Search results

Direct, administer, manage. All of these are words applied to those who lead libraries, and they are usually applied interchangeably. But not only do they have unique definitions, they each carry a distinct implication for library managers and the organizations they lead. “Direct” means to provide a forward-thinking grounding for action in an organization (and this word’s meaning is most closely synonymous with “lead”). “Administer” suggests dispensing or carrying out, for instance, policy. The word is in some ways distant from the creation of policy or direction. “Manage” frequently is limited to the performance or overseeing of tasks on a daily basis. None of these words is false or pejorative when applied to the library, but each is limited in some important ways. The genuine work of guiding actions in libraries is actually an iterative balance of all three of the functions denoted by these words. If the terms are conflated in the everyday usage of our profession, from where does the confused usage come? Is understanding of the aforementioned balance common in practice? How clearly is the range and complexity of action communicated in educational programs? (Terminology presents some problems; for ease of expression and reading, the whole complex of action will be referred to as management, understanding that the usage here encompasses all requisite connotations.)

This chapter explores the question of where and how leaders in the library field gain the knowledge, skills, and ability to lead and manage people. The authors report empirical evidence to answer this question based on the results of the third stage of an ongoing study—a study which examines the academic preparation of professional librarians who have become directors of libraries. The results of a survey inquiring into the formal training received by practicing library directors are detailed. Among other findings, 55.1% of the library directors surveyed and observed that graduate library school did not prepare them to become library directors. There is some evidence that a shift of perception regarding the need for traditional management training has begun to occur in library schools. The authors contend that this trend needs to accelerate if the information profession intends to prepare library directors to assume leadership roles in the future. This chapter briefly reviews the research findings from stage one and two research, which provided the foundation for the current study. As a result of this research a fourth stage of research is planned which will use in person in-depth interviews of library directors. The influence of leadership on organizational results has been explored within the broader management literature. There is clearly a relationship between leadership and results. What is unclear is how and where these leaders gain the knowledge, skills, and ability to lead and manage.

Team teaching in higher education requires a great deal of coordination and commitment from both the professors teaching together, as well as administrators coordinating courses. Given the difficulties in logistics, it is not surprising that many teams give up on team teaching after only one or two semesters. The literature and lived experience by the authors verify the benefits that come from team teaching: multiple perspectives on the course material, more than one-course delivery method, greater attention from students used to just one instructor, and a greater level of energy in the room and on-line when more than one presenter shares the lecture time. Team teaching (or co-teaching as it is also referred to), in the Service Management Specialization at the Gustavson School of Business in Victoria, Canada, is sharing a cohort of students across three classes, and while each professor is responsible for separate course topics, each makes the time to integrate topics and share time in the classroom together multiple times during the semester.

The authors have been part of a team delivering curriculum this way for over 20 years, and this chapter examines how the material is organized and delivered to team teaching success. Critical elements include funding to support team teaching, commitment from professors to coordinate together, willingness to share materials, and building bridges from class to class to enable students to follow and integrate learnings. Team teaching has resulted in greater cohesiveness among faculty teaching in the program, higher teaching evaluations than professors experienced in solo teaching, and students who feel better prepared to tackle complex business problems that cross the interdisciplinary boundaries of marketing, operations, and talent management.

Previous work has conceptually explored the value of the humanities for tourism education and has considered the pressures that likely serve as barriers to its greater inclusion in curricula. This chapter moves the debate from the conceptual level to the ground, reporting the results of a survey of tourism educators with regard to the role of the humanities in the programs in which they teach. The study explores the prevalence of the humanities as primary and supporting course content at the undergraduate and graduate levels, sheds light on barriers faculty members identify for incorporating more humanities content into their curricula, and offers examples of creative ways some educators are currently engaging with such content.

This chapter analyses how the six undergraduate programmes in communication management in Flanders (Belgium) refer to or include management in their curricula in order to support the career plans of their students. As communication is inherently integrated in business courses, it will attempt to determine how management is included in BAs in communication management, and how it is defined both from the perspective of the programme responsible and of practitioners’. It proposes a six-point model for a ‘managerial attitude’ extracted from the interviews and reflections of the practitioners’ managerial needs for public relations to be embedded in a company’s policy and brought on the board’s agenda when strategic decisions are made.

This chapter describes and analyzes the result of an active, cooperative learning design adopted in “Change Management,” an elective course at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), which is a fully online university. The paper describes the context and foundations that support the learning design, outlines the learning activities and their evolution, and presents the results of a student survey to assess the design’s effectiveness in reaching its main goals. The results of the survey suggest that students perceived this design as enhancing their teamwork abilities, while being interesting and motivating, as well as useful in learning the course’s content. Therefore, the desired goals were attained and the design was kept, with minor changes, in subsequent editions of the course. In addition, students without prior teamwork experience valued the collaborative activities more than students who had previously worked in teams in other subjects of their degrees. In contrast, no differences were found for individual learning activities. This suggests that the design can be useful in introductory courses where students are asked to learn in virtual teams for the first time.

Course redesign is a creative process that involves the four sets of considerations set out by the DIME model. In this chapter, we highlight key considerations related to design, interaction, media, and evaluation and describe the interconnections of the decisions within the model that make the process iterative. In addition, we suggest supplementary matters for your consideration. Specifically, we explore matters related to career and course management. Career considerations are strategic level concerns related to course redesign that have potentially long-term implications. Course management considerations are tactical level suggestions aimed at making your course implementation a success. Issues and suggestions are grounded in experience.