Search results

The honor of editing the 30th volume of Advances in Librarianship posed a challenge of how to acknowledge changes in the profession over three and a half decades, while continuing a tradition of identifying new trends and innovations. The series aims to present a variety of aspects of the field of librarianship through the publication of critical articles and surveys, based on the published literature, research in progress, and current developments, relating to all segments of the profession and related topics. Contributing authors are encouraged to address provocative and stimulating topics that will ensure that trends are identified and research results of interest are made available quickly in a rapidly changing profession. Though authors in the past have been encouraged to add an historical perspective, those contributing to this volume were invited especially to celebrate the history of the past 36 years by reflecting, as appropriate, on advances made in their topic since the first volume of the series was published in 1970.

What influence do funders have on advances in librarianship? The idea to devote this 31st volume of Advances in Librarianship to this question arose from a conversation between the co-editors during which they wondered if the library and information science (LIS) professions were influenced in similar ways as other disciplines reportedly are by the agencies and foundations that fund research in their fields. The notion of the influence of funding is not new. Mangan (1999) notes that the focus of the American Association of University Professors’ meeting held in May 1999 was on the influence of corporate funding on medical academic research. The increase in corporate funding is due at least in part to a decline in government funding, the author notes that often with this type of funding, “the sponsors decide what will be studied, how the research will be conducted, and how and whether the findings will be published” (p. 14). Approaching the same notion from a different perspective, Goldfarb (2008) tracked the academic output of 221 academic researchers who had received funding from the NASA aerospace engineering program in 1981 in order to explore whether research with specific usable outcomes has a negative impact on scholarly publication. Overall the findings of this study support previous studies that concluded that academic research efforts in the United States are responsive to social and technological needs. Further, Goldfarb notes that commercial outputs of research, such as those that result in NASA type studies, complement academic output.

Letters and opinions published in the Chronicle of Higher Education were analysed to identify metaphors relating to libraries used by faculty, academic administrators and librarians. Metaphors used in communications are assumed to reflect conceptual models held by the communicators. The qualitative methodology used in this study was built on the works of Schön, Reddy and Green. In this exploratory study, fourteen models of libraries were identified through linguistic examination of the appearance of the word stem ‘librar’ among published communications from academics. Differences were found in the conceptual models of libraries held among faculty, academic administrators and librarians. The study's findings suggest that to administrators in this case, libraries are contributors to the social structure of an academic environment, while to faculty, libraries are the repository for physical information resources to support their research. Librarians in the study tend to attribute an activist role to libraries, and to express a conceptual model of a library as a storehouse. The identification of metaphors about libraries, cited by academics, offers library managers insights into academic library users' conceptualisation of libraries.

This paper aims to describe the development and operation of an unmediated book‐lending service between seven academic libraries in the USA.

The approach is descriptive and analytical.

It was found that, after a decade of operations, Borrow Direct continues to be a successful service.

The paper offers insights that may be of value to other groups exploring ways to lower costs, improve service quality, and respond to continuing demand for books not available locally.

The purpose of this paper is to validate a proposed framework of library value as the relationships between diverse stakeholders’ perceptions of valued effect of a library and of causes for the effect. It does so through adaptation of the “five whys” inquiry, a tool for uncovering root causes used extensively for process improvement. A “library value wheel” graphically illustrates a diverse set of stakeholders (i.e. faculty, students, university administrators, librarians, donors, and library employees) and their perceptions of the most valued effects of the library. To begin this exploration the researchers have selected faculty as the initial stakeholder to study because of their important influence in the academy. The following research questions guide the study: What effects of the library do faculty most value? What are perceived causes of these valued effects? What effects of the library do faculty perceive other stakeholders [e.g. students and administrators] most value? What variations among the causes faculty identify for valued effects emerge from use of the five why inquiry?

This qualitative study consists of a series of individual and group interviews with faculty members representing different academic disciplines and rank at one US university. Adapting the “five whys” inquiry, the researchers conducted sufficient individual interviews to reach data saturation (typically 15 to 30 interviews) to identify root causes that address perceptions about value the academic library provides to faculty. The interviews were audio taped and transcribed for data analysis; the results were sent to the interviewees for a member check. In addition, the results of the analysis were validated in a focus group session with faculty members of the library advisory group. Lastly, the identified valued library effects and their causes were compared to elements of value identified in the literature.

Several root causes of perceived value were identified, with caution to generalize; among these are: increase my productivity; expand student ability; do my job; save money; indulge intellectual curiosity; not feel frustrated; meet accreditation criteria; and change the University.

The study emphasizes that value involves the stakeholders in the identification of the valued effect of the library. The “five whys” inquiry delves deeply and arrives at a root cause of value that will allow librarians to take steps to maximize an institutional perception that of the value the library provides its community. It is often difficult for stakeholders to articulate why the library is or is not of value and this approach will help them do so. In addition to eliciting the perceived value of the library to the faculty, the study also gathered faculty perceptions of causes of valued library effect on students and administrators. The study also introduced the “library value wheel” which broadly defines the causes of valued effects on stakeholders of libraries. The study's empirical data will be integrated into this framework in subsequent studies. Since value is a political tool, involving the faculty and focusing on their perceptions will be important for advocating library support. This study will communicate to librarians reasons faculty perceive the library to be of value. In essence, this approach partners influential stakeholders with librarians to develop strategies for maximizing the value of the library.

Librarians at three large universities successfully developed a reader‐initiated borrowing model of interlibrary resource sharing, known as Borrow Direct, that now operates among seven major academic libraries in the US. The underlying software allows the reader to perform a virtual broadcast search of members' online catalogs. Automatic electronic notification to readers and elimination of some staff processing has resulted in major service improvements as assessed by both customers and managers. Describes the history of the initiative to reach technical goals of delivering loans within four days of request submission and for less than $10 per transaction. Also summarizes results of a survey of the perceptions of those who use the service.