Quality Management in Chinese Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review

By inergency On Mar 25, 2024

1. Introduction

With the growing emphasis on quality in a knowledge-centric society, the quality of higher education has emerged as one of the key concerns among international governments and academic communities [1,2]. As integral components of higher education institutions, academic libraries play a crucial role in managing documentary information resources, providing subject support, and conducting academic evaluations [3,4]. Faced with the surge of global digitization and the diversification of higher education needs, academic libraries are challenged to manage information and knowledge resources sustainably and effectively. In light of these trends, academic libraries have worked to develop quality management (QM) strategies mirroring the complexities of the current world [5].

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) outlines QM in the ISO 9000 series as a process of quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvement [6]. QM in academic libraries is defined as a philosophy covering aspects of quality assurance and quality enhancement. This philosophy involves not only compliance with internal and external standards set by higher education institutions but also the overall optimization of library offerings and services. These efforts aim to improve the quality of education, research, and continuous learning, ultimately enhancing institutional efficiency [7]. The ISO 11620 standard highlights the importance of quality in meeting the needs of users in higher education institutions [8]. Therefore, it is beneficial to seek a suitable quality approach for contemporary academic library services. QM models function as a systematic quality approach that ensures the continuous evaluation and improvement of services, which in turn effectively addresses user needs. Because international quality standards like ISO 9000 continue to influence QM frameworks worldwide, there is a need to examine different QM models. These models usually refer to ISO 9000 and national quality awards [9,10,11] like the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Global Award [12,13]. Some studies also view Total Quality Management (TQM) as a QM model or tool [14,15]. Each model offers unique perspectives and methodologies for enhancing quality and operational efficiency in various sectors [16]. In educational contexts such as in China, identifying these QM models within academic libraries aids in understanding the breadth and diversity of QM strategies in use or under consideration.

In China, the speedy development of academic libraries in the last twenty years has mirrored a national emphasis on improving the quality of higher education. The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE) also has reported that the number and scale of academic libraries in the country grew manyfold [17]. This has coincided with the evolution of QM practices as part of its commitment to the quality elevation of educational institutions. These are apparent in efforts that have seen the MOE issue a series of directions and guidelines, such as the Regulations for Libraries in General Higher Education Institutions [18], the Guidance on Promoting the Construction of New Educational Infrastructure and Building a High-Quality Education Support System [19], the Implementation Plan for Evaluation and Assessment of Undergraduate Education in General Higher Education Institutions (2021–2025) [20], and the Highlights of the Work of the Higher Education Department of the Ministry of Education in 2023 [21], all in the effort of improving library services to attain academic excellence. In this respect, very importantly, the Higher Education Evaluation Center of the Ministry of Education (HEEC) was established in 2004, playing the critical evaluative role in the assessment and advocacy of improved QM practices for academic libraries supporting the improvement of higher education quality [22]. Despite these efforts, challenges persist in fully understanding and addressing QM aspects within the context of Chinese academic libraries. Some scholars have argued that the institutional evaluation standards established by the MOE do not adequately reflect the actual state of QM practices within academic libraries [22,23]. A disparity has been noted between the growing demand for high-quality academic libraries and the current state of Chinese institutions [24]. These institutions also have faced challenges in areas such as the quality of digital resources management, service quality, and librarians’ awareness of quality, with quality becoming one of the main factors restricting academic libraries from maintaining an indispensable role in China’s higher education system [25,26,27,28].

Discussions on QM in academic libraries in China, which were initiated by scholars as early as the 1990s [29,30,31], predate the substantial advancements driven by government policies and directives. These initial conversations set the groundwork for a research area that has experienced heightened attention since the beginning of the 21st century. The subsequent growth in QM research, which coincided with various government initiatives, led to a broader exploration of QM in all library types. Some studies have contributed to this discourse by examining the library QM literature [32,33]. However, most previous Chinese research has concentrated on single aspects of QM, such as concepts, principles, application cases, and evaluation tools [34,35,36,37], and has often overlooked comprehensive studies dedicated to academic libraries.

Currently, despite the numerous research efforts on QM, there is an absence of the literature that addresses the types of QM models within the whole Chinese academic library system. This gap extends to research involving systematic reviews, especially those focusing on enabling and hindering factors relating to the planning and implementation of QM. In fact, even within the global research landscape, where methods like case studies, questionnaires, and interviews have been used to explore QM issues [5,38,39,40], the absence of systematic reviews is a widespread issue, extending beyond the Chinese context. This observation partly mirrors one of the necessities of this study that arises not only from the gaps lying within the Chinese academic library system but also from its potential to supplement global research on QM. The necessity of this study further emerges from the increasing government and academic attention towards QM in academic libraries. Given this growing focus, a detailed examination of QM models together with the factors facilitating and the challenges impeding their planning and implementation becomes important. This necessity is also highlighted by the problems posed by global digitization and diverse higher education needs. Understanding the strategies applied by academic libraries to enhance the standards of services among these enablers and challenges is important for improving quality in libraries and higher education globally.

Consequently, this research tends to address the gaps identified in the existing literature. The purposes of this research are to synthesize the current state of QM in Chinese academic libraries; to examine types of QM models, as well as the factors facilitating and the challenges impeding their planning and implementation; and to gather evidence to further identify research gaps and future directions. In seeking to achieve the above-stated objectives of this research, the following research questions are identified and systematically reviewed from the relevant available literature:

RQ1: What are the characteristics of the included studies related to QM in Chinese academic libraries?
RQ 2. What types of QM models have been discussed and implemented by Chinese academic libraries?
RQ 3. What are the enablers for planning and implementing QM in Chinese academic libraries?
RQ 4. What challenges do Chinese academic libraries encounter in planning and implementing QM?

This paper systematically describes the present scenario of QM in Chinese academic libraries, the types of QM models that have been discussed and implemented, the enablers for planning and implementing QM, and the challenges faced throughout these processes. In order to understand this field and related issues, revisiting and compiling existing research is essential. Against this background, this study utilizes a systematic review method to look for, bring together, and demonstrate the relevant research works. By bridging the identified gaps within the Chinese context, this research not only contributes to local knowledge but also enriches the broader international discourse on QM in academic libraries. From a theoretical standpoint, the outcomes of this paper could deepen the understanding of QM within the context of academic libraries from both external and internal aspects. This contribution could offer a new theoretical perspective for subsequent research on QM in academic libraries, thereby facilitating the advancement of QM theory within this domain. These findings could also provide essential theoretical guidance for the practical implementation of QM models. From a practical and political perspective, the outcomes from the present study are anticipated to offer actionable insights for the further development of relevant and adaptable QM practices within Chinese academic libraries and globally. These insights have the potentiality to guide library management, higher education institution leaders, and policymakers in developing sustainable QM strategies for libraries to enhance the general quality of higher education.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

5.1. Conclusions

This study, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, examined the current state of QM in Chinese academic libraries, the QM models discussed and implemented, the enablers for planning and implementing QM, and the challenges they faced. A total of 52 studies were included. The methods included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, which exhibited a holistic and multidimensional perspective. Numerous included studies, which employed a case study and theoretical analysis, revealed the essential role of QM models, including ISO 9001, TQM, and EFQM, in enhancing the QM framework and practices within Chinese academic libraries. Through the systematic review, six enablers for the planning and implementation of QM in Chinese academic libraries were identified. Of these, four were external enablers, including the introduction of international QM models, government macro-policy guidance and financial support, technological advancement and digital transformation, and the implementation of quality assessment in higher education reform. The two remaining enablers were internal, represented by the intrinsic developmental need of the academic libraries and the emphasis on educational excellence within Chinese cultural traditions. Additionally, this review identified six challenges encountered by these institutions during this process. Of these, three external challenges included difficulty in adapting to rapid evolution in industry and technology, deficiency in comprehensive evaluation indicators, and inadequate preparation for rigorous audits and continuous assessment by ISO certification bodies. The three internal challenges involved resistance to change among library staff, insufficiency of intrinsic motivation for continuous improvement within academic libraries, and inequitable distribution of resources.

The findings of this systematic review clearly indicate that the internal and external environments involved in planning and implementing QM in academic libraries necessitate a strategic impetus. Through adopting actionable strategies and supportive policies, libraries could improve the quality and efficiency of their services. These improvements could foster the sustainable development of academic institutions and help the pursuit of excellence in higher education.

5.2. Implication for Theory

This systematic review, based on existing research, presented a detailed examination of the current status of QM in Chinese academic libraries. It examined previous studies on the models, enablers, and challenges of QM in these institutions, comparing them with relevant international research. This review could enrich the theoretical understanding of both supportive and obstructive factors influencing QM in academic libraries. The findings of the current study highlight the critical need to integrate both internal and external, as well as international and local considerations when discussing and implementing QM models. Considering the current situation of Chinese academic libraries incorporating international quality management models such as ISO 9000, TQM, and EFQM, it is essential to account for government support, technological advancements, quality assessment in higher education, intrinsic development needs, and cultural context. This insight is important for the theoretical development of QM, emphasizing the adaptability and flexibility of QM theories across various cultures and higher education systems. Furthermore, this study identified a set of theoretical strategies within the existing literature to address challenges faced by Chinese academic libraries, which included technological transformation, evaluation indicators, ISO continuity assessment, library staff competencies, organizational culture, and resource allocation. This approach could not only augment the theoretical foundation of QM but also offer theoretical support and guidance for effectively navigating these challenges. Overall, the results of the current study could furnish novel theoretical perspectives and frameworks for future investigations into the factors influencing QM in academic libraries, thus contributing to the evolution of QM theory in this field. Future research could benefit from including comparative studies on the drivers and barriers of QM in different types of academic libraries, such as university libraries and college libraries, which represent institutions under different higher education contexts. Such research has the potential to further promote the theoretical development of QM by uncovering patterns and principles applicable across varied higher educational settings.

5.3. Implication for Practice

This systematic review offers insights into the current state of QM in Chinese academic libraries. The findings of this study confirm that there is an increasing alignment of these libraries with international QM models, including ISO 9000, TQM, and EFQM. Top management and professionals in these libraries should integrate these models with local specificities to develop customized QM strategies. In this process, the integration of quality assessment within higher education reform, coupled with an emphasis on educational excellence inherent in Chinese culture, plays a promotive role in enhancing library QM. Effectively utilizing government policy and financial support, along with proactively adapting to rapid technological advancements, is indispensable for strengthening the quality of services and infrastructure. In response to the challenges encountered in QM planning and implementation, top management should prioritize the continuous professional development of library staff by providing extensive training programs on QM principles, user service, and change management. Such training initiatives are instrumental in facilitating staff adaptation to evolving QM strategies and management systems. To enrich the team’s professional expertise, it is advisable to engage external experts and consultants for specialized QM knowledge and support. Additionally, top management should further develop strategies to foster a culture centered on service quality, emphasize internal motivation, encourage staff participation in decision-making, and ensure accountability in QM processes. Building on this, library staff should also enhance their awareness of quality services, improve management skills, and actively participate in the transformation of the existing QM system.

5.4. Implication for Policy

This systematic review provides insights for policymakers, decision-makers in higher education institutions, and library directors on the development of QM policies and quality evaluation standards. In addressing the challenges, particularly the issue of inequitable distribution of resources, they should adhere to scientific principles and collaboratively develop a series of standardized, comprehensive evaluation indicators. These indicators should be designed to thoroughly assess the quality of library services, resources, and management practices. Considering the rapid evolution in industry and technology, they should encourage collaboration between academic libraries, higher education institutions, regulatory agencies, and QM certification bodies. This cross-institutional collaboration plays an important role in sharing best QM practices, developing joint QM training programs, and fostering a conducive environment, both internally and externally, for the effective implementation of QM. Additionally, they should persist in supporting research in the field of QM within academic libraries, promote the integration and utilization of diverse contemporary QM models, and aid in the effective execution of change management strategies. By employing these measures, academic libraries could cultivate a dynamic and innovative atmosphere, enhance service quality, and meet evolving educational needs, which include sustainable information access, stronger research support, and efficient digital adaptation.

5.5. Limitations of the Study and Future Research

This systematic review analyzed 52 selected studies. Despite utilizing strict measures to reduce the possibility of bias in the selection and analysis of the literature, several limitations were still evident, which open avenues for future research: (i) The search strategy used keywords pertaining to QM. In order to ensure the completeness of search terms as much as possible, this study extracted relevant search terms according to the research purposes and research questions and referred to the search terms used in systematic reviews concerning QM in different fields. These keywords were widely selected in the search process to enlarge the literature coverage. Despite the above measures, other possible keywords may still have been overlooked. Thus, future studies of systematic reviews have to include more search terms about QM, such as quality assurance, quality control, quality policy, quality planning, quality improvement, and process improvement, when formulating search strategies. This strategy could further ensure the integrity of search terms and the comprehensiveness and reliability of systematic reviews. (ii) Access to only five databases restricted the study’s literature range because of limitations in accessing databases. This limited the research’s coverage of the extensive literature, especially in databases that may contain relevant but not widely indexed studies. (iii) This work only included journal articles and conference papers to ensure the reliability and broad acceptance of the systematic review by the academic community. Due to database access limitations and difficulties in obtaining comprehensive gray literature in China, gray literature-like reports and white papers were excluded from this study. This exclusion likely overlooked significant, albeit non-peer-reviewed or unpublished materials, which might have offered additional insights and data. To enhance the study’s comprehensiveness, future research should aim to incorporate such gray literature, contingent on resource availability, thus fostering a more thorough and balanced understanding of the impacts of various QM models in academic libraries. (iv) Restricting the literature review to English and Chinese academic publications may have neglected pertinent studies in other languages, attributed to linguistic proficiency barriers. (v) Although the study applied a widely recognized quality assessment checklist for evidence-based library and information research, offering detailed scoring criteria to enhance transparency and repeatability and to mitigate bias from subjectivity, eliminating bias entirely was not feasible. This inherent subjectivity could affect the literature quality evaluation, potentially introducing bias into the research findings. Additionally, given the EBLCAC’s inclination towards the paradigm issue of quantitative analysis, caution should be exercised regarding the generalizability of the results of this study in both theoretical and practical applications. Future research should consider utilizing various types of quality assessment checklists to further enhance the objectivity and rigor of assessment in systematic reviews. This includes using the EBLCAC for quantitative research and adopting the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research [128,129]. (vi) Despite the use of systematic tools and methods for literature content extraction and synthesis, the interpretation of this process may have been influenced by the researchers’ personal preferences. This situation may lead to the omission of some important perspectives or information, affecting the completeness of the research findings.

Furthermore, this work has pinpointed gaps in the current literature regarding QM in academic libraries, which also indicate possible directions for future research. There is a need to incorporate the perspectives of library management and professionals by applying semi-structured interviews and questionnaires to investigate and evaluate the reasons for choosing different QM models, their practical benefits, and to explore effective strategies for addressing challenges during implementation. Such an investigation could advance sustainable QM optimization in academic libraries within the higher education sector.