Search results

This chapter discusses hurdles posed to a medium-sized public university library in the Midwest when they were asked by their Dean to create a faculty workload worksheet, rationale, and ultimately a set of guidelines. Faculty in other departments compute their loads using formulas based on course loads. How many hours they spend in the classroom, and how many hours they spend preparing for that time in the classroom are factored into the course loads expected for a full teaching load, with release granted in course load equivalents for research and/or service. Because librarian work does not typically involve teaching credit-bearing courses, a major challenge to constructing guidelines is equating library work with course loads. Calculating faculty workload for librarians commensurate with other faculty on campus is often complicated. To all of these challenges add the unique issues that are faced by the technical services (TS) librarian. TS work supports instruction and research but may involve little classroom contact with students, so it has even less resemblance to classroom instruction than other librarian work has. TS librarians spend their time in a wide variety of tasks. Exactly how to formulate this time in accordance with the rules for other departmental faculty is a challenge. The specific situation at this university added more complications as there was also a campus-wide mandate to ensure all workload policies are consistent and equitable.

Many libraries utilize graduate assistants in a variety of programmatic areas. Little research, however, has been conducted as to how such students are recruited, selected and employed. Reports the results of a survey of main and undergraduate library reference departments at US academic institutions conferring an ALA‐accredited MLIS or equivalent degree. The survey solicited information about the employment of graduate assistants in such departments in six areas: recruitment, appointment, training, assignments, supervision and evaluation.

Faculty unionization is growing, and library faculty members are included in many collective bargaining units. Yet there is a dearth of information on how well collective bargaining contracts address the sometimes unique nature of library faculty work. This article explores contracts in a number of Ohio universities and from selective institutions around the country to see how well they accommodate the professional and work-related needs of librarians. Major contractual issues addressed include governance, academic freedom, workload, salary, and the retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) of faculty, among others.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive assessment of promotion and tenure for librarians in light of increased scrutiny and expectations by the administration of Idaho State University (ISU). This increased rigour was prompted by a move up in the Carnegie Classification System.

A literature review was performed using library databases, as well as assessing peer institution promotion and tenure documents. Additionally ongoing feedback from University administrators was solicited. The process took for the creation of a new promotion and tenure document for ISU library took two years from the beginning of the project to the final approved document.

The study found a dearth of performance benchmarks in both literature and peer institution policies and required the authors, along with other library faculty, to create evidence based benchmarks for ISU aligned with traditional standards of teaching, research and service.

This paper is an inclusive assessment of the literature on faculty promotion and tenure, the policies of ISU’s peer institutions, and the change of Carnegie Classification’s impact on the ISU policies.

The purpose of this paper is to foster discussion of the role of government information librarians in the design and implementation of information literacy instruction. Increased accessibility to government information through the internet is bringing all librarians into increased contact with government information, thereby becoming ad hoc documents librarians. Through collaboration with experts in government information, shared knowledge results in opportunities for richer and more comprehensive information literacy instruction.

This review examines evidence of commonality and collaboration between librarians through content analysis of both general and specialized library publications.

Collaboration is a common practice in library instruction to share workload and expertise, yet most literature on this practice focuses on librarian‐faculty collaborative efforts. Limited evidence exists for collaboration between librarians and a severely limited body of literature exists when examining instructional design collaboration to include government information in information literacy instruction.

Collaborative instruction proactively addresses resolving perceived barriers and expands instruction resource repertoires and shares workloads.

Examination of the collaborative process between librarians is infrequent. This adds to the body of literature and increases awareness of additional resources in the provision of information literacy instruction.

Although a great deal has been written about the challenges and opportunities for collaboration between librarians and professors in higher education, most recommendations for faculty–library collaboration are written by librarians, published in librarian-oriented venues, and rely on second-hand accounts of professorial perceptions and experiences. Dialogue between librarians and professors is missing. In this chapter, the authors present a duoethnographic inquiry into a librarian–professor collaboration: the authors collaboratively examine their four years working together on the senior seminar course “Small Business Management” at Acadia University, Canada. In considering the evolution of their course and their collaboration, the authors reflect on six dimensions of their experiences: the way their collaboration has shaped the course learning outcomes, the value the authors have derived from collaboratively reflexive teaching, the workload tensions the authors have navigated, the challenge of “fitting in,” and the role of library champion. The authors then conclude with four insights from their professorial–librarian collaboration that might be transferable to other contexts of higher education: the importance of openness, collegiality, time for collaboration, and attention to the cultural gaps between professorship and librarianship.

While the important role of information literacy instruction as a central service in academic libraries is well observed in scholarly literature, there has been little examination of the impact of the rapid increase of instructional duties on practicing librarians, whose traditional instruction duties have expanded or whose positions have not traditionally required leading a classroom. The study in this chapter explores librarians’ perceptions of the impact that increased instruction tasks have had on their day-to-day and long-term goals, perceptions of the support they receive in performing their instructional duties, and what types of instruction training they have received throughout their career. The ways in which the addition of instruction duties for librarians have been perceived by the librarians themselves as they strive to increase support for instructional services without impacting the library’s ability to continue to perform traditional public and technical services functions is discussed as a marker of the future needs of the field and the necessity of recognizing professional strain.

Many librarians are asked questions about copyright and intellectual property. They may be expected to advise on copyright or provide copyright education as part of their duties. Others may be “voluntold” to take on copyright, which may come as an unexpected addition to their workload. This case study provides suggestions for librarians to increase their copyright knowledge and create copyright education programs.

This case study showcases two copyright education programs created by a librarian in a college and another in a university. The librarians collaborated to learn more about the state of copyright education within academic libraries and explore their commonalities and differences. This case study introduces two copyright education programs and summarizes the state of copyright education within library and information science (LIS) and academic libraries.

The following themes within the two copyright education programs were identified through a case study: the complexity of copyright, the engagement (or lack thereof) across a college or university, the necessity of including copyright in information literacy instruction and the calls for professional development with copyright.

This case study covers two differing institutions so its conclusions may not be applicable to all libraries or educational settings.

Many individuals who are in disciplines or occupations that regularly work with copyright may generate ideas for creating and providing continuing education within their organizations.

Library or education professionals can use the case study’s conclusions to inform and support their ongoing work with teaching and learning about copyright and intellectual property. By doing so, they can better support their students, faculty and institutions.