Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES USED BY BRITISH
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES (LIS) TO
DELIVER SUBJECT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC LIAISON
A study submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Librarianship
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
CHARLES CARPENTER
September 2007
Abstract
This study sought to investigate and categorise the types of organisational structures
used by British university libraries for the provision of subject support/academic
liaison, drawing on models first identified 25 years ago. Given the significant
changes academic libraries have seen over the past two decades it was anticipated
new structural models would be identified. The study also sought to establish if there
was any discernable difference in the provision of subject support/academic liaison
between converged and non-converged LIS.
A questionnaire, consisting of both quantitative and qualitative questions was sent
electronically to 115 university LIS in the UK. A response rate of 29.6% was
achieved. All respondents provided subject support/academic liaison and were
categorised under one of five models: the hybrid model, where professional staff
have subject and functional roles; the dual model, whereby some professional staff
have subject roles, while others have functional roles; the subject divisional model,
whereby all processes are carried out within subject teams; the dual/hybrid model,
which is particular to multi-site libraries, where the main library operates the dual
model and the smaller site libraries the hybrid model; and the dual/coordinating
model where most professional staff have subject roles as well as coordinating roles,
such as e-learning.
Although no significant differences were apparent between converged and non-
converged services in the manner in which they provide subject support, far more
converged LIS used all professional subject teams, whereas more non-converged LIS
used mixed-grade teams. The role of the paraprofessional in this provision was
found to be widespread. The study concludes that subject support/academic liaison
provision remains popular in UK university libraries and many in the academic
library sector see the benefits of this system continuing in providing a good service
to academic departments and enabling libraries to maintain their ‘learner support’
role.
1
Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................1
Contents......................................................................................................................2
List of tables and figures.............................................................................................5
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................6
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………….......................................7
1.1 Research background and Rationale…....................................................... 7
1.2 Changes/challenges faced by LIS since previous studies...........................9
1.3 Definitions.................................................................................................11
1.3.1 British University LIS..................................................................11
1.3.2 Subject support and Academic Liaison........................................11
1.4 The Current Study......................................................................................11
1.4.1 Aim……………...........................................................................11
1.4.2 Objectives.....................................................................................11
1.4.3 Report Structure............................................................................12
Chapter 2: Literature Review.................................................................................13
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................13
2.2 Subject librarians……………….................................................................13
2.3 The organisational structure of university libraries....................................17
2.4 Convergence…............................................................................................21
2.5 The role of the paraprofessional.................................................................26
2.6 Summary.....................................................................................................31
Chapter 3: Methodology..........................................................................................32
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................32
3.2 Methodological approaches........................................................................32
2
3.2.1 Quantitative approach..................................................................32
3.2.2 Qualitative approach....................................................................33
3.2.3 Mixed Method……………….....................................................34
3.3 Methods of Investigation...........................................................................35
3.3.1 Literature Review........................................................................35
3.3.2 Survey Instrument.......................................................................36
3.4 Ethical Issues.............................................................................................38
3.5 Data collection...........................................................................................39
3.6 Data Analysis............................................................................................40
3.7 Evaluation of chosen methods..................................................................41
3.8 Timetable..................................................................................................42
3.9 Summary...................................................................................................42
Chapter 4: Analysis of Results..............................................................................43
4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................43
4.2 About your LIS.........................................................................................43
4.3 Your library’s organisational structure......................................................45
4.3.1 Staff completing subject work.....................................................45
4.3.2 Subject/faculty teams...................................................................49
4.3.3 Subject-related tasks....................................................................50
4.3.4 Subject staff in converged LIS....................................................53
4.4 Opinions about LIS organisational structures...........................................54
4.4.1 Advantages..................................................................................54
4.4.2 Disadvantages..............................................................................56
4.4.3 Future Trends...............................................................................58
4.5 Classification of respondents’ LIS............................................................61
4.6 Summary...................................................................................................65
3
Chapter 5: Discussion of the Results....................................................................66
5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................66
5.2 LIS organisational structures and subject support/academic liaison.........66
5.3 Convergence and subject support/academic liaison..................................69
5.4 Subject support/academic liaison staff......................................................70
5.5 Limitations of the Research.......................................................................71
5.6 Summary....................................................................................................72
Chapter 6: Conclusion............................................................................................73
6.1 The Study’s findings..................................................................................73
6.2 The future of subject support/academic liaison..........................................75
6.3 Future Research..........................................................................................76
Bibliography….........................................................................................................77
Appendix 1: Questionnaire........................................................................................83
Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet...............................................................89
Appendix 3: Initial contact e-mail and follow-up e-mail..........................................90
Appendix 4: Table of job titles for subject staff........................................................91
4
List of tables and figures
Tables
Table 4.1: Examples of other subject-related tasks..................................................52
Table 4.2: The number of LIS categorised as ‘dual’ which utilise either all
professional or mixed-grade subject teams.....................................................62
Table 4.3: Categories of organisational structures employed by respondents for the
provision of subject support/academic liaison................................................64
Figures
Figure 4.1: Services with which libraries were converged........................................44
Figure 4.2: Categories of staff with some subject responsibility in converged and
non-converged LIS..........................................................................................46
Figure 4.3: Percentage of all library staff who carry out some subject-related work in
converged and non-converged LIS.................................................................47
Figure 4.4: Percentage of time spent on subject work for different categories of staff
in converged and non-converged LIS.............................................................47
Figure 4.5: Categories of staff completing tasks associated with subject/liaison
librarians for 18 converged LIS......................................................................51
Figure 4.6: Categories of staff completing tasks associated with subject/liaison
librarians for 16 non-converged LIS..............................................................52
5
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I offer sincere thanks to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Sheila Corrall,
for all the help and advice she has provided throughout this research.
I also thank all those who took part in this study and provided such considered and
full answers to my questionnaire, despite having other numerous demands upon their
time.
Finally, I would like to thank all my family and friends for the support and
consideration they have shown whilst I completed this study.
6
Chapter 1: Introduction
This study looks at the organisational structures used by British university
libraries to deliver subject support and academic liaison. This chapter introduces the
background and rationale for the study, as well as its aims and objectives.
1.1 Research background and Rationale
The last investigation into the differing organisational structures used by
British university libraries to provide subject specialisation was conducted by J.V.
Martin in 1996. This investigation followed an earlier nearly identical one
undertaken by Woodhead and Martin in 1982 and concluded that the numbers of
university libraries employing subject specialisation in some form had increased in
the intervening years.
The original study conducted by Woodhead and Martin (1982) followed an
even earlier study on the same subject by Scrivener (1974), an Australian who was
enthusiastic about the arrangement in many UK universities for providing subject
specialisation. Scrivener (1974) came up with four categories of library structure:
the first involved giving some or all librarians certain subject responsibilities in
addition to their regular functional responsibilities; the second category was
described by Scrivener (1974:114) as a ‘hybrid’, whereby “a substantial segment of
the professional staff is employed predominantly in a subject mode, while other staff,
including professionals, are organised in function based departments.”; the third
category was described as the ‘three-tier’ system which was similar to the hybrid
arrangement, except three tiers of staff exist, with the top tier of professionally
qualified staff providing the subject specialisation; finally, the ‘subject divisional’
arrangement ,also a hybrid arrangement that combines both a subject specialisation
and functional structure, but the subject specialist staff are in teams comprising of
professional librarians and library assistants.
7
Woodhead and Martin (1982:98) used Scrivener’s (1974) four models and
adapted them following their research to come up with five types of library structure
used to provide subject specialisation:
• Functional, where no subject specialisation is practiced;
• Dual, where some members of senior staff perform subject related roles,
while others perform functional roles;
• Hybrid, where some/all members of senior staff have both subject and
functional roles;
• Three tier, where senior staff have subject responsibility and the remaining
centralised functions are performed by middle grade staff and library
assistants and;
• Subject divisional, where subject teams consist of both senior and supporting
staff, with functional support usually provided centrally.
Martin (1996) used the same five models to re-categorise the same (pre-1992
university) libraries in 1996. His findings, contrary to his and Woodhead’s
prediction in 1982, showed that the number of libraries which practiced some form
of subject specialisation increased from 28 to 34, while those that provided no
subject specialisation fell from 33 to 10. It should be noted that the second study did
involve three fewer libraries, due to amalgamations and a slightly lower response
rate, but the difference was still significant nevertheless. With only pre-1992
universities included in the study, this represents less than half of the universities in
the UK today.
Since these studies were carried out, Reid (2000) suggested that the trend in
university libraries was for flatter, less hierarchical structures which use teams,
usually arranged on a subject basis. However, Reid’s (2000) study did not attempt to
investigate and classify university libraries according to how subject specialisation
was arranged; rather its conclusions were based upon a review of the literature and
the author’s own first-hand knowledge of the academic library sector.
8
Martin (1996:159) justified his follow-up study by highlighting the “…very
significant developments in university libraries in the intervening period”, which
included the advancement of Information Technology (IT) as well as the financial
pressures faced by libraries at that time. The same justification for a new study can
be made today, given that the changes and challenges faced by university libraries
since 1996 have been just as significant as those which occurred between 1982 and
1996.
1.2 Changes/challenges faced by LIS since previous studies
The most prominent changes and challenges faced by university libraries can
be said to have occurred and evolved over the last two decades. Farley et al. (1998)
divide the factors affecting change into four categories; economics, technology,
Higher Education (HE) and organisation.
From the economic point of view, the costs of books and journals have
increased at a far higher rate than academic libraries’ budgets. Added to libraries’
expenses today is the provision of electronic resources. Technology has certainly
advanced rapidly, from the increasingly dominant electronic journal to an acceptance
of the Internet’s role in creating the ‘end-user culture’, whereby the librarian’s role as
an intermediary between the user and the information has been diminished. With the
intermediary role somewhat diminished, however, the librarian’s role in guiding
users through the vast wealth of information now available electronically is
heightened. These technological advancements have allowed libraries to move from
a holdings policy to an access policy. The Follett Report (1993:21) states,
“technology has already changed the nature of the library, and the rate of change is
accelerating, enabling wholly new services to be provided”.
Within HE itself there have been significant changes which have had a
tremendous impact upon university libraries. These include the growth in student
numbers and in the diversity of the student population, which has all placed extra
pressure upon university libraries. Accompanying the growing and changing face of
the student population has been a change in teaching and learning techniques.
Courses have become increasingly modularised, affecting the pattern of demand for
9
library resources. In addition an emphasis upon ‘student-centred learning’, where
students have fewer formal lectures and are expected to learn through individual and
group study, often with the use of IT, has placed extra demand upon library
resources, staff and space. Another significant change in HE, since Martin’s (1996)
study, has been the fact that students now have tuition fees to pay, which has not
only contributed to a decline in students buying their own course-books, but has also
meant students increasingly regard themselves as consumers who, as such, demand
high levels of service.
These changes and challenges faced by British university libraries have also
contributed to the decision of some LIS to seek a change in their organisational
structure, either by moving to a flatter, team-based structure and/or converging with
other university services, such as the computing service to deliver a more integrated
‘one-stop shop’ which meets their users’ needs.
Added to these changes have been external strategic and political factors,
which have impacted upon university libraries, such as the Follett and Fielden
Reports (1993), which highlighted the current situation for university libraries in
1993 and encouraged them to move towards the organisational arrangements
described above as well as for librarians to become more involved in ‘learner-
support’.
Many of the changes described were underway at the time of Martin’s study
in 1996, but have evolved and accelerated to present new challenges for university
libraries today. These continuing changes since 1996 could well have impacted upon
how university libraries choose to arrange their subject support/academic liaison, that
is, if they continue to operate a subject divisional arrangement.
Given the significant changes and challenges which British University
libraries have faced over the past two decades, and the fact that the last study into the
structures used to deliver subject support/academic liaison occurred eleven years ago,
the time is now apt for a new study on this matter.
10
1.3 Definitions
1.3.1 British University LIS
British university LIS are taken to mean the Library and Information Services of HE
institution within the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) which
have university status, excluding subject specialist universities.
1.3.2 Subject support and Academic liaison
Scrivener (1974), Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin (1996) refer to ‘subject
specialisation’ in their studies of British universities. However, this term is not
widely used now, mainly because librarians today are often not specialists, with a
background in the particular subject they have responsibility for. Instead, the terms
subject support and/or academic liaison will be used interchangeably, referring to
LIS providing a named library contact, usually a professionally qualified librarian, to
each academic school/department/faculty.
1.4 The Current Study
1.4.1 Aim
This study aimed to identify the types of structures used by British university
libraries to deliver academic liaison and subject support and to compare these
structures to those previously identified by Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin
(1996). In addition the study sought to demonstrate whether these models are still
applicable today or whether new structural categories are now in use.
1.4.2 Objectives
• To discover the current organisational structures used by British university
libraries to provide academic liaison/subject support and to categorise them
according to Woodhead and Martin’s five models.
• To suggest improvements/amendments or new categories altogether if new
library structures are identified.
• To identify the job titles used for those librarians who have some
subject/academic liaison responsibility.
11
• To discover the extent to which those librarians who have subject
responsibility also perform centralised functional tasks too.
• To identify the role of paraprofessionals in the provision of subject support
and whether some tasks they now perform were previously considered wholly
the preserve of ‘professional’ librarians.
• To establish if there is any discernable difference between the structural
models used to deliver subject support in converged library services,
compared with non-converged library services.
• To discover which staff members complete activities, usually undertaken by
subject/liaison librarians, in university libraries where no division of subject
responsibility is made.
• To seek the opinions of those in charge of academic liaison services as to the
effectiveness of the structure their library employs.
1.4.3 Report structure
Following on from this introduction to the research background, rationale, aim and
objectives, Chapter 2 consists of a review of the literature relevant to this study and
has been arranged in four sections; subject librarians, the organisational structure of
university libraries, convergence and the role of the paraprofessional. Chapter 3
describes the differing methodological approaches to research and the particular
methods used for this study. In addition, it comments upon ethical issues and the
data collection and analysis processes. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the
questionnaire results. The data from each of the twelve questions are presented in
words, tables, and bar charts. Chapter 5 discusses the results presented in chapter 4
in the context of the study’s original aim and objectives and the literature review.
Chapter 6 summarises the study’s conclusion and suggests further areas of research.
Finally the appendices include, amongst other things, a copy of the questionnaire and
participation information sheet.
12
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a literature review on four main topics related to the
research; subject librarians, the organisational structure of university libraries,
convergence and the role of the paraprofessional. In each instance, definitions of the
topics are sought and a brief history provided. All four areas have undergone
significant change in recent years and this is also commented upon, along with a
description of the drivers of those changes. The current situation is noted and, in
some instances, what the future may hold.
Most of the literature available on this subject originates from the UK or USA
and dates from the 1980s to present. Subsequently, the literature review
predominantly reflects this, while occasionally utilising sources from other countries,
such as Australia or Ghana.
2.2 Subject Librarians
The different job titles used to describe a librarian with subject responsibility
have come under close scrutiny from many writers. Holbrook (1984:269) uses the
terms ‘liaison librarian’ or ‘subject librarian’ and highlights other titles which are in
use such as “subject specialist, reader adviser, subject reference librarian …” and so
on. From the US perspective, Hay (1990:11) suggests “subject bibliographer, area
specialist, area bibliographer …”. A large number of job titles for subject librarians
were recorded in the studies of Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin (1996).
The 1982 examples included school librarian, liaison officer, subject consultant and
liaison librarian (Woodhead & Martin, 1982:97). By 1996 many of the same or
similar titles were in use, but by then the word ‘information’ had crept in, with
‘information librarian’ and ‘information specialist’. (Martin, 1996:160).
13
Both these studies support Gaston’s (2001) view that subject librarians in the
UK are unlikely to be subject specialists as their US counterparts may be. Indeed,
some of those who participated in the studies felt uneasy about being described as
subject specialists; “They found it embarrassing in the sense that it implied a
knowledge of a subject equivalent to that of a member of the academic staff, which is
but infrequently the case” (Martin, 1996:160).
As to the actual definition of what a subject librarian is, Heseltine (1995:433)
suggests they are “an individual, or perhaps a group of individuals [who] provide
various kinds of information services to discipline-based groups of academics and
students”. Feetham (2006) and Gaston (2001) both choose to quote Feather and
Sturges’s definition as “a librarian with special knowledge of, and responsibility for,
a particular subject or subjects” (Feetham, 2006:3).
The origins and history of the subject librarian in the UK is commented upon
by several writers. They state that ‘scholar librarians’ originated in Cambridge and
Oxford Universities, while something resembling today’s subject librarian began at
University College London in the 1940s, which “faced with the need to rebuild
collections destroyed during the war, developed a system of delegating detailed work
on the subject libraries to assistant librarians” (Woodhead & Martin, 1982:95).
World War Two also precipitated the rise of the subject librarian in the USA,
where universities built up collections about foreign countries to provide the US
Departments of State and Defense with information to aid the war effort.
Subsequently, different universities concentrated on certain areas and so too did the
librarians responsible for those collections. Hay comments, “the expansion of
subject specialization in US libraries was initially a national defense activity” (Hay,
1990:12).
The roles and responsibilities of subject librarians have received a great deal
of attention in the literature. The traditional role of the subject librarian, according to
Pinfield (2001:33), is liaison with users, enquiry work, selection of material,
management of materials budgets, cataloguing and classification, managing
collections, user education and production of guides and publicity. He goes on to say
14
that subject librarians today still perform these traditional tasks, but there is now an
increased emphasis on liaison with users, working with technical staff, selection of e-
resources and project working. These additional roles indicate that “in general, there
has been a trend of moving subject librarians away from routine tasks to other
priorities” (Pinfield, 2001:34). Feetham (2006:4) concurs with this analysis and in
particular emphasises how the demands of new technology have meant an increased
emphasis has been placed on liaison with users, adoption of new enquiry techniques
and information skills training, especially through involvement in learning
environments.
This change in emphasis from the traditional roles, such as cataloguing and
classifying, to liaison and user education was picked up as early as 1982 by
Woodhead and Martin. They described the most widely performed functions of
subject librarians as “liaison with academics, reader education, book selection,
reference and information work” (Woodhead & Martin, 1982:102). This trend has
continued as Hardy’s (2005:42) research showed, when out of thirty-two subject
librarians only seven stated that they performed classification and only one
performed cataloguing.
The role of the subject librarian as a ‘learning facilitator’ is the biggest
growth area in the profession. Students and staff need to acquire information
handling skills to be able to use the wide range of information sources available and
subject librarians, according to Edwards et al. (1998:62) are well equipped for this as
“they find that their mix of skills in IT, information provision and retrieval and in
user support place them in a unique position to underpin teaching, learning and
research”. Subsequently, subject librarians provide Information Literacy (IL)
training, which, it has been argued, requires the librarian to have a formal
educational qualification; “Increasingly, it is not sufficient for the librarian to ‘train’
students in the use of library resources but have a real understanding of the pedagogy
of teaching” (Feetham, 2006:12). Biddiscombe, (2002:230) goes further, saying that
the teaching role of subject librarians is becoming so dominant that they “are now
essentially learning support personnel with weakening links to the traditional library
structure”.
15
The changing of the subject librarian’s role as a result of an increased
emphasis upon user education and technology was, in part, predicted by the Fielden
Report (1993:26), which foresaw the following as being part of their role by the year
2000:
• Attending course planning committees
• Providing tuition on study skills programmes run by the departments
• Participating in academic audit and quality assurance initiatives
• Helping academic staff to understand the resources that are available
physically and electronically
• Providing technical support, especially for electronic databases
• Assisting students with technical/access problems
• Producing educational material to inform staff/students about resources in
their subject area.
So, the future of the subject librarian seems to be assured due to their ability
to ‘move with the times’, but not all view them in a positive light, with a future role
to play in academic libraries. Rather than seeing subject librarians as the ideal
candidates to provide users with IL training, Heseltine (1995) believes “that end-user
services, such as training will be delivered on a functionally-specialised, institution-
wide and perhaps sector-wide basis” (Heseltine, 1995:433). While in the USA
Dickenson, a fellow detractor, cited by Hay (1990:16), suggested that information
services would be better organised on a functional basis, rather than a subject
specialist basis. Dickenson’s metaphor of a dinosaur facing extinction when
referring to subject librarians is refuted by Hay who states it is a “more apt fit for the
functional-type library organization”.
Overall, most writers are positive about subject librarians and their future,
suggesting they are not on the verge of extinction. Edwards et al. (1998:62) state
“current evidence suggests that the role of the subject librarian is changing rather
than disappearing” and Woodhead and Martin’s suggestion that 1982 was the high-
water mark of subject specialisation in British university libraries was proven to be
incorrect by Martin’s 1996 study. Pinfield (2001:33) concurs that “in most academic
16
libraries the subject librarian is alive and well”, while Feetham (2006:14) suggests
the future of the subject librarian is assured as their role of academic liaison will
ensure “a coherent thread of continuity between the past, present and future is clearly
identifiable”.
2.3 The organisational structure of university libraries
The success of a university library, as with any organisation, is partly
determined by the organisational structure used to deliver its services. Put simply,
“Organization structure is a tool that managers use to harness resources for getting
things done” (Daft, 2003:317), while Child (1984:17) describes organisational
structure as “a means for allocating responsibilities, providing a framework for
operations and performance assessment, and finishing mechanisms to process
information and assist decision-making”.
Although Daft (2003) and Child’s (1984) general management texts are
largely aimed at commercial organisations, the structural considerations and models
described are applicable to university libraries. Daft (2003:322) describes five
established models of structural organisation: Vertical functional approach, whereby
people are grouped together in a department by common skill or activity; Divisional
approach, whereby people are grouped in departments based on a common product,
programme or geographical region; Matrix approach, where functional and divisional
chains of command are implemented simultaneously and overlay one another; Team-
based approach, whereby the organisation creates a series of teams to accomplish
specific tasks and; Network approach, where an organisation becomes a central hub,
electronically connected to other outsourced organisations which perform vital
functions.
University libraries have historically tended to be tall, centralised hierarchies
which follow the vertical functional approach. Farley et al. (1998:249) state
“organisational structure in academic libraries tends to be rigid, task oriented and
bureaucratic…”. However, Moran (2001:105) highlights how until the 1940s, in the
USA, “most academic libraries were small and there was less need for formal
organisation”, but as the universities and their libraries grew, departments were
17
created and grouped into divisions. The enduring model created by the 1950s was
the “bifurcated functional structure in which all activities were grouped under the
categories of technical services and reader services”. This model continues to be the
manner in which many university libraries are organised, indeed, Badu’s (2002:92)
research confirmed that “the university libraries’ staffing structure in Ghana is of an
overwhelmingly centrally directed hierarchical nature”. The same study also showed
that all five UK university libraries studied were centrally hierarchical, but several
were moving towards “a project based organic approach”.
The reason for libraries changing their organisational structure is the subject
of much discussion in the literature; one of the most important reasons is the advent
of new technology. Daft (2003:312) highlights how companies in the commercial
world “…have found a need to make structural changes that are compatible with the
use of the Internet for e-business”, while Moran (2001:106) states that by the 1990s,
new functions were added to library structures with “systems and automation
departments… represented in almost all of the libraries”. Badu (2002:93) asserts
“automation in the libraries was a contributing factor for effecting changes in their
organisational structures”, while Schwartz (1997:1) suggests libraries have been slow
to change their structure in response to technological change.
Other reasons Moran (2001:107)) gives for academic libraries restructuring
are due to the hiring of a new director, the departure of individuals occupying key
administrative positions, budget cutbacks or maybe following a study of internal
processes. Meanwhile Badu (2002:93) highlights “the increase in student numbers
and the diverse needs of the students which had placed new demands on their
libraries’ administrative and operational structures”. This point was also made by the
Fielden Report (1993:17), which suggested the rise in reader numbers meant staff
had to move from the increasingly automated technical services to reader services,
which faced increased customer service demands.
In order to cope with the technological and other changes already described,
organisations, including university libraries, have sought to become flatter structures
with a wider span of control/management. “If an organisation is rigid and highly
structured, change may be problematic as staff will face a radical readjustment, while
18
a more flexible, organic organisation may cope better” (Farley et al., 1998:242).
This broader, flatter organisational structure is often realised through the team-based
approach. Lewis (1997:45) predicted that “teams will be increasingly required
because existing hierarchical structures are not adequate to the tasks we now face –
to be productive and more focused to do more with less”.
Bazirjian and Stanley (2001) provide an example of moving to a team-based
structure at Pennsylvania State University Libraries. Not only was the library
influenced to restructure because centralised bureaucratic structures were considered
out of date, but there were “frustrations and feelings of lack of communications…”.
As well as improving communications and customer service, the team-based
structure empowered employees by the use of self directed work teams, whereby a
team would be responsible for “handling day-to-day processes, setting their own
goals, training fellow team mates in procedures…” (Bazirjian & Stanley, 2001:132).
Lomker (2002:344) describes how the move to a team-based structure at the
University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus libraries enabled “…cooperation in
achieving goals and more flexibility. In addition, more people seem to enjoy their
jobs now and morale is better than it has been”. Jackson et al. (1998) provided an
example of a move to using teams in the UK, at the University of Northumbria,
Newcastle. Their restructure followed the advice of IMPEL 2 (Impact on People of
Electronic Libraries), a project supported by JISC (Joint Information Systems
Committee) to monitor the organisational and cultural changes associated with the
growth of the electronic infrastructure in HE.
Daft (2003:331) summarises the advantages team-based structures provide as:
breaking down barriers across departments; team members having to compromise
and resolve problems collectively; morale is boosted with employees being
enthusiastic about their involvement in bigger projects; responsibility is pushed down
the hierarchy with fewer managers and so a flatter structure and; the team concept
allows the organisation to adapt quickly.
There are, however, several disadvantages. Jackson et al. (1998) describes
how many staff felt their workloads had increased under the team-based structure,
while Bazirjian and Stanley (2001:135) highlighted how “teams have no formal
19
leadership, supervisory, or authority roles”, meaning the quality of work suffered and
even some bullying took place. Higa et al. (2005:45) describes a move away from a
team-based structure at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at
Dallas Library because, “the large number of teams and amount of staff participation
had created serious time management challenges for staff”, meaning “staff found it
increasingly difficult to sort out competing priorities of teams and departments”.
Despite the negative aspects that team-based structures may create, many
university libraries use teams to provide subject support and academic liaison. Reid
(2000:21) states the trend for flatter structures and team working “often takes the
form of school or faculty teams comprising a range of staff levels and, in merged
institutions, a range of professional expertise and background.” Thompson and Carr,
cited by Gaston (2001:26) agree by stating that “subject-oriented structures tend to
be less hierarchical – more of a necklace than a pyramid, a string of subject
specialists with the librarian as the central stone”. Heseltine (1995:433) seems to
support the use of teams, although not for subject provision, stating “the functional
team specialising, say, in training is a better model for convergence than subject – or
faculty – based teams”.
Many university libraries employ a matrix structure, where functional and
divisional structures combine, which helps create more flexibility and improve
horizontal communication. Royan (1990:169) suggests a matrix structure is
necessary because “the restructuring of any organisation has to involve compromise
between the client institution’s structure, its geography, and the attributes of the
available staff.” He goes on to say, “such interconnections would make a formal
organisation chart look messy, but they are the very sinews of a real world
organisation”. Moran (2001:108), however, adds some words of caution about the
matrix structure’s “…accompanying complexities of dual reporting patterns”.
Another model, suitable for university libraries, which is similar to the matrix
structure, is the network organisation. This structure involves IT supporting a range
of structural types within the one organisation such as a central hierarchy, teams,
committees and so on. “It is a messy organization in comparison with a traditional
vertical or linear organization but one that is increasingly seen as offering essential
20
qualities of stability and flexibility for those organizations facing dynamic change”
(Creth, 2000:36).
Despite much having been written about alternative structural models
designed to cope with change, many university libraries retain a central hierarchical
structure at their core, but also use teams and/or a matrix structure. Pugh’s (2005:13)
research on the effects technological development had in supporting innovative
management revealed that despite much ‘tinkering’, most university libraries had not
moved away from a hierarchical bureaucracy. Indeed, Moran (2001:109) states “all
large university libraries beginning to restructure have started from a hierarchical
base, and that underlying structure remains afterwards”.
The fact no single model has emerged, which has been universally adopted by
university libraries suggests that “we have outlived the usefulness of models from the
industrial era but don’t yet have robust organisational models for the information
era” (Johansen & Swigart cited by Moran, 2001:109).
2.4 Convergence
A significant change in organisational structure some university libraries have
taken is merging with other university services. The literature on convergence
predominantly focuses on the merging of the library with computing services.
Additional services the library may merge with are “… learning technology, media
services, support for classrooms… reprographics and printing services, telephone
services, university presses and printing services” (Hanson, 2005:4). Sutton
(2000a:63) describes ‘technical convergence’ “… in which there is a coming together
and overlapping of the roles of libraries, computer centres and academic
departments.
There are various levels to which services converge, indeed, “the literature
suggests that writers over the past decade have treated the terms convergence,
collaboration and cooperation synonymously…” (Sayers, 2001:55). The Fielden
Report (1993:15) describes two types of convergence: Organisational or formal
convergence;
21
“in which the two services…are brought together for management purposes.
In its most limited form this may mean that one person is put in overall control of the
two services with no other organizational change to the status quo”.
Operational or informal convergence;
“in which the detailed functions or operations of the two services are brought
together. It is not necessary to have organizational convergence for operational
convergence to happen (for example the heads of two services can undertake joint
strategic planning); similarly, operational convergence does not necessarily follow
organizational convergence”.
Hanson (2005:5) describes three differing models of convergence: “Oversight
at pro-vice-chancellor level”, whereby a common reporting line exists for the heads
of computing services and the library service, which otherwise remain separate;
“Strategic coordination”, where a director of information services exercises active
coordination while a significant level of interdependence and cooperation occur
within an agreed strategic framework and; “Service-level convergence”, which is
similar to strategic coordination, but with significant service integration, maybe
including the redefining of roles and titles.
The history of convergence in the USA and UK receives considerable
attention. In the USA Battin (1984) is seen as the earliest proponent of convergence
between the library and computer centre. She advocated that merger would allow
“one-stop shopping for the university community” (Battin cited by Sayers, 2001:53).
Lovecy (1994) describes one of the earliest examples of convergence in the USA
occurring at Columbia University, which established a Scholarly Information Centre
in the mid 1980s, while Field (2001:268) draws attention to the fact that
“paradoxically, although convergence began in the United States, it has been
proportionately more pervasive in the United Kingdom”. The University of Salford
is regarded as the first university in the UK to converge in 1988.
Similar factors which encouraged some university libraries to change their
organisational structures to flatter, less hierarchical models also encouraged some to
undergo convergence. Sutton (2000b:84) names the drivers of converge as technical,
pedagogic, economic, strategic and political, whereas Abbott (1998:28) suggests
22
three broad drivers; “growth in electronic forms of information; growth in the use of
IT by academic staff and students; changing models of teaching and research”.
The literature credits technology as being the main driver for university
libraries to converge with other services, especially computing services. Field
(2001:274) describes “an increasing convergence of the technologies for producing,
storing, retrieving, processing and transmitting text, data, image and voice, and the
associated increasing dependence of libraries upon electronic information and
network infrastructure”. Lovecy (1994:3) agrees with this, saying “the real impetus
for close association came from the reliance of libraries on electronic information
sources and in particular the remote resources accessed over a network”. Sidgreaves
(1995:4), on the other hand, states “there is a second and linked force for change
which I believe will be of equal, if not greater, importance – change in learning and
teaching”.
As part of Sutton’s (2000b) pedagogic driver, Foster (cited by Sutton,
2000b:85), states “changes in teaching and learning methods demand new
arrangements for delivery of support services. Learners… have no respect for the
increasingly artificial barriers between these services”. The changes in teaching and
learning being referred to were that students “… are increasingly being asked to
work individually or in groups with print, audio-visual media and computer based
products” (Sidgreaves, 1995:4). This move to ‘self-directed’ or ‘student-centred’
learning also meant learners required support to operate effectively in the electronic
environment. This change in learning style was accelerated further following the
Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) in 1997,
which recommended “… that all students should have open access to a Networked
Desktop Computer by the year 2000/01” (Abbott, 1998:29).
In addition to student-centred learning and an increased emphasis on IT, the
number of students requiring support facilities to fulfil self-directed learning greatly
increased. Indeed, the Fielden Report (1993:23) predicted that “professional staff
will be expected to play a greater role in learner support… and their liaison role with
academic departments will become central to their functions. Thus, a new form of
convergence, which we call academic convergence will gradually develop”.
23
The economic driver of convergence often refers to the fact that the
expansion of HE has not been matched by an increase in resources, meaning
universities have sought to make economies of scale by merging services:
“Institutions are asking whether employing both systems staff in the computer centre
and systems librarians is an efficient use of very stretched staffing budgets” (Lovecy,
1994:3). The Fielden Report (1993:15) was similarly enthusiastic about the financial
benefits a converged library and computing service could provide “… if the budgets
of the services are combined, and if virement is allowed, their manager has much
more financial flexibility and scope for changing the status quo”.
Lewis and Sexton (2000) and Field (2001), however, seem to disagree that
economies of scale can necessarily be achieved through convergence. In the case of
their specific institution, Lewis and Sexton (2000:8) state that “an early conclusion
was that there were no significant opportunities for economy to be achieved by
merging the Library with CiCS [Corporate Information and Computing Services];
and that overlap between staff of the two services was actually very small”.
Meanwhile, Field (2001:276) cites research by Pugh conducted in the UK in 1997,
which revealed that 45 per cent of converged services reported that budgets had
actually increased after convergence, whilst 55 per cent saw growth in their staffing
establishment”.
Sutton’s (2000b) final two drivers for convergence; strategic and political,
could be coupled together and classed as external drivers. Two external forces were
the Follett and Fielden Reports (1993), which were both positive about university
libraries merging with other services. The Follett Report (1993:29) stated that
“regardless of its management structure, each institution should seek to promote the
coordinated planning of all its teaching and learning resources, bringing those
responsible for library and information services into this work”. Meanwhile, the
Fielden Report (1993:15) stated how converged services could allow “…discussions
about future library strategy and forms of learning support available to students”.
24
In addition to the Follett and Fielden Reports, JISC, the body funded to
implement the IT proposals arising from the Follett Report, also encouraged
convergence by publishing its guidelines for developing information strategies in
universities in 1995. This mantle was then taken up by the Higher Education
Funding Councils (HEFC) who increased the pressure for convergence, by requiring
universities to produce Information strategies, which covered the storage,
dissemination and manipulation of all printed and electronic information (Lovecy,
1994).
Additional drivers for convergence are often the building of a new ‘learning
centre’ to house library and computing facilities or “when the incumbent director of
information services has vacated the post, and thus provided the opportunity for a
rethink” (Hanson, 2005:2).
Many of the benefits sought by convergence are implied by the drivers which
encourage libraries to merge with other services in the first place, such as improving
customer service with a combined ‘one-stop information shop’ or the possibility of
making economies of scale. In addition, Abbott (1998:31) highlights how
convergence has created an “… increased need for professional library skills”
amongst staff, despite concerns that working in a converged service would lead to
the deprofessionalisation of roles. Field (2001:280) describes how, in his converged
service, staff have “… benefited from promotion and/or from transfer to more
challenging and fulfilling posts within the service”.
Despite potential benefits for staff once convergence has taken place, the
literature also highlights how difficult it is to implement such changes on an, often,
reluctant workforce: “Undoubtedly the biggest problem faced by anyone attempting
merger, as opposed to collaboration, is the frequent unwillingness of staff to accept
new patterns of working and new relationships” (Lovecy,1994:8). In addition, many
writers comment on the possible ‘culture clash’ between library and computing staff;
“One argument used against convergence is that librarians and computing staff are
inherently different, not only in their skills, but even more fundamentally in their
approach to work” (Sidgreaves, 1995:5).
25
As to the future for the convergence of university libraries with other
services, “in the end, all institutions are different, and there is probably no one model
which will suit all. Much comes down to personalities; something, too, to the
organizational environment – including, of course, size” (Lovecy, 1994:8).
Certainly, many universities continue to operate separate library and computing
services with no formal convergence, but even these require a close working
relationship of cooperation and collaboration between the two services: “With an
acceptance of the inevitability of operational cooperation and collaboration between
libraries and computer centres it may become increasingly artificial to describe
information services as converged or non-converged models” (Sutton, 2000b:83).
2.5 The role of the paraprofessional
The literature concerning paraprofessionals in university libraries is
dominated by the situation in the United States, especially their changing role within
technical services, such as cataloguing. Oberg (1992a:100) puts the emergence of
the paraprofessional down to “the creation of new tasks and the redistribution of old
ones”.
In terms of defining a ‘paraprofessional’, there is some variation in
description. Bordeianu and Seiser (1999:532) use the broad definition of “a library
employee who does not have [a] master’s degree in library/information science”.
Oberg (1992a:105), however, warns against using such a broad definition stating,
“the term [paraprofessional] is misleading when, as is often the case, it is applied
without distinction to all classifications of library employees who are not librarians”.
A more precise definition is offered by the American Library Association’s Glossary
of Library and Information Science (1983), which defined paraprofessionals as
“library employees without professional certification or entrance level educational
requirements who are assigned supportive responsibilities at a high level and
commonly perform the duties with some supervision by a professional staff member”
(P. Johnson, 1996:82).
26
In addition to the various definitions, the literature records alternative names
used for paraprofessionals. Strasner (2000:22) suggests, “support staff,
paralibrarians, technicians, assistants, and even non-professionals”. While Strasner
understandably considers the term ‘non-professional’ to be derogatory, the Fielden
Report (1993) showed its concern not to offend any library workers by placing the
names ‘paraprofessional’ and ‘professional’ in inverted commas throughout the
report. In terms of paraprofessionals’ differing job titles, Wilson and Halpin’s
(2006:86) study of converged university library services revealed “Information
Assistant, Learning Centre Assistant and IT Help-desk Assistant”.
All the authors agree that the rise of the paraprofessional from the ranks of
library support staff is largely down to the need for them to assist in work previously
carried out by professionally qualified librarians. Oberg’s (1992a:99) comment
regarding the situation in the USA is just as applicable to the UK, where librarians
increasingly take on a ‘learner-support’ role; “As academic librarians busied
themselves with their newfound faculty status requirements of teaching, research and
governance, they became more and more dependent upon support staff”. Tin and Al-
Hawamdeh (2002:335) agree stating, “tasks previously considered ‘professional’ are
routinely performed by paraprofessionals and there is significant task overlap, which
is characteristic in today’s libraries”.
The movement of librarians on to new tasks which, in turn, required senior
support staff to help with those tasks traditionally associated with librarians is often
referred to as ‘up-skilling’. Wilson and Halpin’s (2006:87) UK study established
that “it was generally felt that a substantial ‘up-skilling’ of all posts within LIS has
been established in order to meet the human resource demands of the hybrid library”.
The factors which have encouraged the ‘up-skilling’ and growth of paraprofessional
staff in academic libraries are similar to factors which encouraged some libraries to
change their organisational structures and/or converge.
Most prominent of these factors is the advent of new technology.
“Technology absorbs many routine tasks and causes previously non-routine tasks to
become routine. As many clerical tasks are absorbed by computer systems, support
positions at all levels assume greater job responsibility” (P.Johnson, 1996:85).
27
Farley et al. (1998:243) highlight how IT has “brought greater challenges for
professional library staff and changed the nature and emphasis of their work”, while
also enabling “non-professional staff to take on tasks previously designated as in the
professional domain”.
Much of the literature focuses on the effect technology has had on the
paraprofessional in technical services, especially in the cataloguing department.
Strasner (2000:22) explains how “the advent of computer technology has changed
the duties performed at virtually every level of the library” and that “support staff are
now responsible for searching complex online databases, supervising and decision-
making”. In terms of the changing roles within cataloguing, Garcha and Buttlar
(1999) highlight how shared cataloguing and major bibliographic utilities have
allowed paraprofessionals to complete almost all copy cataloguing and a large
proportion of original cataloguing. Indeed, as far back as 1992 Oberg’s (1992b:224)
research showed that over 90% of all copy cataloguing and over half of original
cataloguing was completed by paraprofessionals in US academic libraries.
Rather than ‘up-skilling’, Wakimoto and Hsiung (2000:179) state how many
tasks within cataloguing have been simplified “because most of the work can be
conducted at the workstation, with several applications running simultaneously, [and]
there is no need to have the materials passed among various levels of staff”. C.P.
Johnson’s (1996) research supports this by concluding that rather than new
technology ‘up-skilling’ paraprofessional positions, the functions of
paraprofessionals’ remain the same, with the tools just having changed.
Economics have also played a part in encouraging paraprofessionals to take
on tasks which were previously thought of as ‘professional’ work. Stevenson
(1995:29) describes how the “university of today is driven by cost effectiveness,
efficiency, quality, accountability, appraisal and underfunding”. Within such a
climate, Oberg (1992a) suggests the rise and fall of tasks within the library work
hierarchy could partly be a cost saving measure. Certainly, many paraprofessionals
“see themselves performing the same duties librarians perform, only for less money
and prestige” (Oberg, 1992b:216). In addition, the Fielden Report (1993:14)
tellingly credited stable staffing costs, despite an overall increase in staff, with “the
28
greater increase in the numbers of ‘para-professional’ or clerical rather than
‘professional’ staff”.
Another contributory factor to the shifting of tasks within academic libraries
has been the increasing emphasis placed upon customer/public/reader services, as
well as librarians’ increasing role as ‘learner-support’ staff. Indeed, Wilson and
Halpin (2006:82) suggest “a growing emphasis has been placed on generic customer
service skills”. This, coupled with the decline in the need for so many people to
work in technical services, has meant many library staff, librarians and
paraprofessionals alike, have been reassigned to public/reader services, including
enquiry desks.
Once a ‘no-go area’ for anyone other than librarians, much comment has been
made in the literature regarding paraprofessionals staffing enquiry/reference desks.
Oberg’s (1992b:222) research on US academic libraries revealed that two out of five
used paraprofessionals to staff their enquiry desks. Meanwhile, the Fielden Report
(1993:20) highlights how “para-professional and clerical staff are being asked to take
over at the enquiry desk and handle the bulk of the queries, leaving only a few
subject-based questions for the information specialists to handle”.
P. Johnson (1996:84) gives some words of caution regarding the emphasis on
customer service by stating that “such terms as client-centred, service-oriented, and
user friendly usually describe a library that makes increasing demands on all staff
members because there is no money for additional personnel”. Certainly, an increase
in student numbers and the subsequent increase in customer service demands have
led to the re-assignment of paraprofessionals to the enquiry desk, but this has
allowed “librarians [to] spend more time teaching, performing liaison work and
systems management, and serving the patron” (Strasner, 2000:22).
Changes in university libraries’ organisational structure have also impacted
upon the role of the paraprofessional. The move by some libraries to a flatter, team-
based structure has empowered many support staff and ensured they perform more
varied and rewarding work. P. Johnson (1996:85) describes how “staff members
work across divisional lines to solve problems instead of up and down the
29
organizational hierarchy”. Meanwhile, the Fielden Report (1993:27) encouraged the
use of teams for projects and even subject-based teams to ensure increasingly over
qualified paraprofessionals are suitably enriched in the work-place.
Wilson and Halpin (2006:85), talking about converged LIS, suggest that the
joint staffing of enquiry desks, by professionals and paraprofessionals, has caused
‘work assimilation’ between the two groups. This sentiment is shared by Abbott
(1998:35), who suggests that “from the perspective of personal development and
career advancement, working in converged services can only be beneficial to
paraprofessionals, middle professionals and senior managers alike”.
While it is clear from the literature that all library roles have changed to some
degree, the impact upon paraprofessionals has been the greatest and this has not been
universally welcomed. According to Oberg (1992a), paraprofessionals do not fully
appreciate what librarians do and vice versa. Indeed, “when shifting roles and
responsibilities are not publicly and clearly acknowledged, paraprofessionals feel
exploited and professional staff feel their professional status is threatened”
(P.Johnson, 1996:89).
This lack of understanding between professional and paraprofessional staff
has alleviated somewhat since the 1990s, but concerns surrounding the
paraprofessionals’ threat to librarians’ professional status are still raised. With
reference to ‘work assimilation’, Freeman (1997:67) states “professional tasks
become diluted or deprofessionalized as a result. If a good paraprofessional or
library assistant can perform as well as a mediocre professional then what
implications for professional status, high salaries and professional control and
jurisdictions follow?”. The fact, however, remains that “promotion to a professional
grade is still restricted by the necessity of a degree/post-graduate qualification in
librarianship or information management/studies” (Wilson & Halpin, 2006:86).
30
2.5 Summary
It is clear from the literature that all four topic areas have seen significant
changes, which have affected all university libraries. An increasing student
population along with static or declining library budgets, external politics, the advent
of new technology and the development of new learning and teaching methods have
all had an impact on academic libraries. The most striking and pervasive of all these
changes, however, is the massive role that technology has played in all four areas.
The role of the subject librarian has changed and adapted to the emphasis on
student-centred learning. Some libraries’ organisational structures have become
flatter and less hierarchical to be able to adapt better to change. Similarly, some
libraries merged their service with other university services, particularly in response
to the overlap between functions/services provided by the library and computing
services. Finally, the rise of paraprofessionals was precipitated by a combination of
these changes and their presence today allows librarians to deal better with their own
changing role.
There is quite a large amount written on all four subject areas. Most of the
literature is written by ‘active’ librarians in the academic library sector and includes
research studies/surveys. The subject librarian’s role is commented upon on both
sides of the Atlantic. Similarly, the organisational structure of university libraries is
well catered for, especially the use of team-based structures in the USA.
Convergence is, perhaps, one instance where the UK seems ahead of the USA. The
role of the paraprofessional receives far more comment from US sources, with UK
sources tending to restrict discussion of the paraprofessional in the context of
professional concerns.
31
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
In this section, following a description of the distinguishing features of the
three main methodological approaches, the methods used in this particular study are
described, from the literature review to locating potential participants and the
selection of the questionnaire as the survey instrument. The advantages and
disadvantages of using a questionnaire are commented upon, as are ethical issues and
the data collection and data analysis phases.
3.2 Methodological approaches
3.2.1 Quantitative approach
Quantitative and qualitative approaches provide two distinct methods of
research, which some researchers believe should remain separate. Quantitative
research is mostly associated with true experiments, scientific in nature, when
quantifiable data is sought and analysed using statistical approaches, which can be
used to generalise for the whole population. It is a deductive process, meaning the
researcher, based on what is known, deduces a hypothesis which is then subjected to
scrutiny. The theoretical perspectives behind quantitative research are positivism
and postpositivism.
Positivists advocate the use of research methods used in the natural sciences
to study the social sciences. Subsequently, a scientific form of research is pursued,
whereby a theory/hypothesis must be proved or disproved. In addition to this
perspective, postpositivists recognise that we are not able to be positive about our
claims of knowledge when studying the behaviour and actions of humans. They
believe that knowledge is developed through careful observation and measurement in
an objective manner (Creswell, 2003).
32
In addition to its scientific, deductive approach, quantitative research places
great emphasis upon reliability, replication and validity (Bryman, 2004). Such
research should provide reliable results; the extent to which a measurement
procedure provides the same answer however and whenever it is carried out (Gorman
& Clayton, 1997:58). Replication of the study requires that is may be replicated
exactly and performed again. Validity is concerned with the integrity of the
conclusion and whether the correct answer has been arrived at. With quantitative
research, success under reliability, replication and validity is largely dependent upon
variables being accounted for and eliminated, if possible.
Strategies used by quantitative researchers include experiments and surveys,
such as questionnaires or structured interviews.
3.2.2 Qualitative approach
Qualitative research takes a more holistic approach, often being word based,
rather than number based. It seeks a greater understanding of the perceptions of
individuals and, as opposed to quantitative research, is classed as an inductive
process which “involves drawing generalizable influences out of observations”
(Bryman, 2004:9). Babbie (cited by Powell & Connaway, 2004:18) succinctly sum
up the difference between deductive and inductive and thus quantitative and
qualitative approaches “with the deductive method we would have reasoned towards
observations; with the inductive method we would have reasoned from
observations”. Gorman & Clayton (1997:23) state that “the ultimate goal of
qualitative research is to understand those being studied from their perspective, from
their point of view”.
According to Creswell (2003) the theoretical ideas upon which qualitative
research is based are constructivism and an advocacy/participatory view point.
Those who advocate constructivist knowledge “hold that individuals seek
understanding of the world in which they live and work [and]…also develop
subjective meaning of their experiences” (Creswell, 2003:9). The
advocacy/participatory perspective involves the inquiry being intertwined with
politics, including an action for reform.
33
As opposed to quantitative research, qualitative research is cyclical or circular
in nature and recursive, meaning the researcher has to move forward and backward
between stages throughout the project. Rather than place an emphasis upon
reliability, replication and validity, given the number of uncontrollable variables
likely to impact upon qualitative research, Lincoln and Guba (cited by Bryman,
2004:30) suggest that trustworthiness of research, including credibility,
transferability, dependability and confirmability, should be assessed instead.
Strategies used by qualitative researchers include, ethnographies, case
studies, phenomenological research and narrative research. While, Gorman and
Clayton (1997) highlight four methods of qualitative investigation as observation,
interviewing, group discussion and historical study.
3.2.3 Mixed Method
It is important to note that features defined as quantitative or qualitative are
not rigid and are merely tendencies. Indeed, “research methods are much more free-
floating than is sometimes supposed” (Bryman, 2004:438). Creswell (2003:4) states,
“the situation today is less quantitative versus qualitative and more how research
practices lie somewhere on a continuum between the two”.
The use of both quantitative and qualitative research within a single study is
today recognised as the mixed method approach (Creswell, 2003). It may also be
known as the multi-method, convergence, integrated or combined approach.
Creswell (2003) traces its origin to 1959, when Campbell and Fiske used multiple
methods for some psychology research and from this ‘triangulation’ was born.
The idea behind the mixed method approach is to neutralise each research
methods limitation through the use of both methods. It is advocated by pragmatist
theorists, who focus on the research problem and choose methods, techniques and
procedures of research which best fit their needs. Mixed method research employs
three broad strategies: sequential procedure, where the researcher expands on the
findings of one research method by using another; concurrent procedure, where both
34
forms of data are collected and then interpreted at the same time and; transformative
procedure, which employs methods that best serve the theoretical perspective of the
researcher (Creswell, 2003).
While this study does not fit neatly into either quantitative or qualitative
research, it does share many characteristics with the mixed method approach. The
survey instrument used (a questionnaire) was arrived at through pragmatic reasons
and it does feature both quantifiable data in the form of closed ‘tick-box’ questions
as well as qualitative data gleaned from open-ended questions. Although some
quantitative data was gained, given the innumerable variables between each
university library targeted, it was impossible to generalise any of the results to the
rest of the population. In addition, there is no hypothesis guiding the research, rather
an inductive approach has been adopted which is theory generating and pattern
seeking. So this particular study, on Creswell’s (2003) continuum between
quantitative and qualitative research would be closer to qualitative research than
quantitative research, given the lack of any statistical analysis, but both methods will
inform the conclusions.
3.3 Methods of Investigation
3.3.1 Literature Review
A review of the literature was undertaken in order to provide the researcher
with a better understanding of the subject matter and establish whether there is a gap
in research regarding the organisational structures used by university libraries for the
delivery of subject support/academic liaison. Given the mainly qualitative nature of
the study, the literature review was also used to inform the researcher of possible
trends. As Bryman (2004:7) states, “in many instances theory is latent or implicit in
the literature”.
Most of the sources were obtained by keyword searching library and
information science databases for journal articles, particularly Emerald Management
Reviews, LISA and Library Literature and Information Science Full Text. The initial
search concentrated on finding information relating to subject/liaison librarians and
35
their role within university libraries. Subsequently, it was decided to have four
sections to the literature review to ensure the best coverage of all the related issues.
In addition to searching library and information science databases for journal
articles, the university’s library catalogue, as well as departmental reading lists, were
consulted. A further important method for locating material was via the
bibliographies of the most useful articles or books already found.
3.3.2 Survey Instrument
Given the complexity of the data needed to establish the organisational
structures university libraries use for the provision of subject support/academic
liaison, it was clear that qualitative and quantitative data would be required. To gain
a deep insight into each library’s structure and the thoughts of the senior staff
member responsible for academic liaison, one to one interviews would have offered
detailed and complex information in a direct way. However, given that there are
over 130 British universities, depending upon the criteria used, there was no
possibility, with time and resource constraints, that one to one interviews could take
place.
The easiest and most efficient way to elicit the data required was via a
questionnaire, which would contain both quantitative closed questions and
qualitative open questions. In order to receive as many responses as possible it was
decided to contact the LIS of all British universities.
The website, HERO (Higher Education and Research Opportunities) was
used to provide a list of all HE institutions in the UK. Institutions were only selected
to participate which were full universities and had ‘university’ in their title. All HE
colleges and specialist institutions, such as centres for dance or music were omitted.
Various institutions of the University of London were also omitted, as well as some
other minor colleges of larger universities. The final number of British universities
identified to participate in this study was 115.
36
Those individuals from each institution’s LIS selected to participate were the
head of academic liaison services or, failing that, the head of the LIS. The name and
contact details of the individuals were identified from their respective library’s
website. This process was extremely time consuming and, in some instances, very
difficult. Some university libraries did not contain staff contact details, while it was
also sometimes difficult to establish exactly who was in charge of academic liaison
services.
As already indicated, the questionnaire would enable the collection of
geographically dispersed data over a short period of time. In addition, the use of a
questionnaire as the survey instrument had other advantages in its favour. According
to Powell and Connaway (2004) they encourage frank answers as it is easier for the
researcher to guarantee anonymity; they eliminate interviewer bias; participants,
within reason, can complete them in their own time at their own pace, thus providing
well thought out answers and; they tend to be inexpensive to administer. To this list,
Gillham (2000) adds the fact that all participants have to answer the same questions
eliminates bias (although the questions may not be understood in the same way).
Although the questionnaire was the most practical form of data collection for
this particular study, there are disadvantages or potential problems in using a
questionnaire as your survey instrument. The first page of Gillham’s (2000:1) book
devoted to developing a questionnaire rather ominously states “…developing a
questionnaire that will yield worthwhile data is difficult”. He goes on to state that
they assume respondents have the answers readily and easily available. Powell and
Connaway (2004) highlight the biggest disadvantage being that people do not like
completing them, while those who are motivated to complete them often do so
because they have strong opinions on the subject and so a particular bias, which can
skew the results.
The questionnaire was constructed, as far as possible, in a logical manner
with one section naturally leading to another, starting with factual closed questions
and ending with open-ended questions. The three sections were entitled: About your
LIS; Your library’s organisational structure and; Your opinions about LIS structures
now and in the future. The questionnaire was also designed to take no longer than 20
37
minutes to complete to encourage greater participation (see Appendix 1 for a copy of
the questionnaire). It was hoped that the use of both closed and open-ended
questions would compensate for both types of questions’ weaknesses, for example
closed questions restrict participants to the researcher’s answers, while open-ended
questions are more difficult for participants to complete and for the researcher to
analyse.
Gillham’s (2000) statement that questionnaires with open-ended questions are only
suitable for educated professional groups, due to a lack of written literacy skill in the
wider population, confirmed that their use in this particular study was acceptable.
3.4 Ethical Issues
In line with the University of Sheffield’s Ethics policy, this study took into
consideration the various ethical issues that may be applicable to research involving
human participants.
Due to the involvement of human participants the proposal for this study was
subjected to the Department of Information Studies Ethics Review procedure. Given
that this study involved no research with vulnerable populations and the fact that the
data being sought was not of a personal nature, it was deemed to be of low risk.
Despite the ‘low risk’ status, certain ethical guidelines had to be adhered to.
The participants had to be assured of the confidentiality of the information they
provided and of the fact their name and their institution’s name would not feature on
any information disseminated in the final report. These assurances were included
within the participant information sheet accompanying the questionnaire (see
Appendix 2).
In addition to these assurances, the participant information sheet
communicated the purpose of the research in a clear manner and any benefits
participation would bring. It also asked participants to consider carefully before
agreeing to take part and explained that they were at liberty to withdraw from the
38
study at any time, without reason. Participants were also provided with the
researcher’s name and contact details should they have any questions.
Although consent is implied by a participant completing and returning a
questionnaire, for clarity, to show that informed consent had been received, the
questionnaire contained a statement at the end asking the participant if they
understood and agreed to take part. Consent was also sought, via the questionnaire,
for the researcher to be allowed to contact participants should any of their answers
require clarification.
3.5 Data Collection
Last minute adjustments were made to the questionnaire following the advice
of a retired academic information services director on whom it was piloted. It was
then e-mailed as a Word document attachment, along with the participant
information sheet, to the named individuals identified through their respective
university library websites (see Appendix 3 for text of e-mail).
The participants were asked to complete and return the questionnaire within
three weeks, either by e-mail or post. In addition, or as an alternative to completing
the questionnaire, they were asked to provide a job description for academic liaison
staff and/or an organisational structure chart for their library.
During the first week, out of the 115 sent, only 10 completed questionnaires
were returned. During the second week a further 6 completed questionnaires were
returned. After two weeks had passed a reminder was sent to those who had not
replied, either by completing the questionnaire or contacting the researcher to advise
they were unable to assist in this instance. The questionnaire and participant
information sheet were attached to the reminder e-mail for the convenience of the
participants (see Appendix 3 for reminder e-mail text). This reminder prompted a
further 14 completed questionnaires during the third week. Several participants, who
had been busy with coming to the end of their financial year or summer holidays,
requested more time so a further week was allowed to receive completed
questionnaires, during which 4 were received. In total 6 individuals contacted the
39
researcher to advise they were unable to take part on this occasion. Of the 34
completed questionnaires received, 19 of those participants were also kind enough to
supply additional information such as organisational charts and job descriptions.
The final response rate was fairly low at 29.57%, however, it had been
anticipated that the use of a questionnaire, electronically distributed to individuals
not personally known to the researcher, would not yield a high response rate.
Although on the low side, the response rate is reasonably respectable, although
opinion is divided as to what constitutes an acceptable response rate, for example
Mongione (cited by Bryman, 2004:135) states that a response rate below 50% for a
self-completion postal questionnaire is not acceptable, while much published
research often has a lower response rate than this.
There could be several explanations as to why the response rate was on the
low side, some of which have already been mentioned when stating the
disadvantages of using a questionnaire. In this particular instance, however, time
seemed to be the biggest factor in preventing a higher response rate. Apart from it
being the summer holiday season and the end of financial year for many, seven of
both those who returned the questionnaire and those who contacted the researcher to
advise they could not take part in the research, were undergoing a restructure. This
in itself highlights how academic libraries are constantly changing and adapting,
presumably, to their users’ needs. It is also probably fair to say that the topic of this
research may not have inspired too many participants to respond, especially as the
questionnaire related to the organisation they work for, rather than them personally.
Finally, the fact that some of the questions could not be answered without reference
to other sources my have discouraged participation, with one of the early questions
relating to the number of staff employed perhaps being a little off-putting.
3.6 Data Analysis
The quantitative data gleaned from the questionnaire has been presented in
the form of tables and bar charts. In most instances the mean figure for both the
converged and non-converged LIS respondents has been calculated and presented.
40
Bar charts allow for the easy identification and understanding of a range of data
quickly. A low response rate and the innumerable variables between respondents
meant that statistical analysis was not possible.
The qualitative data received from questions 8-12 underwent a form of
qualitative content analysis which involved looking for themes in the answers to each
of the questions. This process involved reading and rereading each respondents
answer and extracting the salient points. Subsequently, the qualitative data has been
presented under those themes and relevant quotations from participants included to
support the points being made.
A similar process was used to categorise the organisational structures each
respondent’s LIS used for delivering subject support/academic liaison, except the
quantitative data, and any additional information, such as job descriptions, were also
looked at to inform the categorisation.
3.7 Evaluation of chosen methods
The use of a questionnaire comprising of both closed and open questions,
utilising quantitative and qualitative methods, was right under the circumstances. As
already suggested time, resource and travel constraints meant a more comprehensive
qualitative study was simply not possible.
Although the response rate was a little disappointing, if not entirely
unexpected, at 29.6%, most of the respondents did answer all the questions fully,
which meant categorisation of all but one of the respondent’s LIS was possible.
No respondent appears to have had any difficulty in understanding how to
complete the questionnaire, except one who completed most of the closed questions
incorrectly. It was decided to omit this response from the results given the small
amount of useful information it provided. (Otherwise, the response rate would have
been 35, rather than 34).
41
Although the information gleaned from the questionnaire did allow for
indicative information to be obtained relating to the provision of subject support and
the role of professional and ‘non-professional’ staff in that provision, not enough
information was obtained to be able to establish the full extent of any functional
activities which took place or the manner in which they were organised. Where
subject librarians did not have a functional role it was assumed functional activity
took place on a centralised basis and although this is often confirmed through
organisational charts, these were not available in every instance.
3.8 Timetable Gantt Chart of timetable
30/05
/07
06/06
/07
13/06
/07
20/06
/07
27/06
/07
04/07
/07
11/07
/07
18/07
/07
25/07
/07
01/08
/07
08/08
/07
15/08
/07
22/08
/07
29/08
/07
Literature review
Compose questionnaire
Pilot questionnaire
E-mail questionnaire
Responses received
Follow up e-mail
Analyse data
Write up dissertation
Final amendments
Task
s
Date
Figure 1.1, Gantt chart showing proposed timetable of study
3.9 Summary
The two main methodological approaches of quantitative and qualitative
research need not be separate, as the mixed method approach demonstrates. Given
the constraints of this study, a mixed approach was used which, on the whole,
successfully provided the necessary information required. The use of closed and
open-ended questions in the questionnaire allowed for the successful categorisation
of the organisational structures used by the respondent’s LIS to deliver subject
support/faculty liaison.
42
Chapter 4: Analysis of Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire
results, arranged under the headings used in the questionnaire (see Appendix 1). The
results are presented in tables and bar-charts, while the main themes to emerge from
the open ended questions are commented upon and some relevant quotes provided.
The final section of the analysis categorises the various types of structures used by
the respondents for the delivery of subject support/academic liaison.
4.2 About your LIS
The first section of the questionnaire focused on general, factual questions
seeking to establish the size and scope of the LIS to inform later responses relating to
the library’s organisational structure and staffing, and to identify any difference in
the provision of subject support/academic liaison between converged and non-
converged services.
Fourteen converged LIS (2 of which only partially) and 14 non-converged
LIS provided details of their staff numbers. The figures supplied showed LIS staff
establishments ranging from 454 in a converged LIS to 37 in a non-converged LIS,
with numbers of library staff ranging from 200 in a converged LIS to 6.9 in a non-
converged LIS. This information was unlikely to be easily available to respondents
and several left the question on full-time equivalent staff numbers blank.
Eighteen (53%) of the 34 respondents were part of a converged service.
Although these results are not generalisable to all university libraries, the figure of
approximately half being converged follows other studies in the UK, such as Field
(2001).
43
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Compu
ting/I
T
Corpora
te inf
ormati
on/M
IS
Audio-
visua
l/med
ia
Print s
ervice
s
Educa
tiona
l/learn
ing de
velop
ment
Careers
servi
ceOthe
r
Services
Num
ber o
f LIS
Figure 4.1, Services with which libraries were converged
Figure 4.1 summarises the range of services with which libraries were
converged, showing the most common responses were computing/IT services,
followed by audio-visual/media services. Six LIS mentioned ‘other’ services, which
mainly repeated specific variants of the services shown in Figure 4.1, as follows:
• ICT teaching and Student Services;
• Academic Study Skills, Maths Learning and IT Training;
• E-Learning;
• Learning Technology Support Service;
• Language and Learning Support, Disability Support and Museum;
• University Archives.
Although convergence between the library and computing services remains
the most popular form among the respondents, the role of university libraries in
teaching and learning is clearly visible too. 44% of converged LIS were reported as
merged with educational/learning development services, which actually understates
the situation as five of the six ‘other’ services named had teaching and learning
aspects. Thus, 72% of the converged services could be said to have merged with
services which have some sort of teaching/learning role. In addition, one respondent
44
advised that their LIS will de-converge from computing services and re-converge
with academic services, including learning development.
4.3 Your library’s organisational structure
The questions in this section were designed to provide factual information in
order to establish, and later categorise, the subject support/academic liaison
structures. The questions covered numbers, levels and titles of staff involved in
subject work, the percentages of time committed, numbers of subject departments
supported and make-up of teams. To cater for libraries not organising their services
into academic departments on a subject/faculty basis, respondents were asked which
staff members completed those tasks usually associated with subject/liaison
librarians. This was also intended to reveal whether the often cited trend of
paraprofessional staff taking over the tasks of professional staff was actually
happening. Finally, an open ended question sought to establish whether subject staff
in converged services also had subject duties in relation to another service; for
instance did library subject staff also deal with a particular school’s IT related
enquiries?.
4.3.1 Staff completing subject work
Figure 4.2 shows the level of staff performing some sort of subject-related
work for 17 of the 18 converged services (since one respondent failed to complete
this question) and the 16 non-converged services. All the converged service
respondents have professional staff performing subject-related work. The number of
middle managers undertaking subject-related work is also high at 14 out of 17, but
staff at other levels (entry-level professionals, paraprofessionals and
library/information assistants) have less involvement. The results for the 16 non-
converged services are almost identical, the only small difference being slightly
higher use of paraprofessional and ‘other’ staff.
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Senior managers Middle managers Professional staff Entry-gradeprofessional staff
Paraprofessionalstaff
Others
Grade of staff
Num
ber o
f LIS
Converged
Non-converged
Figure 4.2, Categories of staff with some subject responsibility in converged and non-converged LIS
Figure 4.3 shows the average percentage of all library staff in that particular
category who have some subject-related role in converged and non-converged LIS.
The managerial/paraprofessional staff include senior managers, middle managers,
professional staff and entry-grade professional staff, while the
paraprofessional/clerical staff include paraprofessional staff, library/information
assistants and other clerical staff. The percentage figures provided are the mean
figures for all the respondents who supplied the full information, which were 12 of
the converged respondents and 15 of the non-converged respondents. The bar chart
illustrates that over half of all professional/managerial staff in LIS carry out some
sort of subject-related work, while only around a third of paraprofessional/clerical
staff do.
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Converged Non-converged
% o
f tot
al li
brar
y st
aff
Managerial/professional
Paraprofessional/clerical
Figure 4.3, Percentage of all library staff who carry out some subject-related work in converged and non-converged LIS
The results for the amount of time different categories of staff spend on this work
follow broadly similar patterns for converged and non-converged services, but with
converged services committing more time of professional staff and considerably less
of library assistant-level staff to subject work. Figure 4.4 summarises the responses.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Senior managers Middle managers Professional staff Entry-gradeprofessional staff
Paraprofessionalstaff
Others
Grade of staff
% ti
me
on s
ubje
ct w
ork
Converged
Non-converged
Figure 4.4, Percentage of time spent on subject work for different categories of staff in converged and non-converged LIS
47
Only 16 of the 18 converged responses were used here because two
respondents failed to fully answer question 4. Therefore, both sample sizes were 16.
The mean figure for the percentage of time each category of staff spends on subject-
related work was calculated. Where respondents gave a range, the median figure was
used, e.g. for the range 50-100%, 75% was used to calculate the mean.
The chart clearly shows that of those senior managers who carry out some
subject-related work, their average time spent on such work is similar in both
converged and non-converged services at 40.7% and 49.3% respectively. Not only
do middle managers, such as faculty/subject team leaders and professional staff, such
as subject librarians, most frequently carry out subject-related work, but they also
spend the greatest percentage of their time doing so. These results suggest that
professional staff in converged LIS spend a higher proportion of their time
completing subject-related work than those from non-converged services, perhaps
hinting at the greater use of ‘non-professional’ help for those professionals in non-
converged services. The data suggest not only a slightly higher proportion of ‘non-
professional’ staff taking part in some sort of subject-related work in non-converged
services, but also the amount of time library assistants spend completing subject-
related work is significantly higher for the non-converged LIS than the converged
LIS.
For entry-grade professional staff, such as a trainee liaison librarian, and
paraprofessionals, such as senior library/information assistant, the amount of time
spent on subject-related work is roughly a 60:40 split for both the converged and
non-converged respondents.
The only instance where there appears to be a large divergence in results
between converged and non-converged LIS is for the ‘other’ staff, such as
library/information assistants, where just 26.7% of library assistants’ time is spent on
subject-related work in converged services, compared to 66.4% in non-converged
services. A possible explanation, supported by the data, is that non-converged LIS
respondents are more likely to have mixed grade subject teams, whereas converged
LIS respondents have more all professional subject teams. A word of caution about
this significant difference, however, is that the figure of 26.7% is based on the
48
responses of just three LIS, whereas the figure of 66.4% is based on the responses of
7 LIS.
Question 4 also provided the job titles of the various grades of staff who
complete some subject-related work. The full list is given in Appendix 4. For senior
managers, the words ‘academic’, especially ‘academic liaison’ and ‘learning’ occur
most regularly, e.g. Head of Academic Liaison, Head of Learning Support. These
keywords continue for middle managers, with titles such as Academic Liaison and
Skills Manager and Learning and Teaching Librarian. In addition to these, the
expected titles of Subject Team Leader and Faculty Team Leader were also present.
Professional-grade staff job titles often featured the words ‘academic’, ‘subject’ and
‘liaison’, but featured ‘learning’ less often, e.g. Subject Liaison Librarian and
Academic Liaison Librarian, while the more generic titles, such as Information
Specialist and Assistant Librarian, occurred only occasionally. The job titles of
entry-grade professional staff often seemed to focus on their position as newly
qualified librarians, with titles such as Trainee Professional Librarian and Newly
Qualified Librarian. Paraprofessional staff titles utilised the word ‘information’
more regularly (perhaps indicating their greater presence in converged rather than
non-converged LIS), with Senior Information Assistant and Information Coordinator.
Finally ‘other’ staff, such as library assistants included the keywords of
‘information’, ‘subject’ and ‘assistant’ with titles such as Subject Assistant and
Information Assistant.
4.3.2 Subject/faculty teams
Thirteen converged and 13 non-converged respondents provided information
on the number of subject departments/schools or equivalent supported by each
subject librarian. The figures for converged and non-converged show no substantial
difference, with the mean number of departments supported being 2.6 and 2.4
respectively.
Nine converged and 11 non-converged respondents provided information on
the make-up of their subject/faculty teams. The number of staff per subject/faculty
team did not vary much between converged and non-converged services, with the
49
mean number of staff per team being 4.3 and 4.6 respectively. Two respondents
from smaller universities described how there was just one team of all their subject
librarians. Many respondents did not answer this question and it is not clear whether
this was because it was not applicable or they simply did not have the relevant
information.
While the number of staff per subject/faculty team did not differ much
between converged and non-converged LIS, the make up of those subject/faculty
teams showed a noticeable difference. Of the 9 respondents who completed the
question from converged LIS, 7 stated that their subject/faculty teams exclusively
comprised of professional staff, while only 2 had mixed teams of professional,
paraprofessional and/or library assistant staff. In contrast, of the 12 respondents who
answered the question from non-converged LIS, only 4 teams were comprised
exclusively of professional staff. The remaining 8 teams were mixed-grade.
Although the data do not suggest non-converged LIS are more likely to use
faculty/subject teams than converged LIS, where they do, they seem more likely to
be mixed-grade. Certainly, other data from this survey show that library/information
assistants in non-converged services spend more of their time completing subject-
related work than those in converged services, suggesting this role in subject/faculty
teams. It is also important to note here that not all LIS use subject/faculty teams for
various reasons; one respondent advised that their subject staff are organised
according to which campus they are based at.
4.3.3 Subject-related tasks
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show which categories of staff, professional,
paraprofessional or library assistant, carry out tasks usually associated with
subject/liaison librarians in converged and non-converged LIS. This question was
designed to establish whether tasks associated with subject librarians, and thus
considered ‘professional’ tasks, were increasingly being completed by
paraprofessionals and/or library assistants. The results received show that most of
the tasks remain predominantly the domain of professional staff, however,
paraprofessionals and library assistants are involved in nearly all of the tasks to some
50
degree. Processing reading lists is the only predominantly ‘non-professional’ task in
both converged and non-converged LIS. Other tasks which show strong
paraprofessional contributions are weeding of stock, library induction and subject
related enquiries. The results for the converged and non-converged LIS are similar,
but the most obvious difference is the greater use of paraprofessionals for these tasks
in converged LIS, whereas non-converged services utilise library/information
assistants to a greater extent. The reason for this difference would appear to be the
fact that more non-converged LIS respondents report no paraprofessional staff, so,
presumably, library/information assistants carry out such tasks in their absence.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Selecti
ng ite
ms for
purch
ase
Manag
ing su
bject
book
fund
s
Coordi
natin
g/rev
iewing
journ
al su
bscri
ption
s
Weedin
g of s
tock
Librar
y ind
uctio
n
Inform
ation
litera
cy/lib
rary s
kills t
rainin
g
User/s
ubjec
t guid
e prod
uctio
n
Liaiso
n with
acad
emic
units
Creatio
n of li
brary
conte
nt on
VLE
Produc
tion o
f sub
ject re
lated
Web
-page
s
Subjec
t relat
ed en
quirie
s
Proces
sing r
eadin
g list
s
Other s
ubjec
t relat
ed ta
sks
Tasks
Num
ber o
f LIS
Professional
Paraprofessional
Library Assistant
Figure 4.5, Categories of staff completing tasks associated with subject/liaison librarians for 18 converged LIS
51
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Selecti
ng ite
ms for
purch
ase
Manag
ing su
bject
book
fund
s
Coordi
natin
g/rev
iewing
journ
al su
bscri
ption
s
Weedin
g of s
tock
Librar
y ind
uctio
n
Inform
ation
litera
cy/lib
rary s
kills t
rainin
g
User/s
ubjec
t guid
e prod
uctio
n
Liaiso
n with
acad
emic
units
Creatio
n of li
brary
conte
nt on
VLE
Produc
tion o
f sub
ject re
lated
Web
-page
s
Subjec
t relat
ed en
quirie
s
Proces
sing r
eadin
g list
s
Other s
ubjec
t relat
ed ta
sks
Tasks
Num
ber o
f LIS Professional
Paraprofessional
Library Assistant
Figure 4.6, Categories of staff completing tasks associated with subject/liaison librarians for 16 non-converged LIS
Two further interesting points relating to this question are that in three LIS
professional staff do not select items for purchase as this is done by the academic
school’s library rep or an academic in the ‘budget centre’, according to one
respondent. Also, the figure for ‘other subject related tasks’ shows a difference
between converged and non-converged services. Seven converged LIS state ‘other
subject related tasks’ for professional staff, but none for paraprofessionals or library
assistants, whereas in the non-converged LIS library assistants and paraprofessionals
carry out ‘other subject related tasks’, but professional staff do not. Examples of
‘other subject related tasks’ completed by professionals and paraprofessionals/library
assistants are shown in table 4.1.
Professional staff Paraprofessionals/library assistants
Project work
Liaison meetings/committees
Work on Web 2.0
Virtual Learning Environment training
Promotion of Open Access
Negotiating budgetary estimates
Inputting book orders online
Acquisitions
Cataloguing and classifying new stock
Updating existing subject web pages
Table 4.1 Examples of other subject-related tasks
52
Conclusions cannot really be drawn from this small sample, but perhaps an
explanation could be that there is the greater opportunity (or burden) of project work
opportunities in converged LIS than non-converged LIS.
4.3.4 Subject staff in converged LIS
An open-ended question, only applicable to the 18 converged respondents,
showed that half had subject-related staff who had liaison and/or other
responsibilities on behalf of the combined services. The extent of these combined
roles varied, for example one respondent stated:
“Not to any great extent up until recently. But we are now trying to get them
to liaise with and on behalf of other parts of the converged service (e.g. IT
Support, the Portal, e-Learning). The idea of the 'Account Manager' is
starting to emerge.”
While other library services’ subject roles are combined to a greater extent:
“Liaison activity on behalf of the whole converged service - representation at
course boards and faculty committees - also some basic helpdesk and IT
support offered.”
Of those that have no combined roles for subject staff, some said they would
ensure information/help was referred on to the relevant department and that closer
integration may occur in the future:
“Questions may be referred on to the technical team if they cannot be
answered by the Subject Librarian. We are about to organise IT
representation at School level.”
53
So, of those LIS whose subject staff do have other responsibilities on behalf
of the converged services, the most widely practiced activity is representing the
whole division at committee/faculty meetings. There are fewer instances, for
example, where subject librarians are also a school’s IT contact too.
4.4 Opinions about LIS organisational structures
Three open ended questions allowed respondents to comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of their current structure and future trends for LIS
organisational structures in the context of electronic resources and student-centred
learning. The majority of respondents answered all three questions and generally
showed support for the use of subject/liaison librarians in some form, although belief
that the subject divisional model of organisation would continue in the future was not
universal.
4.4.1 Advantages
Both converged and non-converged LIS came up with similar themes for the
advantages of the structures they operate. The most marked difference was that
several converged services mentioned how their structure allowed working together
with other departments/sections in the converged division. By far the most common
advantage cited by both converged and non-converged LIS were the service benefits
their structures bring in the form of communication and the close relationship with
academic departments, especially in providing learning and teaching services to their
users.
In terms of communication, several respondents commented that a significant
advantage was having a named contact for each academic school/department, for
example:
“Named contact for staff and students - the Information Advisers are highly
visible and have a largely out-facing role (away from the centre).”
(Converged LIS)
54
“The main advantage of our structure is that each academic unit has a very
clear link with an particular individual on the library staff, and this has
benefits in communication, in understanding requirments, in knowing about
changes, and in general awareness of developments in the School.” (Non-
converged LIS)
Meanwhile the strong links subject librarianship provides between the library
and the academic departments, especially in enhancing teaching and learning were
highlighted, for example:
“The faculty teams and subject advisers within them can build close links and
working relationships with staff in their areas, this enables them to be
involved in learning developments, team teaching, course planning, e-
learning, and contribute to the student learning experience. They build up
subject knowledge and can input this into the teaching and research activities
of their subject groups, collection development in the library and resource
building in the VLE.” (Converged LIS)
“In the…University Library an important part of our remit is to support the
elearning strategy and we work closely with course teams to encourage them
to integrate library re[s]ources and information literacy into the curriculum,
without the subject team structure we would not be able to do this.” (Non-
converged service)
It was noticeable that several converged services commented how their
organisational structure allowed for a ‘joined-up approach’, with the benefits of close
cooperation with other arms of the division and in the sharing of knowledge and
expertise between departments:
“Within the current converged structure with IT Services and Learning
Developing including e-Learning, there has been the opportunity to explore
ways of working together to provide services on the basis of an agreed
holistic strategy. This has been reinforced through the development of
55
stronger personal relationships between individuals from different parts of
the structure through working together on not only service provision but also
on staff administration exercises such as reward management schemes.
Ther[e] has also been easier access to expertise in IT and learning
development and vice versa.” (Converged LIS)
“Being in a converged service means we have a joined up approach – we
have achieved some things more easily because of this (e.g. Walk-in users
service)
It also gives people the opportunity to work with colleagues from different
professional backgrounds.” (Converged LIS)
While similar sentiments regarding a ‘joined-up’ approach were not made by
the non-converged services, two LIS who have structures in which subject staff also
have functional roles commented that this ensures flexibility and variety of work, for
example:
“We are a small but research intensive university library [and] a very small
number of staff carry out an extensive varirty [sic] of tasks. Flexibility,
adaptability and good communication methods are critical in making the
structure work.” (Non-converged LIS)
4.4.2 Disadvantages
Comments here were again similar between converged and non-converged
services. However, there were some disadvantages reported particular to converged
services, such as the ‘clash of cultures’ between library and other, particularly IT,
staff. A typical response was:
“The central Communication team sometimes struggles to cope with the
different styles and cultures of library and computing staff, who sometimes
have very different ideas about the methods for and importance of user
liaison and communication.” (Converged LIS)
56
In addition, the large size of converged services presents disadvantages in
terms of user orientation and understanding of the services provided:
“Large converged service can be confusing for users to find their way around
(cf separate library) a large budget means that you can be seen as expensive
(even if you are cheaper than the total cost of running separate services).”
(Converged LIS)
Large converged services are also sometimes geographically dispersed
creating, among other things, communication barriers. One recently enlarged
converged LIS respondent commented:
“The main disadvantage for this larger team is the fact that it is
geographically dispersed across the campus.” (Converged LIS)
The inability of some subject staff to look at the wider needs of the library, by
being somewhat inward looking on their particular subject area, was a disadvantage
several converged and non-converged LIS commented upon:
“The downside of the above [subject divisional arrangement] is that there
can be a tendency for staff to concentrate on their particular area of
responsibility at the expense of understanding larger issues or perspectives.”
(Non-converged LIS)
“Some of the liaison librarians will not think out[side] their area of expertise,
which leaves them blinkered in their approach. For this reason I am about to
make sweeping changes to the whole Liaison Services team.” (Converged
LIS)
Two converged respondents also raised concerns relating to how some
members of staff were not so able to adapt to the evolving roles of the subject/liaison
librarian:
57
“A current weakness is that the [senior subject/liaison librarians] still need
to develop their role as supervisors. Not all are sensitive to the needs of the
[staff] who report to them.” (Converged LIS)
“Everyone becomes rather multifunctional, which can sometimes create
prioritising tensions. Induction and training is an essential part of the role
and some SLs are better than others at this.” (Converged LIS)
Finally, several structural/management problems were noted, especially the
fact that a faculty/subject team arrangement often has to change when the university
adds/removes courses/subjects, for example:
“Originally there was a Faculty Librarian per faculty, but as the faculties
have evolved and changed, the structure has become less viable.”
(Converged LIS)
4.4.3 Future Trends
Question 12 sought opinions on likely future structures, including whether
some sort of subject divisional arrangement will remain in place or maybe a
centralised, functional structure. Most respondents believed there would be a role for
staff organised on a subject divisional basis in the future. Several respondents were
non-committal, believing it could go either way, while some thought a combined
subject and functional approach would be the norm. While few respondents believed
a purely functional arrangement would become the norm, many respondents did
emphasis it was a question that was difficult to answer, especially as it seems that for
every library that moves towards a functional model, another moves towards a
subject model.
Some of those who believe some sort of subject divisional arrangement will
continue, as it is the best structural model available, also emphasised the need for
subject/liaison librarians to develop their roles and change with the times:
58
“I think that there is still a place for subject librarians as long as they play a
full role in the teaching and learning activity of their Schools and put stock
selection etc on the back burner. It is still a very political role and those that
have failed haven't played politics well enough.” (Converged LIS)
“I believe that subject liaison is essential but that it needs to be integrated
into service development - subject librarians need to be part of the service
they represent, shaping it and representing it. Unless you understand the
resources and specific needs of the diverse groups within the community the
service will fail to meet the needs of its diverse community.” (Converged LIS)
“My own feeling is that things will gravitate more towards the subject
specialist model. University customers are highly segmented and care only
for their own area. They show little interest in generalities.” (Non-
converged)
Those respondents who saw a functional model as the way forward suggested
this would save money and allow for greater coordination:
“More will adopt a functional model simply through financial constraints,
however the value of subject support should not be lost - there still need to be
specialists as well as generalists.” (Converged LIS)
“Subject divisions will reduce in favour of central, organisational teams
simply because greater coordination of activities is required - e resources
etc. requires central direction with subject input not vice versa.” (Non-
converged LIS)
One university library is debating the subject versus functional approach and
their respondent commented how the subject staff see its value, but managers see it
as costly:
“Certainly, academic support team members are convinced that the subject
approach is correct - as it offers the best way to provide a focussed service -
59
whilst senior managers are pushing for a function based appraoch [sic] as
they see this as a way of optimising the staff resource available.” (Converged
LIS)
However, one respondent warned that if the functional model did come to
dominate academic LIS in the future, they would become no more than
administrative units:
“…the academic (university) library runs the risk of being seen as an
admin[i]strative service - albeit no doubt an efficient and effective one - and
of losing its link into the academic process.” (Non-converged LIS)
More respondents felt a combined or ‘hybrid’ model of subject responsibility
and functional responsibility operating alongside each other would be the dominant
structural arrangement for LIS:
“Changing environment, resources, teaching and learning patterns at the
same time as ever reducing staffing levels requires flexible and responsible
structures. The University… is implementing a functional organisational
model, with subject responsibilities distributed across a greater number of
staff.” (Non-converged LIS)
“Some form of functional organsiation [sic] and subject divisional model
combined, with subject librarians evolving into "liasion [sic] support staff"
covering the range of library and IT areas.” (Converged LIS)
Meanwhile this response typified the indecision of several respondents:
“I think it is hard to see a pattern. For every library which moves from one
model to another, you can often find one moving the opposite way.” (Non-
converged LIS)
60
The responses from both converged and non-converged LIS alike suggest
widespread support for subject librarianship. Although it was noted that it is
expensive to organise a LIS on a subject support/academic liaison basis, the benefits
cited, particularly in teaching and learning were, on the whole, felt to outweigh the
negative points. Indeed, where some doubts about the viability of subject provision
in the future were made, the value of such provision was also often emphasised.
4.5 Classification of respondents’ LIS
All the questionnaires were analysed to gauge exactly what kind of
organisational structure they used to deliver subject support/academic liaison. The
previous studies of Scrivener (1972), Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin
(1996) were used to guide and inform the analysis.
The majority of respondents (23 of 34 or 68%) could be described as
operating a ‘dual’ structure for providing subject support and academic liaison, with
11 out of 18 (61%) of converged services and 12 out of 16 (75%) of non-converged
services operating under this model. The dual model was identified by Woodhead
and Martin in 1982 and used again for the classification of university libraries’
structures in Martin’s (1996) follow-up study. It describes university libraries in
which some members of the senior/professional staff perform subject related roles,
while others perform functional roles, such as cataloguing.
Martin (1996) and Woodhead and Martin (1982) had a further category called
‘subject divisional’ in which there were subject teams consisting of senior and
supporting staff. In the current study, however, nearly all the respondents’ libraries
organised their subject staff into subject or faculty teams. Some of these teams were
entirely made-up of professional staff, and some with professional and support staff.
Since the subject divisional model is essentially a dual system anyway, and the use of
subject teams is so prevalent amongst respondents, it seems more appropriate here to
place all those respondents with separate subject and functional responsibilities under
the ‘dual’ heading and then further sub-divide this category between those dual
systems which utilise subject/faculty teams and those which do not. Those dual
models with subject teams can be further sub-divided into those with subject teams
61
composed entirely of professional staff and those which are mixed-grade. This sub-
division has been carried out on the 23 dual libraries identified in this study in table
4.2.
Converged ‘dual’
libraries
Non-converged
‘dual’ libraries
All professional subject teams 5 3
Mixed grade subject teams 2 5
No subject teams 4* 4**
Total 11 12
*Two LIS were small, so only had two or three subject librarians in the whole organisation,
and two LIS had all subject librarians in one team.
**All four were smaller university LIS with only a few subject librarians each. Table 4.2, The number of LIS categorised as ‘dual’ which utilise either all professional or mixed-grade subject teams.
It should be noted, however, that often, those libraries which described
themselves as having no subject teams or teams exclusively made up of professional
staff did use ‘non-professional’ staff to complete some of the administrative tasks of
the subject teams, on an informal basis. Also, subject team managers and subject
team support staff often perform less subject work than the actual subject librarians.
In addition, they sometimes complete functional work too, of managerial or support
nature respectively, as part of a matrix management structure.
Three libraries, 2 converged and 1 non-converged, used a ‘hybrid’ system to
deliver subject support/academic liaison. In each case most or all of the professional
staff with subject responsibility also had functional responsibilities. Where staff
were arranged into faculty/subject teams those supporting staff also had subject and
functional responsibilities. The effect of subject responsibility being shared between
more staff was evident by the fact that the three libraries which use the hybrid model
all have a high percentage (over 66%) of their total managerial and professional staff
completing some subject-related work.
62
Three libraries, 2 converged and 1 non-converged operated a mixture of the
dual and hybrid systems. All three of these LIS were from multi-site universities
with several campus libraries. All utilised the ‘dual’ model for the provision of
subject support in their respective ‘main’, or large, libraries, with functional activity
being carried out by centralised teams. However, for some of their smaller libraries,
subject librarians also carried out functional activities at that particular site library.
These LIS could, then, be described as dual/hybrid libraries.
One of the non-converged libraries operated an almost pure subject divisional
structure, whereby the library was divided between two broad subject areas and all
processes were supported within these subject teams, from acquisitions to
cataloguing. Only public services (counter duties, photocopying etc) remain separate
and these services are provided by staff from the two subject teams on a rota basis.
The managers of both subject teams have dual responsibilities encompassing subject
and functional roles. This LIS could be named as ‘subject divisional’, but different
in nature to previous interpretations of this category.
Three LIS, all converged, displayed essentially dual characteristics, but their
respondents suggested some of their subject librarians, who were arranged in subject
teams, also carried out functional tasks. These ‘functional tasks’, however, are not
those traditionally associated with functional library tasks such as acquisitions or
cataloguing, but things such as e-service development, information literacy and
publications, disability support, partnerships and Web 2.0. These other
responsibilities of subject librarians are not subject work and so could be considered
functional roles, however, calling them coordinating responsibilities may be a more
accurate description. It should be noted that other LIS subject librarians’ may have a
coordinating role, but this was not specified by the respondents who felt it did not
warrant the description of non-subject related or functional. Indeed, the terms
‘functional’ and ‘subject-related’ activity mean different things to different people.
Some questionnaires returned suggested a range of interpretations for the terms. For
instance, some classed project work as functional, while others may have included
this as subject work.
63
Table 4.3 shows the five categories of structure identified in this study as
Dual, Hybrid, Dual/hybrid, Subject divisional and Dual/coordinating.
Category
Name
Category Description Number of LIS respondents
Converged Non-converged
Dual
Subject support is provided by some
professional staff, while other
professional staff have functional
roles. Those subject librarians may
act individually in smaller
universities or, more often, are part of
subject/faculty teams composed of all
professional, or mixed grade staff.
11
12
Hybrid
Most/all professional staff have both
subject and functional roles. For
subject roles, they are often organised
into subject/faculty teams.
1
2
Dual/hybrid
Specific to multi-site/campus
universities, the ‘main’ libraries’
subject staff are usually organised
into subject teams and only perform
subject-related work, with functional
activity centralised. However, at
smaller site libraries, subject
librarians also carry out some
functional roles.
2
1
Subject
Divisional
The library is divided completely
along subject lines, with all staff
being a member of a subject team and
all processes being carried out in that
subject team. Public service activity
is also performed by some staff from
the subject teams who, therefore,
have something of a ‘hybrid’ role.
0
1
64
Dual/
coordinating
Subject staff are normally organised
into subject teams and perform almost
100% subject work, with traditional
functional tasks being centralised.
However, most/all subject librarians
also have a ‘coordinating’
responsibility too, such as learning
and skills development.
3
0
Total 17* 16
* One converged LIS participant provided insufficient information to be able to categorise
their LIS with accuracy.
Table 4.3, Categories of organisational structures employed by respondents for the provision of subject support/academic liaison.
4.6 Summary
The questionnaire results revealed universal use of subject support/academic
liaison among the respondents and more advantages than disadvantages for such an
arrangement. Although few significant differences between converged and non-
converged LIS were identified, the results indicated greater use of mixed subject
teams in non-converged services. In addition, the fact that most subject work
remains the domain of professional grade staff in both types of LIS was highlighted
with fairly low ‘non-professional’ activity in subject related areas. However,
paraprofessional and library assistant activity in subject-related work does take place,
to some extent, in almost every task traditionally associated with professional subject
librarians, so there are few precedents for paraprofessionals or library assistants left
to break.
65
Chapter 5: Discussion of the Results
5.1 Introduction
This chapter elaborates on the results of the questionnaire presented in
chapter 4 and discusses them in the context of the study’s original aims and
objectives (see chapter 1) and the literature review (see chapter 2). In addition, the
limitations of the research are commented upon.
The aim of this study was to identify and categorise subject support structures
and investigate related issues, such as job titles, functional responsibilities,
paraprofessional support and convergence.
The discussion of results takes place under three broad headings: LIS
organisational structures and subject support/academic liaison; convergence and
subject support/academic liaison and; subject support/academic liaison staff.
5.2 LIS organisational structures and subject support/academic liaison
All respondents provided subject support/academic liaison, indicating that
such provision remains popular in British university libraries. Although university
LIS which operate on a purely functional basis do exist, none responded to this
survey.
The suggestion that subject support/academic liaison provision in today’s
universities has increased in popularity is given extra credibility by the fact Martin’s
(1996) study discovered ‘subject specialisation’ had increased since his and
Woodhead’s survey in 1982. Given the increase in subject provision between these
two studies, it is plausible that this increase has continued, meaning most university
libraries today provide subject support/academic liaison. Such an increase in subject
provision is also likely given that libraries were encouraged to utilise subject
support/academic liaison for the benefit of their users by the Follett and Fielden
66
Reports (1993). Indeed, the Fielden Report (1993:20), which commented that library
managers had “generally structured their professional staff to serve academic
customers in faculty or school groupings…”, predicted that by the year 2000, the role
of professional staff in learner support and academic liaison would become central to
their functions.
The library mirroring their university’s faculty/subject department structure
remains prominent amongst respondents. Twenty one utilised subject/faculty teams
and those which did not still used subject librarians, but were either too small or
widely dispersed to have teams. Reid’s (2000) suggestion that libraries use teams,
especially subject/faculty teams, in order to provide a less hierarchical structure,
seems to have been born out by this research.
In categorising the LIS structures, two of the models Woodhead and Martin
(1982) identified, albeit slightly modified, were discovered; the dual and hybrid
models. The dual model, whereby some professional staff provide subject support
and others take functional roles was the most dominant model in this study. Previous
studies only ever mentioned subject/faculty teams in the context of a further
category, the ‘subject divisional’ model, but given the apparent prevalence of
subject/faculty teams amongst respondents, those libraries with them were placed
under their relevant category regardless of their use of teams.
The identification of two new categories since Martin’s (1996) may not be
surprising considering that this study sought to include all British university LIS
rather than just pre-1992 universities as Martin (1996) did. Indeed, all the LIS
classed under the two new categories of dual/hybrid and dual/coordinating were from
post-1992 universities and not included in Martin’s study.
Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin’s (1996) studies focussed on main
university libraries, which may mean that the dual/hybrid library, whereby the main
library is operated on a dual basis and smaller site libraries on a hybrid basis, was
actually present in the past. Indeed, their previous studies categorised the libraries
according to their most widely practiced model, which suggests multi-site LIS would
be categorised according to their dominant characteristic at the main university
67
library. This was later confirmed by Martin (1996:161) who stated where “… the
university operates from a split site… an overall category is assigned”.
In this study, the category ‘subject divisional’ relates to a LIS structure where
all processes are carried out within subject teams. One LIS was identified under this
category which was similar to one identified by Martin (1996). Martin, however,
was unable to categorise the LIS under one of his and Woodhead’s five models and
merely pronounced the university library in question to be “something approaching
total subject specialization…” (Martin, 1996:163). Given the occurrence of a similar
arrangement eleven years later it is appropriate that this type of LIS structure should
have its own category.
The final category identified, the dual/coordinating model, does represent a
structural arrangement with new elements or ‘new functional’ task within it, not
apparent in 1996. The characteristic of this model is that the dual system operates
with some professional staff providing subject support while others have centralised
functional roles, however, most subject staff have additional ‘coordinating roles’
such as e-service development and Web 2.0.
These coordinating roles appear to have a correlation with the new and
emerging roles of subject librarians cited in the literature. For example, Pinfield
(2001) spoke of the selection of e-resources and information literacy education as
being among the new roles of subject librarians. These generic coordinating roles
are perhaps what prompted Heseltine (1995) to suggest subject specialisation was no
longer relevant and instead a functionally organised academic library was the way
forward. The identification of this category, however, rather than supporting
Heseltine’s assertion, actually suggests the new generic coordinating tasks are being
taken on by those who have subject roles too.
This new category may be even more widespread than the data indicate, since
it is possible other respondents failed to mention similar roles. One respondent,
commenting on the future of LIS structures suggested “the opportunities provided by
e-learning may mean that subject librarians become more involved in this area
creating a different type of structure” (Converged LIS). Whether this ‘different type
68
of structure’ will be functionally based, as Heseltine suggested, or in the form of the
dual/coordinating model identified in this study, remains to be seen.
5.3 Convergence and subject support/academic liaison
The number of converged LIS amongst respondents was 53%. This figure
follows Pugh’s (1997) research, which showed 42.5% of UK HE library services
were converged, while by 2001 Field’s research suggested the split between
converged and non-converged was about 50:50 (Field, 2001:270).
The different services each library is converged with also follows the
literature. Those who have written about convergence, such as Sutton (2000a) and
Field (2001), have always emphasised merger between the library and computing
services. The current study revealed this type of convergence was the most common
amongst respondents. However, if services placed under the ‘other’ services section
were included, convergence between educational/learning development services and
the library would be almost as common-place.
The move by libraries to converge with educational/development services
perhaps has its origins in the early days of convergence. Sidgreaves (1995)
suggested that changes in learning and teaching were just as important in
encouraging libraries to converge with computing services as technological
advances. Subsequently, this link between teaching and learning and technology has
developed further to encourage libraries to converge with educational/learning
development services. Feetham (2006) claims this trend has increased to such an
extent that there has been a move away from convergence between the library and
computing services to convergence with learning support services instead.
Feetham’s (2006) assertion is supported by one converged LIS which confirmed they
were about to de-converge from computing services and re-converge with academic
services, which includes learning development.
The study showed that whilst half of the converged respondents’ subject
librarians had liaison and/or other responsibilities on behalf of the whole converged
service, most of these responsibilities were limited to representing the whole division
69
at committee/faculty meetings. The use of librarians to staff joint IT/library
information desks seems less common, and the ‘one-stop’ information desk
mentioned by the likes of Abbott (1998) was not widely reported.
Another area where findings reflected the literature on convergence was the
‘clash of cultures’ between the library and computing services. Saunders (cited by
Sayers, 2001) suggested that libraries are more service and user oriented, while
computing staff have traditionally focused on technology and tools. This view was
reported by several respondents as being a disadvantage to the current structure they
operate.
One of the objectives of this research was to establish if there was any
discernable difference between the structural models used to deliver subject support
in converged LIS and non-converged LIS. The short answer is that there are no
significant differences, however, there are some which are worthy of note. All but
one of those LIS categorised under the new structural models were from converged
services. In addition, the converged LIS did seem to use subject/faculty teams made
up exclusively of professional staff more, whereas non-converged LIS used mixed-
grade subject teams more often.
5.4 Subject support/academic liaison staff
The survey showed that the provision of subject support/academic liaison
remains predominantly a professional activity in both converged and non-converged
LIS. In addition, those professional staff who have a subject support role spend a
greater proportion of their time completing such work than other grades of staff.
Such a finding is not unexpected given that professional library staff have
traditionally carried out subject work. The range of job titles for those staff who
complete subject work also indicated an association with academic departments with
titles often including the words ‘academic’ and ‘liaison’.
The role of the paraprofessional has received considerable attention in the
literature, on both sides of the Atlantic, from the likes of Oberg, (1992a&b) and
Wilson and Halpin (2006). The accepted trend is that paraprofessionals have
70
emerged in response to developments in technology, with the automation and
standardisation of library processes. This study shows that although professional
staff still complete those subject tasks traditionally associated with subject librarians
in greater numbers, paraprofessionals also complete many of these tasks to some
degree.
Dealing with subject related enquiries is a task with a fairly strong ‘non-
professional’ presence in both converged and non-converged LIS. The literature
talks about this phenomenon at great length, with Oberg’s (1992b) research, and the
Fielden Report’s (1993) observations, showing that this paraprofessional role was
fairly widespread fifteen years ago. One respondent of a non-converged LIS, whose
organisational structure is about to change commented that “lower graded staff will
take on basic enquiry work, with professional staff taking on a proactive role with
departments and providing advanced Information Skills training…”. Given the time
which has passed it is, perhaps, surprising the number of ‘non-professional’ staff
completing subject related enquiries on a reference/enquiry desk is not higher, but
the significance this research shows is the wide range of ‘professional tasks’ many
‘non-professional’ staff complete.
5.5 Limitations of the Research
The greatest limitation of this research was the relatively low response rate.
Although much published research has a similar response rate of around 30% it is
disappointing a higher response rate was not achieved. Even so, the results would
still not be generalisable given the variables involved, but statistical analysis would
have at least indicated if any differences that occurred were statistically significant.
The questionnaire provided much useful information and did, generally,
allow for the easy classification of the structures used by each LIS. For the one
instance where classification was not possible, the LIS in question operated via a
multi-site, but it was unclear who carried out functional tasks, whether this was
arranged on a centralised basis in the main library, as in the dual/hybrid model, or
whether each site carried out their own functional tasks. Indeed, this was one area
the questionnaire did not provide enough information to be able to distinguish other
71
potential categories. For example, Woodhead and Martin (1982) and Martin (1996)
had a category entitled ‘three-tier’, which involved senior (professional) staff
undertaking subject work, while paraprofessionals and library assistants completed
the centralised functional roles. Unfortunately, the questionnaire did not illicit
information detailed enough to be able to gauge the extent of this.
An element of bias in the research, as is the case for any research based on a
voluntary self-completion questionnaire, is that only those most passionate about the
subject are likely to respond. This may have gone someway to ensuring only those
LIS which provided subject support responded, as they felt this research was most
relevant to them. Similarly, those LIS which operate on a purely functional basis
may have been put off completing a questionnaire which very much focussed on
university libraries which operate on a subject support/academic liaison basis.
5.6 Summary
The aims and objectives of this study have been generally met. Despite
limitations, such as time, the information provided by respondents allowed for the
classification of their LIS in nearly all instances. However, more detailed
information may have revealed further categories of structural arrangement or further
information about those already identified. Despite the relatively low response rate
the results can be taken as indicative of all British university libraries and two new
and two amended categories have emerged.
The results suggest the provision of subject support/academic liaison is
widespread amongst British university libraries, as respondents state this system best
serves their academic community. In addition there appears to be little difference
between converged and non-converged LIS in the provision of subject support and
the role of paraprofessionals, although widespread in ‘professional’ tasks, is not at
such a level as to overtake the professionals’ role in most instances.
72
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This study set out to establish the organisational structures used by British
university libraries for the provision of subject support and academic liaison. Much
relevant information was received from the questionnaire which took a mixed
method approach by utilising closed, quantitative questions and open-ended,
qualitative questions. The final response rate of just under 30% of all British
university LIS was fairly respectable.
The justification for this research was that the last study on this subject took
place 11 years ago (Martin, 1996). Given the time elapsed and the significant
changes and challenges academic libraries have faced in the intervening decade,
from higher student numbers to the prominence of electronic resources, the time was
apt to investigate the structures employed to provide subject support/academic
liaison once more.
6.1 The Study’s findings
It was found that the provision of subject support/academic liaison in British
university LIS is alive and well, amongst respondents at least. Although the results
are not generalisable they are surely indicative of the fact subject support/academic
liaison provision remains an important component of most university library
structures. Although no purely functional LIS responded to the questionnaire, that is
not to say they do not exist.
Five structural models were identified amongst the 34 respondents; dual,
hybrid, dual/hybrid, subject divisional and dual/coordinating. Two of these, dual and
hybrid, are largely taken from previous research on this subject by Woodhead and
Martin (1982) and Martin (1996), except the dual model in this study seeks to
subdivide between those LIS with subject/faculty teams made up entirely of
professional staff, those with subject teams comprised of mixed-grade staff and those
LIS with no subject teams.
73
The limits set by Martin’s (1996) previous study into the organisational
structures used to provide subject specialisation perhaps prevented the identification
of the dual/hybrid model, given that it excluded all post-1992 universities and
categorised the LIS according to the dominant structural feature of the main library.
In addition, Martin’s research did identify a LIS which approached a nearly pure
subject divisional model, but treated it as something of an anomaly as it did not fit
the existing five models he and Woodhead had developed in 1982. Subsequently, the
university library in question, which divided all processes along subject lines, was
left unclassified.
Perhaps the only truly new category established is that of the
dual/coordinating model. This model sees subject librarians also having ‘new
functional’ roles, where they are responsible for coordinating new and emerging
areas in the academic LIS world, such as e-learning, Web 2.0 and school and college
partnerships. Such coordinating roles were not made apparent in previous studies as
many of them are associated with recent technological developments. The fact that
these coordinating roles are undertaken by subject librarians indicates that the
widespread presence of functionally arranged LIS to provide for academic libraries’
teaching and learning commitments has not been realised. Indeed, in the one
instance where a respondent stated they were moving to a functional structure, their
professional staff were to also have subject support responsibilities.
Although no major differences in the provision of subject support/academic
liaison were identified between converged and non-converged services, the data did
hint that converged LIS tend to use all professional subject teams more, whereas
non-converged LIS tend to use mixed-grade subject teams more.
The role of the paraprofessional and other ‘non-professional’ staff was
revealed to be extensive in assisting in the provision of subject support/academic
liaison. Support staff participation in previously thought of professional tasks only
outnumbered those professionals completing such tasks in one instance. In addition
the ‘other’ subject related tasks cited clearly showed a division between the largely
administrative tasks such as inputting book orders online completed by ‘non-
74
professional’ staff and the more advanced tasks completed by professional subject
staff, such as Virtual Learning Environment training.
6.2 The future of subject support/academic liaison
Comments from respondents suggest the future for subject librarianship in
UK academic libraries looks fairly rosy. In the few instance where respondents
expressed the belief that a functionally arranged structure would come to dominate,
nearly all emphasised it would still be important to maintain close links with
academic departments; something acknowledged as being one of the main
advantages of the subject support/academic liaison model.
The majority of respondents felt the benefits of providing subject
support/academic liaison were considerable in allowing the LIS to serve its
customers in the academic departments, both staff and students, well. In addition
subject librarians were seen as being well-placed to be able to deliver information
skills/literacy training to library users.
The longstanding debate about how important subject knowledge is for
subject librarians seems less relevant today, with subjects being divided and
allocated more as a way to organise the division of labour in providing subject
support. There does not seem to be an alternative to the subject support/academic
liaison model, which is able to serve the needs of academic departments so well and
so closely. The main threat to the continuing provision of subject support/academic
liaison in LIS would seem to be financial, given the high costs associated with
structures which employ subject librarians. In addition, some LIS may feel a
structural model which provides subject support/academic liaison is less stable than a
functional model, given that universities frequently drop certain subjects and take on
others.
75
6.3 Future Research
This research has been on a very small scale and has really only uncovered
the ‘tip of the iceberg’. A much larger study which encompasses all 115 university
LIS invited to participate in this study is required. Such a study will definitively
establish the structural type each LIS employs and demonstrate the true extent to
which the provision of subject support/academic liaison remains dominant. A
longer-term, more detailed study would also enable deeper, richer information to be
gleaned to establish whether, for instance, Woodhead and Martin (1982) and
Martin’s (1996) three-tier model is still in use.
Future research could seek to establish the true extent of paraprofessional and
other support staff assistance in the provision of subject support/academic liaison,
something this study only touched upon. Indeed, research could look at the extent to
which all grades of academic library staff are being ‘up-skilled’. In addition, it
would be interesting to see if the trend of converged LIS using mainly all
professional subject teams, and non-converged LIS using mixed-grade subject teams
was representative of all UK university LIS.
Given that all of the new structural categories identified in this study related
to post-1992 universities, further research could be completed into whether ‘new
university’ libraries take a more innovative approach to serving their stakeholders
and are more likely to deliver subject support/academic liaison via new structural
models.
Finally, not only could a detailed comparison between a library which
operates a subject divisional model and one which operates a functional model be
carried out, but the stakeholders of LIS with differing structures could be questioned
to establish their opinions of the service they receive from their respective university
library.
Word Count: 19, 967.
76
Bibliography
Abbott, C.M. (1998). “Personal career development in converged services”.
Librarian Career Development, 6(3), 38-35.
Badu, E.E. (2002). “An assessment of the staffing structures of university libraries
in Ghana”. Library Review, 51(2), 90-99.
Bazirjian, R. & Stanley, N.M. (2001). “Assessing the effectiveness of team-based
structures in libraries”. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services,
25(2), 131-157.
Biddiscombe, R. (2002). “Learning support professionals: the changing role of
subject specialists in UK academic libraries”. Program: electronic library and
information systems, 36(4), 228-235.
Bordeianu, S. & Seiser, V. (1999). “Paraprofesional catalogers in ARL libraries”.
College & Research Libraries, 60(6), 532-540.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Child, J. (1984). Organization: a guide to problems and practice. London: Harper
& Row.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Creth, S. (2000). “Optimizing organization design for the future”. Educause
Quarterly, 1, 32-38.
Daft, R.L. (2003). Management. 6th ed. [London]: Thomson.
77
Edwards, C., Day, J.M. & Walton, G. (1998). “eLib’s IMPEL2 Project:
organisational structures and responses to change in academic libraries”. The New
Review of Academic Librarianship, 4, 53-70.
Farley, T., Broady-Preston, J. & Hayward, T. (1998). “Academic libraries, people
and change: a case study of the 1990s”. Library Management, 19(4), 238-251.
Feetham, M. (2006). “The subject specialist in Higher Education – a review of the
literature”. In: Dale, P., Holland, M. & Matthews, M. (eds.), Subject Librarians:
engaging with the learning and teaching environment, pp. 2-17. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Field, C.D. (2001). “Theory and practice: reflections on convergence in United
Kingdom universities”. Liber Quarterly, 11(3), 267-289.
Freeman, M. (1997). “Is librarianship in the UK a true profession, a semi-profession
or a mere occupation?”. New Library World, 98(1133), 65-69.
Garcha, R. & Buttlar, L. (1999). “Changing roles of cataloguers in British academic
libraries”. Library Review, 48(2), 66-72.
Gaston, R. (2001). “The changing role of the subject librarian, with a particular
focus on UK developments, examined through a review of the literature”. The New
Review of Academic Librarianship, 7, 19-36.
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. London: Continuum.
Gorman, G.E. & Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative research for the information
professional: a practical handbook. London: Library Association.
Hanson, T. (2005). “Introduction: twenty years of convergence in the UK”. In:
Hanson, T. (ed.), Managing academic support services in universities, pp. 1-9.
London: Facet.
78
Hardy, G. (2005). “The Role of the Subject Librarian in UK Universities” [Online],
Masters Dissertation. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
http://dagda.shef.ac.uk/dissertations/2004-05/External/Hardy_Georgina_MALib.pdf
[Accessed 10 May 2007].
Hay, F. (1990). “The subject specialist in the academic library: a review article”.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 11-17.
HERO (2007) “Universities and Colleges Finder”. [Online]. Newcastle-Upon- Tyne:
HERO. http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/universities___colleges/index.cfm [Accessed 8
August 2007]
Heseltine, R. (1995). “The challenge of learning in cyberspace”. The Library
Association Record, 97(8), 432-433.
Higa, M.L. et al. (2005). “Redesigning a library’s organizational structure”.
College & Research Libraries, 66(1), 41-58.
Holbrook, A. (1984). “The subject librarian and social scientists: Liaison in a
university setting”. Aslib Proceedings, 36(6), 269-275.
Jackson, M., et al. (1998). “Changing UK library and information services: a case
study at the University of Northumbria at Newcastle informed by the eLib IMPEL2
Project”. The New Review of Academic Librarianship, 4, 71-85.
John Fielden Consultancy (1993). Supporting Expansion: A Report on Human
Resource Management in Academic Libraries, for the Joint Funding Councils'
Libraries Review Group. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Johnson, C.P. (1996). “The changing nature of jobs: a paraprofessional time series”.
College & Research Libraries, 57(1), 59-67.
Johnson, P. (1996). “Managing changing roles: professional and paraprofessional
staff in libraries”. Journal of Library Administration, 22(2/3), 79-99.
79
Joint Funding Council's Libraries Review Group (1993). Report (The Follett
Report). Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Lewis, D.W. (1997). “Change and transition in public services”. In: Schwartz, C.A.
(ed.), Restructuring academic libraries: organizational development in the wake of
technological change, pp. 31-53. Chicago: Association of College and Research
Libraries.
Lewis, M. & Sexton, C. (2000). “The Full Monty: two incompatible views of
organisational convergence that leave nothing to the imagination”. [Online]
EDUCAUSE 2000: Converging and Emerging in the 21st Century, Nashville,
October 2000. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0007.pdf
Lomker, L.H. (2002). “Nimble as cats, dependable as dogs: subject-based technical
services teams and acquisitions”. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical
Services, 26(4), 343-344.
Lovecy, I. (1994). “Convergence of libraries and computing services”. Library &
Information Briefings, 54(July), 1-11.
Martin, J. V. (1996). “Subject specialization in British university libraries: a second
survey”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 28(3), 159-169.
McAbee, S.L & Graham, J. (2005). “Expectation, realities, and perceptions of
subject specialist librarians’ duties in medium-sized academic libraries”. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 19-28
Moran, B.B. (2001). “Restructuring the university library: a North American
perspective”. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 100-114.
Oberg, L.R. (1992a). “The emergence of the paraprofessional in academic libraries:
perceptions and realities”. College & Research Libraries, 53(2), 99-112.
80
Oberg, L.R. (1992b). “The role, status, and working conditions of
paraprofessionals: a national survey of academic libraries”. College & Research
Libraries, 53(3), 215-238.
Pinfield, S. (2001). “The changing role of subject librarians in academic libraries”.
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 33(1), 32-38.
Powell, R.R. & Connaway, L.S. (2004). Basic Research Methods for Librarians. 4th
ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Pugh, L. (2005). “The management of hybrid libraries”. Library & Information
Research (LIR), 29(92), 13-31
Reid, B.J. (2000). “Organizational models for managing academic information”.
In: Reid, B.J. & Foster, W. (eds.), Achieving Cultural Change in Networked
Libraries, pp. 15-26. Aldershot: Gower.
Sayers, R. (2001). “Open relationships, de-facto marriages, or shotgun weddings?:
the convergence and integration of libraries and computing/information technology
services within Australian universities”. Australian Library Journal, [Online], 50(1),
53-71. http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/50.1/full.text/open.relationships.html
Schwartz, C.A. (1997). “Restructuring academic libraries: adjusting to
technological change”. In: Schwartz, C.A. (ed.), Restructuring academic libraries:
organizational development in the wake of technological change, pp. 1-30. Chicago:
Association of College and Research Libraries.
Scrivener, J. E. (1974). “Subject specialization in academic libraries: some British
practices”. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 5(3), 113-122.
Sidgreaves, I. (1995). “Convergence: an update”. Relay: the journal of the
University, College and Research Group, 42, 3-6.
81
Strasner, T. (2000). “Continuing education needs for technical services
paraprofessionals in academic libraries”. Colorado Libraries, 26(1), 22-24.
Sutton, A. (2000a). “Convergence: a review of the literature”. In: Reid, B.J. &
Foster, W. (eds.), Achieving Cultural Change in Networked Libraries, pp. 63-75.
Aldershot: Gower.
Sutton, A. (2000b). “Technical convergence and the response of the academic
institution”. In: Reid, B.J. & Foster, W. (eds.), Achieving Cultural Change in
Networked Libraries, pp. 77-104. Aldershot: Gower.
Stevenson, M. (1995). “Bradford University Library in the year 2000”. New
Library World, 96(1123), 28-32.
Tin, K.L. & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). “The changing role of paraprofessionals in
the knowledge economy”. Journal of Information Science, 28(4), 331-343.
Wakimoto, J.C. & Hsiung, G.R. (2000). “Blurring the boundaries between
professional and para-professional catalogers at California State University,
Northridge”. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 24(2), 171-
188.
Wilson, K.M. & Halpin, E. (2006). “Convergence and professional identity in the
academic library”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38(2), 79-91.
Woodhead, P. A. and Martin, J. V. (1982). “Subject specialization in British
university libraries: a survey”. Journal of Librarianship, 14(2), 93-108.
82
Appendix 1: Questionnaire You are being invited to participate in this survey as either a manager of subject/ liaison librarians or the head/deputy head of your LIS. Your contribution will provide valuable insight into current thinking and practice in a key area of service provision. We recognise there is a very wide spectrum of contemporary service configurations. Please answer as many questions as possible/applicable. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire, we would still like to receive any available relevant documentation for your service, as requested on the next page. Please complete the following questions by tabbing or clicking with your mouse between answer fields. In addition, please save your answers after completing each page and remember to save the whole document upon completion. About your LIS Yes No 1) Is your library part of a converged service?
2) If a converged service, what other service(s) are part of this LIS organisation? Please mark an X next to all the services which your library is combined with.
Services Mark X here
Computing/IT service
Corporate information/MIS
Audio-visual/media services
Print services
Educational/learning development service
Careers service
Other. (Please state)
83
3) Please state the numbers of staff employed in your service, completing as many columns as are relevant in relation to the categories below.
Staff numbers (full-time equivalents)
Types of staff Library/
information staff
Other (e.g. IT, HR, etc.)
Total
Professional/managerial
Para-professional/technician
Other (clerical, manual, etc.)
Total Your library’s organisational structure The questions in this section focus on the organisational structure used in your LIS for the delivery of academic liaison/subject support. Please answer all questions that are applicable to your service. In addition, if possible, please supply the following supporting documentation, either as email attachments or via a URL for a relevant web page:
• organisational structure chart(s) for your service, showing subject/liaison teams if used
• sample job description(s) for staff who spend a significant proportion
of their time on subject-related work 4) What categories/levels of staff spend a significant proportion of their time on
subject related work? Please complete the table below by placing an X next to those categories of staff with substantial subject-related roles, providing job titles, numbers of staff with these roles (full-time equivalents) and typical % time spent on subject work. Category Subject
related activity?
Job title Number (FTE)
% time
Senior managers, e.g. head of academic services
84
Middle managers, e.g. faculty/subject team leaders
Professional staff, e.g. assistant/subject librarian/information specialist
Entry grade professional staff, e.g. trainee liaison librarian
Paraprofessional staff, e.g. senior/principal library assistant
Others, e.g. library/information assistant
5) On average, how many subject departments, schools or equivalent is each subject/liaison librarian responsible for?
6) If your staff are organised into subject or faculty teams, please state how many and what categories of staff (i.e. from the table in Q.4) make up a typical team.
Number of staff per team:
Categories of staff in each team (e.g. 1 professional and 1 paraprofessional):
85
7) Which categories of staff are substantially involved in the following tasks, often associated with subject/liaison work? Please indicate below, by placing an X in the relevant box.
Tasks Professional Paraprofessional Library/
information assistant
Selecting items for purchase
Managing subject book funds
Coordinating/reviewing journal subscriptions (print/electronic)
Weeding of stock
Library induction
Information literacy/library skills training
User/subject guide production
Liaison with academic units
Creation of library content on Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
Production of subject related Web-pages
Subject related enquiries
Processing reading lists
Other subject related tasks. (Please state)
8) If your service is converged, do subject-related staff have liaison and/or other
responsibilities on behalf of the combined services? (e.g. do subject staff carry out both library and IT roles?) Please give details.
86
9) Are there any significant features about your organisational structure not already described in your responses to questions or documentation supplied? For example, if no subject responsibility is allocated in your library, are all staff deployed on a centralised functional basis or do you have a mix of central and site-based teams? Alternatively, if subject responsibility is practiced, is this combined with a functional responsibility for some or all of your staff?
Your opinions about LIS organisational structures now and in the future
10) What are the advantages of operating the structure used by your LIS?
11) Are there any disadvantages of operating the structure used by your LIS?
12) Given the emphasis on electronic resources and ‘student-centred learning’ within higher education, how do you see LIS structures evolving in the future? For example, do you think that more academic libraries will adopt a functional organisational model, a subject divisional model, or neither of these models? Please comment briefly below.
87
Participation statement Please place an X below to confirm your participation in this study: I understand the purpose of this survey and consent to information about my institution being used for this research.
Job title(s) of person(s) completing this questionnaire.
Optional information Name of main contact for completion of this questionnaire.
Email address
Telephone number
Please select your answer by placing an X below: Yes No Would you like to receive a summary of the findings of this study on completion?
Are you willing to be contacted again by e-mail or telephone to clarify any information?
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire Charles Carpenter Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield (e-mail: [email protected] or tel.: 07855 991738) Number: 11
88
Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet The structures used by British university library and information services (LIS) to deliver academic liaison and subject support. You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. The study is taking place over three months as part of a MA Librarianship dissertation in the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield. The study will aim to identify the types of structures employed by British university libraries to deliver academic liaison and subject support and compare these structures with those previously identified in the literature. In addition the study will seek to discover whether significant changes which have occurred in academic libraries over the last decade have affected the type of organisational structures university libraries now employ. You have been chosen to take part in this study because you have been identified as either being the head of the library service or the head of subject/liaison librarians at your university. All British university library services have been sent this survey. It is up to you whether or not you take part. If you do decide to take part you will be asked to complete a questionnaire which should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Additionally, you will be asked whether it is acceptable to contact you after completion of the questionnaire should anything need to be clarified. Please retain this information sheet for reference. If you do take part in the study, you may withdraw at any time without giving a reason for doing so. This project has been ethically approved by the Department of Information Studies ethics review procedure. All the information collected by the questionnaire will be treated as strictly confidential and will only be seen by the researcher and his supervisor. In addition, any part of the information collected which is disseminated will be anonymised by having the names of individuals and their institutions removed. Whilst there are no immediate benefits for those who participate in this project, it is hoped that this work will provide the academic library community with a valuable insight into the organisational structures currently in use and demonstrate whether a focus on academic liaison/subject support remains a popular structural model. Should you require further information or clarification about any aspect of this project, please contact the researcher, Charles Carpenter (e-mail: [email protected] or tel.: 07855 991738) or his supervisor, Professor Sheila Corrall (e-mail: [email protected] or tel.: 0114 2222632).
Thank you for reading this and considering taking part in this study.
89
Appendix 3: Initial contact e-mail and follow-up e-mail Dear [Participant’s name], I am a student of librarianship at the University of Sheffield and am currently undertaking a dissertation project investigating the types of structures used by British university libraries to deliver academic liaison and subject support. Your participation in this study will provide the academic library community with a valuable insight into the organisational structures currently in use and indicate whether a focus on academic liaison/subject support remains a popular structural model. I am contacting you because your library's website suggests that you have overall responsibility for academic liaison/subject support. Where I have been unable to identify who has such responsibility, this e-mail has been sent to the head or deputy head of the library service. Please forward this e-mail to the appropriate colleague, if necessary. The attached information sheet provides further details of my survey. The questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete and can be returned to me via e-mail. If you prefer to print out the questionnaire, please return it to me at: Flat P1 Room 2, Victoria Hall, 61 Eldon Street, Sheffield, S1 4GX. Please return the questionnaire by 30 July 2007. If you have any questions relating to this project, please contact me ([email protected]) or my supervisor Professor Sheila Corrall ([email protected]). Thank you for your time, Charles Carpenter Dear [Participant’s name], I recently e-mailed you to ask if you were able to assist me in research for my Masters dissertation by completing a short questionnaire on the organisational structures British university libraries use for the provision of subject support and academic liaison. So far the response has been encouraging, but if you would like to participate, please could you return your completed questionnaire to me by Monday 30 July 2007. The text of the original e-mail is provided below and I attach another copy of the questionnaire and the participant information sheet for your convenience. Thank you, Charles Carpenter
90
Appendix 4: Table of job titles for subject staff Job titles of those staff with subject-related roles
Senior Managers
Subject Support and E-library Team Leader; Head of Academic
Liaison; Head of Learning Support; Head of Library Services;
Academic Support Manager; Learning Resource Manager;
Assistant Head of Learning Resources; Academic Liaison &
Development Manager; Academic Services Manager; Assistant
Director; Head of Academic Liaison & Collection
Development; Head of Reader Services; Head of Academic
Liaison & Head of Public Services; Information Services
Librarian; Head of User Support; Head of Academic Liaison &
Head of Information Resources; Deputy Librarian; Faculty
Group Leader; Head of Academic Support; Head of Library
Learning & Teaching; Deputy Head of Academic Liaison &
Finance; Library Services Manager.
Middle Managers
Academic Liaison Librarian; Subject Team Leader; Faculty
Team Leader; Learning & Teaching Librarian Team Leader;
Deputy Library Services Manager; Site Manager; Academic
Liaison & Skills Manager; Faculty Team Manager; Head of
Academic Liaison; Academic Support Team Manager; Faculty
Librarian; Senior Subject Librarian; Academic Team Manager;
College Librarian; Assistant Learning Resource Manager;
Library Manager; Learning Support Manager; Liaison Services
Manager; Senior Subject & Learning Support Librarian; Faculty
Subject Librarian; Lead Liaison Librarian.
Professional staff
Subject Support Librarian; Subject Collections Librarian;
Subject Liaison Librarian; Assistant Subject Librarian; Subject
& Learning Support Librarian; Faculty Team Librarian;
Academic Librarian; Healthcare Information Specialist;
Information Adviser; Senior Subject Librarian; Liaison
Librarian; Senior Liaison Librarian; Assistant Librarian;
Senior Assistant Librarian; Subject Librarian; Subject Adviser;
91
Academic Liaison Librarian; Information Specialist;
Information Officer; E-Resources Librarian; Learning &
Teaching Librarian; Senior Assistant Librarian; Academic
Subject Librarian.
Entry-grade
professional staff
Assistant Subject Librarian; Trainee Liaison Librarian; Assistant
Librarian; Newly Qualified Librarian; Information Librarian;
Information Assistant; Trainee Professional Librarian; Subject
Librarian; Assistant Liaison Librarian.
Paraprofessional
staff
Senior Information Assistant; Academic Liaison Assistant;
Information Service Specialist; Head of Acquisitions;
Information Service Assistant; Senior Learning Resources
Assistant; Senior Library Assistant; Information Coordinator;
Head of Periodicals; Assistant Information Officer; Collections
Project Manager; Principal Library Assistant.
Others/Clerical Library Assistant; Subject Assistant; Learning & Teaching
Library Assistant; Information Assistant; Information Service
Advisor; Support Assistant.
92
![AN INVESTIGATION INTO QUERIES SUBMITTED TO THE EUROPEANA …dagda.shef.ac.uk/dispub/dissertations/2011-12/External/SilveyE.pdf · (Europeana, [2012?]d), excluding the top-ranked Text](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f63e4a8a0990e0224047a06/an-investigation-into-queries-submitted-to-the-europeana-dagdashefacukdispubdissertations2011-12external.jpg)
