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.

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.

Reports on Phase I of a two‐part project to identify and implement user‐based design criteria in World Wide Web pages. The purpose of the identification phase (Phase I) is to identify the criteria that influence a particular user community’s use of the Web and to analyze these within the context of the users’ overall information‐gathering behavior. Data were gathered through a questionnaire and electronic focus group session with nine faculty from four business schools. Participants identified 49 Web page features which clustered into eight broad categories of criteria having a significant positive or negative impact on their use of WWW pages. They also identified types of information normally used in work activities; methods of finding this information within the current information service environment; likely changes in behavior if the information became available via the Web, including willingness to pay.

Purpose – In January 2015, a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in a planning forum on “Envisioning our Information Future and How to Educate for It.” Focused on shaping a future by design, not by default, information educators, professionals, technologists, futurists, and others proposed proofs of concepts for larger-scale implementations. This chapter reports on four pilot projects using steps in the design-thinking process to frame the discussion.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The stages of (1) empathize, (2) define, (3) ideate, (4) prototype, and (5) test in the design-thinking process facilitate moving beyond what is and breaking fixedness to build a representation of what might be. Applied to library and information science (LIS) education, design thinking can lead to transformative change.

Findings – Creative collaborations yielded actionable outcomes from projects that identified the following: (1) the knowledge, skills, and abilities that employers seek in graduates of LIS programs, (2) curriculum options for developing and launching artist-in-residence programs, (3) how a Library Test Kitchen course enables students to apply design thinking, and (4) how a short-term faculty residency in a particular institution connects LIS educators with trends in the field and informs curriculum design.

Originality/Value – The value of tangible outcomes from pilot projects informing future innovation in LIS education is augmented by the originality of their framing within design-thinking processes.

As I make my last contribution as editor of Advances in Librarianship, I would like to say a few words about my twelve years’ experience with this annual. My tenure has greatly enriched my life both professionally and personally. My first association with Advances goes back to 1980 when I was asked to submit an article on library materials budgeting for volume 10. Later, in 1992 I joined Advances as a member of its editorial advisory board. At that time, Irene Godden (Colorado State) edited the volume. I owe her a great debt for her counseling and guidance. After Godden resigned in 1998, I took over as co-editor of Advances and from 2001 (volume 25) I have been its sole editor. Through all these years, I truly enjoyed working with my colleagues on the editorial board and with the many prominent librarians whose papers appeared in Advances. I am especially grateful to Nancy Allen (University of Denver), G. Edward Evans (Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles), and Mary Jean Pavelsek (NYU), longtime editorial board members, who constantly provided encouragement and support. As editor I worked closely with the publishing staff, first at Academic and later Elsevier. I would like to single out both Marvin Yelles (Academic) and Christopher Pringle (Elsevier) and their assistants, Naomi Henning and Julie Neden, for their excellent work in turning manuscripts into the fine finished books that the reader sees.