Case Study in policy development: MIT

In 2016-17, Massachusetts Institute of Technology released first a report on the future of libraries, and then a “mission, vision, and values” statement for its libraries. The transparency of the processes leading to the publication of these documents makes MIT a good case study in policy development.

This is our first case study, and I was not involved in the work itself, so I will attempt to answer the DiScontent case study prompts as best I can, and if MIT folks are willing, perhaps they will fill in some missing information later. (We’ll reach out to them shortly after publishing this.) -VZ

Institution

MIT Libraries

Description of the challenge/opportunity

From MIT’s The Future of Libraries website: “The Ad Hoc Task Force on the Future of Libraries was charged with developing a vision of how the MIT Libraries ought to evolve to best advance the creation, dissemination, and preservation of knowledge, not only to support MIT’s mission but also to position the Institute as a leader in the reinvention of research libraries.”

Approach taken to address challenge/opportunity

From MIT’s The Future of Libraries website: “The Task Force, composed of faculty, staff, and students from across the Institute, sought input from the broader MIT community through open forums, group discussions, and the Idea Bank.”

Other elements of the approach:

  • institutional backing: the Task Force was convened by the Director of Libraries Chris Bourg at the request of Provost Martin Schmidt
  • the Task Force had 30 members representing staff, faculty, and students
  • three working groups were formed to break up the work: on discovery and use, community and relationships, and stewardship and sustainability
  • the process resulting in publication of the Preliminary Report and the mission, vision, and values statement took two years
  • from a news article on the report: “Prior to adopting the new statements, the Libraries published drafts on PubPub… All library staff members were given the opportunity to provide their input and to see and respond to the comments of others.”
  • from the same article: “‘The process itself was an effort to enact some of our values, especially openness, transparency, and risk-taking,’ says Director Chris Bourg.” (emphasis ours)
  • the mission, vision, and values statement ends in an extensive acknowledgements section

Resources needed (acquired or not)

From what we understand on the outside of this process, most of the resources needed for this process to succeed were time, institutional backing, and input. We would be curious to hear more on this from those involved in the work.

Reflection (outcomes, benefits, unexpected consequences, what might you have needed, hindsight)

While we are certain that MIT drew significant benefit from both the process and the published documents, their reach extends far beyond that institution, in large part because of the team’s commitment to transparency and communication out. The Future of Libraries report has been widely cited and used as a model for similar efforts elsewhere. Merely summarizing what we can publicly see of their process has been useful in our own thinking about how we approach collective efforts.

Resources you’d like to share (templates, images, prompts)

The Future of the Libraries website is pretty comprehensive; take a look!