This study sets out to investigate the evolving educational role of the academic librarian in the context of Information Literacy (IL) skills provision, by exploring the IL programs offered by a selection of the universities within the Russell Group,

2.2 Integration with faculty

Winner (1998) argues that if IL is going to be of real value to students it is imperative that content be directly linked to their other academic studies. In order to achieve this, faculties need to collaborate with librarians and devise an appropriate programme. However, Winner claims that it is mainly the teaching staff that are at fault because they do not recognise the importance of the role of the librarian and the necessity of collaboration in developing appropriate teaching material. Moore (2003) echoes this view and highlights the issues involved in getting teaching staff to

7

accept IL as a necessary part of students' learning. He suggests methods of building a rapport with academic staff in order to 'prove that librarians are intelligent and every bit the peer of teaching faculty' (2003: 455). Moore (2003) also reinforces the need to put IL in the context of students' academic studies to enable effective learning. This is supported by Duffy and Jonassen who argue that 'information cannot be remembered as independent, abstract entities' (1992: 92) so must be put into context and embedded in the environment in which it will be applied. Ivey also advocates the integration of librarians into faculty and found that taking a more holistic approach, where librarians support the research and wider interests of the academic staff, was beneficial to the development and maintenance of 'collaborative partnerships' (2002: 3).

The matter of whether or not librarians should be granted academic status if they are going to take a more active role in the design and delivery of IL skills courses is a hotly debated issue in the current literature, and particularly in the USA and Australia. McGowan and Dow (1995) argue that if librarians want to be perceived as teaching staff their role must be re-defined and focus less on administrative tasks so more can be spent on developing a research base and teach information education as an individual discipline. This acknowledgement that the profession as a whole needs to change is an issue that often arises in the literature. For instance, Allen (1984 in Doskatsch, 2003) argues that Librarianship lacks the backbone and substance needed to break through the barriers to academic status and recognition. With reference to the profession in Australia, he states that it is immature, 'particularly with regard to publications lacking any research basis and staff development lacking rigorous intellectual content...' (2003: 115). Although it is clear that much progress in the areas mentioned has been made, Bruce (2001) reinforces Allen's point and highlights that there is in fact very little literature in the mainstream academic environment written by librarians, which could contribute to widening the profession's sphere of influence, as well as helping to change the overall image of librarianship. As Peele states, 'we must attach ourselves to a profession that is both respected and easy to understand. Everyone knows what teachers do' (1984: 269). This comment from Peele brings to light the differences between librarianship and teaching and should encourage librarians to take

8

responsibility for their profession and be in control of how it is perceived, rather than trying to define themselves through another profession.

Cronin offers quite an extreme view and argues that the 'tenure and the paraphernalia of the academic calling have nothing whatsoever to do with . . . librarianship' (2001:144). He goes on to comment that academic status is only a label and that it would not be economically viable for librarians to gain academic status. He believes that in reality academic status would make very little difference to the pay librarians received, the job they did or way they were treated by academics. Doskatsch (2003), presents a more moderate view, but also doubts whether attaining academic status would really benefit the individual, the profession or the organization. She believes that gaining academic status would mean a lot of obligation and very little benefit, because it is impossible to guarantee respect from academic colleagues, and brings with it even more responsibility (Doskatsch: 2003). Cronin (2001), who argues that there is no evidence to suggest that granting academic status facilitates the interactions between librarians and academic staff, is in agreement with this view. Further more, he does not see that there is any relationship between librarians having academic status and them applying more 'analytic approaches to the management of library services and bring[ing] fresh perspectives to bear on their work through research and participation through national associations' (2001: 144). Although in part Cronin makes a valid point, it seems that, actually, it may be beneficial for librarians to be aware of on going research and be members of national associations such as the HEA in England, or the Australia and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIL) because knowledge of changes in the wider environment may well be useful in planning courses when liaising with staff and maintaining up-to-date resources. It also raises the question of whether or not librarians should be members of educational associations such as SEDA and the HEA, or only of IL bodies, or both. In the current HE environment, where librarians are having an increasingly educational role in universities, it seems feasible that they should seek membership of educational and IL associations as much for their own benefit as the students.

From another perspective, Doskatsch argues that even though more and more librarians in Australia are gaining 'second level qualifications', (2003: 115) the

9

interest in academic status has not grown. Thus research shows that librarians do not necessarily place as much importance on academic status as is implied in the literature, as she states, 'librarians want their contribution to education recognised but are not necessarily interested in academic status' (2003:115/6). She also questions how necessary academic status is to librarians doing their job effectively. Librarians can liaise with staff and have a more active role in developing course material just as easily, with or without academic status. Doskatsch argues that it is more important for librarians to,

' . . . engage critically with pedagogical paradigms dominant in Higher Education and demonstrate competence in course design and delivery appropriate to a learning environment that is global, flexible and student centred'

(2003: 116).

Bruce maintains Doskatsch's perspective by emphasising the practical role of the academic librarian over the more elusive issue of status and presents a very successful framework for librarians and academics working together. It seems reasonable to suggest that removing the issue of academic status from the equation does facilitate the working relationship between the two professions. Bruce reports that even though progress has been slow, there have been significant developments in the past few years, partly due to the 'new emphasis on information literacy and the role of the library in teaching and learning have strengthened . . . partnerships and even transformed their character' (2001: 107). Bruce (2001) perceives the integration between librarians and academic staff as incredibly valuable and beneficial both to the overall contribution made by librarians and to student learning.

However, the main area of contention for now is the lack of vision displayed by academics in accepting that librarians now possess the skills and expertise that can potentially enhance the learning of their students. Again, it seems that in response to the technological revolution, the changing organizational cultures, and sub-cultures that emerge from them

20

have a significant effect on the relationships formed as a result. For example academics and students now have less need to visit the library because of the Internet and remote access and are thus less likely to form functional relationships with library staff. However, as it stands 'faculty culture continue[s] to support a conservative approach to curriculum change' (Peacock, 2001: 3). Research shows that 'librarians are aware of faculty and the work they do, and are continually striving to increase contact them' (Christiansen et al, 2004: 117), yet academic staff do not really understand the work librarians do and are not interested in forming collaborative relationships (Christiansen et al, 2004; Doskatsch, 2003). Librarians find the lack of cooperation a problem but academics do not. As Christiansen et al (2004) explain through their sociological perspective on faculty/librarian relationships, the two professions are almost polar opposites. Academics are producers of original thought and are involved with the dissemination of knowledge, which in today's society commands respect and status. Librarians are seen as organizers and facilitators of access to knowledge, which is perceived as a service, so a low status is attributed. In this sense, there is a need to 'bridge the gap' between the two professions in order to reconcile these insurmountable differences (Peacock, 2001; Nimon, 1999). Bruce states that in Australia these relationships are based on 'changing views of the world from both librarian and faculty perspectives' (2001:108; Christiansen, 2004). She predicts that 'as faculty and librarians work together, they are likely to develop shared understandings of how student learning can be supported' (2001: 108).

However, before these relationships can begin to develop successfully, academic staff need to accept the changes that have taken place in HE over the last decade and realise that the old structures for student learning have been replaced with student centred learning and that librarians have a significant part to play in the new learning and teaching frameworks (Doskatsch, 2003). Much of the literature identifies librarians as the main protagonists in forging this collaboration (Zhang, 2001; Doskatsch, 2003). Doskatsch (2003) sees that librarians will have to humour some academics who are not interested in learning new things and

21

encourage them as much as possible. She goes on to argue that it is imperative that librarians be pro-active; publish in journals and speak at conferences outside the profession and make it clear that they mean to take shared responsibility for student learning and raise pedagogical knowledge to a higher standard so that they can interact on a more equal level with academics (Doskatsch, 2003).

Doskatsch (2003) perceives administrative, bureaucratic and economic factors present in the 1980s as strong reasons for the present low status of librarians. She states that only librarians employed before the mid-80s hold academic status in the current environment. Although it has been argued (Cronin, 2001) that academic status makes very little difference to the overall status of librarians, it does reinforce the fact that before the image of the profession can change, the culture of librarianship must first be addressed in order to penetrate the social and academic perceptions of the academic librarian (Doskatsch, 2003). Similarly, Christiansen et al (2004) identify organizational and social issues and dimensions as the major causes of what they term the 'asymmetrical dysconnection' between librarians and academic staff. They also identify the rapid and continuing developments in technology as another reason for the void between academics and librarians, not only in the sense that they don't 'recognise the importance of the information world and IL to student learning' (Bruce, 2001: 108) but also because with the advent of the Internet, there is even less reason for them to visit the library and having to make a special trip is more likely to fuel resentment than help build understanding and a healthy working relationship (Christiansen et al, 2004). These barriers prevent the opportunity for 'meaningful interaction and the mutual recognition of expertise and collegial respect' (Christiansen et al, 2004: 118). From these perspectives, there seems no doubt that librarians have their work cut out in the present HE environment and for the foreseeable future. If academic staff continue to ignore the significance of IL skills to the success of their students and see librarians as inferior professionals progress will be very slow and limited in how much benefit could be received. This emphasises the need for librarians to be pro-active and work collectively as a profession to transform and strengthen the current image of librarianship. However, in terms of gaining academic status, it appears that it is more of a concern in the US and Australian literature, even though Doskatsch found that Australian librarians

22

were not especially bothered about academic status, it is hardly mentioned in the UK literature, if at all, that is assuming Cronin is considered to be presenting a US opinion.

2.3 Continuing Professional Development

The current literature emphasises the growing importance of continuing professional development for library staff in the present rapidly changing information and technological environment. Watson (2003) identifies that the information profession itself is changing and many employees are now working outside their traditional roles of librarian or information officer. It is therefore crucial to professional survival that knowledge and skills are continuously renewed so employees can contribute as much as possible to the organization as well as the IL needs of their students', as Peacock, states, CPD 'empowers [librarians] as educators and enables the development of an information literate community' (2001: 2), which can only be a positive addition to librarians' skills base in the current HE environment. In contrast to this, Watson highlights the consequences of stagnation of professional development saying that 'without enhanced knowledge and expertise we could find ourselves by-passed or even unemployed!' (2003: 10).

Neocosmos (2003) argues that CPD in HE is especially important because of the complex and constantly changing social, political economic and technological environment in which the many and varied staff work. She goes on to add that with the increasingly diverse student population, the inevitable variety of needs to be met, and focus on student centred learning, it is imperative that the skills and knowledge of library staff are continually updated. As the value of IL continues to be recognised, and the focus on developing lifelong learning skills is sustained, the ability to change easily and quickly with the external environment rather than against it has become crucial. In order to achieve these aims managers have realised the need to 'nurture, develop and refine abilities of staff' (Holden, 2001: 337) to achieve this end. As Reynolds and Ablett note 'people and not capital' (1998: 24) have always, been and continue to, be the key to achieving competitive advantage. This is especially true in service organizations where the quality of service received by the customer is directly related to those employed (Taylor and Thackwray, 1996). The UK Universities' and Colleges' Staff Development Agency (UCoSDA), (later the

23

Higher Education Staff Development Agency (HESDA) and now part of the HEA) found that 'employers who invest significant time and money in initial and continuing development and training of their staff will always claim a more highly skilled and motivated workforce than those who give it lower priority' (Neocosmos, 2003: 1).

The literature reviewed supports the growth and maintenance of CPD in HE and highlights some of the benefits that can be gained from a long-term commitment to staff development. In particular it is felt that CPD should be embedded into the strategic framework of the institution, as Neocosmos argues 'CPD and the resources to support it, need to be planned strategically as an integral part of the institutional planning and processes at all levels' (2003: 9). She also emphasises the importance of the ' . . .active encouragement and endorsement of engaging in CPD by senior leaders . . .' (2003: 9), without the support and approval of directors, CPD will not be considered a possibility for all staff, it needs to be engrained in the institution and become part of librarians' jobs, not an added extra. The emergence of initiatives such as the Investors in People Standard (IiP), and professional associations like the HEA and the Staff Educational Development Agency (SEDA) have greatly contributed to raising the profile and importance of CPD as well as providing support for librarians and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own professional development and even possible stepping 'outside their comfort zone of library oriented events' (Powis, 2004: 90) to enter more academic dominated areas as according to Powis, it is 'precisely where they should be operating if they are going to be taken seriously as teachers and learning facilitators' (2004: 90). Becoming personal and/or institutional members of these supportive associations suggests an active commitment to and investment in CPD.

Influential government reports such as the Fielden Report (1993) and the Report (1997) are given particular attention. Recommendations made by Dearing, led to the creation of the ILTHE (Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education). Many universities now require their staff to have or obtain an accredited teaching qualification, which can be achieved through the ILTHE (now part of the HEA). Dearing also highlighted that 'the growing emphasis on learning rather than teaching in Higher Education means that students can be expected to place increasing

24

demands upon . . . staff to provide them with advice and guidance' (NCIHE, 1997: ). Both reports indicate the differences that began to emerge between the 'old' and 'new' universities. In particular Dearing found that the new universities 'tended to have a more progressive and comprehensive approach to training' (NCIHE, 1997: 5.6) that was far more advanced than those adopted in the pre 1992 universities, that appeared to have the theory but little noticeable practice (NCIHE, 1997: 5.5). Unsurprisingly, it was also discovered that the new universities gave staff development higher priority than the old universities. The Fielden Report made a very similar deduction from their interviews with staff development teams 'who in general took the view that the expolytechnics were much more active' (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993: 36). This statement is supported by the statistics generated by a survey taken in 1989, which showed that only two library staff surveyed from old universities considered CPD to be a high priority, compared with 43% of staff in the new universities. However, estimated averages on the amount spent on staff training and development revealed a less alarming disparity. In 1999 spending was estimated by LISU at 2.0% of the overall budget for forty old universities and 3.8% for twenty-nine of the new universities (John Fielden Consultancy, 1993: 36). The literature indicates the differences between the expolytechnics that have a more teaching based focus and the old universities, which continue to place greater emphasis on research. The outcomes of these differing approaches are clearly indicated in the statistical data.

A comparison of the new and older literature emphasises the degree to which the role of the librarian as 'learning facilitator' (Powis, 2004: 87) and the Higher Education environment have changed. Stone's (1969) study of the professional development of librarians indicates that training and development was not directed at the whole organization, rather at senior levels. There was not the holistic approach that exists today, with an hour a week dedicated to staff training as there is at the University of Sheffield (University of Sheffield Library website). Similarly, Conroy (1978) highlights the lack of structure and support for learning and states that 'learning appears to be classified as "useful" rather than "urgent"' (1978: intro). However, in the current setting numerous benefits for both the employee and the organization have been recognised. In responding to the changing information and technological background as well as the increasingly diverse student population, staff

25

are experiencing more professional satisfaction and greater morale (Callahan and Watson, 1995). Partington (1996) states, that before the technological revolution began 'there was little appreciation of the notion of career-long, continuing professional development related to both institutional and individual goals' (1996: 11). Peacock (2004) discusses the range of roles librarians must now fulfil, in a way that was not necessary in the Seventies and Eighties. Continuous training and development for all staff is now an everyday part of the profession, not a training course that is 'thrown in' every few months with no clear structure. CPD must be strategically planned and embedded within the overall objectives of the organization to ensure that staff are well prepared for any new developments that arise. Institutional CPD and the encouragement by managers for staff to take control of their personal professional development are beneficial in facilitating the integration of rapid changes and support staff in learning and adapting to new skills and learning resources. Although there is a clear disparity between the old and new universities, there is no doubt that the information profession has made huge progress in this area since the days of unstructured, irregular training and development.

2.4 Information literacy skills in Higher Education

Johnston and Webber (2003) survey the IL environment in the UK, USA and Australia and provide a useful case study of how IL can be successfully integrated into HE. Johnston and Webber (2003) attribute Australia's lead in the delivery of IL to the academic library and librarians' focus on the processes for gathering and managing information instead of on IT skills, as the UK does. Parker and Waller (2002) reinforce this perspective by highlighting the proactive and common agenda present in the Australian librarianship.

Lupton in Bundy (2004) provides context for the implementation of IL in HE in outlining the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework.. One of the key principles of the strategy is that IL should be fully integrated into the curriculum. Lupton emphasises the importance of 'aligned assessment' in that it 'is the most powerful tool available to educators to direct and facilitate student learning' (2004: 27). This also highlights the present change in pedagogies and overall learning concept. However, Asher (2003) argues that merging the two professions 'weakens both' (2003: 52). Although he agrees that IL should be integrated into the

26

curriculum he does not see that transforming librarians into teachers would be successful. As Peele states 'knowledge of content does not necessarily mean we are teachers . . .there is a difference between what we do at our desks and what they do at their lecterns' (1984:269). Asher confirms that the roles of academics and librarians should be kept separate so that each can 'provide students with the benefits of their expertise' (2003:53). Lester (1979) agrees with Asher's view and argues that teaching should be left to the academics because not only are they trained to teach, but that they will also make the instruction relevant to students' studies. Lester also states that, whilst students do require user education, courses should not be taught in isolation, but students 'should learn about libraries as part and parcel of [their] chosen subject study, when he or she will therefore be motivated to find out about something that otherwise seems arid and peripheral' (1979: 370). Whilst information skills delivered by academic may have been appropriate before the technological revolution, the skills and expertise now needed to deliver and receive IL training are quite different and much more complex. IL skills are to an extent a discipline of their own and therefore require specific professional knowledge that can be related to subject disciplines, which academics simply do not have. Lester was writing in 1979 when IL was still 'user education' and more closely resembled bibliographic instruction without any of the technological opportunities that there are now. Thus, to an extent, Lester illustrates the out datedness of the perspective that Asher presents.

Smith and Mundt (1997) also state that librarians should not be the ones to deliver IL skills to students, although for quite different reasons from Lester and Asher. Smith and Mundt argue that 'most libraries simply do not have enough staff to offer instruction extensively throughout a curriculum' (1997: 1) and that librarians' 'energy would be better focused on institution-wide initiatives that lead to shared educational goals and objectives throughout the campus' (1997: 1). This view is shared by George et al (2001), who discuss an institution-wide strategy for IL designed for implementation at the University of South Australia. They argue that instead of librarians taking responsibility for teaching IL, ' . . .it would be a seamless aspect of the mainstream experience of learning, . . .integrated into the teaching and assessment' (2001: 283). Orr and Cribb (2003) make clear that until librarians relinquish their teaching duties to academic staff, 'a curriculum based approach to

27

information literacy [will not] occur' (2003: 3). Although these opinions reflect the same meaning as those of Lester and Asher, they come from very different rationales. George et al focus on student centred learning, and how it can most successfully be achieved, whereas Lester and Asher centre on the politics that exists between academics and librarians in a professional capacity. Smith and Mundt's argument is convincing and reinforced by their assertion that ' . . .faculty control the learning environment and are better able to demonstrate the correlation between information literacy and critical thinking' (1997: 1). Although this is undoubtedly true, it does not change the fact that faculty do not possess the skills and expertise to effectively transmit IL to students. In response to this, Smith and Mundt (1997), and George et al (2001) advocate CPD for faculty to prepare them for IL teaching and recognise that 'information literacy will be integrated throughout the curriculum only if faculty recognise its importance, make it a goal as they develop their syllabi and know how to teach information literacy themselves' (1997: 2). However, they don't indicate the difficulties involved in achieving this. To an extent, the amount of time it would require by librarians to convince academics IL is important, make them interested enough to want to teach it and then train them up, may take up as much time, if not more than it would if Librarians were to liaise with staff and teach IL courses themselves.

A majority of the literature emphasises the importance of the integration of IL into the university curricula (Rader, 1999; Hepworth, 2000; George et al, 2001; Orr and Cribb, 2003; UniSA, 2004). Indicating the long-term implications of IL in the context of Lifelong Learning (LLL) strengthens the IL framework presented by George et al. They demonstrate how not providing students with IL skills could have an overall effect on the economic wealth of countries because of the 'rapid and pervasive social, technological and economic changes [that have] significantly impacted on educational contexts' (2001: 280). They argue that the more diverse the information environment becomes the more important it is that IL skills are fully integrated into university curricula and are designed in a way that is subject specific because in the Twenty-First Century, ' . . . a student cannot be seen as competent in the field without the appropriate levels of IL associated with that field' (2001: 282). Orr and Cribb (2003) share this view and argue that integration of IL 'allows the use of information to become part of the learning process, as opposed to . . .another . . .

28

'add and stir' solution (2003: 1; Noon, 1994). Similarly the University of South Australia (UniSA) Library perceives IL as a cumulative process in which skills are built on throughout a student's course and that 'skills and concepts associated with IL should be woven into the curriculum's content, structure, and sequence and not extraneous to the curriculum' (2004: 1).

Hepworth (2000) outlines different approaches that are possible when integrating IL into the curriculum. He presents an 'Information Literacy Continuum', which reflects a range of methods of integration from discrete, generic transferable skill to fully integrated, assessed methods, and everything in between. He argues that if IL is integrated into the curriculum, then students can actively see the benefits and that it is advantageous to their learning goals, and they are also more likely to accept and absorb the skills they are learning (Hepworth, 2000). Hepworth discusses the value and importance of having a range of learning options. He states that 'different approaches are necessary partly because of the diverse needs of the different learners that we encounter' (2000: 33), George et al corroborate his perspective, ' . . .information literacy is a key condition in design and delivery at the program, and course levels and has at its heart, constructivist, relational and critical ways of thinking about learning' (2001: 281). These highlight the shift from teaching focused to learning focused education, that is centred round the student and how best to enable them to become information literate and to continue learning for life. As the literature has shown, the most accepted way of achieving this is to embed IL as much as possible into the curriculum and make it an established part of every course that is subject focused and taught and assessed in the same way as other disciplines. Whether IL skills should be taught by academics or librarians, remains to be seen and endlessly discussed. Although the literature advocates developing the role of the academic to teach IL skills, either because they are better qualified or so that librarians can dedicate more time to the design of IL courses, it does not appear to be a particularly viable option, especially when there still exists so much resistance from academics (in the UK at least) to accept IL as an integral part of successful studying in HE today.

29

Chapter Three

Methodology

This chapter explains the research design and methodological approach. It discusses and justifies the methods used to carry out the research project. It also gives details of the questionnaire and interview schedules and explains the reasons for their structure as well as providing discussion of the methods of analysis used.

3.1 Overall approach and reason for research

It was felt that qualitative methods of research were going to be the most appropriate way to approach this project. Qualitative research lends itself well to studying small samples in detail (Patton, 1999) as opposed to quantitative research, which is more suited to studying larger samples, from which generalizations can later be made. The project investigates the individual professional development needs of those academic librarians directly involved with the dissemination of information literacy to students and staff. As IL continues to become a more essential part of higher education studies, the degree to which it is integrated into the university curriculum becomes crucial to students' academic success, as does the level of competence required for librarians to provide a high quality service. Qualitative methods of investigation allow a more sociological approach to research and have made it possible to focus on the librarians' perceptions, values and points of view, which would not be possible through a quantitative framework. As Gorman and Clayton comment,

' . . . information agencies are service organizations involving social realities and individuals who work within these realities. Given [the] social nature of information agencies and the resulting existence of such subjective factors as motivation and behaviour, it is only natural that qualitative research and its search for meaning be adopted as an appropriate investigative paradigm' (1997: 34).

30

The qualitative approach enables research to be carried out 'without being constrained by predetermined categories of analysis [and] contributes to the depth, openness, and detail of qualitative enquiry' (Patton, 1999: 143); this supports the overall aim of the project. Gorman and Clayton (1997) highlight the suitability of qualitative research to studying the information profession and emphasise the complex and variable environment that librarians work within and the importance of being flexible and being able to adapt to any situation and react accordingly. The interpretivist focus of the qualitative paradigm, imposes a less rigid structure on research design, and therefore facilitates an understanding 'of the complex and evolving social constructs' (1997: 31) that are present within the information environment. This approach has made it possible to investigate how the staff involved in delivering the service feel about the position of IL within the university timetable and what they believe their role as educators should be. Each institution's IL policy and the reasons for the structure of their policy have also been addressed using a qualitative research approach.

The 'grounded theory' approach as described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) has been used because it focuses on the generation of theory rather than the adherence to an already established framework (Patton, 2002). This complements the flexible elements that make up qualitative research. Glaser and Strauss state that 'by comparing where the facts are similar or different, we can generate properties of categories that increase the categories 'generality and exploratory power' (1967: 24). Thus, grounded theory is appropriate because it allows for the comparison of results and the identification of significant themes and patterns and the eventual formulation of theory. Patton highlights the difference between grounded theory and deductive theory, commenting that the idea is to 'build theory rather than test theory' (2002: 127). 'By collecting, observing and studying as widely as possible and [using] this broadly based approach to [interpret and] understand emerging concerns and to offer specific analysis of those concerns' (Gorman et al 1997: 26).

A small sample of research-led universities was considered to be most appropriate due to the limited amount of time to conduct the research. It was also suitable because a main aim of the project was to investigate institutions

31

IL policies and staff opinions in depth, and be able to draw comparisons between them. The role of Information Technology (IT) departments has not been investigated as a result of time constraints, although it is recognised that they can and do play a very significant part in the design and delivery of IL courses, especially with the rise in electronic information services.

3.2 Methods used and reasons for using specific methods

Four methods of investigation were used:

• Literature review

• Analysis of participating Universities' library websites

• Questionnaires, sent via email in a Word file attachment

• Individual in-depth telephone interviews

3.2.1 Literature Review

A majority of the literature review was conducted during April and May and was completed during July to ensure currency of information and professional opinion. It was used to inform the overall structure and direction of the research, by identifying the key issues and arguments that emerged from the experts' and practitioners' discussion.

A review of the current literature revealed that a quantitative framework would be most suitable for the questionnaire and, a qualitative approach would be most appropriate for the interviews. Inductive methods of analysis were identified as the most apposite for the interpretation of the information collected.

Before any literature was searched for, the research question was divided into four sub-sections, as it was felt that this would make it easier both to search for literature and provide the reader with more specific information about the issues and debates surrounding the research area. The areas highlighted were: The changing educational role of the academic librarian; Integration with faculty; Continuing

32

Professional Development and Information Literacy skills in HE. These topics were also used as a basis for the structure of the questionnaire and interview schedules in order to add continuity to the research. The first two sections were compiled using a variety of resources. The main method applied was using the library's electronic databases, such as Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) and the Web Of Science (WOS) to find relevant articles and then obtain them from the library's journals. Both of these data bases use Boolean logic in their search, which made it possible to shape searches more specifically to what was required, by including certain terms and excluding others, that even though related were not relevant to this piece. One Inter Library Loan was required for a journal article that was not online and was not held by the library and was obtained through the University Document Supply Service. Browsing bibliographies of previous coursework and journal articles was very beneficial in finding related and current material, which helped to emphasise the main debates, as were conference papers found on the Internet. In particular, the Australian literature provided the most interesting insights and debates on the topic mainly because of the high level of research taking place in this area.

It was decided that for the third section, it would be beneficial to compare the old and new literature to emphasise the difference between staff training and development and the present Continuing Professional Development. Monographs from the University Library stacks were used to present the old approach, along with journal articles, found by searching bibliographies and LISA, specifying older rather than current literature. Other information was obtained via Google by searching for 'Continuing Professional Development', and the SCONUL online newsletters were also used. Search strategies used for previous sections were employed for the last section as well. The Web Of Science (WOS) was useful in finding material for IL. A variety of search terms were used to gather as much information as possible. A website designed and maintained by a member of staff at the University was found on Google and proved to be a useful source for definitions, debates and related websites (Webber, 1999). Journals that had produced themed issues on IL and CPD were also browsed. When the Literature Review was being completed it was decided to add another sub-section that focused on the differences in Information Skills training courses in the 'old' and 'new' universities. A majority of the information for this was obtained by referring to the websites of a selection of new and old

33

universities. Government reports such as the Dearing Report (1997) and the Fielden Report (1993) were also used to emphasise the significant change that took place in HE, as well as providing statistical information.

3.2.2 Website analysis

Initially, librarians at six institutions from the Russell Group were contacted in March 2004 to establish whether or not they would be prepared to help in the progress of this research, and, if so, who was the most appropriate person to contact. Having established main contacts, a brief survey of each institution's website was conducted to help establish what each university offered in terms of IL programmes, and as far as possible what their staff training policy was, although this information was often only available on the university intranet and so was investigated further in the questionnaire and individual interviews.

In order to obtain some background information about the institutions and the librarians who had agreed to take part in the research a brief survey of the university websites was conducted. The review began to establish the level of commitment to IL and integration of IL Training in each university library by looking at strategic plans, annual reports, mission statements and what each university offers in terms of IL. The amount of staff training and development that was taking place within institutions and how far IL is integrated into the university curriculum was also investigated. Each university's IL policy was identified as far as possible, along with what they offer in terms of IL instruction and staff training and. The results from the initial review of online information contributed to the development of the questionnaire and interviews.

3.2.3 Questionnaire Schedule

Participants were contacted once more in the second week of June to remind them that the research was underway and they would be receiving a questionnaire via email. They were informed that the questionnaire would take no longer than fifteen minutes to fill out, and it was requested that they complete it by July 15th. It was felt that sending the questionnaires via email was the most effective method of distribution, as it guaranteed immediate delivery, avoided the cost of postage at both

34

ends, and was more convenient for participants to return as soon as they had filled it out. It was requested that the questionnaires should not be returned any later than the second week of July, to allow enough time to arrange and conduct the telephone interviews. However, this was not possible for some participants because of annual leave commitments.

A quantitative approach was taken in the design of the questionnaire. It was decided that the questionnaire should address the more factual elements of the project and would be complementary to the interviews, which would focus more on in-depth discussion, and the discovery of individual opinions would take place during the interviews. The questions were divided into five sections, as in the literature review and close-ended and scaled response questions were devised. It was felt that these types of questions were the most suitable for obtaining the information required and would be less time consuming for the respondents to complete, and would therefore receive a better response rate (Frazer and Lawley, 2000).

The first section 'You and your job' focused on obtaining specific details about recipients and their institution; this was the most writing respondents were required to do. The second section looked at Information Literacy provision. A tick chart was used to establish what type of IL was provided and how far it was integrated into the curriculum; it was felt that this method would also make analysis easier. Other questions in this section addressed who was responsible for the delivery and design of IL. The final three sections aimed to identify the exact level of integration of IL into the university curriculum, the changing role of academic library staff, and the amount and type of CPD received by staff. Scaled response questions were designed for these sections because of the factual information sought. The order of the questions was considered to make sure that more sensitive questions were asked later in the questionnaire and that the structure made sense to respondents (Gorman and Clayton, 1997). A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix One.

The questionnaire was piloted on four librarianship students and one academic librarian to ascertain how long the questionnaire would take to complete and to make sure that the questions were clear and did not need any further instruction. It transpired that some questions were not as clear as they could be and

35

they were revised accordingly. The questionnaires were then sent to respondents with a covering email (see appendix three) explaining what they needed to do, a return by date and notification that they would be contacted shortly after the questionnaires had been collected to organise a telephone interview at their convenience.

Overall, the response rate was disappointing. Two extra emails (see appendix three) were sent to respondents to remind them about the questionnaire; however, despite this only four out of eight were returned by the end of July. Two were from the same university, which effectively halved the original sample of universities selected. One participant emailed to say that they would not be able to take part in any of the research even though they had confirmed their participation in March. Attempts to contact the other respondents via email and telephone were made, but were unsuccessful. With hindsight, it may have been better to send the questionnaires out much earlier in the academic calendar or have posted them to recipients, so they weren't sitting at the bottom of peoples' in boxes; another possibility would have been to use a larger sample of universities to account for failed responses. However, as participation had been agreed in advance, this should not have been necessary. Nevertheless, the people who sent back their questionnaires also agreed to be interviewed, which did help create some continuity in the results gathered and made it easier to draw comparisons between universities IL provision.

3.2.4 Interview schedule

The interview schedule was designed during the first week after the questionnaires were distributed. Respondents were contacted by telephone and email during the week of the 11th until the end of July to arrange a convenient time to conduct the interview via the telephone. Respondents' answers were recorded off the telephone by a Dictaphone to ensure accuracy. Each respondent's answers were transcribed after the interview and saved on disk for later analysis.

The use of interviews was appropriate because it allowed for the investigation of librarians' opinions and feelings about IL provision in their institutions and would

36

be crucial in generating an overall theory around the research question and maintaining loyalty to the grounded theory approach and drawing conclusions about the organisation from 'the bottom up' (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As Erlandson et al comment 'interviews . . . put into a larger context the interpersonal, social, and cultural aspects of the environment' (1993:85). A primary objective of the project was to try and identify the culture of each institution and it was felt interviewing participants would help to achieve this.

After careful consideration, it was decided that the general interview guide approach as described by Patton (2002) would be the most appropriate for this project and was in keeping with the qualitative and inductive approaches. The general interview guide structure allows the interviewer to compile a list of topics or questions that need to be covered in the interview, but enables the interviewer to follow up interesting lines of enquiry that may emerge during the interview to gain more insight into a particular topic and generate a more conversational style to the interview. Patton states that,

'The advantage of an interview guide is that it makes sure that the interviewer . . . has carefully decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation. The guide helps make interviewing a number of people more systematic and comprehensive by delimiting in advance the issues to be explored.'

With the time constraints present in this piece of research, an interview guide seemed the most appropriate structure, especially as it allowed for some flexibility when conducting the interviews.

Individual interviews made it possible to gather more detailed and personal information from staff and facilitated the investigation of the libraries' IL policies and plans for development as well as helping to clarify any ambiguities found in the questionnaires. It was felt that a more structured framework would help to ensure that the desired topics were covered and the correct information had been obtained. This method also made it easier to make direct comparisons between interviewees from different universities. Qualitative interviewing requires the development of a conversational environment, where

37

the interviewee feels comfortable to speak freely and openly about the topic (Patton, 2002). Telephone interviews were chosen because it would have been too costly and time consuming to travel to each individual university due to their geographical location. However, it was recognised that the lack of face-to-face interaction between interviewer and interviewee may have limited the overall success and depth of information gathered because there is no opportunity to build up a rapport with the interviewee and gauge responses through body language. Anonymity is also lost through direct contact with respondents although this was not felt to be of great importance as one-to-one contact had already been made via email (Patton, 2002).

The interview schedule was divided into six sections, each representing a different element of the research question. Each section mirrored those in the questionnaire but with an extra part, which focused on opinions about librarians being recognised as academic staff. It was decided that the interview should be no longer than between ten and fifteen minutes, because of the difficulties involved with conducting interviews over the telephone and not wanting to keep respondents too long. Each section contained a maximum of three questions influenced by the information extracted in the literature review and the results of the questionnaires; all of the questions were open ended to encourage discussion and opinion to emerge. A copy of the interview guide is provided in Appendix two.

Again, the interview was piloted on two MA Librarianship students who had experience in academic libraries to establish as number of issues, these were; running time; recording possibilities; delivery and clarity of interview questions; putting the participant at ease, and the development of conversation between interviewee and interviewer. The pilots were conducted using a speakerphone and a Dictaphone to record what was said. This proved to be very successful and made it possible to transcribe the interviews and be as accurate as possible with the information collected. The pilots revealed that the interview would take no longer than between ten and fifteen minutes, depending on how much respondents said, and that the questions were clear and easy to understand over the telephone. The development of conversation between interviewer and interviewee was more difficult, but it was felt that this would become easier with more practice. Participants were contacted during the week beginning the 11th

38

July and four interviews were arranged over the course of the last three weeks of the month. Attempts to contact the remaining respondents by telephone and email continued to be made but were unsuccessful.

The interviews were very successful and the information required was obtained. Respondents were asked initially if they minded being recorded and told that the information gathered would not be used for any other purpose than for this piece of research. Participants were very helpful and generally gave full answers, although prompts were used where necessary, to re-phrase or elaborate on questions asked. Every attempt was made not to lead respondents into giving a specific answer. Interviews became more conversational as confidence was built and experience was gained. However, the flow of the interviews was restricted by the structured way in which they had been prepared, although this was useful when analysing the data. Engaging with the interviewee across the telephone proved quite difficult; with no visible contact it was hard to gauge when interviewees had finished what they were saying, which could lead to a slightly uncomfortable atmosphere and affect the amount and quality of information gathered. In light of this, it was felt that keeping the interviews quite short was a wise decision. There was also a tendency to be more aware of the schedule when interviewing over the phone than there would have been doing them in person, which could have obstructed the flow of the interview.

Each interview was transcribed straight away and took about an hour. Although some words recorded were muffled, they were generally very easy to transcribe and analyse. The main aim of the interviews was to be able to draw conclusions and comparisons about whether or not staff are receiving the training they need, how they feel about their changing role within the library and university and what they think about the IL programs they currently offer. Overall, this aim was achieved.

3.3 Methods of analysis

In keeping with the qualitative method of investigation adopted for the project, inductive analysis was used to identify general patterns and categories that emerged (Patton, 2002) from the in-depth, open-ended interviews conducted with

39

members of library staff. The questionnaires were designed to highlight specific background details about each university's IL programme and the level of qualifications of library staff and corresponding CPD received. Inductive analysis was used to put the results into context. Once the data had been collected, a bottom up approach was employed to establish a more accurate representation of the feelings and thoughts of library staff about their university's IL strategy and their role within the strategy itself. Comparative analysis was used to evaluate the data collected from the questionnaires and interviews and to draw conclusions about the level of integration; level of CPD; IL skills provision; changing role of the librarian and how IL provision in new and traditional universities differs. Qualitative and inductive methods reveal individual issues; opinions and problems that are present in institutions, but that may not be elucidated in more remote research, such as quantitative, deductive methods (Gorman and Clayton, 1997). These methods also facilitated the possibility of identifying each institution's culture and the sub-cultures that emerge in reaction to that dominant culture. This in turn made it possible to try and establish how far each organization's culture was embedded in the design and structure of IL skills courses and the level of involvement of library staff in delivery of IL.

3.3.1 Coding

In order to make the analysis of information gathered more manageable and meaningful, 'open coding' (Creswell, 2003) was used to generate representative categories of information from the results by identify recurring themes and sub-themes located within the responses received from the questionnaires telephone interviews. It was felt that open coding was appropriate because it directly compliments the systematic formula of Grounded Theory (Creswell, 2003). In particular, the data were categorised by looking for examples of how the responses of participants mirrored each other and if they were reflected in the literature reviewed. Coding was also useful in identifying any ways in which the results differed from the key points emphasised by the experts. To understand the coding process as much as possible, a framework as described by Creswell (2003) was followed as closely as possible, although the structure was adapted as necessary to support the intricacies of the research project. The coding process was successful, although it did take longer than expected due to the inexperience of the researcher. Even though the results

40

were fewer than expected, the amount of information gathered was considerable and initially quite daunting. However, the categories that emerged were successful and helped to give meaning to the results and made analysis significantly easier, as did increasing familiarity with the information.

3.3.2 Conceptual model

The Fielden Report devised a grid onto which they dissected learner support into structured and unstructured support with competencies weighted towards library and information services and academic work.

Figure 1

Types of Learner Support

Structured learning

LIS user

education

Information skills

Mediated access to databases

Academic Competencies

Library/

Information

Service

Competencies

Tailored Navigational 41

Mediated library-

Tutorial

Unstructured

Learning

Although this grids presents very comprehensive coverage of the different levels and possibilities for learner support, it is too detailed to be used as a framework for this particular project, and was not sufficiently representative of the types of IL that had been revealed. Thus, in order to assess the levels of engagement of IL in each university, the following model was devised, based on Mark Hepworth's Information Literacy Continuum (Hepworth, 2000). The framework measures IL skills teaching from basic stand-alone instruction, to subject specific highly integrated IL provision. Opinions on the need for librarians' pedagogic knowledge and qualifications were also investigated and related to the model.

Figure 2

Information Literacy Continuum

Full integration

Transferable,

Generic skills

5.Subject specific, progressive IL, integrated across the university, compulsory and assessed by all departments

3.Subject specific instruction, integrated into the curriculum, assessed or compulsory at department's discretion

.Voluntary library orientation,

not assessed or integrated into university curriculum

4.Subject specific IL integrated across the university, compulsory and assessed at the discretion of individual departments

2.Generic, transferable IL skills provided by the library, compulsory but not assessed

42

3.4 Timetable of planned work

The initial plan of work was firstly to contact possible participants in March/April to establish who would be willing to take part in the research. Once this was ascertained it was intended to conduct a preliminary survey of each institution's website and formulate a structure for the email questionnaire to send out by the end of May. June was reserved for contacting respondents to arrange interviews, analysing the returned questionnaires and compiling the literature review. It was hoped that the interview could be planned and piloted in early July, to be conducted during the last three weeks of the month. The whole of August was dedicated to analysing and discussing the results and drawing final conclusions from the information collected.

However, the way the research was eventually completed differs considerably from the original timetable of planned work (below). It was necessary for the schedule to be re-worked due to unforeseen employment commitments. In response to this, a revised timetable was devised to ensure that the research project was completed in good time to submit the final copy. Detailed plans of both schedules can be seen below.

43

Figure 3

Original timetable of planned work

Week

2

3

4

March

Contact with potential respondents

April

Confirmation received from all respondents

May

Analysis of websites

Prepare and send out initial survey to contacts

June

Arrange time in July to conduct telephone interviews with contacts

Literature review

Analyse findings from survey and prepare questions for interviews

July

Test out interview on member of staff

Conduct interviews

August

Write up findings, analyse results and draw conclusions

44

Figure 4

Revised timetable of planned work

Week

2

3

4

March

Contact with potential respondents

April

Confirmation received from all respondents

Analysis of websites

May

Initial literature review

First structure for dissertation devised

June

Write questionnaire

Literature review

Email participants in preparation for sending out questionnaire

Pilot questionnaire

Send out questionnaires

Devise interview schedule

July

Pilot interview

Write up methodology and introduction

Arrange interviews

Conduct interviews

Literature review

Finish interviews

Revise methodology, introduction and literature review

August

Analyse results, draw conclusions and evaluate research methods

45

Chapter Four

Analysis of results

This chapter provides analysis of the results collected from both the email questionnaires distributed in June 2004 and the individual telephone interviews conducted in July 2004. Textual analysis is used to examine the data collected and, where appropriate, tables have been used to depict particular responses from the questionnaires. Firstly, results have been organised into representative themes that correspond to the sections outlined in the literature review, questionnaire and interview schedules in order to maintain continuity and enhance clarity; and secondly, into sub-themes identified through the use of coding to draw out the main issues and opinions that emerged and focus analysis on the objectives outlined at the beginning of the study. Discussion of the individual themes is addressed in the next chapter to place the research into the wider context of IL provision.

4.1 Information Literacy

Participants were asked to summarise what they understood by the term 'Information Literacy'. The answers given were quite similar, although some were more concise in their summary than others. The general themes that emerged were:

• The ability to retrieve or find the information being searched for;

• The ability to use the information retrieved to answer the research question; and

• The ability to evaluate the information being used. Only two out of the three participants interviewed identified this element of IL.

The continuity between the summaries recorded meant that it was easier to establish that each respondent was referring to more or less the same thing when they talked about Information Literacy.

46

4.2 Changing educational role of the academic librarian

4.2.1 Librarians' teaching role in the context of Information Literacy

All respondents were of the opinion that the librarian's role as teacher was going to increase and saw the future as very positive. Participant A1 suggested that in the future librarians would be looking to get internal accreditation or universities would require subject librarians to have a PGCE or formal teaching qualification, as they do in the states. Two respondents stated that they were now doing far more teaching than they previously had and that less of it is library induction because of the increase in embedded IL skills in subject disciplines. Participant B commented that 'even here, where we're very research focused rather than being teaching focused, we're doing a lot more teaching . . .'. However, participant B indicated that they were undecided as to whether or not the role of the librarian was becoming more like that of a teacher, as did respondent A1. Participant C agreed and participant A2 strongly agreed, which was more in keeping with their comments made during the interview. On average three out of four librarians undertake eleven hours of formal/timetabled sessions per semester and eight hours informal, point of need instruction per semester. One respondent did not answer this question because the teaching they do 'is not representative . . . [they are] more involved with the organisation of IL than its delivery', another stated that the hours they spend teaching are not typical and that some academic liaison librarians have up to forty hours of contact time per semester. All four respondents agreed that librarians are the most suitable people to deliver IL instruction, and that they also have a role to play in developing the IL skills of students, which was corroborated by all four respondents agreeing that librarians should have this responsibility.

47

4.2.2 Skills and qualifications

Two respondents agreed that librarians should have a teaching qualification and one disagreed, stating that 'they should receive training, but relevant experience is as good if not better than a qualification'. Three out of four of the participants hold the ILTM qualification, but none have a formal teaching qualification such as a PGCE.

Qualification

Number of respondents

BA Hons

4

Ma Librarianship

2

MA (other)

MCLIP

3

ILTM

3

Further investigation revealed that this librarian felt that teaching is only a small part of what they do and much of their job is totally unrelated to academic disciplines. Similarly another respondent stated that even though the educational role is developing, they did not think that it 'is replacing anything, I don't think that librarians are becoming something different, we're just picking up new skills'. This was reinforced in the questionnaire when respondents were asked to indicate what they felt were the most and least important competencies for an academic librarian today. One participant did not fill out the table because 'it depends on the role of the academic librarian'. The other three respondents indicated that the more traditional skills of face-to-face enquiries, collection management and book selection were still very important to the academic librarian, and the more contemporary competencies of IT skills, presentation and teaching, interpersonal skills, team-working and the ability to learn quickly, were all key capabilities for librarians today. Opinion about administration and working with technical staff was split, two indicating that they were some of the least important skills and one specifying the opposite. This emphasises the broad range of skills that remain applicable to academic librarianship, despite their evolving educational role.

48

4.3 Integration with faculty

4.3.1 Representation of library staff in HE

Three out of four of respondents are members of a selection of university wide committees and/or working groups. Respondent B stated that although they were not personally a member of any, the 'library is . . . represented where required, for example on the e-learning and course committees'. Other participants gave a mixture of different committees. The most prominent were faculty research and teaching groups. Participants A1 and A2 were most well represented in their membership to different committees. In particular 'Programme of approval sub-committee (Electronic and Distance Learning)', 'Collaborative working group (partnerships)' and 'Academic Skills Cross Faculty Project Group'.

4.3.2 Working with academic staff

Respondents indicated here that they were happy to work with academic staff in design and delivery of IL courses, and that they prefer academic staff to working with IT staff, although respondent C stated that in the short term working with IT staff may be easier. All specified that the three groups needed to work together to achieve the aim. The main distinction made was between IT literacy and IL. Two respondents highlighted the difference between the more generic skills of IT literacy and more specific IL skills that were required by students and therefore it was more appropriate to liaise with the academic staff.

In respect of the ever-existing status issue between librarians and academic staff, respondents still said that they would rather liaise with academic staff. One respondent did state that it could sometimes be difficult to liaise with academic staff because 'their first priority is research . . . and second priority very much is teaching . . .'. This does suggest some underlying tensions and that academic staff still do not see the overall importance of IL skills development. Participant B indicted that there is an issue with academics respecting the skills and expertise of librarians commenting that 'they [academics] see a librarian as someone who stamps books; they're maybe quite surprised that we're capable of teaching their students skills that will help them through their degree and beyond . . .'. Respondent A1 highlighted the

49

significance and benefits available from collaborating with academic staff, if they could accept that librarians have knowledge that they do not.

However, a problem that was identified by participants at two of the universities was that there were still problems in convincing some members of certain departments that IL was a valuable skill for students to have and that embedding it into the curriculum was the best thing to do. One librarian stated that ' . . . you have to work with individual schools and departments and individual academics . . . that takes some time . . .'. Another stated that integrating IL into the curriculum was 'something that [they were] chipping away at'.

4.3.3 'Academic related' status

Two out of three of the universities have accorded their academic liaison staff 'academic related status' which was interpreted by respondents as being connected to level of qualification obtained and position within the library. Respondent A2 noted that this status will soon be lost by librarians as new payment and grading revisions that are currently taking place will mean that academic related status will no longer exist. It was highlighted that this loss may also breed resistance from librarians who teach because their contribution will no longer be recognised. Participant C saw academic related status as more of a label that is generally overlooked by academic and library staff, stating that 'in best cases, we're seen as academic partners . . .'. A common opinion on this issue was that the title accorded to the librarian should not really matter, it is about the quality of work being produced. Participant C stated that 'some of the best people I've ever worked with didn't have academic status, but they were good teachers'. This was reinforced by participant A1 who felt that 'the most important thing is to be accepted as a professional in our own right, we've got a contribution to make to the college's work . . .'.

None of the respondents thought that librarians would ever achieve academic status in relation to the teaching they do. Respondent A2 related this opinion to the amount of research academics have to do, and identifies this as being the area where the two professions differ quite a lot. Participant A1 felt that gaining academic status would be beneficial for the profession, as did respondent B, and be helpful in bringing more status and respect to the profession, but did not see that it would ever

50

happen. Although they all agreed that librarians should be regarded as professional partners rather than support staff, the interviews indicated that obtaining academic status was not a huge priority for these four librarians. However, one of the respondents appears to have contradicted themselves, by indicating that librarians should be seen as professional partners rather than support staff and then stating that they considered 'learning support professional' to be the most accurate description of the professional role. Overall, three out of four respondents indicated that Information Specialist was the most accurate, although one respondent commented that 'as we are primarily research led-I have chosen this option as the first choice, although it's quite close'. One respondent highlighted Learning Support Professional as the most precise, with two respondents marking it as second. Two respondents agreed that teacher should be third, with one placing it second and another fourth. Finally, three out four felt that Tutor was the most inaccurate of the statements. Most of the respondents agreed on the most and least accurate descriptions whilst, one respondent's scale did not agree with any of the others at all.

4.4 Continuing Professional Development

4.4.1 Institutional Professional Development

Three respondents indicated that about a quarter of the CPD they received is aimed at IL skill teaching, and one said that at the moment it was as much as three quarters due to the implementation of e-learning within the university. Three agreed that CPD needs to focus more heavily on the present needs of librarians and one strongly agreed. The two respondents from the same university both indicated that they did not feel as though they received all the CPD they needed, although is not necessarily directly related to IL skills provision. Participants A1 and A2 stated that they had been to seminars and courses that had elements of IL in them even if they were not directly focused on it, most of the CPD they take part in is related to IL in some way. Respondent A2 went on a two-day course on teaching skills run by CILIP and commented that as a library 'we're continually updating our skills . . . in how best to provide IL'. Participant B talked mainly about the e-learning strategy they are introducing at the moment and said that they had been on courses about the use of WebCT and 'how to teach online and construct . . . e-learning type courses'. Because of the de-centralised nature of the organisations, not all respondents were

51

sure which associations their universities were members of but participant B stated that their institution is a member of both the Learning and Teaching Support (LTSN) and the Society of Colleges and National University Libraries (SCONUL).

4.4.2 Personal Professional Development

All respondents appeared to be quite active concerning their own personal CPD. Respondents belong to a wide range of associations, including, CILIP, the Academic Union of Teachers (AUT), the ILTHE and the SCONUL advisory committee for Information Literacy. All respondents were aware of the merging of the LTSN and ILTHE to form the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and thought that it could be a positive step for CPD but it was difficult to tell at the moment because the new association will not be fully up and running until the autumn. Respondent A1 commented that 'it's up to library professionals to get involved with it as an organisation to ensure that it does contain those areas of interest that we would like to see developed elsewhere'. Respondents felt that these associations are worth joining, however participant C highlighted that they had to choose carefully which they joined because of the fees and although it is an important part of their work, were not certain how much they would actually gain out of membership. This participant was also the only one to highlight that they had thought about taking a PGCE, but had been unable to due to time constraints.

4.5 Information Literacy Provision

4.5.1 Information Literacy provision in UK academic libraries

One respondent stated that they were unable to fill out the table to indicate what sort of IL they provided because 'it varies from department to department, depending on what's appropriate for that subject and what the timetable allows'. However, the other two respondents did fill out the table, despite also providing courses that are designed and delivered to comply with the requirements of individual departments.

52

The total number of institutions represented is two. The values in blue indicate where respondents A1 and A2 differed on their representation of IL skills courses at their university.

Figure 5

Information Literacy Chart

Type of Information Literacy instruction

Voluntary

Compulsory

Assessed

assessed-Non

Integrated

integrated-Non

offer'tDon

Library based, generic and basic level

2

2

0

2

2

2

Intermediate/advanced non-subject specific, lecture based with practical sessions

Intermediate/advanced non-subject specific, lecture based with practical sessions

2

2

2

2

Online tutorials, no face to face contact

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

None of the above

Figure 5 shows that both institutions provide a wide range of IL skills courses for students and staff. Both institutions offer a comprehensive range of basic library induction that is predominantly voluntary. They also provide more advanced, subject specific sessions that are compulsory, and can either be assessed or non-assessed. Some of the instruction is integrated, but users also have the option of more generic library instruction. This does however, contradict what respondent A1 stated about their library that apparently has never had a model that offers generic skills training.

Online tutorials are also provided in a variety of methods to suit the differing needs and requirements of students and staff. Participants A1 and A2 disagreed on the provision of online IL sessions, although this could have been due to respondents interpreting the options for the types of IL instruction differently as each category was not cut and dried . However, participant A2 did state separately that they offer a ten credit Information Skills Handling unit in the form of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) that had minimal contact with library staff but was assessed and

53

designed to follow different routes depending on which discipline was being studied. This does account for some of the discrepancies in answers. Respondents A1 and A2 did not fill out the second line of the chart; one stated that they didn't offer this type of provision, whilst the other explained that they do offer this intermediate/advanced type of instruction but that it is not lecture based but centred on workshops and practicals. They also stated that all of their courses except for the very introductory sessions were subject specific, the overall picture being '. . . one of embedded skill development but with voluntary additions to support orientation and point of need help'. This emphasises that the options on the chart were not clear enough and needed to be revised and would have benefited from more knowledge of the range of courses available, to make the chart more accessible to respondents.

Even though the chart is not comprehensive in its representation of IL instruction in the universities surveyed, a later question revealed more about the type of instruction all three institutions provided. In their answers to this question two participants indicated that the programmes they offered were subject specific, separately designed for each academic department, (if they want an IL program at all), designed by academic staff, IT staff and library staff and the departments then decide how far they will be integrated, compulsory and assessed. The respondent from the third university (who did not fill out the chart) indicated that the courses they offered were best described as departments designing their own IL courses in liaison with library and IT staff to ensure the most suitable programme. It appears that the universities actually follow very similar basic structures for their IL provision; they are all divided into departments and work in collaboration with members of other teams to deliver the most student-centred learning as possible. There is not a whole university plan, courses are flexible and adaptive.

54

4.5.2 Knowledge of educational processes

Respondents highlighted the importance of librarians having a sound understanding of institutional teaching and learning strategies. Participant C commented that if librarians are aware of the broader learning and teaching strategies of the institution or department, this facilitates the structuring and design of the IL course, because it enables librarians to work at a common level with the academic staff and it is therefore easier to integrate IL into the existing teaching curriculum. Furthermore, each all respondents also acknowledged the necessity of having an understanding of the pedagogical issues, not only to help break down barriers with academic staff and ease the working environment, but also, and more fundamentally, because a working knowledge of the pedagogical developments taking place in education is essential for librarians who teach IL skills. This point, made by respondent A1, was corroborated and extended by respondent B, who emphasised that if teaching librarians do not have an understanding of the pedagogical changes taking place it is possible to '. . . stand up in a room giving a completely inappropriate session and not have any idea that there might be an alternative way of doing it.' A natural progression of thought for the same respondents was to talk about the increasingly diverse student population, and the need to account for a wide variety of learning styles, all of which need to be identified and catered for.

4.6 Integration of Information Literacy skills

4.6.1 University commitment to Information Literacy

Respondents were asked if IL provision for students and staff was mentioned in the university's mission statement, to help determine how central IL was to each university's overall aims for the students, or whether it was more of a focus for the library. Some respondents gave more detail than others. Participants A1, A2, and B all stated that IL provision was covered in the library's learning and teaching strategy documents. Respondent C stated that their Learning and Teaching Board had approved an IL strategy for them, although it is not clear if this is located in the library's strategy or it is part of the documentation compiled by the Learning and Teaching Board. In the interview respondent C stated that the library was about to re-write its mission statement and they have an IL strategy agreed by the university.

55

Participant B thought that now 'most universities [are] now taking on board the importance of key skills or transferable skills'. Nevertheless, all respondents considered their university mission statements to be very general and expected to find IL provision covered in lower strategic documentation and definitely in the library's policy documents.

4.6.2 Structure of IL provision

The research revealed that all respondents were currently satisfied with the IL programmes they offer, although there is room for improvement. Two of the respondents from the same institution stated emphatically that IL should be compulsory, and subject specific. However, participant C thought that although that was the most positively received framework, they felt that it was also important that students were taught some generic IL skills because ' . . . that's the only way you can actually get students to take those . . . skills away, they can apply them to lots of different scenarios and also not just the ones in their university career . . .'. Respondent B stated that they did teach some generic skills, but respondent A1 commented that 'we've never had a model where we've had generic things that we might embed differently'. Respondents A1 and A2 stated that their aim was to get students embedded in progressive IL courses so that the skills they were learning were being built on year by year, this was for students as well as staff.

All respondents strongly agreed that IL skills should be fully embedded in the university curriculum as indicated in the questionnaire. This was corroborated in the interviews, with respondent A1 clarifying this should be 'in the varied curricula, there will never be one curriculum for the university' as can be seen from the Information Literacy Chart (figure 5). Respondents A2 and B emphasised the importance of compulsory assessment as a way of encouraging student centred learning processes.

56

Chapter Five

Discussion of results

This chapter discusses in detail the results obtained from the questionnaires and individual interviews. It examines the findings in the wider context of IL skills provision in relation to the experts' research and opinions, by emphasising continuities and disparities and suggesting possible reasons for these. The chapter also draws discussion back to the main objectives outlined at the beginning of the study.

5.1 Changing educational role

5.1.1 Librarians' teaching role in the context of Information Literacy

The research showed that all the librarians questioned were of the opinion that the educational role of the academic librarian would continue to increase, and felt positive about this development. However, even with the increased hours of teaching that librarians have had to incorporate into their jobs, respondents still do not necessarily see their role becoming more like that of a teacher. Peele (1984) argues the two professions are not synonymous and librarians play a very different role with students from academic staff. Although he has a point, this research showed that the librarians questioned do not see IL skills teaching as a dominant part of their job. One librarian commented that 'in some ways, we do so much more than that' when asked what they felt about their role as a teacher. Although there is undoubtedly a significant difference between what academic staff teach students and what library staff present, this part of their job is still referred to as teaching and three of the respondents have taken the ILTM self development accreditation. One stated that they had thought about taking a PGCE, whilst another commented that in the future they expected that librarians may be required to have a formal teaching qualification. In this respect, how accurate is either point of view? The results also emphasised a disparity between the Australian and American literature. Smith and Mundt (1997) and George et al (2001) argue that librarians should not teach IL skills because their expertise is better channelled into designing courses and they have a

57

vast array of other duties to attend to (as stated by one of the respondents). Yet this directly contradicts what this sample of UK librarians believes is more suitable for students. All four of the respondents agreed that librarians were the most appropriate people to teach IL skills and they concur with the literature, that they have a role to play in developing students' IL skills. Although it is not possible to generalise from so few results, they do suggest that Hepworth's assertion that in the UK 'it is not widely recognised that librarians should play an active role in teaching' (2000: 29), is not entirely accurate, when compared with the comments of respondents that 'we are doing far more teaching . . .'. Even though the article is now four years old, it does serve to highlight how much the role of the academic librarian has progressed, one respondent stated that 'I think the role of the academic librarian has changed dramatically over the last few years'.

5.1.2 Skills and qualifications

The Dearing Report (1997) recommended that librarians should have more formal training and qualifications if they are going to teach IL skills and associations such as the ILT (HEA) provide this opportunity. The research demonstrated that out of the four respondents, three agreed that academic librarians should have some sort of formal teaching qualification, which is mirrored by the results from the questionnaire, in that three respondents hold the ILTM qualification. This recognition of the changing needs of the profession signifies an acceptance by these librarians of the evolving of librarianship. In this sense the attitude of one librarian, that training should be available but that experience is really more significant than any qualification, emphasises the resistance to change and unwillingness fully to accept the teaching role as new facet of academic librarianship.

Despite agreeing that the educational role of the academic librarian is evolving and that they are doing more teaching, respondents did not feel that the profession was changing all that much, partly due to the fact that teaching was only a small part of their job and partly, as one respondent commented, the educational role 'is not replacing anything, I don't think that librarians are becoming anything different, we're just picking up new skills'. The gathering of new skills is now a key aspect of academic librarianship and is corroborated in the literature by Doskatsch (2003) who emphasises the importance of developing a much broader range of skills,

58

both socially and educatively. Another fundamental quality librarians must now possess is the ability to learn and adapt quickly to the changing external environment. This was marked as one of the most important competencies for an academic librarian today, and was also highlighted as such in the literature (Neocosmos, 2003).

5.2 Integration with faculty

5.2.1 Representation of library staff in HE

The research indicated that three out of four respondents were members of faculty research committees or faculty learning and teaching committees; the respondent who was not a member stated that the library itself was represented by another member of staff. In particular the involvement of respondents from institution A in the 'Collaborative working group (partnerships)' and the 'Academic Skill Cross Faculty Project Group' signifies a more comprehensive involvement in the design and delivery of IL skills and a deeper integration with academic staff. Doskatsch supports this type of integration and argues that as the role of the academic librarian increases, it is crucial that librarians become involved in the 'developmental and strategic levels across the university' (2003: 4). The research suggests that academic librarians are becoming more involved in faculty activities and are making contact with faculty and presenting themselves as serious partners in the learning and teaching arena. The Australian view point as highlighted by Doskatsch (2003), takes librarian/faculty integration to the next level by advocating that librarians be more pro-active, publish in journals outside the profession and attend academic dominated conferences in order to become recognised as committed educators and gain some credibility with academic staff. Even though UK librarians have not quite reached this level of integration or recognition yet, it does highlight how much more progressive the research is in Australia and how much higher professional morale profession is compared with the UK.

5.2.2 Working with academic staff

Both the research and the literature reviewed identified that quite often IT literacy is confused with Information Literacy, by both academic staff and students,

59

which does in part explain why academics are so sceptical about the inclusion of IL skills in the curriculum. One respondent stated that

' . . . quite often they confuse IL with IT ability so they think that because the students are so used to using Word and Excel and know how to use the Internet that they're information literate, which of course they aren't when we get them'.

A respondent from another university, shared this opinion, and stated that,

'IT literacy I do see . . as something distinct from IL, there are overlapping areas but the two are not synonymous at all . . .'.

Similarly, Bundy (2001) argues that librarians are more aware than anyone else that the continuing rapid expansion of information technology will not bring with it an information literate community, which reinforces the need of librarians to become more involved with the development and teaching of IL skills.

Two participants indicated that there was some difficulty with some academic staff surrounding the integration of IL skills in to the university curricula. Although all four respondents stated that they were happy to work with the academic staff, both the research and literature noted that academics can and have been quite resistant to IL, one respondent explained that 'their first priority is research here, and second priority very much is teaching . . . the pressure of the timetable is very strong'. This comment was not surprising considering the universities surveyed were all research led and so it was unlikely that the main priority would have been teaching, as it is in the new universities. Another respondent stated that,

'We still have areas of the university we haven't really managed to convince of the value of IL yet . . . there are arts related departments that . . . are still quite resistant to the idea. I know several departments in the university that integrated it fully into their curriculum and that's worked wonderfully'.

60

It is not surprising that it is the arts related departments that have remained sceptical about IL integration because the disciplines they incorporate are traditionally book based and demand heavy analysis and engagement with texts. However, there is an expanse of arts related material now available on the Web in the form of unique documents and delicate books, searchable databases to locate items of interest as well as software to aid arts students and researchers in their work. Nonetheless, the change in culture signified by these technological upheavals and revisions in the design and delivery of learning and teaching present barriers to those academics who do not understand or welcome change, which can only serve to impede the developing role of the academic librarian as learning facilitator. The fact that academic staff are not really aware or concerned with what librarians actually do helps to perpetuate the stereotype. One respondent emphasised a point made by Bruce (2001), commenting that academics 'see a librarian as someone who stamps books; they're maybe quite surprised that we're capable of teaching their students skills that will help them through their degree and beyond'. Christiansen et al (2004), in their sociological review of librarian/faculty relationships contend that whereas librarians know what academics do, the academic staff are not interested in what librarians can offer them or in forming collaborations. They also state that although this is an issue for librarians, academics have no problem with it at all. Nevertheless, Doskatsch argues that librarians must overlook unfavourable responses from academic staff and continue to encourage the integration of IL skills into the curriculum.

Whereas the research indicates that librarians are the most appropriate group to teach IL skills, George et al (2001) argue that when faculty become the main educators for IL skills, full integration will eventually occur, which reinforces the fact that they are the main block to IL skills being implemented more widely into the university curriculum. If librarians can convince them of the value of IL skills to their students studies, then half the battle will be won, as shown by the research

5.2.3 'Academic related' status

There exists a lot of debate surrounding the issue of whether or not academic librarians should be accorded academic status in receipt of their teaching role and this is mentioned regularly by the experts (Cronin, 2001; Doskatsch, 2003).

61

However, the results of the questionnaires and the interviews suggest that UK academic librarians are in fact not particularly interested in gaining academic status, although all have been granted 'academic related status' by their university. None of the respondents believe that they will ever achieve academic status, and have therefore disregarded it as an option. Two participants also felt that the most important thing was 'to be accepted as a profession in our own right . . .' rather than trying gain respect through an alternative title. It became clear that the term 'academic status' was perceived by one librarian as being just a label and that,

' . . . if you're doing a good job it doesn't matter what label you have attached to you'.

And also, it doesn't make

'an awful lot of difference to academics what they're told we are. I think it's the people doing their job and how competent they are'.

This is reinforced by Cronin (2001) who claims that there is no evidence to suggest that granting librarians academic status will ease the collaboration between them and academic staff. This appears to be the general consensus in the wider context of the status of academic librarians, Doskatsch (2003) argues that academic status would not benefit the organization and would mean a lot of obligation for the librarian and no guarantee of respect from academic staff. The obligation to research and publish was highlighted by one respondent who felt that the professions are really quite different and adding the level of research and publication required of academics, for librarians to be accorded the same status, would seem misplaced. This is reinforced by some personal correspondence conducted with an American librarian earlier in the year. She described an environment where librarians are expected to teach and have either a second subject MA or a PhD, in addition to their MA in librarianship. If librarians are employed without the second qualification, and do not obtain it in a specified amount of time, then, they will lose their job. This emphasises the extent to which the USA and the UK differ on this issue, and helps to explain why academic status is so much more of a concern for American academic librarians, as well as the absence of the issue in the British literature. In response to

62

comments made in the interviews, librarians in the USA are expected to publish and research like academics, which entitles them to the same pay and benefits as full time teaching staff.

When asked what 'academic related status' means, it emerged that it was really only a label. However, one respondent highlighted that this status may be lost because of the new payment and grading system that is currently being reviewed. This would mean that the teaching that librarians were delivering would not be 'recognised as it was before, so there may be . . . resistance among librarians to take on a role they're not remunerated for'. Doskatsch (2003) found something similar from her research into the same issue in Australian academic libraries. She found that librarians did not hanker after academic status, but were more concerned with their educational input being recognised. Similarly another participant commented that they thought the loss of their academic related status would be detrimental to the perception of the profession by others. There seems to be consensus that the term academic (related) status is only a label and will not facilitate their interactions with academic staff or raise their professional status much, if at all within the institution. As stated above, a lot of academics are not interested in the finer skills involved in librarianship and with this in mind, it is unlikely that they would take much notice of a difference in job title, if they had ever noticed it in the first place.

5.3 Continuing Professional Development

5.3.1 Institutional Professional Development

The research showed that all respondents were regularly taking part in CPD provided by their university. Analysis of the websites also showed that each had a staff training and development policy, although it was not possible to see what these included due to not having access to the universities intranet. However, it does imply that there is a commitment to CPD and recognition of its importance in the current HE environment. The dangers of ignoring the necessity for staff training and development are highlighted by Watson (2003), who warns that if librarians do not continually update their skills and expertise that their position within the university will become obsolete. Although this seems reasonable, the traditional skills of the librarian still exist; it is just that paraprofessional staff instead of qualified librarians

63

perform them. This makes it possible for professional staff to move forward and develop their knowledge and skills in order to meet the needs of the users. Three out of four respondents indicated that about one quarter of the CPD they received was directly linked to IL skills, which suggests that although it is addressed regularly, it is not necessarily a priority for the institution and does not show a relationship with the increased amount of IL skills teaching that these librarians are doing. However, one participant stated that 'almost anything that you undertake CPD wise covers some aspect of IL' because it is such a fundamental element of everyday life, for students and staff, but the same respondent, along with their colleague indicated that they did not feel that they received all the CPD they needed.

One respondent stated that at the moment up to three quarters of the CPD they receive is focused on IL skills because of the current focus of the library on e-learning. In this respect, the theme of the CPD offered is very much related to what the external environment dictates is most important at the time. In the same way as librarians need CPD to be able to adapt to new situations and be flexible in their jobs, so does the focus and structure of the training and development that they receive. One university's present focus on e-learning and how to teach online and create WebCT sites and VLE's, demonstrates how more and more librarians are working outside their traditional roles and having to develop expertise in areas previously considered unrelated to librarianship (Watson, 2003).

5.3.2 Personal Professional Development

Individuals appeared to be aware of the need for them to undertake their CPD and were quite active in their representation of professional associations. Three respondents were chartered and members of the ILT and were aware of its collaboration with the HEA, although only two had taken the ILTM. One participant was also on the SCONUL advisory committee for IL. Powis (2004) states that librarians need to take more responsibility for their own CPD if they are going to be taken seriously as educators. The research certainly indicates that these librarians are responding to the increasing integration of IL skills into the curriculum and their augmented teaching role by developing their professional competencies accordingly, with two respondents having the ILTM and one commenting that they had thought

64

about taking a PGCE, although time constraints had prevented this from happening currently.

Cronin (2001) does not see that librarians being members of national associations would have any advantage for their style of management or initiation of new strategies for the university. However, all respondents commented that joining a selection of professional associations was beneficial and that it gave librarians the opportunity to get involved and address the issues they perceive as most important. Cronin does not seem to appreciate the overall value of the support provided by professional associations and how far they can benefit the overall organisation. John Cowley's (1988) survey of UK universities and polytechnics in the late eighties revealed that in the old universities CPD was a much lower priority than in the polytechnics. The research supports that research led universities do have a commitment to CPD, one respondent stated that 'we're continually updating our skills . . . in how best to provide IL'. However, Peacock notes that 'while a diverse range of developmental opportunities is available to professional staff, recognition of the need to provide an education program for teaching librarians is limited' (1999: 184). Unfortunately there are no up-to-date statistics available to reinforce that CPD is increasing in the old universities, but that professional development for teaching librarians remains limited.

5.4 Information Literacy Provision

5.4.1 Information Literacy provision in UK academic libraries

Respondents were asked to indicate what sort of IL skills instruction they offered to students and staff. One respondent did not fill out the chart, so the total number of institutions represented is two. The numbers in italics indicate a difference of opinion between the colleagues from the same university.

Figure 5 on page 49 shows that both universities are heading towards fully integrating assessed IL skills into the curriculum and have both already achieved this for library based instruction, intermediate/advanced subject specific, lecture based sessions with practical workshops and online tutorials. Individual departments choosing not to embed IL in their courses can account for the non-integrated aspects

65

of each type of instruction. The universities appear to offer a lot of different types of IL instruction to account for the various learning styles and needs of students and because of the de-centralised structure that exists, making it difficult to get all the departments to conform to a fully embedded, assessed program of IL. When this hybridised system of IL skill provision is compared with the amount of CPD relating to IL it suggests that there is not really any strong correlation between how far IL skills instruction is integrated into the curriculum and how much IL CPD librarians need to have.

Some of the librarians do have teaching qualifications or have thought about obtaining one. However, this does not appear to affect the level of instruction they teach and the institutional CPD seems to focus on what is relevant at the time rather than what the librarians feel they need, it is perhaps more their own responsibility. However, one respondent did state that in the future they thought universities would require subject librarians to possess a formal teaching qualification, this is reinforced by Peacock who comments that 'teaching knowledge and skills must take an essential rather than desirable, place in the librarian's portfolio' (2000: 183). Thus, if teaching role of librarians continues to increase as it is now and the level of integration of IL skills continues to be the model for research led universities, as indicated by respondents, then it seems likely there will develop a more solid relationship between the level of integration of IL skills and CPD and professional qualifications necessary. In the same way that paraprofessional staff have taken on the more traditional roles to enable professional staff to deal with the current information environment, they may also pass on the library inductions and spend more of their time delivering subject specific IL skills instruction (Powis, 2004).

5.4.2 Knowledge of educational processes

The research has shown that librarians are expected to have knowledge of the institutional teaching and learning strategies and an understanding of the changing pedagogical issues that are constantly occurring. Two respondents commented that 'in order to deliver . . . IL we all need to understand certain core aspects of pedagogical development' and that 'you can stand up in a room giving a completely inappropriate session and not have any idea that there might be an alternative way of doing it'. Bundy (2001) and Powis (2004) support this view and emphasise how

66

essential it is for librarians to have grounding in the pedagogical structures that exist for student learning in their university. Without this knowledge student learning may suffer from poorly designed and delivered courses and academics will continue to question the ability and commitment of librarians to developing IL skills for their subject discipline. An understanding of the different learning styles of students was also highlighted by the research and the literature. Respondent C noted that because of the diverse student population, the groups they teach contain students with a wide variety of learning needs and abilities, which explains why it is so important for those involved in teaching to know about learning styles and be able to design a flexible course that students can adapt themselves (Hepworth, 2000; Bundy,2001; Powis, 2004). These elements of the new learning and teaching system outline the underlying aim of constructivism, which is based on active learning, getting students to engage with their work by placing it in context of the subject providing them with a range of learning opportunities so they can find one that most suits them. This helps to explain and justify the use of lecture based, workshop based and online IL instruction by the universities surveyed.

5.5 Integration of Information Literacy skills

5.5.1 Structure of IL provision

Respondents identified the direction they would like IL provision to take in the future. All of them agreed that IL skills should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, subject specific and assessed wherever possible. This is echoed in discussion of the wider IL context by a number of experts (Rader, 1999; Hepworth, 2000; George et al, 2001; Orr and Cribb, 2003; UniSA, 2004). Two of the librarians emphasised the importance of subject specific IL courses so that students can relate the skills they directly to their university studies and it is proven that learning in context is successful for a wide variety of people. Although this point of view is supported in the literature, (Winner, 1998), McGowan and Dow (1995) state that librarians should be teaching IL skills as a separate discipline and focus less on traditional roles and administrative tasks. Even though two respondents did indicate that they thought some generic skills would be useful to students, they do not advocate the complete disconnection of IL skills from the subject discipline. Perhaps if McGowan and Dow were writing the article now, they would see that the

67

profession has developed in a different way, where IL appears to be most effective when embedded into the curriculum and related to the subject being studied.

The importance of having a progressive IL framework was also highlighted. Two respondents stated that students should be embedded in IL courses that build on their skills year by year, having a cumulative effect and enabling them to developing more sophisticated skills each year of their course. This perspective is shared by the University of South Australia (UniSA). Reinforcement from the Australian literature is reassuring because of their commitment to research in librarianship the advanced nature of the profession compared to the UK. This progressive framework is not in place in any of the universities surveyed but it is a plan for the future. This structure, along with the focus on compulsory assessment highlighted by the participants reinforces the emphasis on student centred learning that is also referred to in the literature (George et al, 2001; Hepworth, 2000).

5.6 The Information Literacy Continuum

Relating the IL skills frameworks of the three universities surveyed to the Information Literacy Continuum adapted from Hepworth (2000) creates a more tangible representation of which stage of integration the institutions are at presently (see figure 2, pp.42).

From the results details gathered from respondents, it seems that the IL provision offered at Institution B has the most in common with the third description. Despite not having filled out the chart discussed earlier, it was possible to discern an outline of the IL framework from other sections of the questionnaire and from what was said in the interview. The other two universities most accurately mirror the fourth description, although all three are battling with getting fully embedded, compulsory, assessed IL skills into the university curricula. Peacock states that 'the ultimate goal is the integration of Information Literacy into the curriculum' (1999: 183), if this is so then all three universities are travelling in the same direction and working towards similar organisational goals.

68

Chapter Six

Conclusion

This research project set out to investigate the changing educational role of the academic librarian in the context of Information Literacy skills provision in Higher Education, and to what extent there is a relationship between the types of CPD librarians receive and the level of integration of IL into the university curricula.

Through the use of analysis of institutions' websites, questionnaires and individual interviews, it was established that the universities surveyed offer a plethora of IL skills tuition, ranging from voluntary, non assessed, non integrated generic library skills provision to compulsory, integrated, assessed intermediate/advanced IL with formal lecture based and workshop sessions attached. The research revealed that part of the reason for this hybridised system of IL instruction is because of the de-centralised structures of the institutions being investigated. It is left to the discretion of academic departments, as to whether or not they want to amalgamate IL skills with their subject discipline, and to what extent they are assessed and compulsory. Thus, some departments offer fully comprehensive courses, whereas others choose not to work with the library in developing IL skills courses that will complement and support students' learning. All the libraries investigated also offer both 'in house' and online IL skills provision as extra support, some of which is assessed, but not compulsory. Although the limited results collected do not allow for broad generalisation from the sample studied, overall, respondents were satisfied with the present packages offered, but asserted that there is still progress to be made and that the overall aim was to have compulsory, assessed IL skills fully embedded into each year of the curriculum, so that students could benefit from the progression of IL skills throughout their courses. It also transpired that some generic skills would also be useful in order to support LLL when students leave university. So, even though the library staff have very little control over which students receive subject focused IL, this is compensated for by the diversity of IL courses offered and the persistence of the librarians in demonstrating the value of IL to students' learning.

69

In exploring the attitudes of the librarians to their changing educational role in the context of IL skills, it became apparent that, even though they are committed to more hours of teaching than ever before, they do not really consider their role as librarians to be changing all that much. This was partly attributed to the development of new skills, but not necessarily a different role, and the diversity of other traditional and contemporary library based roles that they perform. When the teaching role of the academic librarian is placed in the wider context of Higher Education and all of its demands, it becomes clear that teaching is only one aspect of the role of the academic librarian. This attitude is reinforced by the assertion of all respondents that achieving academic status is not a driving force for them, but that developing their professional skills and performing to the best of their ability is paramount. IL is perceived by the librarians as a natural progression and extension of their role. This was similarly reflected in the type of Continuous Professional Development they received and the amount that was directly related to IL skills provision. Institutional CPD seemed to focus more on what the university library is concentrating on at any particular time, although it was highlighted that most CPD incorporated some aspect of IL skills, even if it was not directly related to provision. However, the librarians focused more on IL skills provision through their personal commitment to CPD, obtaining formal teaching accreditation and becoming members of professional educational associations, as well as those particular to the information profession. With this in mind, the librarians did not feel that they needed any more CPD that was focused solely on IL, but the two librarians from the same institution were of the opinion that they would benefit from more CPD generally.

When the level of integration of IL into the university curriculum was compared with the amount of IL associated CPD, and related to the Information Literacy Continuum Model, it materialized that in the case of the three institutions investigated, there is not, in fact, an obvious connection between the types of CPD received by the librarians and the extent to which IL is integrated into the curriculum. If anything, the librarians were left to take responsibility for their own CPD in terms of IL and the level they were teaching. There was also no distinction made between the level of qualification of the librarians and the type of IL that they taught, as

70

indicated by not all of the respondents having the ILTM qualification. Conclusions drawn from the research show that, because IL skills provision is left to the discretion of individual departments, it would not be possible to have some librarians that were qualified for certain courses; there is simply not enough staff to cover the wide range of courses offered. Perhaps if a level of standardisation was achieved, universities could apply the same framework to the teaching qualifications of librarians to ensure a level of competency. Respondents stated that they thought academic libraries would in the future require librarians to have a formal teaching qualification. However, it seems unlikely that this will happen until the importance of IL skills has been accepted by academics and the university as a whole, from the top, takes responsibility for the development of IL skills for students.

This can be linked to the changing culture of HE and the individual organizational cultures of academic libraries and their funding institutions. Although it was difficult to determine the organizational cultures of the institutions because of the remote contact with the libraries and the lack of rapport with respondents through the telephone interviews, it is possible to draw some comparisons in their IL provision and programmes of CPD. IL skills programmes seem to be most affected by the difference in culture between the librarians and the academic staff. As was highlighted by the research, some staff were difficult to work with and did not see the significance of embedding IL skills into the subject discipline. Many academics continue to perceive their teaching commitments as secondary to their research, which only contributes to the void between librarians and academic staff. Until these two opposing sides can find a common understanding of each others individual needs and the needs of the students, it will be difficult for librarians to make any real progress in IL skill provision. In the future, when the two cultures are reconciled and IL is made more of a focus for entire universities, then librarians will receive more institutional support for CPD related to IL, and not develop their skills independently. However, this is not to say that it is not important for librarians to take responsibility for their own CPD as well.

Although the results gathered from the methods used were generally successful and produced some interesting and pertinent information, there were aspects of the project that were disappointing. There was a lack of rapport between

71

the interviewer and interviewees, due to the distance at which interviews were conducted. Had they been conducted in person and arranged at the same time as the questionnaires were sent out, the response rate may have been higher and more detailed information about the institutions and how they function may have been retrieved. Nevertheless, the combination of speaker phone and Dictaphone to record interviews worked very well and transcription was relatively easy and provided plenty of relevant information, reinforced by the results of the questionnaires.

One respondent did not fill out a couple of the questions on the questionnaire, and the two participants from the same university disagreed on some elements of IL provision requested. This has been attributed to the difficulty of not conducting the research in person, thus removing the possibility of clarifying questions for respondents, as was possible in the telephone interviews. However, all the preliminary research was conducted within a specified time and had to take into account changing external situations, which placed added pressure on time limits.

If the study were to be repeated, a similar size sample would be used but with a mixture of old and new universities to be able to make more significant comparisons between the universities, as it was felt that this would have been an interesting line of enquiry to investigate. Interviews would also be conducted in person in order to build a rapport with participants; this would encourage a more conversational tone and help reveal more detailed information about the subject and culture of the organization. It might also be interesting to seek the opinions of academics and students to present a more balanced view of IL skills provision. However, with regard to the difficulty experienced in getting librarians to cooperate and the fact that the time of year the study would be conducted coincides with the summer holidays for students and prime research time for academics, it seems unlikely that this would have been particularly successful.

The role of the academic librarian is developing constantly, and will continue to do so in order to reflect the changing role of universities in society. If the academic library is to survive and continue to strengthen its position as the 'heart of the university', librarians will need to maintain their pro-active attitude, and persist in demonstrating to academic staff and other stakeholders, the fundamental necessity

72

of academic libraries in making the ever expanding information environment accessible to students of Higher Education.

73

APPENDIX 1

74

I have deliberately not defined Information Literacy (IL) because I want to see how individuals will interpret the term.

1. You and your job

Please fill in the following information about you and your job. Where required please mark your answers by typing an X after the question.

.1. What is your job title?

.2. Please list your academic and professional qualifications, including any teaching certificates.

.3. Is the provision of IL for staff and students highlighted in the library's or the university's mission statement and/or strategy documents. .

No

Yes (Please give brief details)

.4. Please list any university committees or working groups you are a member of.

75

2. Information Literacy provision

Please indicate the type of IL your university provides and in what context by marking the box with an X. Please mark as many as necessary and give details of any types not in the chart.

2.1. What type of IL does your university provide?

Type of IL instruction

Voluntary

Compulsory

Assessed

Non-assessed

Integrated

Non-integrated

Don't offer

Library based, generic and basic level

Intermediate/ advanced non-subject specific lecture based with practical sessions.

Intermediate/ advanced subject specific, lecture based with practical sessions

Online tutorials, no face to face contact

Other (Please specify)

76

2.2. Which statement most closely matches the situation in your institution?

a. The university has an overall IL programme that ALL departments follow.

b. ALL departments have their own IL programmes, which are designed to meet their specific needs through liaison between academic and library staff to ensure the most suitable programme.

c. SOME departments have their own IL programmes which are designed to meet their specific needs through liaison between academic and library staff to ensure the most suitable programme

d. Departments make their own arrangements for IL programmes and decide how far it should be compulsory, assessed and integrated into the curriculum.

e. A mix of c and d.

2.3. Who is involved in the development of IL skill programmes? (Please mark as many as necessary)

Academic departments

Library staff

IT staff

All of the above

Other staff (please specify)

2.4 Who delivers IL skills training? Please give examples of job titles.

77

3. Integration of Information Literacy

3.1. IL training should be integrated into the university curriculum

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

3.3. Librarians teaching IL skills should have a teaching qualification

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

3.4. Librarians should be regarded as professional partners rather than support staff.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

4. The changing role of the librarian

4.1. Librarians should be responsible for developing the IL skills of students and staff.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

78

4.2. The role of the librarian is becoming more like that of a teacher

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

4.3. Librarians are best equipped to deliver IL skills programme to students and staff.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

4.4. Please state the approximate amount of hours you spend providing IL instruction, in relation to option a AND b.

On average, during each semester/term, how much time do you spend providing IL instruction to students in relation to:

a.) Formal/timetabled sessions

b.) Informal sessions i.e. point of need instruction

4.5.What do you consider to be the most accurate description of the professional role of the academic librarian? Please mark the following options between 1 and 4, 1 being the most accurate and 4 being the least accurate.

Information specialist

Teacher

Tutor

Learning support professional

79

5. Continuing Professional Development

5.1. Librarians are providing more IL now than ever before

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

5.2. Librarians now need considerably more CPD since the rise of IL skills training

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

5.3. CPD needs to focus more actively on the present needs of librarians

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

5.4. Do you receive all the CPD you feel you need?

Yes

No

5.5. How much of your CPD has been directed towards IL skill teaching?

None

Three quarters

About half

A quarter

All

80

5.6. What are the most important competencies for the academic librarian in the current information environment? Please mark those you consider to be most important with an X and those you consider to be least important with a V.

Cataloguing

Technical/IT skills (searching and retrieval, web design)

Classification

Working with technical staff

Administration

Presentation and teaching/training skills (user education)

Face-to-face enquiries

Interpersonal skills/liaison with users

Collection management

Team-working and team building

Book selection

Ability to learn quickly

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Please return to Rosy Bennett at [email protected]

81

APPENDIX 2

82

Interview questions

Preliminary questions

Do you mind being recorded?

The information gathered from this research will be anonymised and used only for this research project.

The interview shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes.

1.0 Initial questions

.1 Could you summarise for me, what you understand by the term Information Literacy?

For the purposes of this interview IL will refer to this definition:

Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to "recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information." (American Library Association)

http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm#ildef

2.1 You're probably aware of the importance of IL to student learning at the moment?

2.1.1 Do you think that the University's mission places enough emphasis on the provision of IL? (Focus on research so perhaps not...)

2.0 Continuing Professional Development

2.1 What type of CPD have you taken part in that has related directly to IL skills provision?

2.2 Are you aware of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and the Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE)?

83

AND

Are you aware that they have recently transferred into the Higher Education Academy?

Do you think their collaboration is a positive step for supporting CPD?

2.3 Are you a personal member of any professional teaching/educational organisations such as the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) or the Higher Education Academy (formerly the ILTHE) ?

2.3.1 Are they worth joining?

2.3.2 How supportive are they?

2.3.3 Is membership beneficial to your own CPD?

2.3.4 If you are already a member, will you continue to be a member?

3.0 The changing educational role of the academic librarian

3.1 What sort of future do you see for a librarian in a teaching role?

3.2 How important is it that librarians have 'a sound understanding of institutional teaching and learning strategies'? (Hines, 2004)

4.0 Information literacy provision

4.1 Roughly, what is your university's plan for IL in the next five years?

4.2 Do you think that it is easier to work together with IT departments to provide IL instruction than with academic staff?

4.3 Do you consider, subject focused IL programmes more or less appropriate than courses that provide general IL skills?

5.0 Integration of Information Literacy

5.1 Is your university planning to fully integrate IL skills courses into the curriculum?

5.2 What type of IL instruction do you think your university should offer?

5.2.1 Fully integrated (compulsory, credited)

5.2.2 Compulsory but not credited

5.2.3 Voluntary, not credited

84

5.3 Are you satisfied with the current programmes offered?

6.0 Integration with faculty

6.1 One of the current issues in academic librarianship is whether or not librarians should be granted faculty/academic status. Can you tell me what faculty status means to you?

6.1.1 Money

6.1.2 Label {Do these concepts form part of your

6.1.3 Research and publication answer?}

6.2 Do you think academic status would enhance the image of librarianship?

6.2.1 To what extent?

OK, that was my last question, is there anything else you would like to add?

Thank you for giving up your time to let me interview you.

85

APPENDIX 3

86

Dear

With reference to the questionnaire I sent you last week, this is just to remind you that I would be very grateful if you could return the completed questionnaire to me by Wednesday 15th July so that I may contact you to arrange a suitable time for a telephone interview. I have attached the questionnaire again for your convenience.

Thank you for agreeing to help me with my research.

Best wishes,

Rosy Bennett

87

Dear

Would it be possible to arrange a time to interview you over the telephone within the next two weeks? If you could let me know when would be a good time to conduct the interview or to call to arrange a convenient time, I would be very grateful.

If you recall, I sent out a questionnaire via email a couple of weeks ago. The questionnaire is complimentary to my research. I understand that this is a very busy time of year for you, but if you could find time to fill it out and return it to me by the end of the month, I would be very grateful.

Best wishes,

Rosy

88

My name is Rosy Bennett, I am studying Librarianship at the University of Sheffield and am now working on my dissertation entitled 'The evolving educational role of academic library staff in Information Literacy (IL) skills and the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) needs that this implies, depending on the extent to which IL is integrated into the curriculum'. My tutor, Sheila Corrall contacted your

colleague . . . in March and has told me that he/she has agreed to help me with the project and suggested I contact you. Thank you for agreeing to help me with my investigations.

I will be sending out a short questionnaire via email at the beginning of next week and will contact you again in mid July to arrange a convenient time to conduct a telephone interview with you, if this is acceptable? I thank you once again for your time.

Many thanks,

Rosy Bennett

89

Dear Participants,

Thank you for agreeing to help me with my research. I have attached the questionnaire as a word file. You will need to download it, fill it out, save it and then re-attach the file to send back to me. If you have any problems viewing the file, please let me know and I will try and send it in an alternative format. It should not take any longer than fifteen minutes to complete. If at all possible, I would be very grateful if you could return the completed questionnaire to me by the 15th July 2004.

I was hoping to conduct the interviews during the weeks beginning the 18th July. If this is not convenient, please let me know so that we can arrange a more appropriate time.

Thank you once again for your help,

Yours sincerely,

Rosy Bennett

90

Bibliography

Abson, C. (2003). "The changing picture of higher education" In: Oyston, E. (ed.). Centred on Learning: Academic Case Studies on Learning Centre Development, pp. 1-18. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Asher, C. (2003). "Separate but equal: librarian, academics and information literacy". Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 34 (1), 52-55.

Balnaves, M. and Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods: An Investigative Approach. London: Sage.

Biddiscombe, R. (2002). "Learning support professionals: the changing role of subject specialists in UK academic libraries" [Online]. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 36 (4), 228-235.

http://oberon.emeraldinsight.com/vl=229564/cl=27/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00330337/v36n4/s2/p228 [accessed 29-08-04].

Brophy, P. (2000). The Academic Library. London: Library Association Publishing.

Bruce, C. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Auslib Press.

Bruce, C. (2001). "Faculty-Librarian partnerships in Australian Higher Eduction: critical dimensions" [Online]. Reference Services Review, 29 (2), 106-115.

http://thesius.emeraldinsight.com/vl=8120779/cl=68/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00907324/v29n2/s3/p106 [accessed 05-07-04].

Bundy, A. (2001) "The Twenty -First Century Profession: Collectors, managers or educators?" [Online] Professional perspectives series address to Information Studies Program Students University of Canberra Wednesday 29 August 2001

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/about/papers/collectors.htm [accessed: 26-06-04].

91

Bundy, A. (2004). "Beyond information: the academic library as educational change agent" [Online]. Paper given at the 7th International Bielefeld Conference, Germany 3-5 February. http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/about/papers/onemission.htm

[accessed: 26-06-04].

Callahan, D. and Watson, M. (1995). "Care of the organization: training and development strategies" [Online]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (5), 376-381. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3a10a6fa76a3cbaaa079ef9061cb353a&chunk=21#21 [accessed 02-05-04]

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches Second Edition. London: Sage.

Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems (CETUS), (1997). Discussion Paper: The Academic Library in the Information Age. California State Univeristy, City University New York, State university of New York.

http://www.cetus.org/acad_lib.pdf [accessed 28-06-04].

Christiansen, L., Stombler, M., Thaxton, L. (2004). "A report on Librarian-Faculty relations from a sociological perspective" [Online]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (2), 116-121.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W50-4BP9R8V-11&_cdi=6556&_orig=browse&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_sk=999699997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtzzSkWz&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=e132e78cfc9d7ee37fc1e6b5b675e55f&ie=f.pdf [accessed: 15-07-04].

Conroy, B. (1978). Library Staff Development and Continuing Education: Principles and Practices. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, INC

Corrall, S. (1998). "Key skills for students in Higher Education". SCONUL Newsletter, 15 (Winter).

92

Corrall, S. (2004). "Rethinking professional competence for the networked environment". In: Oldroyd, M. (2004). Developing Academic Library Staff for Future Success, pp. 15-39. London: Facet.

Cronin, B. (2001). "The mother of all myths". Library Journal, 126 (3), 144-145.

Doskatsch, I (2003). "Perceptions and perplexities of the faculty-librarian partnership: an Australian perspective" [Online]. Reference Services Review, 31 (2), 111-121. http://thesius.emeraldinsight.com/vl=8120779/cl=68/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00907324/v31n2/s2/p111 [accessed 5-7-04].

Duffy, T. M. and Jonassen, D. H. (eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Erlandson, D. A. et al. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Enquiry: A Guide to Methods. London: Sage.

Farber, E. (1999). "Faculty-Librarian cooperation: a personal retrospective" [Online] Reference Services Review, 27 (3) 229-34.

http://thesius.emeraldinsight.com/vl=8120779/cl=68/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00907324/v27n3/s4/p229 [accessed ].

Frank, D. G., Rashke, G. K., Wood, J. and Yang, J. Z. (2001). "Information consulting: the key to success in academic libraries". The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27 (2), 90-96.

Frazer, L. and Lawley, M. (2000). Questionnaire Design and Administration: A Practical Guide. Australia: John Wiley and Sons.

George, R., McCausland, H., Wache, D and Doskatsch, I. (2001). " Information literacy-an institution wide strategy". Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 32 (4), 289-293. http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/32.4/full.text/george.html

[accessed: 16-07-04].

93

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Stategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Gorman, G. E. and Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook. London: Library Association Publishing.

Graham, E. (1999). "eLib: the UK Electronic Libraries Programme" [Online]. Exploit Interactive, 3 (25). http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue3/elib/ [accessed 23-08-04].

Gorman, G.E. and Clayton, P. (1997). Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical Handbook. London: Library Association Publishing.

Hepworth, M. (2000). "Approaches to providing information literacy training in higher education: challenges for librarians". The New review of Academic Librarianship, 6, 21-34.

Higher Education Resources Opportunities (HERO). (2004). Russell Group [Online]. Newcastle Upon-Tyne: Higher Education Research Opportunities. http://www.hero.ac.uk/sites/hero/uk/reference_and_subject_resources/groups_and_organisations/russell_group3706.cfm [accessed: [08-07-04].

Hines, R (ed.). (2004). "Building new environments: the physical space". In: Oyston, E. (ed.) (2003). Centred on Learning: Academic Case Studies on Learning Centre Development, pp. 153-159. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Holden, I. And Livian, Y. (1992). "Does strategic training policy exist? Some evidence from ten European countries". Personnel Review, 21 (1), 12-23.

Ivey, R (2002). "Information literacy: how do librarians and academics work in partnership to deliver effective learning programs?" [Online]. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 34 (2). http://alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/34.2/full.text/ivey.html [accessed 17-03-04].

94

John Fielden Consultancy (1993). Supporting Expansion: Report on Human Resource Management in Academic Libraries, for the Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review Group [Online]. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1994/m3_93.htm [accessed 27-7-04].

Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003). "Information Literacy in Higher Education: a review and case study" [Online]. Studies in Higher Education 28 (3), 335-352

http://fiordiliji.ingentaselect.com/vl=1567375/cl=28/nw=1/rpsv/cw/carfax/03075079/contp1-1.htm [accessed 22-4-04].

Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review Group. (1993). Report (Follett Report), Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC), Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCE) and Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI). Bristol: HEFCE.

Lester, R. (1979). "Why educate the library user?" Aslib Proceedings, 31 (8), 366-380.

Library and Information Statistics Unit (LISU), (2004). "Main data tables (1 August 2002 - 31 July 2003)". In: Creaser, C. (2004) SCONUL Annual Library Statistics 2002/2003 [Online], pp. 26-29. Loughborough University: LISU.

https://www.sconul.ac.uk/pubs_stats/stats_internal/stats02_03/ALS0203.pdf

[accessed 29-08-04].

Lupton, M (2004). "Curriculum alignment and assessment of information literacy learning" [Online]. In: Bundy, A (ed.), Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: principles, standards and practice. Second edition. Adelaide, Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. c. Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) and Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL).

http://www.caul.edu.au/info-literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf

[accessed 26-4-04].

95

McGowan, J.J and Dow, E. H. (1995). "Faculty status and academic librarianship: transformation to a clinical model" [Online]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21 (5), 345-350. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6556&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3a10a6fa76a3cbaaa079ef9061cb353a&chunk=21#21 [accessed: 2-5-04].

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society, chaired by Lord Dearing [Online]. London: HMSO.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [accessed: 27-7-04].

Neocosmos, S. (2003). "Human resources for Higher Education in the 21st century: a strategic overview of development needs". In: Oldroyd, M. Developing Academic Library Staff for Future Success, pp. 1-14. London: Facet.

Nimon, M. (2000). "Striking the right balance: information literacy and partnerships between librarian, lecturer and student". In: Booker, D. (ed.). Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy. Proceedings of the Fourth National Information Literacy Conference, pp.157-164. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Nimon, M. (2002). "Developing lifelong learners: controversy and the educative role of the academic librarian" [Online]. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 33 (1). http://alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/33.1/full.text/nimon.html [accessed 13.11.03].

Noon, P. (1994). "Finding a Strategic Role for Information Skills in Academic Libraries" [Online]. In: Noon, P. (1994).Information Skills in Academic Libraries. SEDA paper 82. http://www.city.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/seda-pubs/Noon.html [accessed 27-7-04].

96

Orr, D. and Cribb, J. (2003). "Information Literacy-is it worth the investment?" [Online]. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 34 (1). http://alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/34.1/full.text/orr.cribb.html [accessed 27-7-04].

Parker, J. and Waller, L. (2002). "Australia leads two sets to one - information literacy 'down under'" [Online]. SCONUL Newsletter 26 (Summer/autumn).

http://www.sconul.ac.uk/pubs_stats/newsletter/26/CH6.pdf [accessed 28-4-04].

Partington, P. (1996). The university staff development context. In: Oldroyd, M. (ed.) Staff Development in Academic Libraries: Present Practice and Future Challenges, London: Library Association Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (1999). "The nature of qualitative enquiry". In: Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. C. (eds.). Qualitative Research Volume Four. London: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research Methods and Evaluation Methods Third Edition. London: Sage.

Peacock, J. (1999). "From trainers to educators: librarians and the challenge of change". In: Booker, D. (ed.). Concept, Challenge, Conundrum: From Library Skills to Information Literacy. Proceedings of the Fourth National Information Literacy Conference, pp. 182-191. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Peacock, J. (2001). "Teaching skill for teaching librarians: Postcards from the edge of the education paradigm" [Online]. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 32 (1). http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/32.1/full.text/jpeacock.html [accessed 22-7-04].

97

Peacock, J. (2004). "Standards, curriculum and learning: implications for professional development" [Online]. In: Bundy, A (ed.), Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: principles, standards and practice. Second edition. Adelaide, Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. c. Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) and Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL).

http://www.caul.edu.au/info-literacy/InfoLiteracyFramework.pdf

[accessed 26-4-04].

Peele, D. (1984). "Librarians as teachers: Some reality, mostly myth". Journal of Academic Librarianship, 10 (5), 267-71.

Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing Effective Questionnaires. London: Sage.

Pinfield, S. (2001). "The changing role of subject librarians in academic libraries" [Online]. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 33 (1), 32-38.

http://saturn.bids.ac.uk/cgibin/ds_deliver/1/u/d/ISIS/12766292.1/sage/jol/2001/00000033/00000001/art00004/ACB667C15EF1D0271093786346C85BDFC151299110.pdf?link=http://www.ingenta.com/de/ingenta%3Bid=2njxqa626onyo.crescent&format=pdf [accessed 25-06-04].

Powis, C. (2004) " Developing the academic librarian as learning facilitator" In: Oldroyd, M. (ed.). Developing Academic Library Staff for Future Success, pp.83-93. London: Facet

Rader, H. B. (1999). "The learning environment - then, now and later: 30 years of teaching information skills", [Online]. Reference Services Review, 27 (3), 219-224. http://thesius.emeraldinsight.com/vl=8120779/cl=68/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00907324/v27n3/s2/p219 [accessed ].

http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/nashville1997pap/smith.htm

98

Reynolds, R. and Ablett, A. (1998). "Transforming the rhetoric of organizational learning to the reality of the learning organization" [Online]. The Learning Organization, 5 (1) 24-36.

http://fiordiliji.emeraldinsight.com/vl=2146101/cl=25/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/09696474/v5n1/s3/p24 [accessed 26-03-04].

Schuller, T (ed.). (1995). The Changing university. Buckingham : The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL). (1999). Information Skills in Higher Education: A SCONUL Position Paper

http://www.sconul.ac.uk/activities/inf_lit/papers/Seven_pillars.html

Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory Second Edition. London~: Sage.

Lock, S. (2003). Information Skills in Higher Education: A SCONUL Position Paper [Online]. London: Society of College National and University Libraries (SCONUL).

http://www.sconul.ac.uk/activities/inf_lit/papers/Seven_pillars.html

[accessed 30-7-04].

Smith, R. L. and Mundt, K. E. (1997). Philosophical Shift: Teach the Faculty to Teach Information Literacy [Online]. ACRL 8th National Conference Contributed and Featured Papers. http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/nashville1997pap/smith.htm

[accessed 26-7-04].

Stone, E. (1969). Factors Related to the Professional Development of Librarians. Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press.

Taylor, P and Thackwray, B. (eds.). (1996). Investors in People Explained Second Edition. London: Kogan Page.

University of Liverpool (2004). The Russell Group [Online]. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/index1.html [accessed: 08-07-04].

99100

University of South Australia (UniSA) Library (2004). A Partnership Approach to Developing Information Literacy - Academics and Librarians Working Together. [Online]. Australia: UniSA.

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/infoskills/infolit/partner.asp [accessed 27-7-04].

Winner, M. C. (1998). "Librarians as partners in the classroom: an increasing imperative" [Online]. Reference Services Review, 26 (2), 25-29. http://zerlina.emeraldinsight.com/vl=752524/cl=39/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/mcb/00907324/v26n1/s3/p25 [accessed 28-4-04].

Zhang, W. (2001). "Building partnerships in liberal arts education: library team teaching" [Online]. Reference Services Review, 29 (2), 141-149. http://ariel.emeraldinsight.com/vl=4509616/cl=99/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/userpassreq?/cw/mcb/00907324/v29n2/s7/p141 [accessed 27-7-04].