Measuring Actual Practices: A Computational Analysis of LibGuides in Academic Libraries

This study investigates organizational patterns from 12,781 subject guides at 114 academic institutions, comparing practices evident on LibGuides with stated best practices from the literature of library and information science. Data from subject guide fields such as titles, tabs, and boxes were collected systematically from disciplinary guides at institutions in the United States that are described in Carnegie Classifications as "R1: Doctoral Universities - Very high research activity," and then analyzed according to two general methods. First, descriptive statistics were generated for quantitative aspects of the LibGuides data (e.g., the average number of boxes used per guide), to map both normal and atypical organizational practices. Second, word and phrase frequencies from text fields were compiled to explore differences in how fields such as guide titles and descriptions are commonly utilized. The findings suggest that the average range of guides tends to follow best practices, but that in the use of certain guide elements, especially tabs, most guides do not follow recommended guidelines. In addition, the data identify a number of guides that represent extreme outliers to typical practices: a single guide contained 144 tabs, for example, while another subject guide landing page was found to include 2,033 links.