Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration on Library Collection Development

Collaborative Librarianship

Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 3

2012

Lan Shen Purdue University Calumet, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship

Part of the Collection Development and Management Commons, and the Scholarly Communication Commons

Recommended Citation Shen, Lan (2012) "Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration on Library Collection Development," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29087/2012.4.1.05 Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol4/iss1/3

This Scholarly Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration

Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration on Library Collection Development

Lan Shen ([email protected]) Purdue University Calumet Library

Abstract

Librarian-faculty relations are essential to library collection development. This paper discusses, first of all, the reasons for the customary disconnect between librarians and faculty in light of their different priorities, visions, expertise, and status. In an attempt to bridge the librarian-faculty separation, a horizontal strategy is proposed focusing on financial collaborations between the library and other academic departments on campus, such as adopting the balanced budget, fair and rotated resource allocation, and prioritized investment through providing a General Reserve Fund. A vertical strategy is also proposed defined as an organizational and professional partnership through three different vertical levels, namely, the university, unit (department/program), and individual levels. At the university level, while the collaboration needs to cover the areas of book selection, evaluation, preservation, weeding, and cancellation, it should also rely on campus-wide workshops as an effective way of improving collection development and professional training. At the unit level, in addition to the department liaison model, it is advisable to organize specific forums focusing on the special needs required by different academic programs and departments. Individual level collaboration is critical to achieving the proposed goals as all institutional strategies must rely on individual efforts. Librarians should provide individual, informal, and customized outreach services.

Author keywords: Collection Development; Librarian-Faculty Collaboration; Resource Allocation; Organ- izational Collaboration

Introduction collection development, this article will propose both a horizontal strategy focusing on cross- In an attempt to improve the effectiveness of campus resource allocation and prioritization, library collection development, Kotter believes and a vertical strategy aimed at constructing and that “good relations between librarians and reconstructing organizational and professional classroom faculty are a necessity, not a luxury” collaboration at individual, unit, and university and “the key to success is cooperation, not con- levels between librarians and faculty. flict.”1 Meanwhile, in light of a digital age, in Hahn’s view, liaison librarian is playing a more Reasons for Separation between Librarians central role in carrying the library’s mission.2 and Faculty Needless to say, librarian-faculty relations are essential for collection librarians.3 Prior to considering solutions to the problems of librarian-faculty relations in collection devel- Although there seems to be a consensus that an opment, it is helpful to understand a variety of effective collaboration between librarians and reasons for the lack of collaboration and connec- faculty constitutes one of the key factors in im- tions between librarians and faculty. First of all, proving the quality of library collections, 4 it is it is important to recognize that librarians and helpful to understand why it is so difficult to faculty representatives have different priorities build an effective librarian-faculty relationship and visions related to library collection devel- and how librarians can take important steps in opment. One of the key differences concerns developing such a relationship. Following a variant priorities in allocating financial re- discussion of some of the problems and barriers sources. In light of budget constraints, it is un- to librarian-faculty collaboration in the field of derstandable that librarians and faculty often

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 14 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration have to compete for a share of the financial pie.5 same token, library staff members are usually Obviously, the availabilities of solving such knowledgeable about new developments within budget issues are limited and institutional prior- their areas of specialization but they can be ig- ities must enhance their roles in the financial norant when it comes to marketing their prod- decision-making process.6 Chu provides an ex- ucts and services to faculty.10 Further, librarian- ample that one faculty member in a special field faculty differences arise in terms of their differ- “complained that her department has 300 majors ent organizational subcultures because libraries and less than $5,000 budgeted for library mate- “encourage a culture of sharing, cooperation, rials.” Expectedly, this professor “feels no obli- and collaboration, for the ultimate purpose of gation to incur cuts so another department with assisting students in their educational pursuits” about 30 majors can continue subscriptions to a while “faculty culture is generally more isolated group of journals at $11,700 per year.” 7 and proprietary.” 11

Additionally, both faculty and librarians have On yet another front, there are psychological different perspectives on the priority of collec- reasons for the librarian-faculty disconnect in tion development reflecting rather specific and that “many librarians are afraid of faculty and narrow areas of research and teaching focus. intimidated.” 12 In the view of some librarians Wicksa, Bartolob and Swordsc offer, by way of holding Ph.D. degrees with rank and tenure, example, that a library will have a fine Buddhist other university faculty members, as the case collection if a powerful faculty representative is may be, may look down upon librarians. For an Asian philosopher. The effect of this can be instance, Malenfant indicates that “as a profes- long-term. The worst situation is that these fac- sion, librarians often feel faculty members have ulty representatives “often are junior faculty impressive credentials and are somehow supe- who later move on to other schools, upon which rior. This mindset poses a significant challenge their replacement will promptly skew the collec- for creating an atmosphere of mutuality and tion toward another –ism.”8 As a result, the li- shared action to change such a large system as brary collection will suffer from the lack of con- scholarly communication.” As he suggests, the sistence, comprehension, and a long-term plan. need exists for librarians “to think differently about themselves as partners with faculty in the Other problems pertain to inefficient communi- research enterprise and not servants.”13 cation and resulting frustration brought about as librarians wait for faculty recommendations on To explain this psychological aspect, Evelyn B. new acquisitions when patrons may have al- Haynes has identified such common faculty per- ready asked for the items. This also concerns a ceptions. These include “librarians …more as tension between the faculty expertise that is subordinates than as academic equals; their in- needed and the mandate of the library to collect volvement in student education is negligible; what in fact the patrons really want and that a they lack adequate teaching and research expe- wide scope of acquisition requests need to be rience; and their educational credentials are sub- considered, not only those of faculty. Yet anoth- standard.”14 Adding to the divide, as Christian- er problem occurs when it becomes apparent sen, Stombler and Thaxton suggest, faculty that faculty make recommendations on past members view their classes as their own territo- publications and a retrospective view of the lit- ry where usually faculty do not want to consult erature in a subject area, while librarians tend to with librarians in the process. Their research make decisions based on future needs of bor- also indicates that, “faculty see librarians as a rowers.9 resource (in some cases, a last resort) for gaining access to materials, not as experts who may play In addition, faculty and librarians have different a central role in the preparation and execution of knowledge and specialties leading to misunder- a research project.”15 Another factor that may standings. Teaching faculty often fail to be sym- reinforce condescending attitudes towards li- pathetic, not because they conceptually oppose brarians concerns their difference in standing in the changes their library is making but rather a university, librarians as “staff” and faculty as because they do not understand them. By the “scholars,” although many academic librarians

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 15 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration have tenured or tenure-track faculty status. ing appropriate and comprehensive strategies Their research further shows that faculty mem- may help to minimize the differences and im- bers believe that librarians’ work is service- prove their financial and professional collabora- oriented focusing on the access to knowledge tions. As for strategies, it is helpful to divide and other resources while faculty themselves them into two types -- the horizontal strategy “see their own work as focusing on the produc- and vertical strategy. The horizontal, considered tion and dissemination of knowledge.” Obvious- first, can be defined as financial collaboration ly, service-oriented work is perceived as the lack between the library and other academic depart- of production and innovation.16 ments on campus aimed at promoting library collection development. In dealing with conflicts In addition to differences in types of career and pertaining to financial resources, the key issue is vision of the library, the quality of librarian- how to avoid a deepening conflict and create a faculty relations is often “strained, unfriendly, win-win situation with clearly defined institu- and even acrimonious which are always highly tional priorities as well as effective negotiations dramatic and often intensely emotional.”17 In and compromises. As Chu points out, creative light of the lack of mutual trust, it remains diffi- librarian-faculty collaboration in collection de- cult to mount a proactive effort in collaboration. velopment in a horizontal layer should be guid- Faculty members do not trust librarians to make ed by shared goals of the institution.21 effective acquisition choices and librarians do not trust faculty to be responsible to make sug- In an effort to reach a win-win situation, it is gestions in the best interest of the university. essential to design library collection mechanisms “This brings out the effects of the relationship--a and processes within a balanced budget. As Chu feeling of trust in each other and the need to be mentions, that “balance” refers to “adequate aware of each other’s needs.” As Chu suggests, coverage of all aspects of a discipline” within an such lack of trust highlights the importance of approval plan. If resources were abundant, in being aware and of understanding the roles and Chu’s opinion, the approval plan would be one needs of each other.18 The Christiansen, tool that can be used to ensure potential needs Stombler and Thaxton report again bears out are met through the library collection processes, this finding, that “faculty do not have a solid but if resources are limited, it stands to reason, understanding of librarians’ work and are not creating a balanced collection where all resource seeking similar contact” and, similarly, faculty needs are fully met is not possible. The problem members “do not know about librarians’ specific is compounded when, as Chu argues, “librarians duties and projects.”19 The situation is worsened purchase books in anticipation of needs that by the fact that, unlike the librarians, faculty may never materialize. In essence, librarians, members don’t believe it is an issue and it will under the assumption of abundant resources, cause any negative consequences arising from are placing solutions to potential problems into this meaningless disconnection.20 a garbage can, to be retrieved only when ac- companying problems arise.”22 Clearly, problems do exist between librarians and teaching faculty and solutions need to be As for a balanced allocation of financial re- found in the interest of better collection devel- sources in support of collection development, opment and value added to the university. In this author believes that it is crucial to give close what follows, the “Horizontal” and “Vertical” attention to the following approaches. First, in strategies will be discussed. the interest of fair budget allocation between different schools, departments, and disciplines The Horizontal Strategy—Financial Collabora- on a short-term annual basis, librarians must get tion faculty representatives involved in the process of discussion, consultation, and decision mak- Although the division between faculty and li- ing. At Kent State University, for instance, a brarians may be attributable to the reasons relat- budget was administrated by the Library and ed to different priorities, variant psychologies, was distributed to each department, but it was and mutual distrust, designing and implement- spent by the Departmental Library Representa-

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 16 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration tive and Liaison Librarian. Meanwhile, the shaping new culture and reshaping the new di- budget allocation must take into account some rection of the university, the library should pro- important issues, such as number of undergrad- vide effective services promoting their interdis- uate majors, number of graduate students, aver- ciplinary, team-oriented and rapidly evolving age monographic cost, and tier level assigned by research efforts.26 Once the University of Ottawa the University.23 Libraries, for instance, noticed that the library Also, in the interest of fairness, a ten year long- had never shaped the collection in terms of the term plan is recommended, designed to follow needs of some new faculty working in new are- the principle of rotated allocation. For instance, as of research, the librarians began to consult the Department of History may receive the low- those involved “to best determine what library est allocation in year one or two, but in the span materials would meet their research needs and of ten years, it should have opportunities to in- as identified in the libraries' strategic plan.”27 crease its share. When dealing with budget cuts, This resulted in $2,000 being allocated to sup- the well-established departments that have a port the library needs of new professors. bigger percentage of nonessential journal subscriptions and which are involved in the ten Needless to say, in light of the development of year plan, would be likely better able to absorb interdisciplinary studies, library collection de- cuts than newer departments.24 velopment faces new dilemmas. For instance, typically, academic libraries have collection In addition to the balanced budget allocation, budgets based on a distribution model reflecting the horizontal strategy also requires “prioritized subject disciplines, models that may take into investment” as opposed to equalitarian distribu- account costs, research output, curriculum re- tions of the collection budget that designates quirements, number of students, and interli- more funding for collections that support new brary loan activity. However, in the interest of departments, new programs, and new groups. good budget management and reflecting pub- To be sure, the fair allocation is not necessarily lishing patterns, it is increasingly difficult to ac- equalitarian in terms of the percentage of budget quire books for only one discipline.28 Instead, distribution. Instead, the fair balance should interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary subjects follow the university strategic plan addressing covering the social sciences, humanities and the specific priorities in the specific fields. This natural sciences begin to dominate the library may involve understanding and responding to collections. To allocate funds for the purchase of university-wide programs covering multiple books related to the history of technology, for schools, multiple disciplines and or interdisci- example, faculty representatives from both the plinary initiatives. Purdue University Calumet Department of History and the Department of Library, for example, has added experiential Technology will argue that it is not fair to use learning as one of the academic priorities that is one department’s budget to take care of another supported by internal and external funds for department’s needs. In this kind of conflict, the additional resources for its collections.25 General Reserve Fund can be used to meet the needs of both departments. In creating prioritized investment, the library could set up a General Reserve Fund that covers, Generally speaking, in setting the collection de- perhaps, 10% of the total collection budget for velopment budget, and in consultation with fac- such special focuses and new faculty interests ulty representatives, librarians should follow the and research needs. These funds should, first of triple principle, of “fair, care and share.” In oth- all, take care of the needs of the faculty involved er words, first of all, librarians should abide by in the new initiatives. As Horava, a librarian at all necessary guidelines for fair allocation to en- the University of Ottawa, indicates, given a sure equity in collection funding for all academ- steady stream of new tenure-track faculty annu- ic departments, groups, and disciplines. Fair- ally, librarians should reach out and engage pro- ness, though, is not enough given the complex fessors in a partnership and regular communica- nature and special cases of collection develop- tion with the library. Given the fact that these ment. It is necessary also for librarians to con- new faculty members will play a critical role in sider the university strategic plans and institu-

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 17 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration tional priorities in providing support for new chology collection as it serves programs at the initiative through a General Reserve Fund. three institutions. In this process, faculty mem- Thirdly, librarians should share the policies and bers were involved from the very beginning, procedures regarding collection budgets, acqui- with a library-oriented classroom faculty mem- sitions, and the decision-making processes in ber heading the committee. Meanwhile, librari- order to improve the transparence in library col- ans provided a full explanation of the goals of lection development. These three principles the project and assisted with certain biblio- serve as effective ways of improving the hori- graphic details. The result was a newly crafted zontal financial collaboration between library collection development policy reflecting subject and other academic departments across the expertise, curriculum needs, and research inter- campus. ests within this subject area.31

The Vertical Strategy: Organizational and Pro- In regard to the matter of book preservation, fessional Collaborations there exists further opportunity for collaboration. At Columbia University, for instance, a In addition to the horizontal strategy, a vertical group of humanity scholars became involved in strategy can also be highly useful in promoting the decision-making process on a preservation librarian-faculty collaboration on collection de- project in the humanities. Librarians reported velopment. The vertical strategy unfolds as de- that “the unmatched subject expertise and finely velopment of organizational and professional honed critical skills of these scholars proved to partnerships through three different levels, be invaluable.”32 Librarians would do well to namely, the university, the unit, and the indi- recognize and rely on faculty experts and to re- vidual levels. gard them as partners in matters of preservation. At the university level, collaboration occurs, or should occur, between librarians and faculty Similarly, in weeding there are further opportu- representatives in the area of collection man- nities for collaboration. At the University of the agement as it pertains to five distinct areas: book Pacific Libraries in Stockton, California, each selection, evaluation, preservation, weeding, academic department was asked to appoint a and cancellation. In doing so, book and journal faculty member to serve as a “weeding liaison” selectors must find ways to make the best use of for its de-selection project. This request was faculty expertise, ways that may vary across the made following the interest expressed by some disciplines. For instance, the College of Charles- departments in having an opportunity to look at ton library developed a flexible process in which the collection before weeding decisions were “the level of faculty involvement depends on the made. Librarians ought to capitalize on such discipline, with maximum participation by the interest when it surfaces, since far too often am- English faculty and minimal involvement by the bivalence, disinterest, or other priorities mitigate Computer Science faculty.”29 Participation var- faculty involvement. In this case, although the ies greatly from one institution to the next. For opinions on weeding differed on occasion, title example, after interviewing 61 faculty members by title, agreement was generally obtained and, in three social science disciplines at the Univer- in general, “the project was considered success- sity of Michigan, the conclusion was that faculty ful; the library met its goal and the classroom actually would like to ask librarians to take faculty seemed to accept the results.” As Kotter leadership in managing scholarly resource col- suggests, “this example is compelling evidence lections.30 that involving classroom faculty in weeding is not a fruitless enterprise; in fact, librarian- On another front, both librarians and faculty faculty relations may well be improved rather should get involved in the process of collection than damaged.”33 evaluation. The Auraria Library in Denver, Col- orado, with its collection that serves three inde- For the fifth area of serials cancellation, general- pendent academic institutions, for example, a ly the most controversial, collaboration again is few years ago conducted a review of its psy- important, especially since this is the area tar-

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 18 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration geted for the biggest savings in times of fiscal important sources for patrons’ research in collec- constraint. In both theory and practice, the con- tions across the campus.38 troversial fields in collection development re- quire much closer collaboration and communi- At the unit level, similar to Chu’s sub-unit in a cation in order to minimize conflicts. As Kotter “loosely coupled system,”39 the liaison model, believes, “the appearance of positive anecdotes well-established in many universities, is de- is clear evidence that faculty involvement in se- signed to “achieve greater outreach to academic rials cancellation does not necessarily result in departments and higher degrees of collabora- conflict. If conducted with due consideration for tion.”40 Department-to-library liaisons function faculty concerns, cooperation in serials cancella- largely as brokers for faculty requests for acqui- tion can have a positive effect on faculty atti- sitions, and much less as advocates and promot- tudes toward librarians and the library.”34 Re- ers of library instruction. As such, they serve garding serials, often the debate centers on for- mainly the interests of collection development, mat. Based on empirical studies at the Universi- such as the case at Georgia State University. ty of Michigan, evidence shows that most facul- Thankfully, there is increasing interest among ty members prefer to acquire e-journals instead these unit level partners more widely to “collab- of print. Where budgets are limited, both e- and orate with librarians on class assignments and print usually are not acquired, and not to pre- ask librarians for assistance with new data- judge e- over print, librarians must listen “care- bases.”41 Further expansion of the role of liai- fully to … faculty before making decisions about sons could include marketing library services to format.” 35 departments and addressing student and faculty problems related to library operations and ser- On the university-wide level, then, covering the- vices.42 While the focus of this article is on col- se five areas, collaboration should occur. One laboration with respect to collection develop- key mode of fostering collaboration is the cam- ment, capitalizing on these achievements helps pus workshop. At George Washington Universi- to create a wider scope of collaboration that ty, for instance, librarians designed and imple- overall enhances library resources and services. mented campus-wide workshops on information technology. In light of the success of the Besides, it is also helpful for the library to organ- workshops and their exceptional value as pro- ize specific forums focusing on the special needs motional tools, “the library administration de- of academic programs and departments. For cided to enhance its relationship with faculty by example, at George Washington University, li- appointing a librarian whose primary responsi- brarians have begun to expand their scope of bility was to meet their information needs.” This interaction through brown bag lunch meetings led to the creation of a “faculty outreach librari- where more than just the usual technology is- an” position.36 To further promote communica- sues are showcased and where the discussion is tion, the George Washington University Library opened up to include the more, perhaps, mun- publishes a quarterly newsletter, Connect, which dane problems in circulation, in reserves, inter- publicized new services and products offered by library loan and collection funding are ad- the units of the library. The articles written by dressed.43 In tandem to these informal meeting library staff educate readers about changes in and workshops of one kind or another, the li- the library’s online catalog, recently acquired brary created an electronic list called compact discs, modifications in its circulation “INTQUERY” which also serves as a network and reserve policies, new resources accessible on for promoting information literacy and high- its home page, and important cross-disciplinary lighting important internet features or resources. Web sites.37 While this is an old, ‘tried and true’ It was reported that this communication net- method of library communication, others utilize work has become “one of the library’s most ef- more intentional approaches such as Yale Uni- fective publicity devices.”44 versity’s “Collections Collaborative Spring Symposium” that created a network for both Another approach to expanding collaboration librarians and curators in an attempt to identify and improving communication at the unit level involves providing Departmental Representa-

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 19 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration tives and Liaison Librarians with lists of mono- humanities faculty, are not necessarily familiar graphs purchased through their departmental with information technology (IT) or the subject allocations over one or two year periods. In one of collection development. Currently, there is a case, such a list was “broken down into three massive demand for the library to reorient its categories: books purchased through the ap- services by combining both library and infor- proval plan, slips selected through the approval mation technology services.52 It is in this newly plan, and requests for books originated by the emerging partnership of library and IT that an- department.” Circulation data were also made other opportunity exists for connecting in new available that help faculty determine current ways to the teaching faculty. For instance, at instructional and research interests.45 Rather Lafayette College, both librarians and compu- than fostering complaints and gripes, sharing ting services staff formed a team of campus Web this information should be done in a way that experts called the “Web Support Team.” On a highlights the fruit of collaboration and furthers more personal level than the group workshops, discussion and communication.46 the Team provided individual consultations and customized services for faculty having Web The third level of the vertical strategy concerns questions, and scheduled lunchtime brown personal connections, especially critical in bags, where faculty could learn from staff and achieving library-faculty collaboration since ul- other faculty members. These methods of sup- timately all institutional strategies must rely on porting faculty proved “immensely popular be- individual efforts. As Chu and Scherdin main- cause of their informality and the many topics tain, “librarians and faculty are natural partners that could be covered in single-hour sessions.”53 in academic endeavors,”47 a partnership that In particular, this kind of individual, informal, depends to a great extent on the personality of and customized outreach programs made it pos- the parties involved rather than on longevity, sible to enhance networking and personal inter- that is, how long people have been together.48 action among faculty members who are able to Despite the misgivings and lack of confidence in identify other peers and experts in building up librarians working with faculty, discussed earli- their professional and academic collaboration.54 er, in fact, empirical studies demonstrate that many faculty members welcome librarian partic- Conclusion ipation “in relationships on an equal basis”; librarians represent a discipline, and faculty rep- In conclusion, there are different issues and so- resent a discipline—it is “a mutual type of lutions in addressing collection development thing.”49 Moreover, in a collaborative environ- and in dealing with the lack of collaboration and ment, librarians are not in an advising or men- communication between librarians and faculty. toring role but, rather, are information providers As presented in this article, however, the hori- for faculty members who are usually apprecia- zontal and vertical strategies warrant serious tive of regular and sometime customized infor- attention. As noted, bridging the great divide, to mation provided by librarians. As Whatley sug- use Kotter’s image, includes these mandates: to gests, liaison librarians have always been con- clearly articulate the rationale for seeking im- nectors operating “between their patrons and proved librarian-faculty relations, to develop the information that is collected in libraries”50 In more effective methods to assess the quality of Dupuis’s view, librarians can be more solidly in librarian-faculty relations, and to consider the partnership with the teaching faculty when “a potential impact on librarian-faculty relations of deeper engagement of library liaisons with any program under consideration. More con- Deans, Department Chairs, and key faculty” cretely, librarians would do well to consider giv- helps to foster understanding of the “teaching ing priority to those programs that are most like- focus, objectives, and challenges” of both entities ly to contribute, directly or indirectly, to im- and which then lead to the development of “mu- proved librarian-faculty relations, devise better tually agreed-upon priorities.”51 methods to determine the effect of such programs on librarian-faculty relations, and evalu- Although faculty members are experts in their ate these programs in terms of their benefits, own research fields, some faculty, particularly costs, and effectiveness.55 The horizontal and

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 20 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration vertical strategies discussed here show what can be done given this mandate for improved librar- ration in Collection Development. Library Collec- ian-faculty collaboration in the interest of im- tions, Acquisitions, & Technical Services (25) proved collection development. (2001): 480.

According to Stephen R. Covey, the most effec- 9 Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled Sys- tive librarians are those who have “moved be- tem,” 142. yond both independence and dependence to 10 master the art of interdependence—of working Scott Stebelman, Jack Siggins, David Nutty, as members of a team, of knowing when two or and Caroline Long, “Improving Library Rela- more heads are better than one.”56 Indeed, in the tions with the Faculty and University Adminis- digital age, interdependence is the new para- trators: The Role of the Faculty Outreach Librar- digm and the future model of librarian-faculty ian,” College and Research Libraries (March 1999): relationships. Academic institutions don’t have 122. any choice but improve their horizontal finan- 11 Christiansen, Stombler and Thaxton, “A Re- cial collaboration and vertical professional coor- port on Librarian-Faculty Relations from a Soci- dination in support of library collection devel- ological Perspective,” 118-119. opment. 12 Kara Malenfant, “Leading Change in the Sys- Endnotes tem of Scholarly Communication: A Case

Study of Engaging Liaison Librarians for Out- 1 Wade Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide: Im- reach to Faculty,” College & Research Libraries proving Relations between Librarians and (January 2010): 71. Classroom Faculty,” The Journal of Academic Li- brarianship 25 (4) (1999): 301. 13 Ibid, 74.

2 Karla Hahn, “Introduction: Positioning Liaison 14 Stebelman, Siggins, Nutty, and Long, “Im- Librarians for the 21st Century,” Research Library proving Library Relations with the Faculty and Issues (August, 2009): 1. University Administrators,” 122.

3 Lars Christiansen, Mindy Stombler, and Lyn 15 Christiansen, Stombler and Thaxton, “A Re- Thaxton, “A Report on Librarian-Faculty port on Librarian-Faculty Relations from a Soci- Relations from a Sociological Perspective,” The ological Perspective,” 118-119. Journal of Academic Librarianship 30 (2) (2004): 16 117. Ibid., 119-120.

17 4 Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide,” 294-295. Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide,” 295.

18 5 Felix Chu, “Librarian-Faculty Relations in Col- Chu, “Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collec- lection Development,” The Journal of Academic tion Development,” 17. Librarianship (January 1997): 17. 19 Christiansen, Stombler, and Thaxton, “A Re- 6 Felix Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled port on Librarian-Faculty Relations from a Soci- System: Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collec- ological Perspective,” 118. tion Development,” Library and Information Sci- 20 Ibid. ence Research (17) (1995): 135. 21 Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled 7 Chu, “Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collection System,” 135. Development,” 17. 22 Ibid., 144. 23 8 Don Wicksa, Laura Bartolob, and David Wicksa, Bartolob, and Swordsc, “Four Birds Swordsc, “Four Birds with One Stone: Collabo- with One Stone,” 476-477.

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 21 Shen: Improving the Effectiveness of Librarian-Faculty Collaboration

24 Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled 43 Stebelman, Siggins, Nutty, and Long, “Im- System,” 145. proving Library Relations with the Faculty and University Administrators,” 124. 25 Lan Shen, “Organizational and Operational Optimization of Academic Library and Infor- 44 Ibid., 123. mation Technology,” CALA Occasional Paper Se- ries (3) (2009): 3-11. 45 Wicksa, Bartolob, and Swordsc, “Four Birds with One Stone,” 477-478. 26 Tony Horava, “A New Approach to Faculty- Librarian Collaboration: A ‘New Professors’ 46 Stebelman, Siggins, Nutty, and Long, “Im- Fund’ for Collection Development,” The Journal proving Library Relations with the Faculty and of Academic Librarianship 31 (5) (2005): 483. University Administrators,” 123.

27 Ibid. 47 Mary Scherdin, “How Well Do We Fit? Librar- ians and Faculty in the Academic Setting,” Li- 28 Ibid. braries and the Academy 2 (2) (2002): 237.

29 Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide,” 298-299. 48 Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System,” 142. 30 Janet Palmer and Mark Sandler, “What Do Faculty Want?” Netconnect (Winter 2003): 28. 49 Jean Major, “Mature Librarians and the Uni- versity Faculty: Factors Contributing to Librari- 31 Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide,” 298-299. ans’ Acceptance as Colleagues,” College and Re- search Libraries (November 1993): 467. 32 Ibid. 50 Kara Whatley, “New Roles of Liaison Librari- 33 Ibid. ans: A Liaison’s Perspective,” Research Library Issues (August 2009): 29, 32. 34 Ibid. 51 Elizabeth Dupuis, “Amplifying the Educa- 35 Palmer and Sandler, “What Do Faculty tional Role of Librarians,” Research Library Issues Want?” 28. (August 2009): 11-12. 36 Stebelman, Siggins, Nutty, and Long, “Im- 52 Shen, “Organizational and Operational Opti- proving Library Relations with the Faculty and mization of Academic Library,” 3-11. University Administrators,” 123. 53 Stebelman, Siggins, Nutty, and Long, “Im- 37 Ibid., 124. proving Library Relations with the Faculty and 38 Todd Gilman, “The Four Habits of Highly Ef- University Administrators,” 123. fective Librarians,” The Chronicle of Higher Educa- 54 Ibid., 124. tion, May 23, 2007. 55 Kotter, “Bridging the Great Divide,” 301-302. 39 Chu, “Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System,” 138. 56 Gilman, “The Four Habits of Highly Effective Librarians.” 40 Christiansen, Stombler, and Thaxton, “A Re- port on Librarian-Faculty Relations from a Soci- ological Perspective,” 117.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

Collaborative Librarianship 4(1):14-22 (2012) 22