Search results

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the Joint Library Facility services and how Medical Science Libraries have embraced the Resource in Common model to save service copies for their patron’s use while allowing libraries to reclaim critically needed space and develop library services that better meet the needs of their patrons.

The paper begins with a description of the Joint Library Facility and its targeted users. It will discuss how this unique library storage facility shares ownership of its material with other libraries to reduce duplication of low-use print items on library shelves.

Although electronic materials are more popular with library patrons, there is still scholarly value in keeping low-use print materials as service copies.

This paper is a case study of a unique library storage facility that shares ownership of its material with other libraries. Its findings will help other libraries plan and implement their own shared print repository.

The use of high-density remote storage facilities helps alleviate competing space needs in academic medical libraries while they continue to support core services and supply service copies of resources.

Four academic medical libraries in the Texas A&M University System and the University of Texas System will highlight their participation in a regional collaborative storage facility using the Resource in Common (RIC) model.

Results will show how library services and facilities changed since moving some or all of print collections to JLF.

The RIC model has proven to be a success in recovering user space without losing access to resources.

The purpose of this study is to report on the challenges and lessons learnt by the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when trying to implement a “resource in common” high‐density storage unit model between Texas A&M University Library and The University of Texas‐Austin Libraries.

The case study draws on the experience of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when the university funded the creation of a jointly owned remote storage unit, which foundation would rest on a “resource in common” model. The creation of a new library building allowed Texas A&M University Libraries to free up stack space in order to create new learning spaces to meet the needs of the library users. However, as the processing began, initial theories of what a “resource in common” was, how to implement a “resource in common” and resources needed to implement the “resource in common” model began to be questioned. This study examines the lessons learnt when trying to implement a “resource in common” model.

Based on the experiences of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team, increased communication and early participation in the decision‐making stages is key when trying to implement a “resource in common” model. This processing team was responsible for updating the MARC records for all the items that were identified to go to the joint storage unit. They recognized that any collaborative venture of this magnitude required an excellent workflow and workload understanding by all parties, including those members of the TAMU Library initial project planning team who were active members on the initial library storage facility oversight committees. This understanding would allow everyone at TAMU involved in the massive project to have a clearer knowledge of the strains caused by the increased workload and could communicate to the full team the obstacles the library would be facing.

This paper introduces the idea of “resource in common” and will be of interest to all libraries facing both space and funding shortages who might be considering building a storage unit. These libraries might consider implementing a “resource in common” model as a way to solve these problems.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the use of journal‐ranking lists for academic librarian promotion and tenure (P&T) decision.

Using a case study, the researchers analyzed a proposed journal‐ranking list created for P&T decisions. A quantitative analysis of peer‐reviewed journal articles was performed to support this analysis.

The paper shows that the use of journal‐ranking lists for P&T decisions inadequately conflates academic librarians with teaching faculty members.

The study relied primarily on a single case study, so it may not be scientifically generalized.

This study identifies journal‐ranking lists as an inadequate tool for the evaluation of academic librarians and encourages action to divorce the valuation of intellectual achievement from quantitative structures.

The analysis of the quantitative/metric underpinnings of intellectual labor in higher education is necessary for academic freedom.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight some traditional functions found in academic libraries and apply various business models as an aid to developing an entrepreneurial culture. Due to a combination of environmental pressures, universities are refining their strategic mission to identify “what they do well” or “where they want to be”. Programs that align with the strategic mission of the university get funded, while other less productive, lower impact programs and services are neglected or eliminated. This is essentially a process based on business or financial decisions.

In an attempt to cope with these changes, academic library administrators are assessing library services to insure that they are aligned with their university’s strategic mission.

To successfully develop and sustain this alignment, academic libraries must become “entrepreneurial organizations” where strategic decisions are based on business models, rather than tradition, or more specifically “the way we have always done things”. As this results-oriented, strategic thinking culture evolves, the actual brick and mortar library will also evolve to become a technology-based information service center that facilitates campus-wide creative activities.

This perspective piece will highlight some traditional functions found in academic libraries and apply various business models, including the Schumpeterian model of creative destruction, as an aid to developing the entrepreneurial culture that will be necessary if the academic library is to stay viable and relevant in the twenty-first century.

This chapter explores the roles that library leaders have in ensuring libraries demonstrate innovation and creativity in their services, systems and facilities. This is grounded in the pressures for innovation resulting from the ‘disruptive technologies’ identified by Christensen (1997). ‘Obliquity’ (Kay, 2011) is inter-related around how innovation can be used to meet the challenges. The areas proposed where library leadership can contribute to innovation are leading by example, shaping organisational culture/values, ensuring appropriate training/development takes place, helping develop appropriate organisational structures and establishing appropriate reward and recognition.

Both theoretical insight and practical experience are used to inform the chapter. Management and leadership theories/research provide the context within which library leadership and innovation is explored. This is complemented by the authors between them have experience in developing innovation in libraries and also in delivering leadership training on innovation.

For any library looking to demonstrate innovation and creativity, the chapter identifies some clear responsibilities for leaders. The five specific roles for the leader are crucial in libraries being innovative. A further element of the work is that it explores some of the challenges a library leader will face in moving in this direction.

Having joint authorship by people from different backgrounds ensures that the chapter is based on a blended insight of theoretical understanding and practical experience.