms of flavor. We don't expect a brownie to be salty necessarily, but the salt is important because it balances and lifts the sweetness to front. In a similar way, although students don't necessarily pay much attention to library expenditures even when budgets are public, the effects of those expenditures certainly affect the way students experience the library.

With the variables assigned, I did some math. I converted each original ingredient amount to grams so that I could accurately gauge the adjusted amounts using a kitchen scale. I then adjusted the ingredient amounts accordingly for each batch. Most of the math simply involved dividing the average amount of a resource reported a given classification of institution by the average amount reported by doctoral institutions on the 2021 IPEDS Academic Library Component. For the ingredients that required per-student ratios, I found the average 2021 enrollment numbers for each Carnegie classification using the National Center for Education Statistics' Table 306.50: Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Once the percentages were calculated, I multiplied them by the original amount to find each new amount in grams.

Doctoral institutions: Original recipe

  • 3/4 cup butter
  • 113g semi-sweet chocolate bar
  • 2 cups granulated sugar
  • 3 eggs
  • 10g vanilla extract
  • 82g cocoa powder
  • 125g all-purpose flour
  • 5g salt

Local North Carolina Institutions

  • North Carolina State University
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Associate's (compared to Doctoral)

  • Chocolate bar - electronic collections - 48%
  • Sugar - FTE staff per student - 41%
  • Vanilla extract - library branches - 37%
  • Cocoa powder - physical collections - 2%
  • Salt - library expenditures per student - 28%

Local North Carolina institutions:

  • Durham Technical Community College
  • Wake Technical Community College

Bachelor's (compared to Doctoral)

  • Chocolate bar - electronic collections - 35%
  • Sugar - FTE staff per student - 41%
  • Vanilla extract - library branches - 19%
  • Cocoa powder - physical collections - 6%
  • Salt - library expenditures per student - 35%

Local North Carolina Institutions

  • Elizabeth City State University
  • University of North Carolina at Asheville

Master's (compared to doctoral)

  • Chocolate bar - electronic collections - 50%
  • Sugar - FTE library staff per student - 70%
  • Vanilla extract - library branches - 20%
  • Cocoa powder - physical collections - 13%
  • Salt - library expenditures per student - 39%

Local North Carolina Institutions

  • Fayetteville State University
  • North Carolina Central University

Result of Doctoral batch (original recipe)

From left to right: Associate's, Bachelor's, and Master's batches. Note the texture and color difference.

Ultimately, each attendee will need to experience the difference in taste rather than appearance. Hopefully, this project helps us understand the need for more equitable public funding across all types of public postsecondary institutions. It is logical to assume that more equitable distribution of public funding could result in better library experiences for the students at non-doctoral institutions.

References

Data Sets

Topical Literature

Media/Method Literature