Four key findings in the 2025 Ithaka S+R Librarian Survey: an industry under pressure

The survey data indicates that libraries and librarians are persevering in the face of increased friction on several fronts, but that they are also evolving and, in some cases, thriving. Library leaders report several challenges, with three clear frontrunners emerging: adoption of AI tools, demonstrating value and impact to institutional leadership, and preserving research integrity while integrating new technologies.

AI continues to reshape library priorities

Integrating AI tools remains one of the major influences reshaping library policy and services. When asked how their libraries are using artificial intelligence technology to support internal library work or library services, the respondents’ feedback illustrated the degree to which AI tools have become intertwined with academic and research libraries.

These figures strongly suggest that AI search tools are having a transformative effect on the way library patrons are discovering and retrieving content, as well as supporting research in areas such as summarizing content, citation management, and organizational workflow and management.

Also of interest are the 13% of respondents who selected “Other” on this topic, all of whom were asked to write in examples of how their libraries were employing AI. These responses included using AI for purposes that included generating policies or strategic planning documents, updating research guides, and general administrative support.

However, adoption of AI tools has not been universal: 24% of respondents reported that their library does not use AI for internal work or services. Respondents who reported no AI use within their libraries were then asked to identify the primary barriers to adoption of the technology. Their feedback mirrors librarian insights gathered by Elsevier at library events across North America, published in a recent article addressing the challenges of championing transparency in an AI world.

When the 24% of respondents who stated that their libraries do not use AI tools are broken out by Carnegie Classification, it becomes evident that adoption remains highly uneven by institution type. Baccalaureate leaders were far more likely to report non-use (40%), while doctoral leaders were least likely to report non-use (14%). By sector, private institutions were nearly twice as likely as public ones to report no internal AI use (30% vs. 16%).

While friction continues to exist around the adoption of AI tools, leaders overwhelmingly forecasted increasing demand for AI tools and services. When asked what they believed would be the most significant impacts AI would have on their libraries over the next three years, if any, 83% of respondents expect increased demand for AI literacy instruction, 74% expect integration of AI into discovery systems, 55% expect staffing changes or reskilling needs, and 49% expect development and or integration of AI-powered library services such as chatbots or virtual assistants.

Advocacy for library value is an ongoing concern

This perceived gap with administration is further reflected in leaders’ perception of their relationship with institutional administrators: 31% of respondents agreed that they are involved in key institutional decision making at the campus level, and only 24% agreed that academic deans and other senior administrators view library leaders as being of equivalent standing.

For the first time this year, Ithaka also asked respondents to rate their confidence in student and faculty/researcher perception of the library’s value. Confidence varies by audience: 63% agreed faculty and researchers recognize the library's value, and 51% agreed that students recognize the library's value.

Demonstrating impact faces challenges

The evidence also suggests that confidence in the library's impact on student success has also slipped. When asked to rate to what extent their libraries contribute to various student success objectives, several areas saw a significant drop from previous years.

70% of leaders felt that the library greatly contributes to increasing student learning, a drop from 79% in 2022 and 80% in 2019. 41% of leaders felt that the library greatly contributes to student retention, down from 49% in 2022 and 52% in 2019. Only 35% of leaders felt that the library greatly contributes to student graduation rates, down from 48% in 2022 and 2019.

​​​Also significant is the respondents’ relative levels of confidence in how well their institution’s librarians are able to support student learning in a variety of research and information-related skills. 85% of respondents felt confident that their librarians can effectively teach students how to find, access and use primary and secondary sources in coursework, and 84% felt their librarians could teach students how to develop their research skills.

This stands in stark contrast to the 51% of respondents who believed that their librarians could effectively teach students how to identify media manipulation and mis/disinformation, and 31% who believed that their librarians could effectively train students to critically evaluate content generated by AI.

Protecting research integrity is a priority

This confidence gap reflects an overarching concern among the respondents about potential negative impacts on research integrity. When asked to forecast how AI would most impact their libraries over the next three years, 51% of respondents expect heightened scrutiny of research integrity.

Respondents also feel that the library has a significant role in maintaining this integrity. When asked to rate the importance of the library fulfilling various roles within the institution, 86% of respondents agreed that it is very or extremely important that the library counter the influence of mis/disinformation, and 67% agreed that it is very or extremely important that libraries safeguard research integrity.

When considered alongside the respondents’ lower confidence in their libraries’ ability to teach the necessary skills to safely incorporate AI tools into research, as well as the perceived confidence-impact gap between library leaders and institutional administrators, a clearer picture begins to emerge.

Conclusion

While librarians continue to experience pressure both internally and externally in the form of rapidly evolving technology, shifting needs from their patrons, and a perception gap about their roles and impact within their institutions, there are also opportunities emerging.

As AI continues to reshape library priorities, library leaders have the chance to both drive greater impact within student success and help safeguard research integrity on a broad scale by ensuring librarians get the tools and training necessary to meet their patrons’ evolving research needs.