Advances in Library Administration and Organization (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION Series Editor...

Author: Delmus E. Williams

47 downloads 3819 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION

ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION Series Editors: Delmus E. Williams and Janine Golden Recent Volumes: Volume 1:

Edited by W. Carl Jackson, Bernard Kreissman and Gerard B. McCabe

Volumes 2–12:

Edited by Bernard Kreissman and Gerard B. McCabe

Volumes 13–20: Edited by Edward D. Garten and Delmus E. Williams Volume 21–24:

Edited by Edward D. Garten, Delmus E. Williams and James M. Nyce

Volume 25:

Edited by Edward D. Garten, Delmus E. Williams, James M. Nyce and Sanna Talja

Volume 26:

Edited by Edward D. Garten, Delmus E. Williams, James M. Nyce and Janine Golden

Volume 27:

Edited by William Graves III, James M. Nyce, Janine Golden and Delmus E. Williams

Volume 28:

Edited by Delmus E. Williams, James M. Nyce and Janine Golden

Volume 29:

Edited by Delmus E. Williams and Janine Golden

ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION VOLUME 30

ADVANCES IN LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION EDITED BY

DELMUS E. WILLIAMS Northcentral University, Prescott, AZ, USA

JANINE GOLDEN Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2011 Copyright r 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78052-014-8 ISSN: 0732-0671 (Series)

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Howard House, Environmental Management System has been certified by ISOQAR to ISO 14001:2004 standards Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

INTRODUCTION

ix

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE ON ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AS LEARNING PLACES Catherine Closet-Crane THE RURAL PUBLIC LIBRARY AS PLACE: A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Linda R. Most

1

51

A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT Jennifer Campbell-Meier

151

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER LIBRARY SERVICES: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUES Jennifer K. Sweeney

187

PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Virginia D. Martin

207

v

vi

CONTENTS

THE PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS ON THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS Kelli Steverson Ragle

289

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

335

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Jennifer Campbell-Meier

School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Catherine Closet-Crane

School of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA

Virginia D. Martin

Director of Media and Technology Integration, Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools, Savannah, GA, USA

Linda R. Most

MLIS Program, Odum Library, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA

Kelli Steverson Ragle

Media Specialist, Ware County High School, Blackshear, GA, USA

Jennifer K. Sweeney

College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Center for Graduate Studies, Sacramento, CA, USA

vii

INTRODUCTION I am thrilled to have been offered the opportunity to write the introduction for Volume 30. My beginnings with ALAO date back to 2008 when I was invited to assist with the editing of Volume 26 of the series. Since then I have seen a number of excellent research pieces submitted to this series for publication by distinguished scholars in the library field. This volume is no different. This series has always sought to appeal to practitioners, library and information science graduate students, and those working in associated fields of information management, and this volume continues that tradition What I do find in this particular volume that is a bit different, however, are research pieces that illustrate clear evidence of the nature of collaboration and cooperation within libraries and between libraries and the communities they serve. It features works that examine the relationship between space and place, institutional academic libraries and the faculty, school library media specialists and their colleagues and administrators in the schools, librarians serving juvenile offenders and others working in the facilities that house them, and library funding raising and university development offices. In the first chapter Catherine Closet-Crane discusses the constitution of interpretative repertoires and offers comment about how one constructs an academic library as a learning place. Her discussion of the introduction and design of the information and learning commons and libraries designed for learning is an important contribution to our understanding of the space we occupy and its effects on our operations and those we serve. Her analysis of the extensive literature produced by the library and information science (LIS) community as it sorts through space utilization in academic libraries provides a basis for future discourse on the information and learning commons; the construction of new types of libraries on the commons model proposed by Beagle; and the metamorphosis of the library into a business organization, summarizing past contributions into a more understandable body of theory. She concludes that the discourse so far has taken a facilities management perspective dominated by concerns with technology, equipment, and space requirements and that we must next build on this to develop an understanding of the physical, psychological, and environmental qualities of library space design. Her research suggests that architectural programming techniques should be used in library planning and design that consider the architectural ix

x

INTRODUCTION

features and environmental design factors contributing to the creating that facilitates learning. Like Closet-Crane, Linda R. Most’s chapter discusses the library as place, but her focus is on public rather than academic libraries. Ms. Most’s goal for her study was to understand how the Gadsden County Florida Public Library System’s adult users view and use their public library buildings as places. While Closet-Crane drew on a large number of studies relating to academic library space and while some large metropolitan libraries have examined their space, very little work has been done to determine the role of the physical library in defining small towns and rural counties. Most questions how these newly constructed buildings in Florida are viewed by their users and the roles these places play in defining their communities. Most investigates the role of public library buildings as destinations, physical places where people go for various reasons ranging from making use of the library’s resources and services or seeking to fulfill an information or reading need to less easily identified reasons to include using the library’s building as a place to make social or business contacts, to build or reinforce community or political ties, or to create or reinforce a personal identity. In so doing, she provides a good analysis of the library as both a service agency and an institution at the center of places that might otherwise be difficult to identify. The Campbell-Meier and Sweeney chapters follow. Although the studies concern two very different types of libraries, both focus on emerging challenges that can best be addressed by fostering the kinds of cooperation and collaboration between librarians and other elements within their environments that are necessary for libraries to address their user’s needs. Campbell-Meier talks about how libraries at academic institutions are working with faculty to develop institutional repositories designed to help these institutions retain the rights to self-archive and redistribute scholarly work produced on campus. In this way, they are moving to become ‘‘aggregators and distributors’’ of information. By coordinating this effort, institutional libraries increase ‘‘institutional visibility and prestige’’ and help to develop a new publishing paradigm for scholarly communication. Even so, according to Campbell-Meier, repositories have been slow to develop in the United States, and many librarians involved in the IR developmental process are frustrated by the pace at which they are developing. Sweeney summarizes the results of interviews with librarians in the field who are working with institutionalized juvenile offenders to see how cooperative efforts can improve the effectiveness of these efforts. She defines cooperation and collaboration using interagency literature drawn from the literature of library and information science, public administration, and the

Introduction

xi

social services to develop a case for the kind of cooperative efforts required to provide library services to young people in detention. She notes that library cooperation with other detention facility departments has been noted as raising issues for libraries in several areas, to include: (1) working with complex administrative policies and structures for housing, educating, and treating youth, (2) understanding the various roles of corrections staff and in communicating with them, (3) sorting out differences in expectations and understanding of basic library purpose, and (4) integrating library services into educational and other programs. The next two pieces relate to issues arising from the work of the school library media specialist. Martin provides a study on school library media specialists’ view of the roles they were being asked to play, and the importance of the areas in which the school library media specialists (SLMSs) were expected to exhibit leadership and the opportunities provided for them to actually practice those roles. The results of Martin’s research indicated that SLMSs perceived all the leadership roles to be more important than the emphasis they could place on them. In addition, they concluded that supportive administrators were the most essential factor in providing SLMSs the opportunity to practice and expand their roles as instructional leaders. Concluding the volume, Kelli Steverson Ragle’s study discusses teachers’ perceptions of how effectively their school media specialists are performing various roles within the school and how those ratings relate to the importance they (the classroom teachers) perceive those roles to be. She also addressed the correlations between high school teachers’ demographic information and both the importance of and the practice of the roles of the high school library media specialist. Del and I hope that as you read through these chapters you appreciate the ways in which library services in all these areas depend on and reinforce the environments in which these organizations work. The spirit of cooperation and collaboration running through these pieces between libraries and the larger community reinforces the idea that library work must fit within and reflect its environment spawning broad partnerships with other professionals. When this happens, services improve, for, as Sweeney noted, ‘‘Working together can produce more value. Contributions of different entities can create a synergy where the final product becomes more valuable than the accomplishments of any one individual or organization working alone.’’ Janine Golden Editor

This page intentionally left blank

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE ON ACADEMIC LIBRARIES AS LEARNING PLACES Catherine Closet-Crane ABSTRACT The professional discourse on academic library planning and design is examined. A critical realist philosophical stance and a constructionist perspective constitute the theoretical framework that, paired with Fairclough’s methodology for critical discourse analysis, is used to examine the constitution of interpretative repertoires and of a discourse constructing the academic library as a learning place. The information commons, learning commons, and library designed for learning repertoires are described and the effects of discursive activity are analyzed. Three types of effects are presented: (1) the production by the LIS community of discourse on academic libraries of a sizable body of literature on the information commons and on the learning commons, (2) the construction of new types of libraries on the commons model proposed by Beagle, and (3) the metaphorization of the library as business. The study concludes that the existing discourse takes a facilities management perspective dominated by concerns with technology, equipment, and space requirements that does not address the physical, psychological, and environmental qualities of library space design. Consequently, it is suggested that architectural programming techniques should be used in library planning and design that consider the architectural features and environmental Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 1–50 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030004

1

2

CATHERINE CLOSET-CRANE

design factors contributing to the making of a place where learning is facilitated. Keywords: Library as place; academic library; learning commons; critical discourse analysis; library planning and design In the last 15 years, there has been a rise in academic library construction and renovation projects on university campuses throughout North America. Allegedly supporting the current student-centered technology-enabled approach to undergraduate education, information and learning commons equipped with the latest information technologies (ITs) have become important new features of academic library design. In the professional literature, a number of monographs written or edited by academic library administrators and librarians attest to the development of a discursive stream on the information and learning commons within the profession (e.g., Beagle, 2006; Bailey & Tierney, 2008; Shader, 2008; Forrest & Halbert, 2009). Meanwhile, a discursive stream on the value of the ‘‘academic library as space and place’’ has also emerged in the professional literature (e.g., Acker & Miller, 2005; Bennett, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Boone, 2003, 2004; Shill & Tonner, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). Being a library and information science (LIS) educator who also has a background and professional experience in architecture, I have been particularly interested in discussions of library planning and design. In several conversations at library organization conferences in regional, national, and international contexts, librarians shared with me the challenges they encountered with the architectural design process and communication with architects and their own frustrated attempts at translating the concept of library as place into service and building planning practices. While librarians were lamenting that ‘‘architects just don’t get it’’ I was wondering about what is happening during professional exchanges between librarian and architects and whether librarians ‘‘get’’ what architects need to know, how they work, and what they can/cannot do. Because it seemed impractical to travel around Northern America and spend time observing what takes place during library design projects from beginning to end in order to understand how librarians talk about library architecture, design, and the library as place, I decided instead to explore the existing discourse developed in the professional literature on library planning and design. In this chapter, I describe the exploratory research I completed as part of my doctoral dissertation (2008–2009). Pairing critical realism and social constructionism to constitute a metatheoretical framework for using critical

A Critical Analysis of the Discourse on Academic Libraries

3

discourse analysis (CDA) as methodology, I attempted to answer the simple question: What is going on in professional discussions of library planning and design that attempt to (re)-define the academic library as space and place in the 21st century? Three secondary research questions guided my analysis Q1: How is a discourse about the academic library as space and place constituted in LIS discussions of academic library planning and design? Q2: What are possible explanations for the formation of this discourse? Q3: What are possible outcomes and effects of constituting the academic library in this way for the future of academic librarianship and the planning and design of academic libraries? My intended contribution with this chapter is to provide to library professionals a description of the existing discourse and to bring attention to the fact that it carries implications for the way our community conceives of academic library planning and design. While the results of discourse analysis show the construction of the academic library as a learning place as an object of discourse, critical analysis highlights discursive mechanisms that effect the metaphorization of the academic library as business against the backdrop of the marketization of higher education (the university as a business). Analysis also shows that academic library design tends to be conceptualized from a space management perspective; it is suggested that it would be useful instead to bring in an architectural programming perspective and an environment-behavior approach to design.

THE LIBRARY AS SPACE AND PLACE IN THE LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE LITERATURE Within the LIS literature of the last 15 years, themes can be identified that describe various aspects of the library as space and place. Dominant themes include accessibility to information resources and information and communication technologies (e.g., Beagle, 1999, 2002), symbolism (e.g., Jackson & Hahn, 2008), academic community building (e.g., Davenport, 2006), learning place (e.g., Bennett, 2006, 2008), public place (e.g., Leckie & Hopkins, 2002), and third place (e.g., Fang, 2008). Within a discourse analytical perspective, these new ways of talking and writing about the library constitute interpretative repertoires and orders of discourse.

4


The term library as place is ‘‘a phrase much in vogue in the library world’’ (Stoeger Wilke, 2006, p. 1). It has been liberally used as if its meaning were transparent; however, there is no consensus on a definition. Instead, as evidenced in Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Spaces (CLIR, 2005) and The Library as Place; History, Community, and Culture (Buschman & Leckie, 2007) there is a range of perspectives on the concept of the library as space and place. The term library as place has sometimes been used simply to differentiate the physical, architectural, and sometimes monumental embodiment of the library as opposed to the library as institutional entity (e.g., Bjarrum & Cranfield, 2004; Delambre, 2004; Dowlin, 2004; Foote, 2004). In many instances, it has also been used to place the physical library in opposition to the digital library and the digital world of the library (e.g., Templeton, 2008). Sometimes, the expression library as space and place has been used to refer to the functions of the library as archive and repository (Ross & Sennyey, 2008), while at others, concerns for space planning, facilities management, and other aspects of the physical plant have been emphasized (e.g., Beagle, 1999; Connaway, 2005; Kratz, 2003; Martin, 2004; The´lot & Mayeur, 2004; Thomas, 2000; Wills, 2004). The more theoretical or conceptual writings have situated the library as place by relating it to the purpose the library fulfills or the function it performs for a community of users, and to the role the library plays in its community and in society (e.g., Alstad & Curry, 2003; Bennett, 2006; Bulpitt, 2004; Eigenbrodt, 2008; Fisher, Saxton, Edwards, & Mai, 2007; Gayton, 2008; Hersberger, Sua, & Murray, 2007; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002; Leckie, 2004; Owusu-Ansah, 2001; Templeton, 2008; Waxman, Clemons, Banning, & McKelfresh, 2007). More rarely, the term library as place has been used to refer to the environment the library offers in ways that evoke the concept of sense of place as it is used in the fields of cultural and human geography, architecture, environmental design, and planning. In those fields, concepts of space and place are associated with a phenomenological perspective that allows the study of emotional or affective connections between people and places. The experience of space and place that is the focus of such studies has been defined by Yi Fu Tuan as ‘‘sense of place’’ (1977). Such an approach to research on the library as space and place has been extremely rare in the field of LIS research; however, the pioneering work of Gloria Leckie and her collaborators is noteworthy for bringing this perspective into the scholarly discourse on libraries as places (Leckie & Hopkins, 2002; Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie, 2004).


5

ACADEMIC LIBRARY PLANNING AND DESIGN IN THE LIS LITERATURE Library practitioners and administrators have regularly discussed the planning and design of academic libraries and their buildings in the professional literature. Publications by professional organizations, international conferences, seminars, and courses in the LIS programs at some North American universities are further evidence of the existence of a field of discourse around that topic. Theoretical, conceptual, and some programmatic issues have been examined; nevertheless architectural programming and design have seldom been discussed in any depth. Academic Libraries: Their Rationale and Role in American Higher Education (McCabe & Person, 1995) provides a point of departure for understanding the evolution of the discourse on academic libraries since 1995. Two of the chapters in this book are genealogically relevant in that they discuss the place and role of the library in the institution (Euster in McCabe & Person, 1995, pp. 1–13) and the future of academic libraries and librarians (Scepanski in McCabe & Person, 1995, pp. 165–175). Since the year 2000, three important reports have provided directions for envisioning the roles that academic libraries can play in the digital age (CLIR, 2002, 2003, 2005). They have made a case for designing academic libraries as spaces and places that support learning (CLIR, 2003) and called for new ways of thinking about the roles and spaces of the library (CLIR, 2005). In 2005, an important essay written by Bennett called for a paradigm shift from ‘‘a service to a learning culture’’ to guide planning and design of the academic library of the future (CLIR, 2005, p. 11). In it, Bennett presented a constructive critique of academic library directors’ space planning methods focusing on library service and operation (2005, p. 11). He pointed to the need to develop planning principles that would incorporate the social dimension of learning, focus on the nature of the desired educational experience, and be based on a systematic knowledge of how students learn (CLIR, 2005, pp. 11–13). To illustrate his views, Bennett reported on an exemplary case where a systematic study of student learning behaviors on campus had been undertaken as part of planning for a new library (CLIR, 2005, pp. 13–21). He pointed to the importance of the emotional and psychological aspects of people–place relationships and suggested that library space design should integrate elements of design that emotionally connect people with feelings of domesticity (CLIR, 2005, p. 21).

6


Over 80 journal articles were collected and scanned in the course of this study, and about 75% of them were carefully reviewed in the process of selecting suitable texts for discourse analytical research. Most of the periodical literature relevant to my study was found in four sources that target a professional audience: The Journal of Academic Librarianship (JAL), New Library World, Research Strategies, and ACRL publications. Fig. 1 summarizes the distribution of journal articles. Because the LIS literature on academic library planning and design was the focus of my research, a discourse analytical perspective is taken to describe it in terms of its dominant authorial figures, genres, and themes found to be relevant features of this segment of the LIS literature. Dominant Authors in the Area Donald Beagle, Director of Library Services at Belmont Abbey College since 2000, and Scott Bennett, a University Librarian Emeritus from Yale University, are the most frequently cited authors in the 64 papers that were reviewed. Beagle is a dominant voice in a discursive thread on the information commons. He published the seminal article for the conceptualization of information commons in 1999 using concepts of strategic fit and functional integration from Strategic Alignment theory. Beagle (1999, p. 82) proposed a framework for developing the information commons service model and associated space planning and design. In 2004, using the concept of change dynamics, Beagle presented a new framework to explain the evolution from the information to the learning commons at the Leavey Library Conference

Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 ACRL publications 7 Research Strategies 7 New Library World 5 Other LIS 22 Other non-LIS 3

Fig. 1.

Distribution of Reviewed Articles Across Journals.


7

2004 in Los Angeles (Beagle, 2004). In 2006, he published The Information Commons Handbook (Beagle, 2006), offering a guide for librarians who seek to ‘‘[position their] library to take advantage of collaboration, technology, and educational movements’’ (de Jong, 2007). Most recently, Beagle (2009) discussed the historical evolution of the learning commons out of the information commons movement. Bennett (2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008) is one of the leading voices of a thread in the literature on the library designed for learning (LDL), and published four of the articles reviewed. He is also the author of the CLIR (2003) report Libraries Designed for Learning and of the essay ‘‘Righting the Balance’’ in the CLIR (2005) report Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space. Genres The articles reviewed belonged predominantly to the ‘‘position paper’’ or ‘‘conceptual paper’’ genre. In addition, a few of the articles were strategyoriented and written in a prescriptive style, and the rest were of the genre ‘‘research paper’’ and reported on empirical studies and library case studies. One article was a mixed genre research/position paper that made prescriptive recommendations based on the results of surveys (Bennett, 2007b). Table 1 provides a summary of the genre analysis of this literature. With few exceptions, research papers included studies of library users’ behavior, library usage patterns, library space use, and users’ perceptions of the academic library. Bolin (2005) examined organizational patterns at land grant universities. Boone (2003) surveyed the paradigm shift ‘‘in our understanding of the form and functions of library facilities’’ (p. 358) as it is reflected in the move away from the traditional repository conception of the library to complex, enhanced, interactive, and multifunctional research environments. Finally Shill and Tonner (2003a) reviewed the physical improvements in library buildings and facilities for the period 1995–2002. Their article was followed by a presentation on facility improvements and library usage at the ACRL 11th National Conference (2003b) and a companion article reviewing usage patterns in new and remodeled libraries over the period 1995–2002 (Shill & Tonner, 2004). Together the articles by Shill and Tonner (2003a, 2004) provided a background for changes in academic library planning, design, and uses over nearly half of the period covered in my research. A notable characteristic of the research papers reviewed was the use by a few of the researchers of methodologies uncommon in LIS. Potthoff et al. (2000) used personal construct theory and chose the Role Repertory Grid

8


Table 1.

Periodical Articles and Essays: Summary of Genres.

Article Genre Position/conceptual

Strategy oriented Research Topics: library users’ behavior, library usage patterns, users’ perceptions of the academic library, and library space use.

References Bailey and Tierney (2002), Bailey-Hainer and Forsman (2005), Beagle (1999, 2009), Bennett (2006, 2007a, 2008), Bosseau (1998), Braverman (2000), Carlson (2001), Connaway (2005), Davenport (2006), Gayton (2008), Hartman (2000), Hernon (2002), Kohl (2006), Kratz (2003), Mann (2007), O’Connor and Bennett (2005), Riggs (2000, 2001, 2002), Ross and Sennyey (2008), Seadle (2002), Snavely (2000), Spencer (2006), Van Pelt (2000). Dodsworth (1998), Hiller (2004), Thomas (2000). Antell and Engel (2006), Bennett (2007b), Bolin (2005), Boone (2003), Engel and Antell (2004), Freund and Seale (2007), Gust and Haka (2006), Houlihan (2005), Lefebvre (2002), Ludwig and Starr (2005), Malenfant (2006), Meernik (2004), Pavlovsky (2005), Potthoff , Weis, Montanelli, and Murbach (2000), Revill (1997), Shill and Tonner (2003a, 2004), Simons, Young, and Gibson (2000); Spencer (2007), Suarez (2007), Waxman et al. (2007), Whitmire (2001).

Procedure to evaluate patrons’ perceptions of library space to help solve a real library space problem. Whitmire (2001) examined the use patterns of undergraduate students during their first three years of college by analyzing statistical data that was collected for the National Study of Student Learning for the period 1992–1995. In the area of health sciences librarianship, Ludwig and Starr (2005) used the Delphi Group approach to study the library as place. They used a technique similar to focus groups for gathering data and for generating ideas among 30 experts who participated in a panel that included librarians, architects, designers, space planners, and administrators. Suarez (2007) examined ‘‘study behavior as example of educationally purposeful activities’’ in a case study that focused on study areas in an academic library. She used ethnographic methods of participant observation and semistructured interviews. To examine the academic library as place, Waxman et al. (2007) used mixed methods – observation, interviews of library administrators, and the answers to a questionnaire and field notes of 44 students sent out in the ‘‘field’’ to document the location and physical characteristics of their third place spaces.


9

Themes Two broad themes clearly dominated the literature reviewed, the library as learning space and the library as information center for the digital age (Table 2). After closer examination, it appeared that, within the library as information center themed segment of the literature, the term information commons was used to designate a service model, and a particular type of space within the library where computer workstations are used to access electronic resources for learning, research, and knowledge production (Cowgill, Beam, & Wess, 2001; Samson & Oelz, 2005). According to Crockett, McDaniel, and Remy (2002, p. 16), the initial service model for the information commons was the Leavey Library, which opened in 1994 at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and was heralded as a gateway library. In the library as learning center themed segment of the literature, the term learning commons tended to be used in relation to discussions of physical library facilities that combined a variety of services that focused on learning activities and knowledge creation and included the information commons. However, another discursive thread presented the academic library more simply as a space designed for learning (Albanese, 2006; Bennett, 2003, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Forrest & Hinchliffe, 2005; Seaman, 2006). Therefore, a closer reading of the literature highlighted the further subdivision of the broad themes of library as learning space and library as information center

Table 2.

Summary of Themes Developed in Periodical Articles and Essays.

Article Theme Library as learning space

Library as digital age information center

References Baker (2000), Bennett (2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008), Forrest and Hinchliffe (2005), O’Connor and Bennett (2005), OwusuAnsah (2001), Pelster (2000), Revill (1997), Seaman (2006), Simons, Young, & Gibson (2000), Snavely (2000), Spencer (2007), and Van Pelt (2000). Bailey and Tierney (2002), Beagle (1999), Cowgill, Beam, and Wess (2001), Crockett, McDaniel, and Remy (2002), Dewey (2002), Forrest and Hinchliffe (2005), Halbert (1999), Kratz (2003), MacWhinnie (2003), Malenfant (2006), Samson and Oelz (2005), Spencer (2006), Tramdack (1999).

10


for the digital age into three major discursive threads: (1) the learning commons, (2) the information commons, and (3) the LDL. A few authors advocated the design of libraries jointly used by different types of patrons – public and academic – (Riggs, 2000, 2002), or of library buildings jointly used by two or more distinct service providers (Kratz, 2003; Bolin, 2005; Seaman, 2006). Thomas (2000) and Connaway (2005) advocated the design of physical space inside the library adapted for the coexistence of virtual services and collections in the spirit of the information commons.

PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK Roy Bhaskar’s critical realist philosophy recognizes the mind-independent reality of objects of knowledge as well as individual and social perceptions of their reality (for a compilation of essential readings on critical realism, see Archer, Bhaskar, Collier, Lawson, & Norrie, 1998). Although the constructionist stance dominates a large proportion of LIS research, the practice of research activities relies, de facto, on a realist ontological view of research objects (Smith, 2006). Among LIS scholars, some have been struggling with this contradiction, and in the last six years, leading an emerging trend, a few scholars have called for the use of realist or critical realist perspectives in LIS research. Criticizing much of the LIS research for ignoring real and actual dimensions (in the critical realist sense) of the information world, Hjørland (2004) has argued for the reintroduction of realism, which claims the existence of a mind-independent reality, as a philosophical framework in LIS research. Others in LIS have built a strong case for the fruitfulness of critical realism as philosophy and social theory for interdisciplinary LIS research (Wikgren, 2005; Dobson, 2002; Mingers, 2004; Smith, 2006; Jashapara, 2007). More recently, Budd, Hill, and Shannon (2010, p. 269) have proposed a realist approach to answering LIS ‘‘[research] questions that matter’’ that explicitly uses Bhaskar’s critical realism to build the ontological basis with which a phenomenological approach to inquiry and method can be combined. These authors convincingly showed that it was not only possible but also desirable to supplement the social constructionist metatheoretical framework generally associated with qualitative research in LIS with a realist ontological stance. Like them, I have approached my research from a framework that couples a critical realist ontological perspective with a social constructionist epistemological approach and is hospitable to a discourse analytical methodology.


11

In LIS, Tuominen, Talja, and Savolainen (2002) have made a convincing argument for their version of constructionism that is based on an understanding of discourse, cognition, and reality contingent on the premise that ‘‘we produce and organize social reality together by using language’’ (p. 278, emphasis added). According to Tuominen (2005), the adoption of constructionism as a metatheory shifts the focus of LIS research on to discourse practices such as talk, interaction, and language use in various contexts. Suominen (2008) describes the discourse analytical social constructionist view taken by Talja, Tuominen, and Savolainen as being ‘‘perhaps the most vital approach among the metatheoretical trends within LID [library, information, and documentation studies]’’ (p. 175). The scholarly works of Savolainen, Talja, and Tuominen have been seminal in the development of the philosophical framework for my dissertation research, although Talja was probably the most powerful source of inspiration for me. From outside LIS, the work of critical discourse analyst Norman Fairclough has also been of essential importance to the full elaboration of my research approach and my decision to combine a critical realist ontological stance with a social constructionist epistemology in order to conform better to my beliefs about the nature of my research object and of the available ways of knowing about it.

METHODOLOGY The methodological framework surrounding my research design was CDA as it was developed by Fairclough (1992a, 1992b, 1993, 2001b, 2001c, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). Derived from Foucauldian analysis, Fairclough’s version of CDA is textually oriented discourse analysis based on a critical realist’s ontology that focuses on the social character of texts (Fairclough, 2005c). The researcher’s role is to map relationships between discourse and social practices, to critique these relationships, and to suggest directions for initiating change in the real world if desirable. To guide the design of my study, I used the five stage methodological approach for practicing CDA outlined by Fairclough (2001b, pp. 236–239, 2003, pp. 209–210). Stage 1: articulation of the research problem and identification of a sample of texts (corpus) that embody the object of analysis. Stage 2: discourse analysis and description. This stage consists in analytical work on three levels: social practice, discursive practice, and text (Fairclough, 1992a, pp. 231–238). The analysis of discursive practices

12


is oriented along three lines: (a) structural analysis focuses on the identification of a network of interpretative repertoires or of orders of discourse; (b) textual analysis examines what goes on in the text, what goes on between texts, and how discourses and genres are worked together or articulated (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 63); and (c) the analysis of texturing aims to examine what the text ‘‘does’’ and how it does it (Fairclough, 2003, pp 209–210). Stage 3: interpretation and critique. In order to develop an explanatory critique, the researcher must (a) examine the function the discourse under study may have in the social practice (what purposes it serves) and (b) consider what the possible real effects of discourse are or could be (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 209–210). Stage 4: explanation and more critique. This is the last stage of the critical analysis of discourse. The analyst examines the effects of discourse and hypothesizes as to the effects of its alternatives. The kinds of questions the analyst must ask are ‘‘What alternative discourses are being suppressed by the discourse under study? What possibilities for action are being ignored as a result of the discourse? Are there possibilities for change?’’ Stage 5: self-analysis. The researcher needs to reflect critically on stages 1–4 of the analysis and must be able to explain how she or he is socially positioned (Fairclough, 2003, pp. 209–210). The self-reflective process aims to answer axiological concerns regarding the positioning of the analyst toward the research object; it takes place throughout the analytical process. The analyst works at the same time, or back and forth, and repetitively on each stage of the analysis and on different texts. A great deal of time and effort go into reading and rereading texts at every stage of the discourse analytical process, which is fundamentally recursive (see Fig. 2). Research Design Assumptions and Guiding Research Questions From the very beginning, three assumptions guided the articulation of my research design: 1. Academic librarianship is an area of social life associated with a network of social practices that ‘‘articulate discourse together with non-discoursal social elements’’ that are action and interaction, social relations, and the material world (Fairclough, 2003, p. 25). 2. There exists a discourse or field of discourse in academic librarianship.

13


Definition of research problem Data selection texts selection constitution of corpus

Textual analysis Discourse description genre(s) discourses called upon creation of identity

Discourse analysis Interpretation & critique interdiscursivity intertextuality critique

Critical discourse analysis Explanation & critique Social analysis,

Analytical stages

Feedback loops correspond to iterative analyses

Problem identification

function of discourse effects

Alternative discourses?

Fig. 2.

Fairclough’s Methodological Process for Critical Discourse Analysis.

3. Within this field of discourse, there exists an order of discourse about the academic library as space and place. Based on those assumptions, the overarching research question was Q: What is going on in professional discussions of library planning and design that attempt to (re)-define the academic library as space and place in the 21st century?

14


A series of relatively simple questions were developed to give direction to my analysis of discourse. Q1: How is a discourse about the academic library as space and place constituted in LIS discussions of academic library planning and design? Q1.1: How is the discourse about the academic library as space and place constituted in a corpus (sample) of LIS texts from 1995 to 2009? Q1.2: Who constructs the discourse? Q1.3: To whom is this discourse directed? Who is the targeted audience? Q1.4: How is the discourse disseminated? Q1.5: What is constructed through the discourse? Q1.6: What is left unsaid or suppressed in and through the discourse? Q2: What are possible explanations for the formation of this discourse? Q3: What are possible outcomes and effects of constituting the academic library in this way for the future of academic librarianship and the planning and design of academic libraries? Data Selection The primary data used for discourse analytical research are texts. However, the constitution of a sample of texts (also referred to as a corpus) is value laden. Taylor (2001a) warns that ‘‘discourse analysis is not a neutral, technical form of processing but always involves y decision making’’ (p. 24). In keeping with the theoretical principles of CDA, the primary criteria established for the consideration of a text to be included in the corpus are that it should have ‘‘an obvious social or institutional significance’’ (Taylor, 2001b, p. 316) and that it should present interesting discursive features and mechanisms that can be analyzed using Fairclough’s approach to CDA. For each text considered for inclusion in this corpus, the following questions had to be answered in the affirmative: Is this text significant in regard to the discourse on academic librarianship? Is this text significant in planning and designing the academic library as space and place? Is there something interesting and worth examining going on here? Identifying Important Texts Important texts are those associated with changes in practices or produced in relation to a particular event, and they can be easily compared or contrasted (Phillips & Hardy, 2002, pp. 73–74). The preliminary analysis of the themes developed in the literature on academic library planning and


15

design showed that three discursive threads – the information commons, the learning commons, and the LDL – have dominated discussions of academic library planning and design since 1995. Therefore, texts that took up one or more of these dominant topics were first isolated. Positioning myself both as a discourse analyst seeking to describe and explicate discourse formation about the ‘‘academic library as place,’’ and as an architect seeking to understand from that discourse librarians’ vision of the academic library as a particular type of environment, I extracted 12 texts for potential study from the body of texts that discussed the information commons, the learning commons, or the LDL. Texts by Beagle (1999, 2004, 2009) and Bennett (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2008) were automatically included because the dominance of these writers as authorial figures had already been established. The texts by Halbert (1999) and Tramdack (1999) were included based on Bailey and Tierney’s (2002) judgment that ‘‘in 1999, Donald Beagle, together with commentators Martin Halbert and Philip Tramdack, presented substantive theoretical and applied road maps for an integrated Information Commons in an academic environment.’’ Also, the three texts by Beagle (1999), Halbert (1999), and Tramdack (1999) constitute a series of interrelated articles published together in one issue of the JAL. The texts by Bailey and Tierney (2002), Boone (2003), and Spencer (2006) were retained based on a preliminary analysis of their content and for the intertextual and interdiscursive relationships existing between them and the other texts. In order to assess the importance of all the texts, I also performed citation analyses using ‘‘Social Science Search’’ and ‘‘Google Scholar’’ for comparison (results of citations analyses performed in 2009 are presented in Table 3). Finally, one more text by Beagle (2009) was added for analysis at the time of its publication, late in the research process, because it articulates the evolution of the academic library as learning commons. For each of the texts for which the data was available, I also studied the controlled vocabularies used to describe them in the ‘‘Library Literature & Information Full Text’’ database. This last step helped me select eight texts to constitute the text sample for the CDA corpus (Table 4). The articles by Bailey and Tierney (2002) and Spencer (2006) were eliminated from the text sample after close reexamination of their content because they do not discuss issues of academic library planning (this was further reinforced by the absence of the descriptor ‘‘Architecture & Buildings’’ from the controlled vocabulary). The article by Boone (2003) was also eliminated because, although it discusses a paradigm shift in the design and development of academic library buildings, its main focus is on a new service concept.

16


Table 3.

Citation Analyses (Performed December 2008).

Author and Date of Texts Considered

Times Cited Social Science Search

Google Scholar

8 19 No data 12 2 2 1 No data No data 6 No data 3

56a 103 11 26 10 6 2 1 10 19 9 5

Bailey and Tierney (2002) Beagle (1999) Beagle (2004) Bennett (2003) Bennett (2005) Bennett (2006) Bennett (2007a) Bennett (2008) Boone (2003) Halbert (1999) Spencer (2006) Tramdack (1999) a

Note: 27 of the works citing Bailey and Tierney linked to web pages written in Chinese.

Table 4.

Summary of Relevant Controlled Vocabularies Describing Potential Texts.

Text

Bailey and Tierney (2002) Beagle (1999) Beagle (2004)a Beagle (2009)a Bennett (2003)a Bennett (2005)a Bennett (2006) Bennett (2007a) Bennett (2008) Boone (2003) Halbert (1999) Spencer (2006) Tramdack (1999) a

Descriptor: College & University Library

Descriptor: Architecture & Building

Descriptor: Learning Commons

KeywordPlus: Information Commons

X X

X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X

Note: There was no data for these texts.

X X X X X

X X

X

X X

X X X

17


Two texts by Beagle (1999) and Bennett (2003) were selected because of their seminal character and because they represent points of departure for discussions of the information commons and of the LDL. Four other texts by Beagle (2004, 2009) and Bennett (2006, 2008) in which the authors elaborate on the discourse of the commons were retained for they contributed to an understanding of the development of the discourse under study. Finally, the texts by Halbert (1999) and Tramdack (1999) were also retained because they were written as answers to Beagle’s ‘‘Conceptualizing an Information Commons’’ (1999) and because the three texts (Beagle, 1999; Halbert, 1999; Tramdack, 1999) formed a unit worthy of analysis. Table 5 summarizes information about the texts selected for CDA.

Table 5. Author and Date, Text Title

Texts Chosen for the CDA Corpus. Articles’ Provenance The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Beagle (1999). Conceptualizing an information commons. Beagle (2004). From information to learning commons. Beagle (2009). The learning commons in historical context. Bennett (2003). Libraries designed for learning. Bennett (2006) The choice for learning. Bennett (2008). The information or learning commons: Which will we have? Halbert (1999). Lessons from the information commons frontier. Tramdack (1999). Reaction to Beagle.

Annals of Nagoya University

Others Conference presentation

Report CLIR

X X

X

X X X

X

X

18


Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis To analyze discourse formation in all the texts in the corpus, I followed Fairclough’s guidelines for textual analysis. The purpose of textual analysis is to examine and describe a text by identifying its origins and the participants in discursive activity, its style, discursive themes and the perspective or point of view from which these are represented, discourses drawn upon, and how all these characteristics of the text are worked or mixed together. Critical analysis is then performed, supported by the secondary data created using textual analysis and involving a critical interpretation of discourse. In order to construct an analytical toolbox for performing CDA, I combined analytical approaches and lines of questioning borrowed from Jørgensen and Phillips, (2002), Locke (2004), Phillips and Hardy (2002), Van Leeuwen (2008), and Wood and Kroger (2000). In order to let the data talk to me without the filter of an ideological lens and to heighten a sense of possibilities, I consciously avoided taking a Marxist approach to CDA with its a priori focus on power relationships. In taking that approach, I was inspired by Talja’s approach to discourse analysis in LIS for whom ‘‘the aim of discourse analysis is not only to identify interpretative repertoires, but to point out the power and influence of particular narratives and to analyze their potential societal and institutional functions and effects’’ (Talja, 1999, p. 474). In my analysis, I relied on both my library education and my professional training and experience as an architect to examine the tensions and contradictions that may arise in the context of academic library practice from the discursive construction of the academic library as space and place. Presentation of critical interpretive work takes the form of a narrative concluding with suggestions for future action.

FINDINGS Discourse Description Context The social context surrounding the production of the eight texts studied and of the discourse they construct fits into the institutionalized structure of scholarly activities focused on research, knowledge production, writing, and publishing or presenting at conferences. The majority of texts in the research corpus were published in peer-reviewed journals; only two texts were produced in the course of other scholarly activities and made available for free on the World Wide Web. In this context, before being published or


19

presented, the texts have all passed through a selection process that guarantees the relevance and believability of the arguments developed. Thus, the narratives developed in the texts studied have acquired power of persuasion. Three types of social actors are considered participants in the discourse studied. These include the writers who produce texts; the audience (or readers) who interpret the texts; and, finally, participants in the discourse, those persons who are explicitly named in the texts or whose speech is reported directly or indirectly. The four articles that were published in the JAL provide biographical information that establishes the authors’ social identities, something that contributes to establishing the authority of the writers and reinforces the power of the narratives. Set apart in an insert in italic letters below the text of the article, this information is given visual preeminence. All four authors are men identified as high-ranked professionals with administrative responsibilities in academic libraries. The texts in the inserts also inform us that Beagle and Bennett have been engaged in library planning consulting activities. Based on the analysis of the texts’ contents, the audience targeted by the writers consists primarily of library professionals. In the texts of their JAL articles, Beagle (1999) and Bennett (2006, 2008) establish a relationship of solidarity with their audience by making repeated use of the first person plural pronouns we, us, and our. Since the credentials of the writers have been previously established, this discursive device also contributes to positioning them as advisors or mentors in regard to the audience. The third category of social actors divides participants into two groups – those who are named in the text and those who are called upon by means of reported speech and whose names may appear outside the main body of the texts. A great many participants named in notes and references were found irrelevant to understanding the constitution of discourse. However, a few participants named or quoted in the body of the texts were found to have a preeminent role as social actors in the context of the discursive activity studied in the corpus. Fig. 3 summarizes the distribution of participants in the discourse identified. The prominent participants called upon are scholars or distinguished professionals from within and outside LIS to whom the writers refer in order to build and strengthen their arguments. However, other participants are called upon in the texts who are less relevant to the discourse studied. Beagle (1999, p. 85) calls upon Hurt and quotes extensively from a C&RL News article by her (Hurt, 1997) to support his description of the need for new and varied types of study and work spaces in the academic library that

20


LISPARTICIPANTS

NON LIS PARTICIPANTS

Writers

Targeted Audience

Participants called upon

Academic librarians

Beagle

Beagle

University library administrators

Bennett

Hurt

Halbert

Henderson & Venkatraman Bruffee Seeley Brown

LIS professionals Tramdack

Fig. 3.

Foote

Participants in the Discourse Identified in the Texts.

can accommodate collaborative teaching and learning. From outside LIS, Beagle (1999, p. 82) calls upon Henderson and Venkatraman whose theory of strategic alignment he uses to explain the need for developing a new model for library services. He also quotes extensively from a 1996 article by Seely Brown and Duguid who were then both at the famed Xerox Palo Alto Research Center to argue that the traditional academic reference desk does not satisfy the needs of a ‘‘highly demanding user community’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 88). Bennett also calls upon Seely Brown to advocate for the transformation of academic library space into ‘‘an on-campus social learning environment’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 8). Other relevant named participants from outside LIS who were called upon in Bennett’s texts are Bruffee and Foote. To buttress his argument for effecting a change from ‘‘teacher-centered learning in higher education y [to a] learner-centered paradigm’’ (Bennett, 2006, pp. 7–8) aligned with a nonfoundational view of knowledge (Bennett, 2003, p. 3), Bennett draws arguments from Bruffee’s book on collaborative learning (e.g., Bruffee, 1999). Bennett (2003, 2006) calls upon Steven Foote, ‘‘an architect with extensive experience with libraries and president of [the architecture and design firm] Perry Dean Rogers’’ (Bennett, 2003, p. 10, note 12), quoting him directly in order to introduce the idea of spaces designed to accommodate and support collaborative learning (Bennett, 2006, p. 13). Fig. 4 illustrates the discursive relationships between writers and participants called upon.


Writers Halbert Tramdack Beagle Bennett

21

Participants called upon Beagle (LIS) Venkatraman & Henderson (Business) Hurt (LIS) Seely Brown (IT Research) Bennett (LIS) Bruffee (English) Foote (Architecture)

Refers to self Calls upon

Fig. 4.

Discursive Relationships Between Writers and Participants Called Upon.

Themes The texts in the corpus were chosen as research data because they took up one or more of the following dominant themes: information commons, learning commons, and library (or libraries) designed for learning. However, a number of other themes are activated within the texts in the corpus. The most relevant of the themes found were the traditional library, the digital-age environment, change, and library space. These constitute secondary themes that have ancillary functions in the process of building arguments and explanations. Table 6 summarizes the distribution of themes in the corpus studied. The traditional library theme is used by both Beagle (1999) and Bennett (2006) to buttress the argument for designing libraries for learning. For Beagle, the traditional library is dominated by books; ‘‘[it]has grown up around the print tradition’’ (1999, p. 82). Bennett provides a much richer and multifaceted vision of the traditional library. On the one hand, he judges it to be conventional and unable to adapt to the digital environment (Bennett, 2006, p. 3); on the other hand, he describes it in superlative terms, and provides illustrations of its monumental architectural features in the text (Bennett, 2006, Figs. 1 and 2, p. 4). Each of the writers activates the digital age environment theme to describe changes in academic library planning and design. The digital age environment is described as highly complex, fluid, and rapidly evolving (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82–83), and dominated by the virtual (Bennett, 2006). In this environment,

22


Table 6. Distribution of Themes. Text

Primary Themes

Secondary Themes

Information Learning Library Traditional Digital-age Change Library commons commons designed for library environment space learning Beagle (1999) Beagle (2004) Beagle (2009) Bennett (2003) Bennett (2006) Bennett (2008) Halbert (1999) Tramdack (1999)

X X X

X X X

X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X

X X

the use of the new technologies requires changes in library planning and design (Beagle, 1999; Halbert, 1999; Bennett, 2006). Academic libraries that have been ‘‘among the earliest adopters of information technology and multimedia’’ (Tramdack, 1999, p. 92) have ‘‘demonstrated an impressive ability to remain current in a rapidly changing telecommunication infrastructure’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 6). Halbert delivers a ground-level vision of the academic library as space and place in the digital age environment as a ‘‘new building featuring a variety of high technology areas y [and] coordinated facilities providing comprehensive access to information technology y with a variety of centers for facilitating faculty hypermedia and full-texts projects’’ (Halbert, 1999, p. 90, emphasis added). Taking different perspectives, Bennett and Beagle introduce a change theme into the discourse on library planning and design. For Beagle (1999, 2004, 2009), change is seen in management terms as an organizational evolutionary process of ‘‘change dynamics’’ (Beagle, 2004) spurred by ‘‘academic change initiatives’’ (Beagle, 2009) and resulting in ‘‘institutional alignment’’ and ‘‘strategic fit’’ (Beagle, 1999, 2004). For Bennett, change accompanies fundamental revisions in ways of thinking about learning and teaching (Bennett, 2003, 2006) as well as about planning and designing library services and facilities (Bennett, 2006). For him, the aim of change is to cause a ‘‘revolution in our thinking about library design’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 6, emphasis added) and a ‘‘paradigm shift in library space design’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 8, emphasis added). The library space theme is activated by Bennett (2006), Tramdack (1999), and Beagle (2009). Tramdack (1999, p. 92) writes about ‘‘the physical space


23

of the IC’’ and its ‘‘working spaces.’’ Bennett’s preoccupation with space is rendered explicit through the frequent collocation of the words space and library and the collocation of the word space and qualifying terms that differentiate between types of library spaces such as space for learning, shelving space, study space, librarian’s workspace, or reader’s workspace (Bennett, 2006, pp. 3, 4, 6, 10, 11). Bennett also provides the most developed descriptions of the academic library environment in regard to its spatial qualities. For him, ‘‘complexity, or the perceived capacity of the space to occupy interest and stimulate activity, and mystery, or the perception that entering the setting will lead to increased learning, interaction, or interest’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 4), are qualities conducive to creating learning environments in the academic library. Bennett (2006) and Beagle (2009) both incorporate visual representations of library spaces into their texts. Beagle illustrates the reorganization of the spaces in an academic library evolving into a learning commons with four complete floor plans (Beagle, 2009, Figs. 6–9). Bennett uses six photographs and one diagram for furniture arrangement (Bennett, 2006, Figs. 1–7) to effectively depict the environmental qualities of the libraries he describes; the atmosphere of the spaces photographed is made so palpable as to convince the reader of the superiority of the traditional monumental library design for inspiring a yearning for learning over functional library designs dictated by service and storage functions.

Discourse Interpretation Construction of Interpretative Repertoires Interpretative repertoires are discursive assemblages corresponding to dominant themes identified in the texts analyzed. In the corpus, three repertoires construct visions of the academic library as place around the following metaphors: (a) the academic library as information commons, (b) the academic library as learning commons, and (c) the academic library as space designed for learning. Academic Library as Information Commons Interpretative Repertoire The information commons (IC) repertoire is elaborated primarily in a group of five texts referred to as the IC corpus (Beagle, 1999, 2004, 2009; Halbert, 1999; Tramdack, 1999). Three of these texts were published together in the JAL in 1999 (Beagle, 1999; Halbert, 1999; Tramdack, 1999). Together they form a collective point of departure for the constitution of the IC repertoire.

24


Of these three texts, that written by Beagle is the most often cited in the LIS literature on information commons and emerges as a seminal reference. Naming and evaluation (Fairclough, 2003, p. 109) are two discursive devices that play an important role in terms of identity building and validation in the three texts published in the JAL by Beagle (1999), Halbert (1999), and Tramdack (1999). Naming is calling upon a social actor by name and evaluation refers to the subjective nature of statements. Instances of both are found in the texts: ‘‘Don Beagle has correctly identified the key features of this multifaceted concept [of the IC]’’ (Halbert, 1999, p. 90, emphasis added) and ‘‘Donald Beagle provides a thought-provoking conceptual structure for implementing both the virtual and physical manifestations of the Information Commons’’ (Tramdack, 1999, p. 92, emphasis added). In discourse analytical terms, these utterances have expressive value; they represent ‘‘a trace or cue of the producer’s evaluation y of the bit of reality y [a feature] relates to’’ (Fairclough, 2001c, p. 93). In the above text excerpts, choice of vocabulary expresses the writer’s approval of and adherence to Beagle’s construction of the IC conceptual model. Naming Beagle not only constitutes his identity as a participant in the IC repertoire but also establishes his authority by giving credence or truth value to his argument. The three texts by Beagle (1999, 2004, 2009) are those that most actively construct the information commons as an object of discourse. They share a common vocabulary and discursive style. In all of them, the term ‘‘Information Commons’’ is capitalized; this rhetorical device does discursive work that constructs a category of library-thing and gives it a name, Information Commons. In a self-referencing practice that contributes to the discursive continuity of the IC repertoire over time, the author reinterprets his explanation of the academic library’s evolution by introducing variations in the theme of change. Beagle’s (2004, 2009) texts form a discursive continuum. They constitute a narrative that explains the transformation of the traditional academic library into the Information Commons and its subsequent morphing into the Learning Commons by a process Beagle calls ‘‘phased evolution’’ (2009, p. 18). Thus, the introduction of the academic library as learning commons interpretative repertoire is made possible by the activation of an ancillary change-themed discursive thread woven into the fabric of the IC repertoire. Interdiscursivity is the presence within a text of a mix of elements of other discourses (Fairclough, 2003, p. 218). Beagle’s use of terms borrowed from the management theory area of discourse within the IC interpretative repertoire is a characteristic example of interdiscursivity. In effect, such


25

terms as ‘‘change dynamics’’ (2004, paragraph 2), ‘‘functional integration’’ (1999, p. 83, 2004, paragraphs 2 and 7), ‘‘strategic fit’’ (1999, p. 82, 2004, paragraph 2), and ‘‘strategic alignment’’ (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82, 87, 2004, paragraph 2) are lexical immigrants in the LIS vocabulary. The concept of alignment stands out in the elaboration of the change theme. First introduced in the composite term ‘‘Strategic Alignment’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 82), it reoccurs as a verb in combination with the adverb ‘‘better’’ (twice in Beagle, 2004, paragraph 5, and twice in 2009, pp. 18–19). In Beagle’s (1999) article, the adjective ‘‘strategic’’ and the noun ‘‘alignment’’ are both capitalized in reference to the origin of the term in a management theory developed by Henderson and Venkatraman in the 1980s (Beagle, 1999, p. 82). Beagle’s indirect reporting from a discourse outside that of academic librarianship situates his own argument in a larger social context. The rhetorical move to call upon Henderson and Venkatraman serves to give credibility to the constitution of the IC model as a strategically necessary organizational change for academic libraries. Beagle also uses more familiar terms from the LIS discourse on organization management such as ‘‘organizational planning,’’ ‘‘organizational scope,’’ ‘‘organizational domains,’’ and ‘‘corporate learning organizations’’ (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82, 83, 88). Thus, by locating the IC repertoire within an existing order of discourse on library administration and management in LIS, this has the effect of redirecting the text’s message more specifically to social actors within the audience who occupy managerial positions in the academic librarianship hierarchy. In the research corpus, there are also two texts in which Bennett (2003, 2008) activates the IC repertoire. It is significant that in them the term information commons is not capitalized. What is the difference, then, between an Information Commons and an information commons and why is this important? As constructed by Beagle (1999, 2009), the Information Commons is a physical manifestation of a concept of service. As constructed by Bennett, the information commons is constructed as a glorified computer lab. In effect, the author uses a device that is a form of rewording to restructure, discursively the information commons as ‘‘a cluster of network access points and associated IT tools’’ (Bennett, 2008, p. 183). Rewording is a strategy where new wordings are ‘‘set up as alternatives to y existing ones’’ (Fairclough, 1992b, p. 194); in another instance of discursive rewording used by Beagle, the Information Commons, in its embryonic form, is typified as the ‘‘computer lab on the first floor of the library’’ (Beagle, 2004). Thus, the term ‘‘information commons’’ can be interpreted as representing either a conceptual entity (concept of service) or a physical space or place, or both when it is Beagle’s Information Commons.

26


Bennett’s texts (2003, 2008) introduce in the IC interpretative repertoire a voice that has a critical perspective. In them, the physical information commons is constituted as a lower order library type than the learning commons to help buttress Bennett’s argument in favor of designing the academic library for learning (in 2003 and mostly 2008). Academic Library as Learning Commons Interpretative Repertoire The learning commons (LC) repertoire is elaborated on in three texts of the research corpus (Beagle, 2004, 2009; Bennett, 2008). The construction of the learning commons as an object of discourse is effected primarily in two texts by Beagle (2004, 2009). These texts form a discursive continuum that constitutes a narrative explaining the progressive transformation of the traditional academic library into the Learning Commons by a process Beagle calls ‘‘phased evolution’’ (Beagle, 2009, p. 18). In that process, the information commons constitute an intermediary phase. The learning commons is conceptualized as an organizational unit of greater institutional mission than the traditional academic library. It is constructed as a higher order commons that combines the services of the academic library, the IC, and other academic support units as well. Beagle’s version of the physical LC is a facility housing all those units under one roof. From a genealogical perspective, Beagle’s (2004) text constitutes the point of departure for the development of the LC repertoire, and he elaborates on it further in his 2009 article where the learning commons is viewed in the ‘‘historical context of academic change initiatives’’ (p. 18). In these texts, the Learning Commons is constructed as an object of discourse in the same fashion as the Information Commons. First, the term ‘‘Library Commons’’ is capitalized and contracted into the acronym LC in a manner that parallels Beagle’s introduction of the ‘‘Information Commons’’ concept. Then the LC model is presented as the result of far-reaching organizational change (Beagle, 2004, 2009) that occurs when the academic library ‘‘aligns itself with changing campus-wide priorities’’ (Beagle, 2004). The management-based ‘‘Strategic Alignment’’ perspective used to explain the development of the information commons model (Beagle, 1999) is substituted for the alternative ‘‘change dynamics’’ (Beagle, 2004) perspective, and, ultimately, the ‘‘academic change initiatives’’ (Beagle, 2009). These borrowed perspectives serve as explanatory models for the progressive adaptation of the academic library to a changing social, educational, and technological context. This discursive move positions again the texts in relationship to the order of discourse on library administration and management.


27

In Bennett’s (2008) text, the LC model is presented as a desirable evolution of an outdated service-focused IC model into a learning-focused LC model, which responds to learner-centered trends in higher education and to the evolving needs of library users. Bennett’s text presents some interesting semantic characteristics: in particular, extensive over wording and repetition express the author’s preference for Beagle’s learning commons concept. In fact, strong intertextual relationships exist between Bennett’s text and The Information Commons Handbook (Beagle, 2006). Bennett’s argument rests entirely on using definitions of the information and learning commons taken from Beagle’s Handbook (2006). Bennett also calls upon the IC interpretative repertoire as it is developed in the Handbook (Beagle, 2006) in order to build his argument in favor of conceiving the learning commons as a library space designed for learning. In Bennett’s text, interdiscursivity and intertextuality are tightly intertwined.

Academic Library as Space Designed for Learning Interpretative Repertoire The theme of the LDL is activated in three texts by Bennett (2003, 2006, 2008) in which the academic library as space designed for learning interpretative repertoire unfolds. Textual analysis brings to light the author’s versatility in constructing persuasive texts that reach different audiences and contribute to the diffusion of the LDL repertoire as ideology. In texts published between 2006 and 2008 in particular, the discursive style calls to mind political discourse and its propaganda. The titles of the essays – ‘‘The Choice for Learning’’ (Bennett, 2006) and ‘‘The Information or the Learning Commons: Which Will We Have?’’ (Bennett, 2008) – sound like those of manifestoes. They have the flavor of advertising slogans used in political campaigning to outline the choice that must be made for a certain future to emerge or change to take place. One could easily imagine a banner floating behind a speaker with the exclamation ‘‘Candidate xx: The choice for learning!’’ However, Bennett’s tone is conversational, and the use of the first and second person singular pronouns, as in ‘‘I ask you to bring a picture to mind y ’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 3, emphasis added) helps create an intimate mood. Meanwhile, the use of the pronoun ‘‘we’’ has the effect of bringing all discourse participants together in a spirit of solidarity. A community of common experience and purpose is thus constituted and it is given the power to choose what kind of library the academic library of the future will be. All in all, the ideological quality of the LDL repertoire constructs Bennett’s identity as guru; that is ‘‘a specific form of the character of Expert’’ (Fairclough, 2003, p. 166).

28


The LDL is constituted at once as the object of discourse in the title of Bennett’s (2003) text. The writer’s vision of the library as ‘‘space to advance learning and teaching’’ (pp. 3–4) is constructed by way of categorization, comparison, and contrast of ‘‘two conceptions of the library as a place.’’ The library as a space ‘‘where learning is the primary activity and where the focus is on social exchanges through which information is transformed into the knowledge of some person or group of persons’’ is constituted as a library category contrasted against ‘‘libraries as service places’’ (p. 4). In turn, the discursive construction of the ‘‘library as service place’’ category rests on the description of yet another library category that is the ‘‘traditional library, [a place] where we shelve material, circulate things to readers, assist readers with questions about information resources, create instruments such as the catalog for navigating information, and teach readers how to master the complexities of both printed and networked information’’ (p. 5). Thus, the traditional library is constructed as an undesirable outdated model with a bibliocentric service ethos that serves primarily as a document warehouse or a sacralized book repository. In the process of constituting the LDL repertoire, Bennett pulls in an education-based interpretative repertoire that is used to justify the need for a paradigm shift in academic library planning and design (Bennett, 2003, pp. 3–4, 2006, pp. 7–8). In his texts written between 2003 and 2006, Bennett assumes that his audience knows about the latest learner-oriented educational theories. He uses this assumption to make the claim that ‘‘quietly but powerfully, American higher education acknowledged and began to engage with the social dimensions of learning and of knowledge’’ (Bennett, 2003, p. 3). Bennett also presents a value-laden description of the foundational view of knowledge to explain away the ‘‘obstacles to developing a new paradigm shift for library space’’ (Bennett, 2006, pp. 7–8). This serves to buttress his argument for choosing to support collaborative learning in the library over choosing to remain an ‘‘information organization primarily supporting information use-information consumption’’ (Bennett, 2006, p. 8). Terms imported from the education discourse establish an interdiscursive relationship that aims to validate Bennett’s argument for the design of learning-centered library facilities.

Construction of an Order of Discourse Over time, a dialogical process is enacted predominantly in the texts by Beagle and Bennett. A progression of coherent arguments explains the need


29

to plan and design academic library services and spaces that respond to the new conditions of the digital age (Beagle, 1999, 2004, 2009; Bennett, 2006), ‘‘the unique management challenges and demands of information technology’’ (Beagle, 1999), accommodate changing trends in teaching and learning approaches in higher education (Beagle, 2009; Bennett, 2006), and acknowledge the focus on information literacy in the practice of academic librarianship (Beagle, 2009; Bennett, 2008). The respective visions of Beagle and Bennett converge to construct the academic library as learning place (ALLP) as an object of discourse. The concept of the ALLP is enacted in a model of the academic library as a digital age commons that provide not only access to traditional and emerging tools for the dissemination of knowledge but also adequate and updated spaces to support collaborative knowledge work in a high tech environment. Its purpose is to provide a learning place aligned with the trend in higher-education toward learner-centered practices (Beagle, 2009; Bennett, 2008). As such it caters primarily to an undergraduate student population. Fig. 5 summarizes the constitution of the ALLP order of discourse at the intersection of the IC, LC, and LDL repertoires.

Academic Library as Learning Place order of discourse LC repertoire

IC repertoire Beagle-99

Beagle-04

Halbert-99 Tramdack-99

Beagle-09 Bennett-08 Bennett-03

Bennett-06

LDL repertoire

Fig. 5.

Constitution of the Academic Library as Learning Place Order of Discourse.

30


CRITICAL ANALYSIS For Talja (1999), ‘‘the aim of discourse analysis is not only to identify interpretative repertoires, but to point out the power and influence of particular narratives and to analyze their potential societal and institutional functions and effects’’ (p. 474). What follows is a critical analysis of the ‘‘academic library as learning place’’ (ALLP) order of discourse and its constitutive interpretative repertoires. Its aim is to bring to light some of the influence and effects of this discourse in the world of practice.

Effects of the ‘‘Academic Library as Learning Place’’ Discourse To understand the effects of discourse on social practices related to academic libraries, it is of importance to recognize the agency of Beagle and Bennett in the translation of the IC, LC, and LDL interpretative repertoires into the implementation of the IC and LC conceptual models in (a) the planning and design of library services and facilities, (b) the construction of information and learning commons on many North American campuses, and (c) the reconceptualization of the academic library as a learning place. Beagle (1999) proposes that strategic alignment is both the cause for change and the explanation for how the academic library, ‘‘an institution that has grown up around the print tradition’’, needs to adapt in order to ‘‘manage service delivery in the highly complex and fluid digital environment’’ (p. 182). The alignment of the library is meant to fit in the framework of academic change initiatives developed by the American Council of Education in the 1990s (Beagle, 2004, 2009, p. 18). Alignment should steer the library into evolving from being a traditional ‘‘storehouse of the printed record of humanity’’ (Beagle, 2009, p. 17), to be an information commons, and ultimately to become a learning commons. The intended effect of this discourse is to prompt library managers to overhaul traditional academic libraries. The narrative unfolding in Beagle’s three texts (1999, 2004, 2009) promotes ‘‘the emergence of a new model for service delivery in the academic library’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 82). It is oriented toward producing action with real effects in the everyday-life world of practice in academic libraries. Recommended action consists of adding new digitally oriented library services into traditional academic librarianship (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82, 83); integrating technology in the design of a networked instructional and learning environment (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82, 83, 84, 85); reorganizing the physical library space to make room for varied study and work spaces


31

inclusive of environments planned and designed to accommodate information literacy instruction (Beagle, 2009, p. 17), collaboration (Beagle, 1999, p. 85, 2009, p. 17), a new focus on student learning (Beagle, 2009, p. 17); and, finally, changing the library’s organizational structure to align the information/learning commons with ‘‘the interests and needs of the larger institutional and technological environment’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 87). Delivered in installments, Beagle’s (1999, 2004, 2009) descriptions of the IC and LC models constitute a continuous narrative that culminates in the construction of the learning commons as the ultimate transformation of the academic library. This discourse is inserted in a process of diffusion of innovation in the area of academic library planning and design where the innovation is the model of the commons. In Beagle’s narrative, change is necessary because the academic library needs to embrace ITs and enter the digital age. Adopting the Learning Commons model is presented as a means to ‘‘revitalize,’’ ‘‘reinvigorate,’’ and ‘‘reposition’’ (Beagle, 2009, p. 18) traditional libraries. As an institution, the academic library is thus implicitly constructed as a sickly physical entity that needs to be submitted to some kind of regenerative treatment in order to be ‘‘fixed.’’ In Beagle’s texts, discursive activity serves to disseminate a road map for achieving the regeneration of the academic library and transform it into ‘‘a more active agent of collaboration in support of learning outcomes’’ (Beagle, 2009, p. 18). For Bennett (2006), the traditional library has been rendered obsolete by the digital revolution and needs rejuvenating as well. While the IC and LC repertoires developed by Beagle construct change as evolutionary, the LDL repertoire (in particular as activated in Bennett, 2006) constructs change as essentially revolutionary. Bennett’s solution to obsolescence is to produce a paradigm shift that will result in aligning academic library services and practices with learner-centered educational trends. In Bennett’s texts, discourse is oriented toward strategic action. In fact, his 2006 and 2008 texts are doctrinal manifestoes where the repetitive collocation of the words ‘‘library,’’ ‘‘space,’’ and ‘‘learning’’ creates the effect of a mantra-like incantation from which emerges the seductive expression ‘‘library designed for learning’’ that performs as a ‘‘brand mantra.’’ Keller (1999) defines brand mantras as ‘‘three to five word phrases that capture the irrefutable essence or spirit of the brand positioning’’ (pp. 44–45); he explains that brand positioning is about creating the optimal location for the organization’s identity in the minds of customers and of the organization’s employees so that they think of the brand in the ‘‘right way.’’ From a marketing perspective, the LDL repertoire provides academic library administrators

32


with a palatable and institutionally acceptable argument that could enable them to influence ‘‘the willingness of academic administrators to invest in library facility improvements’’ (Shill & Tonner, 2003a) and to ‘‘sell’’ the library within the academic community. The effects of the discourse that incorporates Beagle and Bennett’s narratives can be seen in different areas of social practice in the domain of academic libraries. At the discursive level, a community of discourse has emerged where practitioners acting as writers have contributed to the growth of the literature on information commons, learning commons, and library spaces designed for learning. From the perspective of facilities planning and design as practice, the effect of discourse has been the diffusion of new models for thinking about the academic library that have translated into the construction of new and remodeled library facilities predominantly called information or learning commons. From a marketoriented perspective, another effect of discourse has been the construction of the IC and LC brands with the ‘‘library designed for learning’’ functioning as a brand mantra. I will discuss these three effects of discourse in the following sections. The ALLP Discourse and the LIS Discourse on Academic Libraries To quote Albanese (2006), ‘‘the concept of an information commons or learning commons has been the buzz for the last five years in talking about the new wave of academic libraries’’ (p. 7). Over the last 10 years a number of practitioners have contributed to the development of a considerable body of texts that discuss the new types of libraries built on the concepts and models advocated by Beagle, Bennett, Halbert, and Tramdack (e.g., Albanese, 2006; Bailey & Tierney 2002; Boone, 2003, 2004; Cowgill et al., 2001; Crockett et al., 2002; Haas & Robertson, 2004; Houlihan, 2005; Lefebvre, 2002; Lippincott, 2004; Malenfant, 2006; MacWhinnie, 2003; Nikkel, 2003; Spencer, 2006, 2007). These practitioner-writers constitute a discourse community. They have also contributed to the diffusion of the IC and LC models and have participated in the evolution of the discourse on libraries as learning places. The texts they have produced describe different aspects of the planning, design, organization, and operation of existing information and learning commons and constitute a rich source of information for academic librarians and administrators who are in the planning stages of a library design or redesign project. Adding to this body of literature, a handbook by Beagle (2006) has contributed extensive guidelines for the implementation of information and learning commons. New books on the information commons that were


33

published recently present case studies (Bailey & Tierney, 2008) and discuss more examples from the field (Forrest & Halbert, 2009). As proof that this discourse has an international audience, there are also more and more articles reporting on case studies outside the geographic boundaries of North America. Included in these are articles by Watson (2007) from England, King (n.d.) from Australia, and Mountifield (2003) from New Zealand. Physical Enactment of the ALLP Discourse It can be argued that there is a dialogic relationship between the constitution of a discourse on the ALLP deployed in a sizable body of literature and the remodeling of existing libraries as well as the construction of new libraries designed as information or learning commons. Internet browsing of the websites of North American academic libraries brings up dazzling presentations of improved and new facilities that generally include photographs. Such documents provide observable evidence of the physical effects the ALLP discourse has had on the transformation of library spaces. Articles centering on case studies that were published between 1999 and 2009 and the websites of academic libraries provide ample documentation of the transformations, remodeling, or construction of many library buildings called information or learning commons. Whether this phenomenon can be directly attributed to the texts by Beagle (1999, 2004), Halbert (1999), and Tramdack (1999) that are included in the corpus might be difficult to ascertain. However, Bailey and Tierney (2002) believe that together Beagle, Halbert, and Tramdack presented in their 1999 articles ‘‘substantive theoretical and applied roadmaps for an integrated Information Commons in an academic library environment’’ (p. 277, emphasis added). Moreover, Bailey and Tierney report that Beagle’s conceptual framework shaped the development of the Information Commons at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, thus demonstrating unambiguously the legacy of Beagle’s (1999) article. Branding Branding is a marketing tool that aims at constructing an identity for a product in order to capture the minds of customers with what makes it special and unique (Dempsey, 2004). I have already explained how the capitalization of the two terms Information Commons and Learning Commons (Beagle, 1999, 2004, 2009; Halbert, 1999; Tramdack, 1999) establishes them as lexical items that contribute to the discursive construction of the information and learning commons concepts in the LIS community of

34


discourse. Furthermore, the reduction of these terms into the acronyms IC and LC contributes to the constitution of library brands. According to Stimson (2007), ‘‘a library brand has been defined as ‘all the things that come to mind, all the expectations they have, when they hear the word library,’ and how you wish people to perceive your library.’’ The diffusion of the IC and LC brands has been so effective that the labels information commons and learning commons are now used by many institutions in the name of their libraries. Milewicz (2009, p. 5) provides one explanation. The phenomenon of the information commons is remarkable not simply for its novelty and its widespread adoption, but also for the cachet of the term itself. The appeal of this label, and the decision by so many institutions to adopt the title for their collaborative workspaces, implies shared beliefs about the role of libraries and informational resources in building knowledge. (Emphasis added)

The concept of branding the library was originally imported into librarianship during the 1990s. Articles in the LIS literature (e.g., Dempsey, 2004; Rowley, 1997; Stimson, 2007), postings on library blogs (e.g., Dempsey, 2005), entries on ACRLog (entry dated January 23, 2006) and on Library Success: A Best Practice Wiki (2008), and finally a whole chapter on developing brand strategies in the recently published Marketing Today’s Academic Library: A Bold New Approach to Communicating with Students (Mathews, 2009) demonstrate the relevance of the topic for library practice. According to Mathews (2009, p. 87), ‘‘branding is what makes the product identifiable: the name, symbol, tagline, or design.’’ Through Beagle’s narrative, the Information Commons and the Learning Commons are constructed as brands of libraries for which Bennett’s felicitous coining of the expression ‘‘library designed for learning’’ (2003) functions perfectly as a ‘‘brand mantra’’ (Keller, 1999) or ‘‘tagline’’ (Stimson, 2007; Mathew, 2009). Altogether, one of the effects of the discourse developed in the corpus is the construction and branding of a new corporate identity of the academic library for the 21st century that calls for the examination of the suppressed metaphor library as business. The ALLP Discourse and the Silent Metaphorization of the Library as Business Prima facie, Beagle’s ‘‘Conceptualizing an Information Commons’’ (1999) provides general guidelines for change toward planning and designing a new ‘‘conceptual, physical and instructional space’’ (p. 82). However, it can be argued that the undeveloped theme of the library as business is introduced in


35

Beagle’s discourse, albeit indirectly. In effect, calling upon Henderson and Venkatraman’s theory to introduce the concept of ‘‘strategic alignment’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 82) unequivocally sets up an interdiscursive relationship with the discourse of management. Yet, while adopting and adapting this theory to call for the evolution of academic libraries, Beagle leaves out of his argument the fundamental assumptions at the origin of the strategic alignment model as it was described by its creators: [Assumption] one, economic performance is directly related to the ability of management to create a strategic fit between the position of an organization in the competitive product-market arena and the design of an appropriate administrative structure to support its execution y [Assumption] two, we contend that this strategic fit is inherently dynamic y Thus, strategic alignment is not an event but a process of continuous adaptation and change. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1999, pp. 472–473)

For Henderson and Venkatraman, strategic fit is a business goal that exists in response to the pressures of the market economy. [It] recognizes the need for any strategy to address both the external and internal domains. The external domain is the business arena in which the firm competes and is concerned with decisions such as product-market offering and the distinctive strategy that differentiate the firm from its competitors. (p. 474)

They argue that ‘‘the inability to realize value from I/T [information technology] investments is, in part, due to the lack of alignment between the business and I/T strategies of organizations’’ (p. 472). Lastly, they propose that, for an organization or firm to remain competitive, strategic fit should be extended from the business domain to include the IT domain. Within the business domain, the fit between external positioning and internal arrangement has been argued to be critical for maximizing economic performance. We adopt this logic to argue that the fit between external positioning and internal arrangement is equally relevant within the I/T domain. More specifically, we contend that I/T strategy should be articulated in terms of an external domain – how the firm is positioned in the I/T marketplace – and an internal domain – how the I/S (information systems) infrastructure should be configured and managed. (p. 474, emphasis added)

In light of this, what does it mean that, in Beagle’s argument, concepts of business domain, market/marketplace, and competition are made to disappear while only mentions of ‘‘customer service’’ delivery and maximization of ‘‘fiscal resources’’ remain? (Beagle, 1999, p. 83). As in many instances in which a theory is imported from another domain of knowledge into the LIS discourse, it appears that elements have been omitted that do not fit with the traditional vision of the library as an altruistic, nonprofit, service organization. This omission has the effect of suppressing the possible

36


metaphorization of the library as a business, a theme that a more complete description of Henderson and Venkatraman’s work would have introduced in Beagle’s article and in the IC and LC interpretative repertoires. In fact, the interdiscursive relationship established between the construction of the IC model and Henderson and Venkatraman’s construction of the strategic alignment model is based on an intertextual relationship with an essay by Henderson, Venkatraman, and Oldach (1996) cited in the footnotes of Beagle’s article (1999, p. 88) that was published in an edited volume entitled Competing in the Information Age: Strategic Alignment in Practice and addresses an audience of business and IT managers. It presents aligning business and IT as a means to secure a ‘‘competitive advantage’’ (Henderson, Venkatraman, & Oldach, 1996, p. 21). In Beagle’s narrative (1999), the discussion of the ‘‘networked collaborative study room’’ (p. 85) designed to align the IC environment with corporate learning environments addresses the strategic alignment of the library with the external corporate model of the learning organization where there is an increasing reliance on IT. Common sense dictates, and Beagle’s text supports, placing the academic library’s business domain within that of ‘‘the larger institution’’ (Beagle, 1999, pp. 82, 87) – that is the university. Furthermore, the description of the Information Commons as ‘‘instructional space’’ (Beagle, 1999, p. 82) makes explicit that the library serving as information commons is in the business of teaching. Thus, the argument goes that, in the IC model, the library’s objectives have been aligned with those of the university. In texts written at a later date (Beagle, 2004, 2009; Bennett, 2008), refocusing of discourse serves to reorient the library’s support mission from a teaching toward a learning perspective that follows educational trends in higher education. This discursive activity fits in with current universities’ marketing strategies that promote a student-centered educational experience. It ensures the alignment of the academic library’s new corporate image and taglines with those of its parent institution. In fact, this argument fits within a larger academic library management discourse that addresses the need for library leaders to ‘‘seek out new models of library service’’ (Lynch et al., 2007, p. 213) as they are asked by university administrators to demonstrate their library’s value to the institution in terms of return on investment (Kaufman, 2008, p. 424). Lynch et al. (2007) have shown that the symbolic positioning of the library as ‘‘the heart of the university’’ that emerged in the 19th century does not carry as much weight as it once did. The library’s centrality to the university’s rests more on the visibility it affords to the university, technological innovation, and its educational


37

mission. Seen in this light, Beagle’s perspective is actually that of an academic library administrator considering lucidly the challenges faced by the library as it must increasingly compete for institutional funding with academic and research units from within the institution. If the metaphorization of ‘‘library¼business’’ is apparently suppressed in the discourse activated in Beagle’s texts, it is nevertheless implicitly understood. It parallels perforce the marketization of universities – a phenomenon that is widely studied, explained, and critiqued (for an overview of recent treatments of this topic, see Levy, 2006). As a business, one of the university’s goals is to secure an edge over its competition (i.e., other universities and colleges). A 2006 study supported by the Center for Facilities Research of the Higher Education Facilities Officers, reviewing the impact of facilities on recruitment of students, showed that the brickand-mortar academic library placed second as a facility that is ‘‘extremely or very important’’ in students’ university selection decision process (Cain & Reynolds, 2006, Fig. 2). From a market perspective, this implies that the library has to keep a competitive advantage in terms of the services it offers, not only to its community but also to prospective students and faculty that the university may want to attract. Strategic alignment can therefore be understood both as the IT management issue described by Beagle (1999) and as a marketing issue. As a result, the buildings designed or redesigned to accommodate new library facilities and services come to perform as marketing tools for their institutions and within their institution. Prominent library changes, such as a building renovation, provide the perfect opportunity to re-examine the library ‘‘brand’’ y and try to position the library relative to the competition (other information resources and services) favorably in users’ minds. In the case of a building renovation, the branding process can also influence decisionmaking regarding new building spaces, library services and collections. (Stimson, 2007)

Treatment of Space Design and Place Making in the ALLP Discourse The use of the descriptors ‘‘architecture and building’’ in the bibliographic descriptions for the texts by Beagle(1999), Bennett (2006), Halbert (1999), and Tramdack (1999) is deceptive. The design of new library services is covered much more extensively than the building design attributes of the new models for academic libraries that are proposed. Discussions of library design concentrate on operational space planning and focus on the types of library spaces that are needed to accommodate activities and equipments required in these spaces. There are in the corpus a few examples of space diagrams with furniture arrangement sketches, floor plans, and photographs from successful library spaces (e.g., Bennett, 2006, Figs. 4–7; Beagle, 2009,

38


Figs. 6–9). However, from an architectural design standpoint, these illustrations communicate very little information about the environmental characteristics desirable for library learning spaces. Even though Bennett (2006) deplores that ‘‘the knowledge base that guides library space planning is y poorly balanced, tilted heavily towards library operations’’ (p. 7), he, like others, concentrates on just that. Developing a design of a good library building involves much more than developing a few functional space diagrams and hiring an architect to produce a pleasing ‘‘wrapping’’ to contain those spaces. ‘‘Design is about the creation of form that integrates aesthetic intention, functional performance, and material durability into a spatial entity’’ (Shih, 2004, p. 217). This definition integrates the qualities of architecture that were first defined by Vitruvius as ‘‘firmitas, utilitas, venustas,’’ translating as firmness, commodity, and delight. However, the critical analysis of the texts studied brings into focus an outdated vision of design as being a simple matter of form following function. As it is constituted in the research corpus, the ALLP discourse fails to address design goals in conceptual terms that address aesthetic intentions (delight), environmental qualities (comfort), and structural requirements (firmness) that are all important rubrics of the architectural program. In the research corpus and elsewhere in the LIS literature, consideration of design issues tends to focus on the types of library spaces that are needed to accommodate users’ activities, operational needs, and required equipment. This conceptualization of design as space planning is both limited and limiting. It dwells on the specifics of a space program where the building is a behavior setting reduced to its nonpsychological components, and it ignores the psychological and affective dimensions of place design. Beagle and Halbert fail to consider psychological and affective factors in their discourse on the information and learning commons. Tramdack (1999) describes the information commons as an environment ‘‘where curiosity, creativity, and lifelong learning are sparked and nurtured’’(p. 92). Bennett (2006) touches upon the cognitive values present in traditional library buildings designed in the idiom of churches. He identifies coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery as values that draw people to space in general. However, he does not show how those values might relate to the design of academic libraries as learning places. It would have been particularly useful to elaborate on the architectural and environmental qualities library spaces might have that foster learning. One of the goals of architecture is to create a physical/material place. According to Yi-Fu Tuan (1977), ‘‘place is a center of meaning constructed


39

by experience’’ (pp. 151–152), where ‘‘experience is a cover-all term for the various modes through which a person knows his world’’ (p. 161). For him, architecture also creates a place in the imagination. Sadly, the discourse developed in the research corpus provides only a tenuous framework for its audience to imagine the library as a place. The discourse analyzed covers what librarians generally know through the mind about a library – its role and location on campus and the functions of spaces and their contents; however, it fails to discuss what users could learn about the library as place through their senses.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Conclusions of the Study CDA of a corpus of eight significant texts from the academic library planning and design literature showed that important discussions of architectural design and place making are omitted from the discourse on the academic library designed as a learning place they construct. The terms Architecture and Buildings used in databases as descriptors for half of the articles that were analyzed were found to be misguiding indicators of the articles’ contents. In effect, none of these texts addresses architecture or building design in any detail. Texts’ narratives tend to focus instead on space planning issues related to new types of services offered in academic libraries that incorporate information and learning commons. The information commons and the learning commons are constructed as necessary evolutionary stages in the realignment of the library with the educational mission and the changing needs of universities and colleges as they refocus on student-centered teaching and learning. As a primary stage in the evolution of academic libraries, the information commons model is constructed as an adaptation to the changing technological context of the digital age. The learning commons is constructed as a higher level of the academic library’s evolutionary development. It is designed as space and place for learning, thereby becoming an institutional player in the overall educational mission of the university. The repertoires on the information and learning commons are inserted in a diffusion of innovation process. They also support the marketing function of the discourse on the ALLP. The explicit purpose of the ALLP discourse is to

40


promote the planning and design of new facilities and services that respond to student-centered educational trends and to the needs of students and educators in a changing digital environment. Yet, implicitly this discourse offers a new corporate identity for academic libraries by proposing to the library community the adoption of one of two brands – the information or the learning commons. In this discourse, Bennett’s ideological discursive activity effectively constructs the ‘‘library designed for learning’’ as a brand mantra.

Limitations of the Study This study was exploratory and relied on a descriptive, interpretive, analytical, and critical study of discourses deployed in a small number of publicly available texts that were purposefully selected. Limitations arise from using CDA as a research method. Doing discourse analysis is labor intensive and time consuming that constitutes a limitation in that it restricts the amount of data that it is manageable to analyze. Respected discourse analysts Potter and Wetherell (1987), however, consider that ‘‘it is not the case that a larger sample necessarily indicates a more painstaking or worthwhile piece of research’’ (p. 161). Like that of all critical analyses of discourse, the validity of this study needs to be evaluated on the strength of the interpretative argument, its believability, and its coherence with the data and its context. The second limitation resides in the types of texts chosen as data. In the methodological framework of discourse analysis, there is no prescription on what counts as acceptable source of data as long as the texts are socially, politically, organizationally, or institutionally significant to the problem the analyst wants to study. For my study, I decided to use texts that were written as part of the social practices of the academic library professional community and that were publicly available. Numerous articles were collected, carefully reviewed, and discarded after evaluation of their potential for analysis. It would have been an unwieldy task to analyze them all in the same way I analyzed the texts selected for my study. I opted to select a corpus that included journal articles, essays in published reports, and texts of conference presentations. Other types of texts could have been used such as transcripts of interviews or focus groups with librarians and library directors/managers, or internal documents produced during an academic library design project. In future studies, I plan to get closer to the participants in the discourse and use interview and focus group data.


41

The constitution of a corpus for analysis is value laden. Which texts are included depends on the research problem of interest and the types of questions the analyst wants to be able to answer. Those questions are in turn dependent on the researcher’s perspectives on the world, social life, and discourse analysis. In my study, my knowledge and experience of libraries and librarianship together with my theoretical and experience-based knowledge of architecture have probably influenced at cognitive and affective levels how I have selected the texts in the corpus. Ideology can limit the kind of interpretations and critique that CDA yields. Because my research was exploratory, I chose to avoid the traditional approach to CDA that focuses on power relationships. My goal was to let the data talk to me without the filter of an ideological lens. However, it is unavoidable for my discourse interpretation and critical analysis not to have been influenced by my professional training, my work experience, my personal values, and my views on academia, libraries, and architecture.

Recommendations and Directions for Future Research In the discourse on the academic library as place, the lack of consideration being given to the import of architectural design in place making suggests that academic library managers would benefit from a deeper understanding of architectural programming and post occupancy building evaluation. The introduction of post occupancy evaluation techniques from the field of environmental design into library evaluation practices would also help the profession develop a body of data that could lead to the practice of evidence-based library planning and design in the future. Studying how human behavior is impacted by architectural and environmental factors in a variety of library spaces would make an invaluable contribution to the library and architecture professions. Ideally, such studies should be made by interdisciplinary teams of architects, psychologists, and librarians. In the future, empirical data should be collected on the characteristics of library spaces that are conducive to the behavior deemed desirable by librarians and deter what may be in contrast considered undesirable behavior and activities. It is my hope that my study has shown that critical analysis of the professional discourse in the academic librarianship community is a useful means to raise self-consciousness among members of the profession in regard to the way the library is discursively constructed as a learning place. Critical analysis of the discourse on the IC and LC primarily reflects the point of view that the academic library has to reassert its role on its campus

42


or lose relevancy. However, my analytical interpretation of this discourse raises questions as to the character and value of the IC and LC constructs. Further study is projected that will analyze the importance of the IC and LC in the lexicon of their advocates and their value to the profession.

REFERENCES Acker, S. R., & Miller, M. D. (2005). Campus learning spaces: Investing in how students learn. ECAR (Educause Center for Applied Research) Research Bulletin, 2005(8), p. 11. Albanese, A. R. (2006). Breaking ground. Library by Design, 1(Spring), 4–7 Supplement to Library Journal. Alstad, C., & Curry, A. (2003). Public space, public discourse, and public libraries. LIBRES, 13(1). Antell, K., & Engel, D. (2006). Conduciveness to scholarship: The essence of academic library as place. College & Research Libraries, 67(6), 536–560. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds). (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. New York: Routledge. Bailey, R., & Tierney, B. (2002). Information commons redux: Concept, evolution, and transcending the tragedy of the commons. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(5), 277–286. Bailey, R., & Tierney, B. (2008). Transforming library service through information commons: Case studies for the digital age. Chicago: American Library Association. Bailey-Hainer, B., & Forsman, R. B. (2005). Redefining the future of academic libraries: When the definition of ‘public good’ changes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(6), 503–505. Baker, B. (2000). Values for the learning library. Research Strategies, 17, 85–91. Beagle, D. (1999). Conceptualizing an information common. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 82–89. Beagle, D. (2002). Extending the information commons: From instructional testbed to Internet 2. The Journal of Academic librarianship, 28(5), 287–296. Beagle, D. (2004). From information commons to learning commons. [Online] Available at http:// www.usc.edu/isd/libraries/locations/leavey/news/conference/presentations/presentations_ 9-16/Beagle_Information_Commons_to_Learning.pdf. Retrieved on November 23, 2008. Beagle, D. (2006). The information commons handbook. New York: Neal Schumann Publishers. Beagle, D. (2009). The learning commons in historical context. Annals of Nagoya University, Library Studies, 7, 15–24. [Online] Available at http://libst.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/pdf/ annals_07_03.pdf. Retrieved on April 2, 2009. Bennett, S. (2003). Libraries designed for learning. CLIR Report (Pub. 122). Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the balance. In: Library as place: Rethinking roles, rethinking space. CLIR Report (Pub. 129). Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, DC. Bennett, S. (2006). The choice for learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 3–13. Bennett, S. (2007a). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 14–26.


43

Bennett, S. (2007b). Designing for uncertainty: Three approaches. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 165–179. Bennett, S. (2008). The information or the learning commons: Which will we have? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 183–185. Bjarrum, C. & Cranfield, A. (2004). The future is now – library re-engineering in the 21st century. In: M. F. Bisbrouck et al. (Eds), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section co-organised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section-Paris, France, 200 (pp. 39–63). Munich: Saur Verlag. Bolin, M. K. (2005). The library and the computer center: Organizational patterns at land grant universities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 3–11. Boone, M. D. (2003). Monastery to marketplace: A paradigm shift. Library Hi Tech, 21(3), 358–366. Bosseau, D. L. (1998). Where are we now? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(5), 390–391. Braverman, B. (2000). Libraries and theme parks: Strange bedfellows. Research Strategies, 17, 99–105. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Budd, J., Hill, H., & Shannon, B. (2010). Inquiring into the real: A realist phenomenological approach. Library Quarterly, 80(3), 267–284. Bulpitt, G. (2004). Inspiring and teaching: The new integrated learning center at Sheffield Hallam University. In: M. F. Bisbrouck, et al. (Eds.), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section co-organised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section. Paris, France, 200. (pp. 65–72). Mu¨nchen: Saur Verlag Buschman, J., & Leckie, G. J. (Eds). (2007). Library as place: History, community and culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Cain, D., & Reynolds, G. (2006). The impact of facilities on recruitment and retention of students. Facilities Manager (March/April), 54–60. Carlson, S. (2001). The deserted library. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(12), 35–38. [Online] Available at http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i12/12a03501.htm. Retrieved on July 8, 2008. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. CLIR (The Council on Library and Information Resource). (2002). Diffuse libraries: Emergent roles for the research library in the digital age. (CLIR Report) (Pub 108). Washington, DC: Council on Libraries and Information Resources. CLIR. (2003). Libraries designed for learning. (CLIR, Report) (Pub. 122). Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. CLIR. (2005). Library as place: Rethinking roles, rethinking space. (CLIR, Report) (Pub. 129). Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Connaway, L. S. (2005). Physical space for virtual services and collections. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 127–131. Cowgill, A., Beam, J., & Wess, L. (2001). Implementing an information commons in a university library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(6), 432–439. Crockett, C., McDaniel, S., & Remy, M. (2002). Integrating services in the information commons: Towards a holistic library and computing environment. Library Administration & Management, 16(4), 181–186.

44


Davenport, N. (2006). Place as library? Educause Review, 41(1), 12–13. de Jong, C. J. (2007). Book review: The information commons handbook. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 2(1). Available at http://gir.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/268/368. Retrieved on November 30, 2008. Delambre, R. (2004). The library is the message. French Cultural Studies, 15(2), 190–205. Dempsey, B. (2004). Target your brand: Build an identity that works in the age of the superstore. Library Journal, 129(13), 32–35. Dempsey, L. (2005, August 13). Standing and branding. Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog. On libraries, services, and networks. Available at http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/ 000760.html. Retrieved on July 2, 2009. Dewey, B. I. (2002). Social, intellectual, and cultural spaces: Creating compelling library environments for the digital age. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 85–94. Dobson, P. J. (2002). Critical realism and information systems research: Why bother with philosophy? Information Research, 7(2)Available at http://informationr.net/ir/7-2/ paper124.html. Retrieved on August 2, 2008. Dodsworth, E. (1998). Marketing the academic library: A necessary plan. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(4), 320–322. Dowlin, K. (2004). The library as place: Challenges in the digital age. In: M. F. Bisbrouck, et al. (Eds), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section co-organised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section. Paris, France, 2003 (pp. 11–37). Munich: Saur Verlag Eigenbrodt, O. (2008). The constitution of library space through activity. [Online] IFLA 2008 Conference. Available at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/Programme2008.htm#11August. Retrieved on August 24, 2008. Engel, D., & Antell, K. (2004). The life of the mind: A study of faculty spaces in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 65(1), 8–19. Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168. Fairclough, N. (2001a). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2), 231–242[Online] Available at www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/norman/2001a.doc. Retrieved on July 10, 2008.. Fairclough, N. (2001b). The discourse of new labour; Critical discourse: Textual analysis. In: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds), Discourse as data: A guide to analysis (pp. 229–266). London: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2001c). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2005a). Critical discourse analysis. Marges Linguistiques, 9, 76–94. Fairclough, N. (2005b). Critical discourse analysis in transdiciplinary research. In: R. Wodack & B. Chilton (Eds), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology, and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Fairclough, N. (2005c). Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organizational studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915–939.


45

Fairclough, N. (2005d). Discourse in processes of social change: ‘Transition’ in Central and Eastern Europe. [Online] Available at http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/norman/ paper1.doc. Retrieved on July 14, 2008. Fang, C. (2008). University library: The third place for students. [Online] IFLA 2008 Conference. Available at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/Programme2008.htm#11August. Retrieved on August 24, 2008. Fisher, K. E., Saxton, M. L., Edwards, P. M., & Mai, J. E. (2007). Seattle public library as place: Reconceptualizing space, community, and information at the Central Library. In: J. Buschman & G. J. Leckie (Eds), Library as place: History, community and culture (pp. 135–160). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Foote, S. M. (2004). Changes in library design: An architect’s perspective. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(1), 41–59. Forrest, C., & Halbert, M. (Eds). (2009). A field guide to the information commons. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Forrest, C., & Hinchliffe, L. J. (2005). Beyond classroom construction and design – Formulating a vision for learning spaces in libraries. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(4), 296–300. Freund, L., & Seale, C. (2007). Transforming Library West at the University of Florida: A fairy tale makeover. Florida Libraries, 50(2), 14–16. Gayton, J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: ‘‘Social’’ or ‘‘Communal?’’ The nature and future of academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60–66. Given, L., & Leckie, G. J. (2003). ‘‘Sweeping’’ the library: Mapping the social activity space of the public library. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 365–385. Gust, K. J., & Haka, C. H. (2006). Bringing users back to the library: A case history. New Library World, 107(1222/1223), 141–148. Haas, L., & Robertson, J. (2004). The information commons. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Halbert, M. (1999). Lessons from the information commons frontier. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 90–91. Hartman, C. W. (2000). Memory palace, place of refuge, Coney Island of the mind: The evolving roles of the library in the late 20th century. Research Strategies, 17, 107–121. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1999). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2 & 3), 472–484. First published in 1993, IBM Systems Journal, 32(1). Henderson, J. C., Venkatraman, N., & Oldach, S. (1996). Aligning business and IT strategies. In: J. F. Luftman (Ed.), Competing in the information age: Strategic alignment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Hernon, P. (2002). Editorial: First, embracing customer service and, second, moving beyond it: A client relationship. The Journal of Academic librarianship, 28(4), 189–190. Hersberger, J. A., Sua, L., & Murray, A. L. (2007). The fruit and root of the community: The Greensboro Carnegie Negro Library, 1904–1964. In: J. Buschman & G. J. Leckie (Eds), Library as place: History, community and culture (pp. 79–99). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Hiller, S. (2004). Measure by measure: Assessing the viability of the physical library. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 17(4), 126–131.

46


Hjørland, B. (2004). Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science. Library Trends, 52(3), 488–506. Houlihan, R. (2005). The academic library as congenial space: More on the Saint Mary’s experience. New Library World, 106(1208/1209), 7–15. Hurt, C. (1997). Building libraries in the virtual age. College & Research Libraries News, 58(2), 75–76. Jackson, H., & Hahn, T. B. (2008). The library as sacred place: Applying the psychology of religion to the academic library as a sanctified space and implications for measurement and evaluation. [Online] Available at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/Programme2008 .htm#11August. Retrieved on August 24, 008. Jashapara, A. (2007). Moving beyond tacit and explicit distinctions: A realist theory of organizational knowledge. Journal of Information Science, 33(6), 752–766. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage. Kaufman, P. T. (2008). The library as strategic investment: Results of the Illinois return on investment study. Liber Quarterly, 18(3/4), 424–436. December. Keller, K. L. (1999). Brand mantras: Rationale, criteria and examples. Journal of Marketing and Management, 15, 43–51. King, H. (n.d.).The academic library in the 21st century – What need for a physical place? [Online] Available at http://www.iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/2000/ King.rtf. Retrieved on October 25, 2010. Kohl, D. (2006). Where’s the library? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 117–118. Kratz, C. (2003). New realities, new relationships. Transforming the delivery of service: The joint-use library and information commons. C&RL News, 64(2). Leckie, G. J. (2004). Three perspectives on the library as public space. Feliciter, 50(6), 233–236. Leckie, G. J., & Hopkins, J. (2002). The public place of central libraries: Findings from Toronto and Vancouver. Library Quarterly, 72(3), 326–372. Lefebvre, M. E. (2002). The library as congenial space: The Saint Mary’s experience. New Library World, 103(1172/1173), 21–29. Levy, D. C. (2006). Market university? Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 113–124. Library success: A best practices wiki. (2008). Branding. Available at http://www.libsuccess.org/ index.php?title ¼ Branding. Retrieved on July 2, 2009. Lippincott, J. K. (2004). New library facilities: Opportunities for collaboration. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 17(1-2), 147–157. Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Ludwig, L., & Starr, S. (2005). Library as place: Results of a delphi study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(3), 315–326. Lynch, B. P., et al. (2007). Attitudes of presidents and provosts on the university library. College & Research Libraries, 68(3), 213–227. MacWhinnie, L. A. (2003). The information commons: The academic library of the future. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 241–257. Malenfant, C. (2006). The information commons as a collaborative space. Reference Services Review, 31(2), 279–286. Mann, T. (2007). The research library as place: On the essential importance of collections of books shelved in subject-classified arrangements. In: J. Buschman & G. Leckie (Eds), Library as place: History, community and culture (pp. 191–206). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.


47

Martin, D. (2004). Supporting independent learning: The pioneering new design at the University of Hertfordshire. In: M. F. Bisbrouck, et al. (Eds), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century, Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section co-organised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section-Paris, France, 2003 (pp. 73–88). Mu¨nchen: Saur Verlag. Mathews, B. (2009). Marketing today’s academic library: A bold new approach to communicating with students. Chicago: American library Association. McCabe, G. B., & Person, R. J. (Eds). (1995). Academic libraries: Their rationale and role in American higher education: Contribution in librarianship and information science, No. 84. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Meernik, M. (2004). Library as place: Library users speak up, LibQUALþSurvey Findings. Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University, Bruce T. Halle Library. [Online] Available at http://www.emich.edu/halle/libqual_articles_library_as_place.html. Retrieved on February 17, 2008. Milewicz, E. J. (2009). Origin and development of the information commons in academic libraries. In: C. Forrest & M. Halbert (Eds), A field guide to the information commons (pp. 3–17). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Mingers, J. (2004). Realizing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2), 87–103. Mountifield, H. (2003). Learning with a latte, The Kate Edger Information Commons – Providing student-centered learning support, EDUCAUSE in Australasia. [Online] Available at http://www.information-commons.auckland.ac.nz/content_files/publications/ educause_article.pdf. Retrieved on June 30, 2009. Nikkel, T. (2003). Implementing the Dalhousie learning commons. Feliciter, 49(4), 2212–2214. Owusu-Ansah, E. (2001). The academic library in the enterprise of colleges and universities: Toward a new paradigm. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(4), 282–294. O’Connor, R. A., & Bennett, S. (2005). The power of place in learning. Planning for Higher Education, 33, 28–30. Pavlovsky, L. (2005). Understanding the role of values in library design. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 22, 157–274. Pelster, N. (2000). Editorial. Research Strategies, 17, 77. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Potthoff, J. K., Weis, D. L., Montanelli, D. S., & Murbach, M. M. (2000). An evaluation of patron perceptions of library space using the role repertory grid procedure. College & Research Libraries, 61(3), 191–202. Revill, D. (1997). The Avril Robarts Learning Resource Centre: Liverpool John Moores University. New Library World, 98(1138), 258–266. Riggs, D. E. (2000). Joint use libraries: Thinking out of the box. College & Research Libraries, 61(2), 96–97. Riggs, D. E. (2001). Oversimplified speculation on the demise of libraries. College & Research Libraries, 62(4), 304–305. Riggs, D. E. (2002). New libraries remain an excellent investment. College & Research Libraries, 63(2), 108–109.

48


Ross, L., & Sennyey, P. (2008). The library is dead: Long live the library’ The practice of academic librarianship and the digital revolution. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(2), 145–152. Rowley, J. (1997). Managing branding and corporate image for library and information services. Library Review, 46(4), 244–250. Samson, S., & Oelz, E. (2005). The academic library as full-service information center. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 347–351. Seadle, M. (2002). Editorial: The physical dimension of information space. Library Hi Tech, 20(1), 6–7. Seaman, S. (2006). The library as learning environment: Space planning in an academic library. Colorado Libraries, 32(1), 5–7. Shader, B. (2008). Learning commons: Evolution and collaborative essentials. Oxford, UK: Chandos. Shih, C. (2004). Between concept and form: Learning from case studies. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 3(1), 217–221. Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2003a). Creating a better place: Physical improvements in academic libraries, 1995–2002. College and Research Libraries, 64(6), 431–466. Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2003b). Does the building really matter? Facility improvement and library usage, ACRL 11th National Conference, Charlotte, NC, April 12, 2003. [Online] Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/pdf/shill.pdf. Retrieved on September 15, 2008. Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter? Usage patterns in new, expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995–2002. College and Research Libraries, 65(2), 123–150. Simons, K., Young, J., & Gibson, C. (2000). The learning library in context: Community, integration, and influence. Research Strategies, 17, 123–132. Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information & Organization, 16(3), 191–211. Snavely, L. (2000). Learning library. Research Strategies, 17, 79–84. Spencer, M. E. (2006). Evolving a new model: The information commons. Reference Services Review, 34(2), 242–247. Spencer, M. E. (2007). The state-of-the-art: NCSU libraries learning commons. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 310–321. Stimson, N. F. (2007). Library change as a branding opportunity: Connect, reflect, research, discover. C&RL News, 68(11), 694–698. Stoeger Wilke, J. (2006). The ‘‘library as place’’. In Brief, 24(2), p. 1. [Online] Available at http:// www.unk.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/library/inbrief/IB%20Fall%202006.pdf. Retrieved on May 14, 2008. Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods to study student behavior. Electronic Journal of Academic Librarianship, 8(3). [Online] Available at http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n03/suarez_d01. html. Retrieved on October 25, 2010. Suominen, V. (2008). Social constructionism, hermeneutics, conceiving of the user and use, and the issue of the Cartesian subject. In: M. L. Huotari & E. Davenport (Eds), From information provision to knowledge production. Proceedings of the International Conference for the Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of Information Studies, Faculty


49

of Humanities, University of Oulu, Finland, June 23–25 (pp. 175–192). Finland: University of Oulu. [Online] Available at http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789514288432/ isbn9789514288432.pdf. Retrieved on August 3, 2008. Talja, S. (1999). Analyzing qualitative interview data: The discourse analytic method. Library & Information Science Research, 21(4), 459–477. Taylor, S. (2001a). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 5–48). London: Sage. Taylor, S. (2001b). Evaluating and applying discourse analytic research. In: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, (pp. 311–330). London: Sage. Templeton, T. C. (2008). Placing the library: An argument for the phenomenological and constructivist approach to the human geography of the library. Library Quarterly, 78(2), 195–209. The´lot, D., & Mayeur, N. (2004). Les mesures de sećurite´ et leur impact sur la construction des bibliothe`ques: l’exemple de la bibliothe`que de l’Universite´ Denis Diderot-ParisVII dans le baˆtiment des Grands Moulins de Paris [Security measures and their impact on the construction of libraries: The example of the library of Denis Diderot-ParisVII in the building Grands Moulins de Paris]. In: M. F. Bisbrouck et al. (Eds), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section co-organised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section-Paris, France, 2003 (pp. 117–122). Mu¨nchen: Saur Verlag. Thomas, M. A. (2000). Redefining library space: Managing the coexistence of books, computers, and readers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(6), 408–415. Tramdack, P. (1999). Reaction to Beagle. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(2), 92–93. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Tuominen, K. (2005). The social constructionist viewpoint on information practices. In: K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez & L. McKechnie (Eds), Theories of information behavior (pp. 328–331). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Tuominen, K., Talja, S., and Savolainen, R. (2002). Discourse, cognition, and reality: Towards a social constructionist metatheory for library and information science. In: H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen and P. Vakkari (Eds), Emerging frameworks and methods CoLIS 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, Seattle, WA, July 21–25, 2002, pp. 271–283. Greenwood Village, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Van Pelt, P. (2000). Putting talent to work in the creation of the learning library. Research Strategies, 17, 93–98. Watson, L. (2007). Building the future of learning. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 255–263. Waxman, L., Clemons, S., Banning, J., & McKelfresh, D. (2007). The library as place: Providing students with opportunities for socialization, relaxation, and restoration. New Library World, 108(9/10), 424–434. Whitmire, E. (2001). A longitudinal study of undergraduates’ academic library experiences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(5), 379–385.

50


Wikgren, M. (2005). Critical realism as a philosophy and social theory in information science? Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 11–22. Wills, H. (2004). An innovative approach to the non-learning public: The new Idea Stores in London. In: M. F. Bisbrouck, et al. (Eds), Libraries as places: Buildings for the 21st century, Proceedings of the 13th Seminar of IFLA’s Library Buildings and Equipment Section coorganised with IFLA’s Public Libraries Section-Paris, France, 2003 (pp. 103–116). Mu¨nchen: Saur Verlag. Wood, L., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

THE RURAL PUBLIC LIBRARY AS PLACE: A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Linda R. Most ABSTRACT Research into the library as place investigates the role of public library buildings as destinations, physical places where people go for various reasons ranging from making use of the library’s resources and services or seeking to fulfill an information or reading need to less easily identified reasons that may include using the library’s building as a place to make social or business contacts, to build or reinforce community or political ties, or to create or reinforce a personal identity. This study asks: How are one rural US public library system’s newly constructed buildings functioning as places? The answer is derived from answers to subquestions about adult library users, user, and staff perceptions of library use, and observed use of library facilities. The findings are contextualized using a framework built of theories from human geography, sociology, and information studies. This case study replicates a mixed-methods case study conducted at the main public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver in the late1990s and first reproduced in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2006. It tests methods used in large urban settings in a rural, small-town environment. This study also expands on its antecedents by using thematic analysis to determine which Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 51–149 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030005

51

52

LINDA R. MOST

conceptualizations of the role of the public library as place are most relevant to the community under investigation. The study relies on quantitative and qualitative data collected via surveys and interviews of adult library users, interviews of library public service staff members, structured observations of people using the libraries, and analysis of selected administrative documents. The five sets of data are triangulated to answer the research sub-questions. Thematic analysis grounded in the conceptual framework finds that public realm theory best contextualizes the relationships that develop between library staff members and adult library users over time. The study finds that the libraries serve their communities as informational places and as familiarized locales rather than as third places, and that the libraries facilitate the generation of social capital for their users. Keywords: Public libraries; library users; Gadsden County, Florida; mixed methods; library as place

Research to the concept of the library as place attempts to understand the role of library buildings as destinations: physical places where people go for various reasons ranging from the most obvious – making use of the library’s resources and services or seeking to fulfill an information need – to less easily identified reasons that may include using the library’s building as a place to make social or business contacts, to build or reinforce community or political ties, or to create or reinforce a personal identity (Osburn, 2007). Public library leaders refer to their libraries as information institutions, and this is how people most typically understand public libraries. Statistics show that generations of Americans have used their public libraries as a source for reading materials. Nationwide, in 2008, users visited public libraries 1.50 billion times, or 5.1 library visits per capita; those visitors borrowed 7.7 library materials per person and used the libraries’ Internet PCs 1.21 times each (Henderson et al., 2010). From the work of Leckie, Hopkins, and Givens (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002), May (2007, 2009), and May and Black (2010) LIS researchers know something about how people use the physical resources of larger urban and suburban public libraries in places like Toronto,

Rural Public Library as Place: A Theoretical Analysis

53

Vancouver, and Halifax, Canada. Ongoing research generated by the Urban Libraries Council has explored public library use in many larger U.S. cities (Urban Libraries Council, 2007). Other examples of how people use libraries as place were provided by a study of the ways people use the reading rooms of some of the Israel’s urban public libraries (Shoham, 2001), and an inquiry into how women use public libraries differently than do men (Fidishun, 2007). A recent collection, The Library as Place: History, Community, and Culture (Buschman & Leckie, 2007), presents scholarly papers offering examinations into the nature of the library as place in multiple settings. However, none of these research studies address the contemporary role of the rural public library as place. Other than work conducted by the American Library Association’s Office for Literacy and Outreach Services and by the Center for the Study of Rural Librarianship (CSRL) at Clarion University, there is little scholarly research addressing the ways small rural and suburban libraries function in their communities. In 2004, the American Library Association (ALA) surveyed rural public, school, and tribal libraries in the United States to identify their key areas of concern, and respondents identified community poverty and lack of library funding as the key problems they faced (Leach, Jr., 2004). The study did not look at any of the positive effects of small rural libraries on their communities. Although the CSRL has published the journal Rural Libraries since 1980, covering all aspects of library service to rural communities and rural librarianship, it has yet to publish any research relating to the role of the rural public library as a community place. According to the 2008 IMLS survey of public libraries, of 9,221 public libraries in the United States, 77.7% (7,158 individual library service points) serve populations under 25,000 people (Henderson et al., 2010), indicating that this is a significant void in the literature. This study systematically investigates the role of the public library as place in Gadsden County, a small rural, majority African-American county with approximately 47,000 residents located in north-west Florida along the Florida-Georgia border. The goal of the study is to identify how the Gadsden County Public Library System’s (GCPLS) adult users view and use their public library buildings as place. Studying the GCPLS as place is important because the role of the public library as place in small towns and in the lives of rural African-American adult library users has not been closely studied. More has been written about the historical role of public libraries in African-American communities and the fight for access to their buildings and collections (Battles, 2009; Hersberger, Sua, & Murray, 2007; Tucker, 1998). Because GCPLS

54

LINDA R. MOST

built three new library buildings between 2000 and 2007, it offers a rare opportunity to expand LIS research about the contemporary role of the library as place in rural libraries. This study exploited that opportunity by replicating a tested research design in a new population. It also explores whether current library architecture and facilities design are meeting the needs of the community’s library users. Finally, it identifies the most relevant theoretical explanations of how library buildings function as place in a rural setting by contextualizing its findings within the theoretical literature that informs the concept of the library as place.

Study Setting Located in the Florida Panhandle along the Florida-Georgia border and just 20 miles from the state capital, Gadsden County is one of the United States’ 300 majority minority counties – counties in which members of minority groups make up the majority of the population (Abbady, 2007). Although Gadsden County is small, ranking 42nd of 67 counties in Florida in overall population, it is second only to large, urban Miami-Dade County in the percentage of that population that identifies itself as part of a protected minority.1 It has the highest percentage of African-American residents – 56.8% – and the highest percentage of female heads of household – 26.9% – in Florida (Dart, 2007; BEBR, 2007, pp. 1, 3). Despite its agricultural past, Gadsden County is now classified as a metropolitan county in a small metropolitan area of less than one million people (USDA ERS, 2003b), part of the Tallahassee Metropolitan Statistical Area (OMB, 2007, p. 50). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service classifies Gadsden County’s economy as Federal or State Government Dependent, meaning 15% or more of the average annual labor and proprietor earnings were derived from the Federal or State government between 1998 and 2000 (USDA ERS, 2003a). The county is classified as experiencing housing stress, meaning ‘‘30 percent or more of households had one or more of these housing conditions in 2000: lacked complete plumbing, lacked complete kitchen, paid 30 percent or more of income for owner costs or rent, or had more than 1 person per room’’ (USDA ERS, 2003a). Because of its plantation history, agricultural economy, and some of its residents’ multigenerational family wealth, Gadsden County today is a study in contrasts (Heritage, 1988). According to certain key statistical indicators, Gadsden is the poorest county in the state, with the highest


55

percentage statewide of single female householders (26.9%) and the highest percentage of students eligible for the free/reduced price lunch program (Proctor, 2001; Center for Public Education, 2008; BEBR, 2007, p. 3, p. 6). These statistics tie directly to the high percentage of African-Americans in the county’s population (Proctor, 2001). Although Gadsden County is part of the Tallahassee Metropolitan Statistical Area rather than a micropolitan2 area in its own right, no municipality in the county has a population over 5,000 other than Quincy, the county seat, and the public library system serves people living in both small towns and unincorporated areas. The GCPLS describes itself as ‘‘a 25 year old library system located in rural North Florida’’ (Gadsden County Public Library, 2008). However, even though the county library system is only 25 years old, Gadsden County has a history of municipal and subscription public library service dating back to the early 20th century with libraries having been housed in a variety of loaned spaces, including an old private school, a storefront, and alongside the Sherriff’s office in the basement of a county building. Today the county library system consists of three new buildings and a bookmobile. The main library is located in Quincy, the county seat; and the two branches are located in the small towns of Havana and Chattahoochee. The Havana Public Library branch building opened in 2003 after previously occupying a rented storefront. It serves a town population estimated at 1,826 (BEBR, 2009), and is located two blocks away from the downtown antique stores, restaurants, and other tourist destinations, which is about 15 min from Tallahassee. The new William A. ‘‘Bill’’ McGill main library in Quincy opened in June 2006 after being housed in a series of borrowed and shared spaces. It serves a city population estimated at 7,384 (BEBR, 2009), and sits next to the main post office and the county Wal-Mart on a major thoroughfare into the city. It is about 30 min from Tallahassee. The new Chattahoochee Branch Library opened in April 2007 leaving behind an outgrown, obsolete wood building. It serves a city population estimated at 3,282 (BEBR, 2009) and sits about two miles away from downtown at a main crossroads and across from the Chattahoochee Elementary School. Chattahoochee is the furthest of the cities from Tallahassee, situated at the point where the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama state lines come together on the Apalachicola River just below the confluence of the Chattahoochee and the Flint Rivers. The unincorporated population of Gadsden county is estimated at 33,516 (BEBR, 2009). The libraries, a bookmobile, and other outreach programs serve the residents of the unincorporated communities of

56

LINDA R. MOST

the county. GCPLS ranks 51 of 74 in relative size of legal service population of public library entities in Florida (State Library & Archives of Florida, 2008).

INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE The conceptual framework for this study is built on previous research into the role of the library as place and the role of the library in the life of the user. Zweizig (1973) observed that most library research before the early 1970s had been conducted from the perspectives of librarians and administrators and suggested that LIS research would be well served by investigating the roles libraries play in the lives of their users – in other words – developing a usercentered perspective. Thirty years later Wiegand (2005a) summarized three key roles public libraries play in the lives of their users: making useful information and recreational reading materials available to billions of people and providing ‘‘hundreds of thousands of places where users have been able to meet formally as clubs or groups, or informally as citizens and students utilizing a civic institution and cultural agency’’ (p. 77). This third role public libraries play for their users, providing a meeting place – examined from the perspective of broader theoretical interpretations of the roles of public places in society – provides the context for understanding the ways Gadsden County’s library users think about and use their public libraries as place. Osburn (2007) provides a theoretical and philosophical context for the concept of library as place, situating it in the fields of psychology, neurology, geography, philosophy, and architecture. His constructed definition of place is ‘‘a setting of any dimension and type in which an individual perceives a special spirit (genius loci) that is generated by the quality of experience related to the values and associations it recalls, and whose significance to the individual captures an extraordinary order and heightens related awareness that becomes an inspiration for imagination and behavior’’ (p. 63). Osburn’s definition of place contextualizes much of the literature cited in this study.

Library as Place Place Studies is a field of inquiry grounded in geography and in social and cultural studies. Cresswell (2004) offers five concepts to help understand place as a construct: location, locale, sense of place, space, and landscape. Location refers to fixed coordinates in space; locale refers to the boundaries


57

that define the places within which people conduct their lives as social individuals; sense of place explains people’s subjective attachments to locations to which they have attached meaning; space is the physical world before people attach meaning to it; and landscape is the topography of the spaces around people – the geography they look at rather than the place they live. Places all have significance in the social world and the field of place studies provides a fresh way of looking at the role of libraries in society. Drawing on the framework built in place studies, LIS scholars have used several theoretical perspectives to understand libraries as place. Leckie’s (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) extensive study of public use of the main libraries in Toronto and Vancouver and social roles the buildings play as important community places is central in the scholarly research about library as place and provides the foundation for this project. Her study examines public use of the main libraries in those cities through a series of structured observations, library user surveys, library user interviews, and staff interviews. She and her colleagues report that the libraries are ‘‘highly successful as public spaces’’ (2002, p. 359), and attract a large and diverse user population. They ‘‘fulfill extremely important educational, informational, and social functions within their respective cities, providing community gathering, work, and study places that would be difficult to duplicate in any other manner’’ (p. 359). Their findings also indicate ‘‘important symbolic, cultural, and socioeconomic roles’’ for libraries in their cities and that the rise of information technology has only expanded the libraries’ role by adding another tool the public can use (p. 360). The most serious threat to the continued success of the downtown public library as an important community place ‘‘is the ongoing ideological shift within libraries away from their neutral status as public institutions toward that of an active agent for private interests in the market economy’’ (p. 360). Leckie and her co-authors see a danger in the ongoing commercialization of library services and facilities through corporate sponsorships and underwriting because commercial influence ‘‘has the real potential to transform the fundamental nature of libraries’’ and change the public library’s fundamental cultural mission to one that is no longer entirely public (p. 360). May (2007, 2009; May & Black, 2010) used Leckie’s (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) study as the basis of her master’s thesis. She used Leckie’s overall design and instruments to study patterns of use in six small and medium sized libraries in Nova Scotia, asking whether the libraries are functioning successfully as public places and how people use and experience libraries as physical spaces. She finds that each library is

58

LINDA R. MOST

flourishing as a public place and that people are using them ‘‘to engage in a wide variety of activities from using computers to socializing, reading, and interacting with staff’’ (2007, p. xi). She concludes that the libraries she studied ‘‘are vibrant community spaces that are used in a multitude of ways and where the public feels welcome’’ (p. xi). May’s study provides the model for the methodology and instruments employed in this study. In 2007 Leckie and Bushman published The Library as Place: History, Community, and Culture featuring 14 research articles whose authors draw on various theoretical, historical, and sociological concepts to inform their work. Several of the theoretical perspectives featured in the book inform this study’s understanding of the public library as place.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Leckie (2004) discusses three theoretical perspectives that inform her work on libraries as public space in a follow-up article to her study of the Toronto and Vancouver main libraries (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002). For Leckie, the key factors that make public libraries into public spaces serving the needs of their users start with the library’s physical presence including its architectural design and its location in the community. How libraries become successful public spaces depends on ‘‘a complex interplay of the actions and beliefs, of library users and library staff, library governance, particular ideologies, political maneuvers, power relations, and a number of other factors’’ (p. 234). Leckie identifies academic conversations about ‘‘the nature of the public sphere, the crisis in civil society, and the meaning of the library to its users’’ (p. 234) as especially helpful in understanding the role of the library as a meaningful public space. Briefly, the public sphere is a conceptual arena in which people can participate in the public, civic aspects of their lives not played out at home (the private sphere) or under direct control of government (the sphere of the state). The public sphere coalesces when people come together voluntarily to discuss important civic issues. Philosopher Jurgen Habermas (1974, 1991) is most closely associated with developing and exploring the concept of the public sphere and his work is often cited in discussions of the role of the public library in society. The crisis in civil society, according to political scientist Robert Putnam (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 2000) refers to a steady decline in civic participation, volunteer work, and philanthropy in the United States since World War II. Putnam attributes this decline to a steady decrease in the production of social capital, the intangible glue that


59

underpins social institutions and holds society together. Leckie completes her theoretical framework by discussing the meaning of the library to its users, referring to Zweizig’s (1973, 1976) argument that LIS scholarship should be thinking about the library in the life of the user rather than the user in the life of the library. Citing her own research (Leckie & Hopkins, 2002), Leckie supports Wiegand’s (2003) contention that libraries should be celebrating and encouraging reading as a public activity. Her research finds ‘‘that the majority of patrons in the library at any given time were engaged in reading and the number one reason for visiting [the libraries] was to use the large and complete collection of books and periodicals’’ (Leckie, 2004, p. 235). For Leckie, the threat to public libraries is less about the seduction of digital and communication technologies, tools that bring access to global knowledge and communication to personal computers, than an ideology that defines the library as business (Buschman, 2004), an ideology that undermines the library’s position as an expression of the Habermasian public sphere. Buschman’s (2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b) theoretical research identifies the U.S. public library as a quintessential expression of the Habermasian public sphere. Library collections, he says, represent and preserve ‘‘the variety of arguments over the public’s issues and democratic culture over time, implicitly refuting notions of once-and-for-all solutions’’ and embody ‘‘the turbulent course of a democracy and its culture’’ (2005a, p. 11). He contends that, ‘‘By building diverse voices, perspectives, and arguments into our collections and services, we keep alive the means of realizing true democracy – by transcending our nation’s historical shortcomings of exclusion and discrimination, and our profession’s similar shortcomings, through the struggle to include censored works and underserved groups’’ (2004, p. 40).

Ju¨rgen Habermas and the Transformation of the Public Sphere Jurgen Habermas’ (1991) theory of the public sphere offers a philosophical grounding from which to interpret one of the roles public libraries play in society. For Habermas, the public sphere is a theoretical conceptualization of the part of the social world that sits between the private sphere – the home – and the sphere of public authority – the world of government and the state. The public sphere is that part of the social world outside of the direct control of the state where people can come together regardless of status or income. It often forms in commercial places but has a

60

LINDA R. MOST

noncommercial, nonmarket-focused perspective. The public sphere is the place in which public discourse on topics of general interest occurs and in which democracy is nurtured through social interaction. Some scholars use the concept of civic space to describe the public sphere (Schudson, 1998). Buschman (2003, 2005a, 2005b), Webster (2002), Wiegand (2000, 2003), and Williamson (2000) are among those who interpret the role of public libraries in their communities as an expression of the public sphere. They suggest that public libraries are among the few remaining places where people can come together regardless of race, class, gender, or income level. In their view the physical place of public libraries provides a setting in which democratic activity can occur in keeping with Habermas’ theory of the public sphere. Habermas’ theory may provide an insight into how people use the GCPLS locations, especially when they are understood as civic space. Habermas defines the bourgeois public sphere as a realm of the social world situated between the privacy of the home and the authority of the government in which citizens can participate in civic dialogue as a means of contributing to civic life. For Habermas, the public sphere is a construct of the middle class world. He conceives it ‘‘as the sphere of private people come together as a public’’ (1991, p. 27). Habermas says the public sphere rose out of 17th century social changes – especially in France, England, and Germany – as professional men created a new civil society by coming together in nongovernmental public places and forming voluntary associations (Calhoun, 1992; Fraser, 1992). Habermas describes the bourgeois public sphere as the result of a new emphasis on communicating ideas and information between members of a social world. He also describes how the bourgeois public sphere transforms over time as it is reshaped by the pressure of social change. He demonstrates this change by citing the transformation of newspapers from ‘‘a journalism of conviction to one of commerce’’ beginning in the 1830s in England, France, and the United States (Habermas, 1974, p. 53). Other transforming forces include a blurring of the distinction between the state and the social world (Calhoun, 1992). Habermas’ theory provides a normative ideal and a lens through which observers can gain insight into patterns of public life and social activity. ‘‘The public sphere – public press, public forums, public schools, public libraries, and other means of free discourse about social information’’ (Burnett & Jaeger, 2008, p. 9) is the essential expression of modern democracy, but many of its embodiments are under threat.


61

Urban Public Space as an Expression of the Public Sphere Mitchell’s (1995) examination of the 1991 struggle over access to People’s Park, a piece of undeveloped land owned by the University of California at Berkeley, offers a detailed analysis of conflicting visions of the role of public spaces in cities. Activists and homeless people saw the park as ‘‘an unconstrained space within which political movements can organize and expand into wider areas’’ (p. 115). The University’s representatives envisioned ‘‘open space for recreation and entertainment, subject to usage by an appropriate public that is allowed in’’ (p. 115, italics in original). Mitchell discerns a conflict between a vision of public space as a politicized environment in which risks of political confrontation and disorder are central to its function, and a vision of a planned, orderly, safe public space in which users are made to feel comfortable. Mitchell argues the normative ideal of the public sphere – ‘‘the suite of institutions and activities that mediate the relations between society and the state’’ (p. 116) and the reality of public space – are inherently in conflict. He bases his argument in Habermas’ conception of the public sphere as one in which all participants in social formations ‘‘should find access to the structures of power within a society’’ (p. 116, author italics). As Mitchell observes, the Habermasian ideal of the public sphere and the physical reality of public space are intrinsically in conflict. Zukin (1995), Sorkin (1992), and Wilson (1992) all have discussed the ‘‘Disneyfication’’ of North American public space – the process of ‘‘creating landscapes in which every interaction is carefully planned’’ (Mitchell, 1995, p. 119). Idiosyncratic and extemporaneous interactions between people engaged in common goals are displaced by interactions shaped by market and design considerations. The privatization of public space, according to Mitchell, is leading to a new, restricted definition of the public which excludes groups of people who are not able or willing to follow corporate restrictions on activities suitable for public spaces. The forces Mitchell identifies as threatening urban public spaces are also touching public libraries. Although corporate sponsorship of a youth summer reading program or an adult book club is not in itself threatening, it does offer corporations access to previously noncommercial public space. Banerjee (2001) asks about the future of public space in the United States and identifies causes for the decline of the public realm that include declines in social capital, a rise in public incivilities, and loss of territorial control. Privatization of existing public spaces is a continuing trend, and corporate

62

LINDA R. MOST

open spaces are minimally used. By contrast, shopping malls have become the most frequently visited nonfamily, nonwork places, but they usually exclude public activities typical of the traditional downtown public spaces. When those exclusions have been challenged, shopping centers and corporate plazas have not been determined to be public forums. Banerjee (2001) comments that shopping malls create the illusion of public space while isolating visitors from the risks and uncertainties of everyday life.

Public Libraries and the Public Sphere Buschman (2005a) identifies a series of trends in public librarianship that ‘‘represent a diminution – or dismantling – of the democratic public sphere’’ (p. 11). He states that a key danger lies in following the market-oriented, entrepreneurial practices that inform current public policy thinking, thereby creating a sort of ‘‘information capitalism’’ (p. 9) that transforms library users into customers. Buschman says public libraries have assumed ‘‘an entrepreneurial approach to funding shortages and library practices’’ (p. 9) by following this trend. He believes that this new approach encourages an economic bias toward networked resources and other cost-driven approaches to library management that has led libraries to adopt a new economics-focused public philosophy at odds with the philosophy of the democratic public sphere. Buschman (2003) counters the current influence of the economic model of library service with a vision of a library ‘‘democratically connected to its community’’ (p. 180). Because of the intangible long-term nature of the influence of the library in the lives of its users Buschman (2005b) suggests that any form of cost-based measurement will necessarily fall short of describing the impact of the public library as an expression of the public sphere. In contrast to the privatization of public spaces described by Mitchell and Banerjee, Alstad and Curry (2003) argue that public libraries today still function close to the public sphere ideal and summarize many of the arguments advocating on behalf of public space.

Place Theory in Sociology The normative ideal of the Habermasian public sphere informs the civic nature of the public library as place, but people use the public spaces public libraries provide for many social and personal purposes as well. Sociologists and political scientists often investigate the physical characteristics of the


63

places in which different types of social interactions occur and their various approaches provide a different perspective on the social nature of place. Taken together, the different perspectives can help provide a fuller understanding of what library as place means to library users. Third Places Oldenburg’s (1999) concept of third places has provided a popular framework for scholars to use when analyzing roles public libraries might play as community places (Fisher, Saxton, Edwards, & Mai, 2007; C. Harris, 2007; K. Harris, 2003; Lawson, 2004). For Oldenburg, home and family make up the first place, work and professional or business relationships happen in the second. The third places are the social sites where people go to experience community when they are at leisure or between home and work. Third places most often are free or inexpensive; are very accessible (ideally within walking distance); involve regular patrons whom habitue´s expect to encounter regularly; and are unprepossessing but welcoming and comfortable. He also suggested that they often feature food and drinks, something that is not essential, but nonetheless is important to their capacity to fulfill this role. Even though, by nature, third places benefit their communities, they have limits that grow out of their limited service areas and clientele. True third places are often heavily race and genderspecific. Public Libraries as Third Places In the late 20th and early 21st centuries public libraries attempted to claim third place status in their communities. Kevin Harris’ (2003) feature article analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of British public libraries as third places. He tests them against Oldenburg’s criteria and asserts their importance as local places in which certain types of community connections can be established or reinforced. He identifies public libraries as places ‘‘to which people can go without obligation, threat, or constraining expectations,’’ saying they fall at ‘‘the less interactive end of the third place spectrum, but they have an under-appreciated role in providing local support and generating trust’’ (p. 26). Karen Lawson (2004) also attributes certain aspects of the third place to public libraries saying third places ‘‘nourish relationships and a diversity of human contact by helping to create a ‘sense of place’ and a community’’ (p. 125). Lawson refers to 20th century public libraries by using Oldenburg’s alternate phrase, great good places, and says they are excellent examples of the concept because they ‘‘welcome members of their

64

LINDA R. MOST

particular communities regardless of age and economic status and provide them with access to information, services, and a responsive, usually safe, environment’’ (pp. 126–127). She continues on to note that ‘‘traditional libraries provide human contact and social experience and strive to foster service, social equality, and the appreciation of human individuality’’ (p. 127). A key feature of Oldenburg’s third places is access to coffee or other food and beverages while enjoying the company of others. Cathryn Harris (2007) positions public libraries as ‘‘increasingly becoming places for social interaction, with areas set aside as meeting spaces, training rooms, and art galleries’’ and describes these features and their activities as adding to the attraction of the library as a destination (p. 146). She does not mention that meeting rooms and other social spaces were important features of the original early 20th century Carnegie library buildings in the United States (Van Slyck, 1995). Fisher et al. (2007) developed the concept of informational places when they used Oldenburg’s (1999) third place theory as part of the framework for their study of the new Seattle Public Library central library facility. They asked library users and passers-by about their perceptions of the new building as a physical and social place, finding that, though the library only met three of Oldenburg’s eight characteristics of a third place, one of the key values of the library to its users was as the place to go when they needed to obtain information, read for pleasure, or study and learn. Although this is not surprising, these researchers concluded that the theoretical literature in place studies has not previously addressed place in relation to informationseeking behavior. They developed the concept of an informational place to add information seeking and information consumption as core attributes of place to be added to those in the theoretical literature. This characterization of Seattle’s library as an informational place may be helpful in understanding theoretical aspects of library as place in other communities as well. The public realm Lyn Lofland (1998) divides urban space into three realms – private, parochial, and public. The boundaries of these realms are fluid and their identities can change as peoples’ relationships change within a given space. The private realm is the world of intimate relationships among family members, extended families, and friends. The parochial realm is the world of neighborhoods and the workplace where people know each other socially or professionally and share a common purpose. The public realm is the world of the street where strangers find themselves face-to-face. While moving through the public realm people experience a variety of relationships with


65

those they encounter during their daily public activities and the nature of those relationships can change over time. As a social territory the public realm operates under a set of principles of normative behavior that include (1) cooperative motility, (2) civil inattention, (3) audience role prominence, (4) restrained helpfulness, and (5) civility toward diversity (Lofland, 1998, p. 30). These behaviors guide interpersonal conduct among strangers in the city and allow each person cooperatively to maintain his or her own privacy. People who do not know each other use these norms to establish the various kinds of relationships indigenous to the public realm. In the public realm fleeting relationships occur when looking for a seat on a bus or asking the time (p. 53). Routinized relationships are standardized relationships based on the roles people play like bus driver, cabby, grocery clerk, shopper, etc. They result from a specific interaction and end when the interaction ends, or they transform into another level of urban relationship (p. 54). Quasi-primary and intimate-secondary relationships develop when positive or negative emotion infuses a public relationship (pp. 55–56). Quasi-primary relationships appear to end when the interaction ends. Intimate-secondary relationships endure. They occur among people who connect to each other in some public way and place and then build on that connection, whether it is formed on the commuter bus or train or among those that one shares a public interest with, or at a park, hairdresser, retail store, or other similar space. They are meaningful, last a long time, and feel good, yet they are not necessarily intimate. In addition to person-to-person public realm relationships, person-toplace relationships also form. Significant places become memorialized locales, small spaces that take on an aura because of something that happened there (Lofland, 1998, p. 65). Familiarized locales become part of people’s daily routines (p. 66). The corner store, the newsstand, and the branch library are examples of familiarized locales that, for their habitue´s, become very important to ordinary public life. Finally, home territories may be public or private spaces where ‘‘regular participants have a relative freedom of behavior and a sense of intimacy and control over the area’’ (Lyman & Scott, 1967; cited in Lofland, 1998, p. 69). In spite of the ‘‘dominant rhetoric of antiurbanism’’ (Lofland, 1998, p. 229) that favors the rural and the suburban and privileges the private and the parochial realms over the public realm, Lofland identifies several examples of the public realm’s persistent positive social value and utility. First, the public realm provides ‘‘an environment for learning’’ (p. 232), not formal classroom learning but the everyday life lessons children and adults

66

LINDA R. MOST

need to learn to function in the social world, to interact successfully with people unrelated to them and from different cultures. The public realm provides ‘‘respite and refreshment’’ (p. 233), functioning as a positive play environment for children and adults who benefit from the experience of play. Lofland cites Oldenburg’s (1999) documentation of the psychic refreshment individuals experience in their third places as an example of the respite and refreshment obtainable in the locales of the public realm. The sociability of aspects of the public realm provides informal communication centers (pp. 233–234) for a variety of people and groups. Public communication enables the ‘‘practice’’ of politics (p. 234) in an informal sense in which people of different backgrounds and opinions learn to act together. Out of those informal political patterns, people learn to come together when formal actions are needed. ‘‘Finally,’’ as Wiegand (2005a, p. 79) states, ‘‘the public realm facilitates cosmopolitanism.’’ Lofland (1998) says the public realm uniquely has the capacity to teach its residents about tolerance and civility. In spite of its unique qualities, Lofland says, the public realm in North America is under threat from technology, tourism, and personal timidity. Increasing privatization keeps people from experiencing the unique qualities of the public realm and threatens its continuing vitality.

The Public Realm and the Public Library McKenzie, Prigoda, Clement, and McKechnie (2007) describe public library meeting rooms as neutral physical spaces that may serve variously as public or parochial realms reflecting the fluid nature of the relationships among the people using the spaces. The fluidity built into public realm theory may be useful in understanding how people experience public libraries as places. McKenzie et al. studied public use of an Ontario public library meeting room. They found that the members of the library’s weekly knitting group and those in the young children’s/caregivers story hour regularly transform the public space of a library meeting or program room into semiprivate or private realms. They apply Lofland’s (1998) theory to the relationships forming within the two groups and thereby identify those relationships as intimate secondary relationships. They also find several enactments of private family relationships taking place inside the library, especially with regard to the physical care of the children participating in the story hour. McKenzie et al. (2007) also observed the members of the two groups fulfilling what Lofland (1998) described as ‘‘quasi-primary and


67

intimate-secondary relationships [that] promote the informal exchange of information’’ (p. 130). Conversation topics ranged from the immediate focus on knitting and childcare into an ‘‘extremely wide variety of other topics’’ (p. 130). They conclude that, though the public library is considered a public space and a part of the world of strangers, those people using the public meeting room are transforming it into a world apart from the public realm. They propose that public libraries should be understood as sites that ‘‘support a variety of relationships and host a variety of realms’’ (p. 131).

Social Capital Public and academic libraries have been thoroughly researched as places where social capital is generated. Social capital is a theoretical concept that grows out of economic thinking but is used across many disciplines to describe the results of connections people make through participation in social networks. One of the core ideas of social capital is that social networking has value and that the action of social networking generates a form of capital that an individual can use to enhance personal or group productivity within the social world. Political science scholar Robert Putnam is among those credited with popularizing the concept of social capital in the United States, but his emphasis is on its influence on the relations between communities and nations rather than between individuals. Putnam is a leading proponent of using social capital to reinvigorate civic life in the United States. He defines social capital as ‘‘features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’’ (Putnam, 1995b, p. 664; 1996a, p. 35). Putnam (1995a, 1995b, 1996a) identifies social capital as important to furthering America’s domestic agenda but noted its ‘‘strange disappearance’’ in a series of much discussed and debated articles. He cites one statistic that inspired the catchphrase for his thesis: ‘‘more Americans are bowling today than ever before but bowling in organized leagues has plummeted in the last decade or so’’ (Putnam (1995a, p. 70). The image of the solo bowler, featured in Putnam’s (1995a) article title ‘‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,’’ captured the national attention. Putnam continued to study the reasons why social capital was declining in American society and published a book-length study that rekindled the international discussion across popular and academic communities (Boggs, 2002).

68

LINDA R. MOST

Halpern’s (2005) work builds on and expands Putnam’s understanding of social capital and its role in social life. Halpern adds an international viewpoint to the discussion and says his British perspective gives him a different view than Putnam’s interpretation of U.S. events. Halpern interprets the American social capital narrative as one of the transformation rather than agreeing with Putnam’s narrative of decline ‘‘as more generalized social norms come to replace the informal understandings of traditional communities’’ (p. ix).

Public Libraries and Social Capital Following the publication of Bowling Alone, Putnam was invited to speak at the 2001 annual meeting of ALA (ALA breaks attendance records despite Marriott boycott despite Marriott boycott, 2001). ALA President Nancy Kranich described him as ‘‘taken aback when he discovered the extraordinary level of social capital resident in the room’’ (p. 2). Putnam’s appearance at the ALA meeting brought public libraries to his attention as places where social capital is generated as U.S. library leaders grabbed their opportunity to demonstrate the many ways libraries build social capital and to chide Putnam for missing libraries in Bowling Alone (Kranich, 2001; Preer, 2001). In Better Together Putnam and Feldstein, with Cohen (2003) visited the Chicago Public Library’s Near North Branch which they described as ‘‘an active and responsive part of the community and an agent of change’’ (p. 35). Audunson, Varheim, Abo, and Holm (2007), Bourke (2005), Cart (2002), Goulding (2004), and Hillenbrand (2005a, 2005b) have successfully used the theory of social capital to explain some of what happens between people who come together in public library buildings. Audunson et al. have categorized public libraries as low intensive meeting places, arenas where people can meet or be exposed to others with different interests and values. By contrast, high intensive meeting places are the places where people live out the majority of their lives engaged with others who share their interests, projects, or life goals (Audunson, 2005). Audunson et al. (2007) describe the public library as ‘‘an arena for informal social interaction, for the creation of weak ties, generalized trust, and bridging social capital’’ (p. 11). They say that the unique accessibility of public libraries to all members of the community as well as outsiders ‘‘should make it extraordinarily well suited for bridge building across diversities’’ (p. 11). Bourke (2005) also describes public libraries as ideally placed to encourage the networking between


69

different community groups and representatives that is the generating force required to build social capital. Goulding’s 2004 editorial in the British Journal of Librarianship and Information Science highlights the difference between British and U.S. governmental policy perspectives regarding the importance of social capital as a public good, saying that, ‘‘in the UK policy makers and academic commentators believe that the state and its institutions can create the conditions through which social capital can be generated’’ (p. 4). She believes that ‘‘the more optimistic British view is perhaps the result of evidence suggesting that associational life and civic participation in the UK is still strong in contrast to, for example, the United States (as documented by Putnam)’’ (p. 4). Goulding finds great opportunities for public libraries to contribute to civic renewal and community building and to emphasize their role in building social capital. ‘‘The very success of democratic public space lies in its embrace of conflict and plurality and libraries need to consider how to address any tensions inherent in their use whilst still ensuring that their capacity to help promote social capital is maintained’’ (p. 5). In Norway, Aabo (2005) focuses on the changing roles of public libraries in the digital era. She finds that they help meet the digital age’s challenges because of their potential and actual roles as public spaces that provide social and physical meeting places. The purpose ‘‘generally accepted for public libraries worldwide has not been changed by the ICT [information communication technology] revolution,’’ she says, ‘‘The purpose of public libraries is still to further democracy, equality and social justice, increase access to information, disseminate culture and knowledge, contribute to a meaningful and informative leisure time, and act as a communal institution and a social meeting place’’ (p. 210). Varheim (2007) calls for deeper ongoing research into the relationship of libraries and social capital. After reviewing many of the sources cited in the literature, Varheim concludes that ‘‘people mainly use the library for document-related activities. However, many find it a place they just want to be: a third place for informal low-intensive meetings’’ (p. 425). At the same time, Norwegian public library users ‘‘prioritize the equity of access for all and consider library buildings a symbol of government commitment’’ (p. 425). Varheim warns that outreach activities intended to bring in new library users must be ‘‘grounded in a library services perspective,’’ noting that, ‘‘if libraries turned into local community centers, merely functioning as hubs and recruiting areas for voluntary associations, there would be little evidence of their social capital-building properties’’ (p. 425). In contrast to Putnam’s (2000) firmly held belief in the importance of voluntary associations, Varheim

70

LINDA R. MOST

argues that ‘‘there is scant evidence that voluntary associations create social capital, regardless of their other positive effects’’ (p. 425). Varheim (2007) predicts public libraries will play three main roles in creating social capital: providing universal services built around the core purpose of access to documents and information; functioning as a public space that provides universal access for all on an equal footing; and as an informational institution, ‘‘bringing people together for knowledge and reflection’’ (p. 426). Varheim suggests that universal service and universal access without means testing are key features of public libraries that support social capital generation, but that ‘‘the library has a vital role in maintaining the public sphere in times of commercial and physical threats to the free formation of the public opinion’’ (p. 426) and, therefore, has a role in supporting ‘‘both the social and the political fabric of society and government’’ (p. 426). Varheim’s (2007) and Aabo’s (2005) conclusions about the role of public libraries in Norway reflect the split in the U.S. public library community between emphasizing the public library’s role as the locus of the public sphere and library decision makers’ need to document the economic value of public library services (Buschman, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Audunson (2005, 2007a, 2007b) and Audunson et al. (2007) find that public libraries function as low-intensive meeting places that provide communities with ‘‘public spaces and meeting places filling different functions – for example, meeting places contributing to an undistorted communication in the Habermasian sense, meeting places with a potential of creating a minimum degree of community identity, and meeting places promoting social contact, making people go ‘bowling together’’’ (Audunson, 2007b, section 3.1, p. 8). As noted earlier, Audunson postulates that highintensity meetings are those between people who share their major interests and engagements and thus generate bonding social capital, and low-intensity meetings are those where people with different interests and values come together and generate bridging social capital. He and his colleagues have identified public libraries as an ideal site to support and encourage lowintensity meetings because of their ability to promote social inclusion and to create integrated and vital local communities (Audunson, 2005). He calls the public library ‘‘one of the few remaining cross-cultural meeting places’’ in an increasingly fragmented social world (Audunson, 2005, p. 437). Audunson et al.’s (2007) survey findings indicate that public libraries serve as important meeting places in several ways. The libraries function, most importantly according to respondents, as a ‘‘public square in the community where you meet friends and neighbours, enter into conversations


71

with friends and neighbours but also, to a very considerable degree, with strangers’’ (p. 25). Audunson et al. (2007) find that a wide range of types of meetings take place in public libraries, ‘‘informal meetings with friends, unplanned encounters, participation in virtual arenas, organized meetings with politicians and authors, etc.’’ (p. 3). They conclude that ‘‘the concept of low intensive meeting places where people become aware of each other across cultural heritages, and across differences in values and perspectives seems to be fruitful’’ (Conclusion section, p. 3). The conceptualization of low intensity meeting places offers an additional way to understand how public libraries function as places well suited to supporting social capital generating activities.

Public Libraries as Digital Informational Places Varheim (2007) describes public libraries as informational institutions functioning as both virtual and physical places where people come together around both document-driven and social activities. Audunson (2005) identifies public libraries as being simultaneously grounded in the geographically defined, local community while providing a bridge to the digital virtual world. Fisher et al. (2007) propose adding the concept of information seeking and consumption to Cresswell’s (2004) and Oldenburg’s (1999) frameworks for understanding libraries as place. Fisher et al. suggest that ‘‘an ‘informational place’ can be operationalized as comprising all themes regarding information finding and seeking, reading, life-long learning, learning resources, and learning environment’’ (p. 153). At the time of the 2007–2008 Public Libraries and the Internet study, 98.9% of public libraries offered public access Internet services (Libraries connect communities: Public library funding & technology access study, 2007–2008). In parallel with the rise of digital information technology, federal, state, and local governments have migrated more and more of their services to electronic-only applications – e-government – referring individuals without other Internet access to their public libraries for access and assistance rather than providing physical access points (Bertot, Jaeger, Langa, & McClure, 2006a, 2006b). As public libraries have become known as the place to go for access to e-government services, they have also become the first stop in times of emergencies. After the disastrous Gulf Coast hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005, local people turned to the nearest open public library as a resource for information and communication access (Oder, 2006).

72

LINDA R. MOST

The authors of Long overdue: A Fresh Look at Public and Leadership Attitudes about Libraries in the 21st Century (2006) talked directly with library users about their perceptions of public libraries. They found that library users view libraries as ‘‘key players in our digitized future’’ (Wooden, 2006, p. 4). Although not explicitly framed as studying libraries as places, implicit in Long Overdue is a conception of the library as the physical place where people will go to connect to the Internet. The library users surveyed have not changed their expectations of public library programs and services from those of previous generations. They have merely added a need for libraries to provide digital services in addition to traditional services. ALA’s 2008 report on the state of America’s libraries identifies public libraries as ideally situated to meet evolving digital communication needs but warns that ‘‘growing patron enthusiasm for the computer and Internet services offered by public libraries has stretched existing Internet bandwidth, computer availability, and building infrastructure to capacity. Budgets have not kept up with demand, and many libraries cannot provide enough computers or fast-enough connection speeds to meet patron needs’’ (American Library Association, 2008, p. ii). Advances in digital communication technology and the proliferation of Internet-only resources are combining to add a new level of demand on top of other place-based public library programs and services. ALA’s current findings imply that it is crucial for public libraries to recognize their strengths and weaknesses as community places. Library managers must make decisions about which library roles they will emphasize and how they will use scarce resources to support them.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This study asked ‘‘How are the Gadsden County Library System’s library buildings functioning as places?’’ as it explored ways adults who live in a small, rural, majority African-American county use their public libraries as place. The question was answered by addressing five research questions about library user demographics, library user and staff perceptions of library use, and observations of actual use of library facilities: RQ 1: Who are the users of the Gadsden County library buildings? RQ 2: How do Gadsden County’s adult library users describe their perceptions of their local library’s services and amenities?


73

RQ 3: What do Gadsden County’s adult library users think of the building design elements, layouts, and furnishings of their three libraries? RQ 4: What use do Gadsden County’s adult library users make of their library buildings? RQ 5: What insights can Gadsden County’s adult library users and staff provide about the role of the public library in their communities?

The answers to these questions – obtained through a mixture of research methods including structured observations of actual library use, a library user survey, interviews of library users and staff members, and a review of library meeting room reservations – provide answers to the guiding question and explain how Gadsden County libraries are functioning as place for the local community. The data are also analyzed within the context of the theoretical literature to deepen understanding of how people use the Gadsden County Library locations as place. The objective of the study is to provide a current picture of the uses Gadsden County’s adult citizens make of their new libraries to advance the field of place studies by demonstrating the applicability of the theories used previously to conceptualize larger urban public libraries as place to a small rural library system. This study replicates the mixed-methods case study designed and used by Leckie, Hopkins, and Given (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) at the main public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver in the late 1990s to explore the role of the library as place in a community and replicated in 2006 by May (2007, 2009; May & Black,) at six smaller public library branches in and around Halifax, Nova Scotia. This study design features a single case – the GCPLS – using the three library branches, Main (in Quincy), Havana, and Chattahoochee, as units of analysis (Yin, 2003). The methodology employed a triangulated or convergence design that draws on four methods to collect both quantitative and qualitative data from two groups of people associated with the libraries: surveys and interviews of adult library users, interviews of library public service staff members, records analysis, and structured observations – seating sweeps – of the people using the libraries. The findings from each data collection method confirmed or disconfirmed the findings of the other data collection methods and then were combined to answer the research questions posed in the study. To facilitate eventual cross-case comparisons this study began by replicating the instruments and methods developed by Leckie, Hopkins, and Given (Given & Leckie, 2003; Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) and used later by May (2007, 2009, 2010) as closely as possible while at the same time

74

LINDA R. MOST

customizing the questions used to suit the demographic profile of the population of the current study site. May expanded Leckie, Hopkins, and Given’s original study design by incorporating an additional instrument designed by Curry, Dunbar, and Marshall (2004) to solicit public opinions about the design of recently constructed branch library buildings. Because Gadsden County’s public library buildings are new – they opened to the public in 2003, 2006, and 2007 – it was appropriate to include concepts from Curry’s library user survey here as well, just as May integrated it into her study, to ask how the libraries’ users feel about specific features of their new library buildings. During the library user and staff interviews, many respondents described having observed or participated in a variety of meeting room uses. After completing the original data collection plan, the study was expanded to include a review of the library meeting room reservation documents.

Participants and Data Collection The study focused on two principal subsets of library users. First, all library users age 18 or above who were physically present in the libraries during the period of the study were eligible to actively participate by completing self-administered questionnaires or by agreeing to be interviewed. Second, all library staff members who work with the public were invited to participate in the staff interview portion of the study. Three AfricanAmerican female staff members, two between ages 25 and 35 and one above 40, and 7 non-Hispanic white female staff members ranging in age from approximately 30–55 participated in the study. Children and teens under 18 years were counted during the observation periods but otherwise excluded from actively participating because the study was limited in collecting adult perceptions of public libraries as place, consistent with the design of the two previous studies. Around 337 unique adult library users participated either actively by completing a questionnaire or participating in an interview; or passively as among those observed using the library during the seating sweeps. The target data collection period for the study was autumn 2008, after public school had begun for the year but before Thanksgiving and winter holiday activities affected people’s schedules. Data collection began on September 10, 2008, and continued through November 24, 2008.


75

Study Instruments and Methods Seating Sweeps Seating sweeps, a way of structuring unobtrusive observations to document how people appear to be using the library at any specific time, were the first activity conducted at each site (Given & Leckie, 2003). These were conducted at each library during the week before the survey questionnaires were distributed or the interviews begun to attempt to capture undisturbed pictures of library use. Data were collected by walking through the library at scheduled times and recording the estimated age, gender, race, possessions (i.e., backpack, tote-bag, handbag, computer, baby carriage, music player, cell-phone, etc.), activities (reading, computer use by type, studying, talking, eating, participating in a program), and where the person was located in the library at the time of the observation for each person in the public areas of the library. For consistency, the categories of activity recorded were based on those used by May (2007) in her study but modified to suit the specifics of the Gadsden County public library locations. Five seating sweeps were conducted per location covering all the time periods during which each library location was open, including one weekday morning, one afternoon after school was dismissed for the day, and one evening; and once or twice – morning or afternoon – on a weekend day depending on the library location’s weekend operating hours. Observations of 174 individuals were documented across 3 library locations. Library User Surveys Posters announcing the study and asking adult library users to participate in the survey or be interviewed were placed at each location during the weeks the study was under way. The posters featured a gift-card drawing – an incentive for users to participate – that was held when each branch’s survey and public interviews were completed. The study design called for 200 questionnaires to be distributed during a two hour period three times during the week (morning, afternoon, and evening of different days) and twice during the weekend of the study week at each location. Additional questionnaires were left at the information desks next to the questionnaire return box for the period during which the survey was being conducted. One hundred and forty-three questionnaires were distributed across all three libraries following the data collection schedule and 109 usable completed questionnaires were returned, reflecting a 76% overall return rate. The text of the survey questionnaire is found in Appendix A.

76

LINDA R. MOST

Interviews of Library Users The interview guide uses the ‘‘standard open-ended’’ model (Johnson & Turner, 2003) in which the same wording and the same sequence of questions is used for each interview but the open-ended questions allow the interviewer room to probe for more details as appropriate. The text of the interview guide is found in Appendix B. The study proposal called for 20 interviews per library location for a total of 60 user interviews. The interviews were anticipated to take less than 10 min each. Adult interview subjects were recruited during time slots (including the weekends) when the survey questionnaire was not being actively distributed in order to expand the range of library users involved in the study. Interview participants were selected using purposive sampling in an attempt to reach representatives of the 12 most likely adult demographic groups to use the library (defined by approximate age group, apparent race, gender) and who spoke English well enough to participate in an interview. Any library users who appeared to belong to a different adult demographic group (e.g., of Asian or Hispanic origin) were specifically asked to participate. Interviews were recorded using a digital minirecorder and transcribed for analysis. Forty-one total public interviews were conducted across three locations. Population saturation became apparent when people entering the libraries declined to be interviewed by stating that they had already completed a survey form earlier in the study period. Interviews with Library Public Service Staff Members The library system’s managers allowed the staff interviews to take place during the participants’ scheduled work hours, and all public service staff members were invited to participate. The goal of this phase of the study was to secure participation from at least two public service staff members per library location, possibly including the location manager. Staff members were told that the interviews were voluntary, and that they were not required to participate if they did not wish to do so. All were offered the opportunity to review the questions in advance so that they could think through their responses. Ten staff members – all female – across three locations agreed to participate. The interviews were recorded using a handheld digital recorder and were transcribed for analysis. Meeting Room Reservation Logs Throughout the interviews participants referred in having seen people using the library public meeting rooms in a variety of ways or described having


77

personally participated in activities held in the meeting rooms. It became apparent that the meeting rooms contribute significantly to the role of the library as place for these communities. The original study design was therefore modified to include an analysis of meeting room reservations for the two months during which data collection took place.

Data Analysis Design The study data were analyzed following Creswell and Plano Clark’s (2007) concurrent triangulation, data convergence model of mixed methods study design. Yin (2003) refers to this analysis model as convergence of evidence and stresses the importance of triangulating the data obtained from all the lines of inquiry in the study to arrive at convincing and accurate conclusions that can be corroborated in the data. Quantitative Data Analysis The quantitative data resulted from the seating sweeps, the closed questions on the surveys, and the meeting room reservation sheets. The survey asked open-ended and forced choice questions (Fink, 2006) to capture library user demographics and opinions about the libraries’ services and facilities. These forced choice questions used formats including yes/no/why questions, scales of agreement questions, and a series of questions asking respondents to rank several sets of answers by various criteria. The meeting room reservations were kept on calendar pages at each branch. Reservations were sorted, tabulated, and totaled by category of use and location. Qualitative Data Analysis Textual data resulted from the open-ended survey questions and the interviews. The qualitative survey data were first coded descriptively to allow the themes and patterns relevant to the story the data were telling to emerge following the general tenets of in vivo coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or verbatim coding (Saldana, 2009). Qualitative analysis of the library user interviews was conducted subsequent to the survey analysis, again following the general tenets of in vivo (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or verbatim coding (Saldana, 2009). After the library user interviews were analyzed, the staff member interviews were coded and analyzed using the same methods. Intra-coder reliability testing was conducted by revisiting and recoding excerpts from the data coded at

78

LINDA R. MOST

the beginning of the analysis process after the first round of data analysis was complete. The second round of data analysis began by merging the quantitative and qualitative data sets to answer the study’s five research questions after which the theoretical analysis grounded in the study’s conceptual framework began. Theoretical analysis was intended to determine whether evidence of any of the previously identified theoretical roles public libraries play as place could be seen in the GCPLS’s locations. During the first round of data analysis, evidence of the social nature of reading as practiced at the public libraries became more and more apparent even though theoretical literature addressing the social nature of reading was not included in the study’s conceptual framework. Even without a theoretical context, the findings indicating that these public libraries support the social nature of reading could not be ignored completely (Fister, 2006; Ross, McKechnie, & Rothbauer, 2006; Wiegand, 2005b), and that supporting the social nature of reading must be acknowledged as one of the many functions of the library as place.

Validity The survey questionnaire demonstrated content validity because it was used and published previously (Leckie & Hopkins, 2002) and then modified and used again (May, 2007). To ensure content validity specific to the proposed study site, demographic questions were modified from previous iterations of the questionnaire to reflect characteristics of the current population. While using the questionnaire it became apparent that it had aged and would need further modification if used again. However, face validity of the questionnaire was still present: the questions looked like what they were asking about, and they reflected the community they were investigating and the environment in which they were being asked. Results of the questionnaires were compared with results from the interviews to determine whether people said different things when being interviewed than when filling out a questionnaire. Most responses to similar questions were consistent across both data collection methods. Seating sweeps observations both supported and contradicted the answers given on the questionnaires. For example, only one laptop computer was observed in use in a library building though library staff members explained in their interviews that people frequently bring laptops and work on them even though the libraries do not offer wireless Internet access and the staff


79

members feel this discourages patrons from using them in the library. A library user also mentioned the lack of wireless Internet access at the library and described it as a shortcoming during his interview. The example of different perspectives on use of laptop computers – observed compared to described – in small public libraries reinforces the importance of using multiple research methods to develop as full a picture of library use as possible. At the Gadsden County study sites, the staff interviews helped create a more accurate picture of laptop use than did the observations or survey questionnaires. Staff and library user interview responses provided a good picture of the need for the libraries to provide wireless Internet access and anecdotal evidence of the reasons they may have chosen not to do so. These and other examples of confirming and disconfirming evidence uncovered while triangulating the findings from the different components of the study help indicate the validity of the study because human behavior is never perfectly consistent (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

FINDINGS Research Question 1 Research question 1 asked, ‘‘Who are the adult users of the GCPLS buildings?’’ Observations and answers to the relevant survey and interview questions were grouped by theme: gender, age, race, language spoken, education, employment, place of residence, and average length of trip to visit the library. Analyzed as a group these data offer a basic profile of the adult library users who visit the GCPLS libraries. They are majority female, between ages 30 and 60, and live within 15 min of their preferred library locations. The study included 337 participants who appeared to be, or selfcategorized as above the age 18; 32% were classified as being between ages 18 and 30, 41% between ages 30 and 60, and 17% were above the age of 60. Female study participants outnumbered males across all the data collection methods used and in all the age groups described in the study. The difference was greatest among those who actively participated in either the interviews or the surveys. Seating sweeps observations counted 58% female and 42% male. Interview respondents were 73% female and 27% male. Survey respondents were 78% female and 22% male.

80

LINDA R. MOST

Eighty-one percent of survey respondents indicated they live in the same town as the library branch they visit, and 12% live in another county or state from the library branch they visit. Eighty percent of library users reported that it takes them less than 15 min to get to the library from home, and an additional 16% travel between 15 and 30 min from home to get to their preferred library branch location. Three people – 3% – reported traveling more than an hour to get to the library branch they use, but one of these respondents indicated that the Havana library was close to her husband’s place of work. When asked why they used the library in question rather than any other library location, 65% indicated that it was close to home and an overlapping 13% indicated that it was convenient to them. The majority of GCPLS’s adult library users – 62% – reported having a high school diploma or having taken some university or college courses; an additional 20% reported having a university or college degree or diploma; and 11% reported at least some postgraduate study. Most of the survey respondents – 88% – reported that they spoke English as their only language, whereas 11% reported that they spoke English and some other language. Because the study was conducted in English, it is possible that many library users who speak Spanish as their first language did not choose to participate. Library users reported having a variety of occupations but some did not consider themselves as employed, calling themselves homemakers or retired. The most commonly reported primary occupation was other followed by a specific job title. Positions listed included nanny, state worker, pharmacy technician, truck driver, nurse, buffet cook, and others. After other the next most common category of primary occupation reported was professional, and the third most common response to the question was unemployed.

Research Question 2 Research question 2 asks how Gadsden County’s adult library users describe their perceptions of their local library’s services and amenities. Triangulating responses from the user survey and from user and staff member interviews provides a picture of library user perceptions of their local libraries’ services and amenities. Many library users indicate that their lives would change for the worse without access to the libraries. Many respondents consider access to computer technology to be the most important service the libraries provide; yet providing this service has complicated relations between library staff


81

members and library users. In addition to computer and Internet access, the libraries are used for many other purposes. Users reported that the key services the libraries provide include materials for recreational reading and entertainment and facilities to support educational and personal study and research. One group of library users appreciates the enrichment programs the libraries provide for children. Several other library users suggested that additional cultural and enrichment programs would be well received, as would newer computers and wireless Internet access. Asked about the primary purpose of the library, survey respondents provided multiple answers. The two most common categories of answers were to serve as a community resource and to support education or provide information. Social and recreational purposes were seldom specified, but they were implied as part of the definition of community resource. Interview respondents prioritized using the computer and borrowing library materials as the most common reasons they visit the libraries. Staff members agree with library users about the primary purposes of the libraries: serving as a community resource, providing educational support, and providing computer and Internet access. Staff members also recognize that there are limits to how well they can meet public expectations – especially for support of computer and Internet access – and that these limits can be a source of both user and staff frustration. Highlights from the Data Seventy-five percent of survey respondents indicated that their lives would change from somewhat to significantly without the libraries; 75% of survey respondents also report the libraries to be very or extremely user-friendly. Eighty-three percent of survey respondents reported that they talk with the staff while they are at the library and the conversations range from ‘‘exchanging friendly greetings’’ to asking for help with library-related concerns, to social ‘‘chit-chat,’’ to conversations that indicate long-standing public social relationships. Despite the range of topics addressed in their conversations with staff members, library users do not describe the libraries as places to socialize. Survey respondents indicated the three most important resources the libraries provide are access to technology – 37%, fiction/literature for recreational reading – 21%, and facilities to support personal study (homework, research, etc.) – 19%. The least important service the libraries provide according to 53% or respondents is places to socialize. The term socialize was not defined for respondents in the survey, but it is important to note that, though respondents did not consider the library as a place to socialize, they

82

LINDA R. MOST

indicated that they talk with the staff whenever they use the library (Figs. 1 and 2). Interview respondents indicated that they visit the libraries for a variety of reasons, including to use computers for job hunting, for school work, and for recreational purposes, or to use the libraries’ book and video collections. Some interview respondents placed special value on the libraries’ student enrichment programs. When reflecting on their library use over the previous month, respondents prioritized using computers, checking out books, and studying or other school-related activities as the reasons they visited their libraries. Staff perceptions of how library users react to the libraries were congruent with the way users described the libraries. When asked to choose a word or two that best describes the library where they work, staff member answers corresponded with public perceptions, describing the libraries variously as a central hub, a community asset, and a community place. Staff members described the library atmosphere as busy, helpful, and friendly or userfriendly. 18 16

Quincy, n=37 Havana, n=31 Chattahoochee, n=41

14

times chosen

12 10 8 6 4 2

ot he r

to

so ci al co iz e m m un ity lif co ev em en lo m ng ts un le ity ar in ni fo ng rm pe (e at rs du io on ca n al ti o st na ud ls y up fic (h om tio po n, rt) ew lit or er k, at re ur se e (re ar re ch cr fe ea ) re nc tio e na an lr d ea in di fo ng rm at io n se rv ic es

ad re to pl ac e

pl ac e

ac ce ss

to

te ch no l

og y

0

services

Fig. 1.

Most Important Library Service. Data Obtained from Survey Question 21.

83

Rural Public Library as Place: A Theoretical Analysis 25

times selected

20 Quincy, n=37 Havana, n=31 Chattahoochee, n=41

15

10

5

ot he r

to

so ci al co iz e m m un ity lif co ev em en lo m ng ts un le ity ar in ni fo ng rm pe (e at rs du io on ca n al t i o st na ud l y su fic (h pp om tio or n, ew t) lit o er r k at ,r ur es e ea (re re rc cr fe h) ea re nc tio e na an lr d ea in di fo ng rm at io n se rv ic es

re ad to pl ac e

pl ac e

ac ce ss

to

te ch no l

og y

0

Services

Fig. 2.

Least Important Library Service. Data Obtained from Survey Question 22.

When asked what they felt is the single best feature of their library, staff members overwhelmingly indicated that they thought that providing public access to computers and the Internet was the single most important element of their program. Other features they highlighted included the children’s book collection in Chattahoochee, and the library services and assistance provided generally. Individual staff members also specified the atmosphere of the main library in Quincy and the location of the Havana branch – facing the city park and Veterans’ Memorial – as key assets. When asked what is the single worst feature of their library, staff members’ responses focused on a small materials budget that restricts collection development initiatives, the physical limitations of the individual buildings, and the location of the main library. Again, staff members concurred with library users who described the collections as being limited and not up to date, and the parking as challenging. Study participants at all three locations complained about inadequate or poorly designed parking. When asked to identify their favorite places in the library, staff members showed a strong preference for the public service areas that featured the

84

LINDA R. MOST

book collection and the places within the libraries that privileged reading over computer use. Asked about the primary purpose of the library, staff member answers reinforced the community members’ perceptions, identifying similar priorities for the libraries, especially providing computer and Internet access, serving as an information and research resource, providing educational support, and serving as a community resource that is responsive to community needs. Library users perceive computers and Internet access as a major component of the library system’s resources and expected services. Staff members had similar responses regarding the importance of digital information technologies to their jobs. They report that providing computerized services and Internet access in the local libraries has affected most aspects of their responsibilities as well as their attitudes toward their jobs and toward library users. Staff members perceive the public service computers and Internet access as an additional resource for library users in addition to the physical collections. The computers are seen to function as a learning resource, to provide access to government programs and services, and to facilitate and broaden access to all kinds of information. One staff member believes that, as library users become more comfortable reading on a computer screen, they may become more comfortable reading print media. Staff members also perceive the computers as a source of increased expectations on the part of library users that can lead to frustration when library users are disappointed with the staff members’ inability to help them due to lack of training or familiarity with specific applications. By contrast, staff members also highlighted the ways computer technology has made their job responsibilities easier by facilitating interlibrary loan transactions, increasing productivity, and increasing access to professional resources. Unfortunately, the other face of computer-enhanced administrative processes is the loss of productivity experienced when automated library systems do not work correctly (e.g., one staff member at a branch expressed frustration with an ongoing problem with lag time in the networked circulation system). Library staff members report that the addition of public service computers has complicated their relationships with library users in both positive and negative ways. Some staff members describe computers and Internet access as one more service the library can offer and another way to help people. Those staff members seem comfortable helping users with computer and Internet-related questions. For other staff members the public service computers negatively complicate their relationships with their library users. They noted repeatedly that helping people with computers exposes


85

them to personal information and raises privacy issues, particularly when users come to the library needing to access government and legal websites. Staff members spend from 5% to 60% of their time helping library users with computer technologies depending on their individual job responsibilities. Their attitudes toward the time they spend providing help with Internet and computer-related questions depends on their personal comfort levels with computers and on restrictions on the degree of involvement with personal information the library system policies allow. Policy-imposed limitations on staff involvement with patron Internet use can be a major source of tension because one of the most common reasons people come to the GCPLS libraries is to use the Internet – 53% listed use the Internet as the reason they came to the library. Library computer users sense the limits under which the staff members operate and the resistance certain staff members have in getting involved with requests for help with computer-related questions. One survey respondent described the worst feature of the library as ‘‘[a] need [for] someone to go around and see if people need help on computers.’’ Both library users and staff members perceive the computers and Internet service as powerful public service tools but these tools brings challenges and frustration to staff members and the public even as they provide new opportunities to help people get access to the information they need and want.

Research Question 3 ‘‘What do Gadsden County’s adult library users think of the buildings, design elements, layouts, and furnishings of their three libraries?’’ As a group the county’s library users are very pleased with the new library buildings and furnishings. They were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the new buildings, but noted that the buildings are not perfect and identified specific shortcomings and problem areas in each of the new libraries. However, they agreed that the problems were much less important than the overall success of the new libraries. Library users did not easily distinguish between physical and design features of the libraries and the services the libraries offer. Many consider the best feature of the libraries to be the computers and the Internet access they provide. Others consider the collections as their best feature. When pressed for specifics, users said there were problems with the parking lots at all the locations and that the noise level in the buildings could get too high.

86

LINDA R. MOST

As a group the staff members are happy to have the new buildings because they make possible greater levels of service to the community. Staff members agree with the public’s overall positive perceptions of the buildings and about most of their mentioned strengths and weaknesses. Staff members were more able than library users to identify specific design shortcomings and problems with the furnishings, but even staff members seemed to conflate library features with services. When asked what the worst features of the libraries were, staff responses focused on the small materials budget that limits the size and scope of the book and movie collections. Staff members also commented on the shortcomings of the parking lots.

Highlights from the Data The discussion in this section triangulates areas of agreement and divergence between library users and library staff members regarding the physical features of the library buildings and their locations. All the study’s participants largely agreed about the best and worst features of the libraries though most respondents talked about library services rather than physical features of the buildings unless specifically asked to comment on physical features. Respondents across the study agreed that computer access is the best feature of the libraries. When asked to identify the worst feature of the libraries, library users were reluctant to comment, but, when pressed, they identified as shortcomings limited operating hours at the branches, small collections, and an insufficient number of computers. Some library survey respondents commented negatively about the parking lots at all three locations, and a small number identified high noise levels as a problem, especially in the Chattahoochee branch. Interviewees responded comparably to survey respondents about the best features of the buildings by variously listing computer access, the collections and resources, the locations, the helpfulness or friendliness of the staff, and the atmosphere of the libraries. As a group, interview respondents did not single out physical features of the library buildings as best features, though some mentioned the layout of the libraries, and some used generic adjectives like ‘‘comfortable.’’ They responded very positively to the library buildings generally and specifically to their locations and the spaces around the buildings except for the parking areas. Most interview participants described the libraries with either a generic response like ‘‘it’s nice’’ or a building-specific response such as ‘‘terrific building.’’ Those who provided a specific positive attribute most often identified the buildings as comfortable, convenient, and clean. Most indicated that the grounds are


87

attractive or well kept. The only features interview respondents consistently described negatively were the parking lots. The ten staff members overwhelmingly indicated that providing public access to computers and the Internet was the best feature of the library, mentioning these features eight times. One response highlighted the speed of the Internet access provided at the library. Other features staff members mentioned included the children’s book collection in Chattahoochee, and the library services and assistance provided generally. Two staff members indicated that the library users were the best feature of the library. The atmosphere of the main library in Quincy and the location of the Havana branch facing the city park and Veterans’ Memorial were also mentioned. When asked to identify the worst feature of the libraries it became apparent that library users are very supportive of their new libraries as evidenced by the large number of respondents – 35 individuals – who stated that there was no worst feature of their library or that the question was not applicable. Those who did answer most often identified the branch libraries’ limited number of open hours as the worst feature. Comments featured requests for more weekend and evening hours from respondents at both branches. Complaints about computers focused on needing more terminals, their arrangement in the buildings, their speed, and the time limits on their use. Other comments focused on the small size of the collections, and respondents at one branch complained about the noise level, referring to the staff at the service desk as being very loud. Most of the interview respondents indicated that there were no bad features or that nothing was wrong with the building though several wished for more public access computers. One person in Chattahoochee complained about the acoustics because the library is too noisy, and one said that the library could have been better designed, ‘‘it’s just not very pretty, it could have been better designed aesthetically.’’ Five interview respondents from all three libraries commented on the limited size of the collections or that the collections are dated, especially the collections of movies on videotape and DVD. Although many members of the public insisted there were no bad features to the libraries, the staff members’ responses recognized limits to the resources and services the library system can provide. Staff members repeatedly mentioned a small materials budget that restricts collection development initiatives; library users indicated an awareness of this problem when they said that the collection is small or dated. Staff members also identified physical limitations of the individual buildings and the location of

88

LINDA R. MOST

the main library; and as the library users did, staff members found fault with the parking areas at the branches. Staff member specifications of the worst features of the libraries can be grouped into two main categories: lack of funding for collections and materials – mentioned 4 of 10 times – and specific problematic physical features of the buildings. Survey respondents were asked to select and circle the words they thought best described the physical space of the libraries. They could select as many adjectives as they wished and the selections were counted and sorted by overall frequency of selection. The three most commonly selected words across all three libraries were clean –88, comfortable –82, and friendly –69. Survey respondents were reluctant to select any negative adjectives as descriptors relevant to the new library buildings, though the main library users responded slightly more negatively than did those who use the branches. Main library users most often selected loud and crowded from the list provided. Survey respondents ranked parking the lowest across all the libraries. No library users selected the words dark, unattractive, or uncomfortable in relation to any of the libraries. Only one user selected unfriendly, and that person may have experienced problems with library staff members in one location. Fig. 3 presents the adjectives and the

40

35 Quincy, n=37 Havana, n=31 Chattahoochee, n=41

25

20

15

10

5

Lo ud

ar k

D irt y Fr i e Lo n dl ts y of Sp ac e N ee M od ds er R n en ov at io n Q ui U et na ttr U nc act om ive fo rta bl U e nf rie nd U se ly rf rie W nd el ld ly es ig ne d

D

C le C an om fo rta bl e C ro w de d

0

At tra Ba ct dl iv y e D es ig ne d Br ig ht

chosen =1, not chosen=0

30

descriptors

Fig. 3.

Library Space Descriptors. Data Obtained from Survey Question 29.


89

frequency of selection. Looking at the figure it becomes apparent that Chattahoochee branch users selected many more positive terms in relation to their library than did users of the other two locations. This may be due to the newness of the branch and the extreme change in style, location, features, and services from the small, old, overcrowded original Chattahoochee library. Collectively interview respondents provided 73 positive descriptors of the libraries that can be grouped into four categories: a community asset; a generic positive response; a building-oriented positive response; or a response privileging a specific positive attribute like clean, convenient, or comfortable. There were no negative descriptors offered though the word quaint was used once to describe one of the branches, probably to attribute a homey quality to the library. Staff members were asked about physical library features that helped or hindered their jobs and helped or hindered their public interactions. Staff members responded very positively about the improvements to services and interactions the new buildings made possible but criticized specific library features more than did members of the public. Staff members were more willing to be specific about library facility shortcomings or physical problems, as would be expected of people who spend their working lives in these places. Staff members agreed with library users about the parking problems and high noise levels. They identified specific design flaws at each building, including the lack of accessible entrances that accommodate users with special needs, blocked sight lines and poorly designed or poorly placed reference desks at two of the three new libraries. At the same time, most of the staff members agreed that the new buildings made their interactions with the public more positive and that the new buildings were more comfortable and more welcoming than the old ones. In addition to providing generic positive comments, staff members identified very specific helps and hindrances generated by the new buildings. The most common helps were the increased amount of space in the new buildings and the positive feelings the new environments invoke due to working air conditioning, new bathrooms, and fresh furnishings. The most common hindrances across all three buildings were broken sight lines and high noise levels. Chattahoochee staff members uniformly said the physical environment of the library had no impact on their interactions with the public. One noted, ‘‘You could do the same thing no matter how the layout was arranged.’’ When asked about their favorite location or place in the libraries, public and staff responses diverged. Library survey respondents offered a range of

90

LINDA R. MOST

responses to this topic: 33 survey respondents favored sitting at the computers, 18 favored specific sections of the collections, 14 preferred the soft seating, and 7 preferred the study tables and carrels the libraries offer. A smaller number of survey respondents favored other areas of the libraries. Library user interview respondents’ answers followed a similar pattern. More interviewees highlighted the computers as their favorite places and some interviewees highlighted areas of the print collection. Six interview respondents provided another perspective on attitudes about the library buildings, saying they did not have a favorite place because they did not stay in the library – they only came in to return and check out books or other items. In contrast to the public responses showing a preference for areas around the computers, staff members uniformly preferred the public service areas of the libraries that privilege books and reading. All but one staff member selected a public service area of the library over any other area, and these staff members consistently selected areas housing the book collections and the soft seating where someone could read comfortably rather than the computer areas in contrast to the preferences of most library users. One staff member prefers the work room away from the public because she appreciates the quiet and the ability to accomplish some of her other tasks while working in the back room. When staff members were asked at the end of their interviews if they had anything else they would like to say about the design, technology, use, or services of the libraries, they offered a variety of responses. They provided detailed critiques of specific elements of the library buildings while offering generally positive responses about the impact of the new buildings on their communities. Staff members concluded their interviews with broad positive statements about the new libraries as a vast improvement over and more heavily used than the old libraries. Their impressions were corroborated with annual usage statistics published by the state library. The features of the new Chattahoochee branch especially evoked strong comments from the staff. The Chattahoochee parking lot was described as hideous, and the front desk was singled out as being poorly designed and positioned. The Chattahoochee branch staff members cannot see the front door of the library from the desk and as a result, there are cameras and monitors positioned to compensate for the broken sight lines. At the same time, Chattahoochee staff members insist that circulation figures and computer usage statistics for the Chattahoochee library have increased since the new building opened more significantly than either of the other libraries.


91

Staff members at all the libraries commented that people are proud of their new libraries and have a sense of ownership about the individual library each uses.

Research Question 4 Research question 4 asked what use Gadsden County’s adult library users make of the library buildings. The answer to this research question draws from the results of all the methods employed in this study: seating sweeps, survey responses, public and staff interview responses, and review of the meeting room reservation sheets. Triangulating the relevant results provides a rich picture of what adults do while visiting the library. Gadsden County’s adult library users appear to use all the resources their libraries offer. Almost half of the library users visit at least once a week, and many indicated visiting several times each week. Seventy-five percent of library users visit a minimum of at least two or three times in a month. Some visit daily. Almost 75% of library users stay at the library between 30 min to 2 h, and half stay for at least 1 h. Some visit the libraries alone, and some visit in a group with family members or friends. Forty-eight percent of library visitors said going to the library was the sole purpose of their trip, whereas 41% said they combined their library visit with visiting stores or other services. Library users often have multiple reasons for visiting the library, including using a computer, attending an activity, borrowing or returning library materials themselves. Many bring children to the library for a program or activity or to borrow or return materials. Most library users believe that the libraries are used appropriately by community members, but many commented about unsupervised children who misbehave while visiting the libraries. Some library users have been creative in their use of the library public meeting rooms (e.g., using them to hold an off-site union meeting and a wedding). Library users say they come to the libraries to work toward personal goals and to accomplish tasks or projects. Adult students use the libraries to facilitate taking online classes and to do research or study for school. Library staff members agree that the libraries are very heavily used, and their comments provide additional insights on the ways community members use the libraries. Staff members report that library users come to the libraries when they need help finding information or help using computers to meet a personal need. Library staff members report that the library system’s computer classes were very popular and very successful but

92

LINDA R. MOST

that no funds are currently available to continue the classes. Staff members also report that some of the library system’s less traditional services are very popular, especially community book drop-off and exchange programs that function outside the library’s circulation system. Library users and staff members agree that the new library buildings are heavily used and very popular. Highlights from the Data The seating sweeps documented observed user activities during the study period. Little cell phone use was observed inside the libraries. Survey respondents indicated that about half have a cell phone with them, but most indicated that they turned it off or kept it set on vibrate in case of emergency calls. The seating sweeps procedure put library user activities into a series of categories, expressed here in italic font. The seating sweeps did not record many adults sitting and reading in the libraries during the observation periods. Writing was noted more often than reading, and most people who were writing did so while sitting at a computer terminal. They appeared to be taking notes or responding to something seen on the computer monitor. Adults sitting and reading books or other print material made up 2% of all adults observed during the seating sweeps. By contrast 12% of observed adults were searching or retrieving library materials (printed books, videos, DVDs, or audio recordings) – the third most common activity observed across all but the oldest age group. The group of library users over 60 years were most often observed searching and retrieving library materials and interacting with staff. Very few people were observed sitting in a chair without doing something. Just sitting appears to occur when people are waiting for their turns on the Internet computers, but most people who are waiting occupy themselves with magazines or some other pastime. No instances of eating, drinking, or sleeping were observed. One portion of the survey questionnaire asked generally about what people do while they are at the libraries. Respondents indicated heavy reliance on the library system’s computers and electronic resources, especially for access to the Internet. During the seating sweeps the most commonly observed adult activity was computer use; 45% of all the adults observed during the study period were sitting at a computer using it in some way. Over 70% of survey respondents indicated they use the libraries’ electronic resources at least sometimes. Over 80% of respondents rank the libraries’ electronic resources as least important, and of that group 25% ranked them as crucial. Library users who participated in or were observed during this study did not use personal laptop computers while at the libraries. Staff members commented


93

that people in the libraries sometimes work on personal laptops, but that the libraries do not provide wireless Internet access so laptop use is limited to working on documents or reports. As a group, library users said they did not bring many electronic devices with them other than cell phones. Only two respondents mentioned even bringing portable file storage devices (jump drive and flash drive). Respondents indicated that the libraries’ electronic resources were heavily used and very important to library users. The next two most common activities observed after computer use – interacting with staff and physically searching for or retrieving library materials – occupied 17% and 12% of observed adults during the study period. In many cases interacting with staff was a precursor or follow up to computer use or searching for or retrieving materials from the collection. Fig. 4 presents the reasons for coming to the library in the order respondents received them on their questionnaires. Respondents did not typically indicate one reason for visiting the library as more important than any other; they checked or circled all relevant reasons without distinguishing among them for a total of 275 reasons why they visited the libraries. By far 25

frequency of answer

20

Quincy, n=37 Havana, n=31 Chattahoochee, n=41

15

10

5

us e

pu bl us ic m e ch eet bo in ild rr g re ro bo ow n' o or s rro se m: re w a rv tu or i ce re rn m s: tu br at b rn m eria ows at ls e: lo ok fo co eria rs c ls fo ns ri um for elf: vie nf d ot or e w h f m ar at ood ers tw io :e or or n k on dr di in sp a su k: f la m ys b j e e ge or b et a ct: g ul th fri le en el ti p st ud fro ng b d: h y m o in lib ard lib s: ra ra r i y ry st wi af th f: ow re j us n ad us e m :k e m ph ate ic r r o of ich toc ials :l o e or pier s: m i m us cr e us ofil th m e e :n cd on ro -li m n us us e ca s: o e e el th talo ec tro e in g: p te ni r c da net :q ta ba se us s e e- : r m ai l: s ot he r: t

0

Reasons most respondents selected more than one reason

Fig. 4.

Reasons for Visiting the Library. Data Obtained from Survey Question 14.

94

LINDA R. MOST

the most common reason respondents reported for visiting the libraries was to use a computer – 53%. The next two most common reasons for visiting the libraries were to borrow or return library materials – 35%, or to look for information on a topic – 31%. Again, it is important to note that these activities are not exclusive. Many survey respondents indicated multiple reasons for visiting the libraries. These percentages also differ from the results of the seating sweeps but this may be because the seating sweeps did not record the totality of the library users’ activities during a library visit. Interview respondents were evenly divided when asked why they came to the library. Seventeen people said they were at the library to use the online services for specific or general purposes, and 17 people said they were borrowing or returning items from the collection. Seven interview respondents reported other place-based activities including using the photocopier, bringing children to participate in library programming, and using the library as a recreational destination and a place to pass time. When asked, ‘‘What have you used the library for in the past month,’’ interview respondents provided a variety of answers. Half of the respondents indicated multiple reasons for visiting including using both computers and collection resources, whereas about one-third of respondents said they only use the library to borrow items from the collection. Only five respondents indicated that they come to the library only to use the computers, indicating that most of those who described themselves as computer users also use other library services and resources. Very few library users reported meeting tutors when they came to the library, but the meeting room logs indicate that many hours of tutoring take place at the main library. Most of this tutoring is probably for elementary, middle, or high school students under age 18 who did not take the survey, so that might explain the discrepancy. GED courses are offered at the Chattahoochee library on an ongoing basis and appear on the meeting room reservation sheets, but the classes were not scheduled during the hours the survey was being distributed. Interview participants were asked what they thought about how other people used the library. They typically gave two-part answers. Respondents reported what they observed or knew people were doing in the library and many also expressed an opinion – typically positive – of how other people used the library. When asked if they could describe ways they had seen people use this library that surprised them – either good or not so good – 75% of interview respondents said that they had not seen anything that surprised them, and that things were all pretty much what they expected for


95

a public library. Respondents used phrases like ‘‘pretty normal,’’ and ‘‘nothing much surprising.’’ Twelve respondents reported being surprised positively or negatively, or just surprised in a neutral way about the way people use the library. The phenomena most commonly reported as surprising were the number of children in the libraries overall and in particular, the number who were misbehaving; the amount and types of meeting room use including after school nonlibrary sponsored activities, sorority meetings, union meetings, and voting; and the high amount of computer use and the nonserious ways the computers are often used. A Chattahoochee library user summed up attitudes about the volume of computer use at the libraries, saying, ‘‘There seems to be a lot of people who come to use and access the Internet and I guess maybe that surprised me because I think probably a lot less people have access at home than one would think.’’ When asked if there was anything else they wanted to say about the way other people use the library that they had not yet discussed, interview respondents answered at various levels. Some continued to stress specific programs or services they saw people using or used themselves while others spoke more generally about the library as a community asset. Respondents continued to identify using computers, job hunting, doing school work, reading, library programming, and community use of the meeting rooms and services for children and young people as ways people use the library. Some wrapped up the interview with a concluding phrase stressing how well used the library is and how important it is to family or community. Staff members interact with and help library users both formally and informally throughout the workday. The senior professional employees housed at the main library have offices or private work areas, but the majority of the library system’s staff members do most of their work in the public areas of the library, including at the reference/circulation desks. Branch staff members spend most of their workdays performing their tasks while seated at the public service desk or in the public service areas of the library. Staff members were asked what they saw most users doing in the libraries. They described library visitors using all the services the libraries offered and noted that different people had different needs. More than one staff member replied with an answer similar to this: ‘‘I find that there’s kind of different categories [of library users]. There’s some that strictly come in here to just get on the computer, and then we have our dedicated, avid readers that come in with 15 or 20 books and take out 15 or 20 books, and then you have

96

LINDA R. MOST

the children that need assistance with their school work, so they’re here trying to get help with that as well as being on the computer.’’ Another main library staff member described a regularly occurring social aspect of her work with the public, saying, ‘‘They come in, I say hello, if I know them they ask how I’m doing, I ask how they’re doing – it’s just a nice little – it’s like my store, they come in, it’s either repeat customers or new ones.’’ Her description indicates that often social interaction is part of a library user’s visit to the library. Finally, one of the Chattahoochee staff members explained that there are limits on what the library staff can do for library users. Her response confirms that library users sometimes have service requests or expectations of the library that the staff members are not able to meet but that staff members usually do whatever they can to help meet these needs. When staff members described the primary problems they experienced when dealing with library users, most indicated that there were not many problems any more, and that disruptive behaviors on the part of library users had been worse in the old buildings. Seven of the 10 respondents said ‘‘not that often’’ or ‘‘not very common,’’ in reference to the frequency of unacceptable behavior in the libraries while three respondents indicated unacceptable behavior occurred from three times a week to every day. Most of the staff members recognized the behaviors they categorized as negative as that of library users expressing frustration with information and computerrelated challenges they could not master due to inexperience or unfamiliarity with computer technology or Internet and web-page conventions. Another big problem several staff members identified stems from adults who come to the library to use a computer and who bring young children with them. Staff members as a group insist that parents do not pay attention to their children once the families arrive and the parents begin their sessions on the computers. Two staff members described rambunctious or unsupervised children as the main source of unacceptable behavior in the main library. The final commonly reported problems were inappropriate use of cell phones in the main library computer room and people in the computer room being disturbed by other computer users. People also use the libraries as a place to donate books. A staff member described the service as allowing people to feel good about donating, while the staff members feel good about accepting the donated books and disposing of them appropriately if they are in poor condition. People from outside the library service area also use the branch library as a book resource. The libraries host a more formal book exchange than the book


97

donation program, and users do not need to have library cards or pay a nonresident fee to participate.

Research Question 5 Research question 5 asks what insights the Gadsden County Library System’s adult library users and staff can provide about the role of the public library in their communities. Their answers indicate that for library users and staff members alike the libraries fulfill their function as modern public libraries. They serve members of the communities of all ages and races. They provide access to information, support formal education and lifelong learning, and offer access to recreational reading and viewing materials. The new libraries are sources of community pride. People believe they have improved their communities and are filling a need for modern, comfortable, noncommercial public places that support information-related activities, reading, community-supported activities, educational projects, and personal growth. They also believe that the new library buildings have enriched the social interactions that are part of each of these activities. Highlights from the Data When asked why they use the library in which they were present rather than other libraries, users mentioned the closeness to home, convenience of the location, the library’s collection, the friendliness of the library staff, and the access the library provided to computers and the Internet. When asked if they ever talked to the library staff when they visited the library, and, if yes, what they talked about, 83% of respondents indicated that they spoke with staff members and that the subjects of their conversations ranged from requests for help with library services to general conversations to what users described as ‘‘chit chat’’ and ‘‘social stuff.’’ Social conversations, conversations about books and about users’ information needs were the most frequently mentioned topics. Library users were asked what other services or resources they would like to see introduced at the libraries. Respondents asked most frequently for more services such as expanded cultural programming for adults and children, access to adult education including GED classes and classes in foreign languages, and tutoring for school students. They also requested extended operating hours at the branches. Respondents requested additional resources including expanded collections, more computers, and more

98

LINDA R. MOST

computer programs such as Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint. Individual respondents requested community services including employment information, a blood-pressure monitor, and day-care services – presumably for children. At the conclusion of the user survey respondents were asked what they believed to be the primary purpose of the library. They often provided multiple answers and most frequently mentioned serving as a community resource, supporting educational efforts, and helping people meet their information needs. Survey respondents had space to make any additional comments they wished about the library, and 18 of the 109 survey respondents wrote an additional comment. The comments are almost all positive and show a strong awareness of the many roles the libraries play as community places. The comments also show how people respond to the place-based aspects of their libraries. Quincy respondents described the library as ‘‘a wonderful place to experience and grow’’ and as ‘‘a nice modern library.’’ Another said ‘‘it gladdens my heart to see the library put to use as it should be.’’ A Havana respondent described the branch library as ‘‘very accommodating’’ given the size of the community, and she said she anticipated that the library would grow with time. Another Havana respondent described the branch simply as ‘‘a great public service.’’ Chattahoochee residents responded very favorably to their new branch. One said ‘‘without this library I would have a hard time working and attending college,’’ and another described it simply as ‘‘my favorite place’’ and ‘‘a very nice facility.’’ One Quincy respondent wished the main library could be bigger, and a Chattahoochee respondent took the opportunity to complain that sometimes the staff members were too familiar and too willing to carry on their personal lives at the library. Interview participants were asked why they had come to the library that day. Answers included bringing a grandchild to attend a library program; using a computer to do homework, research, or job hunting; using the library as an alternate family destination on a Sunday when the church was not open, and bringing several bags of books to donate to the library. The next question asked what they had used the library for in the past month. Answers included doing personal research, participating in the book exchange, checking out library books, keeping up to date with changes in the job market, reading with a child, and using the library for general recreational purposes. One regular nonresident Chattahoochee library user described the library as his living room when he is working in Chattahoochee and away from home.


99

When asked about how other people use the library, interview participants were mostly positive and approving. They seemed very aware that others used the library extensively and for multiple purposes. A Quincy respondent described the library as being highly valued, noting that people use it for job hunting and studying as well as for recreational purposes. Another Quincy respondent ranked how people use the library – approving of people who come in to do homework but speaking less approvingly of people who ‘‘get on the Internet and play games y and listen to music and stuff like that.’’ A Havana respondent described the branch library as a community place and spoke approvingly of seeing students using the library’s computers. A Chattahoochee respondent was somewhat surprised that he saw so few people using the library recreationally and said it seemed to be used mostly for research and studying. When asked to describe any surprising ways they had seen people use this library, most participants said that for the most part people use the libraries in expected ways. They reported most people as being well behaved and that most people have a reason for being at the library and know what they want to do. Others reported the libraries being heavily and well used and suggested that usage figures had increased significantly since the new libraries were opened. Staff members identified a number of roles for the libraries, including providing computer and Internet access, serving as an information and research resource, providing educational support, and serving as a community resource in any way possible. Their answers focused on formal and informal social activities and the role of the main library as a neutral entity in a historically segregated county. One staff member described the main library as a neutral location because [this] was a segregated county up until the early seventies and the public library is one social environment that is completely neutral that is not something y like a courthouse or where you’re going to buy clothes or going to buy something. This is like, you come here, it’s free but it’s neutral. It’s all races together. Interviewer: do you think part of that is because it’s a new building or was it like that before? Staff member: no it was like that before.

All three libraries provide community groups with access to the library program rooms, conference rooms, or small meeting rooms (depending on the building) for community, civic, and nonlibrary-related governmental use. One branch manager explained, ‘‘This library sometimes is used after

100

LINDA R. MOST

hours for people with different groups to meet, like several types of homeowners associations, so it gives the people, when they don’t have a place to meet, a place where they can meet.’’ Other staff members who work at all three locations described the importance of library-initiated programs and activities to the community. One staff member also described the importance of the Chattahoochee library as a destination, ‘‘I think it gives a place for, [it’s] still a place for families to come as a family outing and a place for kids to come after school and a place for older people to come sometimes to get out and go do something.’’ Staff members were asked to explain how they see the library being used socially. Although all three libraries are used socially, there are subtle distinctions in ways of use that separate the libraries according to their three communities’ needs. The main library functions as a noncommercial civic space that is not allied with any religious or political entity or mission. It is heavily used by members of the community for informational and social purposes. The Havana branch is heavily used for meetings and as an informal social meeting place that focuses around the local reading culture – the formal book exchange and the book donation and drop-off services, as well as the circulating materials collections. The Chattahoochee branch sees less after school activity than in prior years but now serves as landmark, rendezvous point, and communications and information center for nonresidents who stay in the three large campgrounds – two state and one municipal – just outside of town. Staff members were asked to describe the primary problems they experienced when dealing with the public and they offered two main themes to this question. The themes seem to identify the different understanding staff members and library users have of the role of the libraries as community places. The first theme described challenges staff members experienced when dealing with unattended or unsupervised children and responses collected indicate that parents consider the libraries a familiar and therefore safe place for their children. The second theme focuses on the problems staff members experienced when working with people who were unfamiliar with computers but had computer or Internet-dependent information needs. This theme appeared throughout the staff member interviews. For example, when the staff members were asked how computer technology affected their interactions with the public, they provided examples of the computer-related services library users have come to expect from their libraries and the limitations on the library staff members’ ability to meet those expectations. Their responses indicate that the libraries have become important sources of


101

Internet access and that staff members are caught between trying to provide the help community members request without infringing on people’s privacy. As the staff member interviews concluded, participants were asked for any final comments they might wish to make about the design, technology, use, or services of their libraries. Answers from three of the staff members provide additional clues about the role of the public library in their communities. The Quincy staff member quoted earlier mused about the library’s role as a symbol for the county I think that libraries – like in areas like this where there’s not a lot of county services besides law enforcement and court system – [provide] an unusual and wonderful place, a brand for the county. It’s like – what a great selling point for county services y having a new building and having something that is very neutral again, you know is just vibrant, it’s – you can see that it really serves the public y There’s just no other place like it in the county, you know, that’s free. It’s a good thing to get behind I think [in] southern rural areas – public libraries – because I think they are good meeting places for the diverse populations y [The library] can be a place where everybody gets the information and there’s a little bit of awe on information, things that they haven’t seen or experienced before, libraries can be that.

A Chattahoochee staff member’s final interview responses discussed how important the most basic library services can be in a small rural community. She said ‘‘the library is still a place that is vital to the community, especially in a small town there’s no other choice for entertainment. We provide movies, books, the Internet, books on cd and tape – we’re the only choice of entertainment in the entire town of Chattahoochee.’’ Another Quincy staff member concluded her interview with this final thought, ‘‘I think the people are really, really proud of the fact that they have this library – that this is THEIR library and that’s what it’s all about. It’s a public library and they – I think they feel that way.’’

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Theoretical Framework Review The theories presented in the literature review can be organized in three groups to contextualize: (1) the qualities of the public library as a place or setting, (2) the relationships that people who visit the public libraries experience while at the libraries, and (3) the results of the activities people pursue while at the libraries. These theories are not mutually exclusive, and

102

LINDA R. MOST

no one theory is sufficient to fully contextualize the study’s findings. Understanding all three groups of theories is necessary to begin to answer the question of how people use their public libraries as place. When discussing the setting, Habermas’ (1974, 1991) theory of the public sphere and Oldenburg’s (1999) conceptualization of third places, along with Fisher’s (Fisher et al., 2007) developing theory of informational places provide three sets of concepts that can be used to interpret the role of the library as an environment that encourages and reinforces a set of interactions and relationships that facilitate a range of outcomes. The relationships people experience while visiting their public libraries can be analyzed using the spectrum of public realm relationships Lofland (1998) describes. Public realm relationships contribute to peoples’ sense of being members of a community formed among those who share interests, institutions, and perspective, and who live in the same geographic area (Warren, 1978). People’s shared sense of belonging to a community can also be understood as a cognate of the benefits of increased social capital – the bonds and connections that hold a society together (Halpern, 2005; Putnam, 2000). In other words, the activities in which people participate while visiting their libraries appear to generate new or increased amounts of bridging, bonding, or linking social capital depending on the relationship between the people participating in the activities. To facilitate the theoretical analysis data from each of the three Gadsden County library locations is analyzed separately in terms of the three theoretical categories – setting, relationships, and activities – because each of the libraries has unique characteristics and its own group of library users. The results of the three analyses will be combined to generate an answer to the study’s guiding question.

Chattahoochee Branch Library The Chattahoochee branch library is the most recently completed and opened of the three new buildings that house the GCPLS. It opened to the public in April 2007 (Mock, 2008). The civic pride the new library generates is an expression of the library’s role in supporting Habermas’ public sphere, a universal abstract that informs places in which democracy and democratic activity can occur. Public libraries provide noncommercial space in which people can engage in civic, social, and personal relationships and activities. In Chattahoochee, the new library has a meeting room people can use for library and nonlibrary-related functions. A Chattahoochee husband and


103

wife who are very active with the library talked about the importance of the meeting room to the community. Examples of civic and community-oriented meeting room use at the Chattahoochee branch include serving as a location where people can take GED classes, hosting community programming, and providing a place where early voting was held for the 2008 presidential election. The branch manager reported that GED classes meet three nights per week, the library provides after school programs every Thursday, and the community-sponsored programs usually are held on Friday in the early evening hours. All the meeting room activities were suspended or relocated during the two weeks of early voting in October before the 2008 presidential election. There are some limits to the Chattahoochee meeting room’s use as civic space. The couple previously quoted reported a certain level of governmental control over the way the local community can have an impact on the library. The wife noted, ‘‘I know that the county just – I mean you can’t put a picture on the wall that they don’t – or a plaque on the wall that they don’t have to come in and approve it or a trash can outside, and I just think that’s a little restrictive and unnecessary.’’ Her husband continued, ‘‘I guess what she’s saying is that the community doesn’t seem to have the leeway to do things that we think would benefit the library and the community and the users of the library as a whole without permission from [county administrators] – which we get most of the time – it’s just inconvenient y they have to approve the benches put outside, and we’re spending our money – as Friends of the Library – not county money.’’ Another limit on the role the library plays as an expression of the public sphere is apparent in a perception among some library users that the county government is controlling how people access information at the public library. One respondent described the county commissioners not wanting to provide wireless Internet access because, ‘‘they’re just concerned that people can get on and look at stuff they’re not supposed to be looking at, but two things: first of all, I think you can eliminate that, or regulate that; and second thing, it’s going to be their own private computer, it’s not going to be there.’’ In spite of the lack of wireless Internet access, most Chattahoochee library users describe their library as an informational place as defined by Fisher et al. (2007). One interviewee has used the library’s Internet computers to attend college online. She also described seeing and encouraging extensive use of the library’s computers by younger students. One respondent had a different perspective on the library’s role as an informational place. She sees a need for much more computerized information access and support for e-government applications than the library currently provides.

104

LINDA R. MOST

Chattahoochee’s library users are very proud of their new building, but they are still getting used to its design, location, and the enhanced resources it supports. Presented in terms of Lofland’s public realm relationships and locales, the new building is not yet a ‘‘familiarized locale’’ (p. 66) in that there was some resistance to change and the new building is just beginning to become part of people’s daily routines. The old library was very definitely a familiarized locale and had been very important to its users. One interviewee explained, ‘‘Well, I [have] come to the library for 25 years, and, in a way, I miss the quaint little one that we had – but that’s an era bygone I guess – but I suppose this one is bigger and there’s a lot more room.’’ Another discussed the new location saying, ‘‘I would have preferred it to have been a little closer into town because our little town is just dying, so I think it would have been a nice addition there, but it’s just a beautiful location, it’s easy to get to, great parking, and it’s good.’’ Another explained, ‘‘Originally, when they were going to build the building, the Friends of The Chattahoochee Library had a different site in mind and some of the members of that group weren’t [happy with the change]. But I think this is a great location.’’ Not all the responses to the new building express nostalgia for the old one. Other community members express civic pride in their new library. Following Lofland’s (1998) analysis of the public realm’s persistent positive social value and utility, the new library facilitates a small town version of a sense of cosmopolitanism (Wiegand, 2005a by welcoming visitors to the community including those who use the campgrounds and recreational areas on both sides of the Georgia–Florida border just west of town along the Apalachicola River. The staff members are also proud of the library’s role as a landmark and resource for out of town visitors. One explained, ‘‘yes, the library is used as a landmark quite often y The campers use the library as their primary information source – whether it be through the computer or through us the librarians – to find out even something as simple as where to go buy groceries or where there’s a good restaurant to go eat.’’ Her colleague added, ‘‘Our campers come through and they use the computer for e-mail to keep in touch with their families.’’ One Chattahoochee interviewee is a different type of community visitor. He is a railroad engineer who is required by law to spend a certain number of hours off duty before he boards his next train. As a result he spends every other night of his work week in Chattahoochee. He visits the library regularly and refers to the library as his living room when he is away from home. His description can be used to test the relevance of


105

Oldenburg’s (1999) third place theory to the Chattahoochee branch library. His use of the library as a place other than home – his hotel in town – or work indicates that for him the library has characteristics of a third place, but he does not indicate engaging in conversation or enjoying a playful atmosphere when he walks to the library. On the contrary, he pursues solitary reading and information-related activities, browsing the books and checking his e-mail. He also noted later in his interview that he was surprised that the library does not seem to be used for relaxation by the local community, noting that people use it mostly for schoolwork or to borrow materials or use the computers. Chattahoochee survey respondents agreed with some of the interviewees when they described the primary purpose of the library as being ‘‘to aid in reading fundamentals, help students research, and provide a safe environment for children,’’ to provide ‘‘service to the community to upgrade education and learning opportunities,’’ ‘‘to give the people a resource place’’, ‘‘to provide needed resources in various areas to the community,’’ and ‘‘to provide educational, tutoring, and recreational opportunities to the public.’’ The branch manager described negative examples of the ways the old library building – located downtown in a residential neighborhood near the railroad tracks – had been used as a third place. She recalled that the building was broken into three times, that she had a gun pulled on her twice, and that a fire was set in the men’s room urinal. She believes the new location has solved most of the site-based problems because the library is more visible to passers-by since it sits at a main intersection. Other Chattahoochee interview respondents described coming to the library primarily to check out and return books. Fisher et al. (2007) describe informational places as environments that support reading and book-related activities as well as being places where people go to solve their information needs; but Fisher does not address the ways libraries support or encourage the social nature of reading in her theory. Fister (2006), Ross et al. (2006), and Wiegand (2005b) have called attention to the social nature of reading and the persistence of people using public libraries to support their recreational and social reading activities. Social and recreational readingrelated uses of public libraries as place have continued through the 20th century into the present. It is important to acknowledge the role of the public library as a place that supports the social nature of reading. However, close analysis of activities to understand the social nature of reading as practiced at the Gadsden County library locations was beyond the scope of this study even though evidence of the social nature of reading is apparent in many of the interview and survey responses collected throughout this study.

106

LINDA R. MOST

One important aspect of the social nature of reading that falls within the limits of the current study is the abundance of public realm relationships (Lofland, 1998) that have coalesced around the library’s collections and services – especially the books and movies. As library users become regular borrowers of library materials, they become participants in ongoing relationships with staff members and other borrowers. They exchange greetings with the staff members and participate in conversations that may at first be limited to requests for help finding books and movies but soon go far beyond the original topics. These relationships appear to be important to both the library visitors and the staff members. Chattahoochee survey respondents said they talked with the staff when they visit the library. They reported talking about ‘‘anything we feel like talking about,’’ or ‘‘new books, where to find books, using the Internet,’’ or ‘‘where to find items, local events, best deals in town,’’ or simply ‘‘friendly conversation’’ or ‘‘social stuff.’’ Interview respondents also mentioned the staff members positively. When asked what she thought was the best feature of the library, one answered, ‘‘The head librarian.’’ These responses are strong examples of Lofland’s (1998) conceptualization of intimate secondary relationships – relationships that form among people who connect to each other in some public context and build on that connection. According to Lofland the relationships last a long time, feel good, and are meaningful without necessarily being intimate. Although library users participate in the library-centered intimate secondary relationships, seem to enjoy them, and say they make a point of talking with staff members, they do not classify these relationships as social. Respondents do not consider the public realm intimate secondary relationships just described to be a form of socializing, yet most respondents indicate they talk to staff members when they visit the library and many reported that they regularly discuss topics beyond the library’s services and resources. For library respondents socializing may refer to peer-to-peer relationships rather than their relationships with people they interact with in the context of workplace roles. An increase in personal and group social capital is an important outcome of the relationships people form at the public library. Social capital can be understood as the glue that holds social institutions together. It is the ability of participants to ‘‘secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures’’ (Portes, 1998, p. 6). It grows out of beneficial relationships that develop among members of social networks who trust each other. Social capital that develops can be bonding, bridging, or linking (Halpern, 2005; Putnam, 2000) depending on whether people are


107

interacting within or between social networks. There is subtle but persistent evidence of increases in social capital as a result of relationships formed around the Chattahoochee branch library. Some people use the library as a charitable outlet, donating books to be added to the collection or placed on the book exchange shelves. The married couple explained that they had come to the library on the day they were interviewed to donate their third lot of books for the year, and that they had donated similar amounts in prior years. Other interview respondents commented outside their interviews that the staff members who know their reading preferences will often pull a book out of a stack of donated items and hold it for a specific library user. Book donations and exchanges also play a large role in the Havana branch library’s operations and are discussed as generators of social capital in the next section. It is still early in the new Chattahoochee library’s lifecycle for it to be fully established as a place where social capital is generated, but several interviewees confirmed the role the old library played as a community setting in which social capital could grow. One described the old library, saying ‘‘there was always something going on in that library.’’ There is evidence that the new library is assuming this role. People can use the computers to take classes or access e-government resources, thereby improving their personal situations and possibly increasing their social status or how they are perceived in the community. The new library’s meeting room is beginning to support social capitalgenerating activities. The husband of the couple referred to earlier described having recently participated in a meeting held there saying, ‘‘A local citizen donated his services to do the landscaping, and we were planning a little reception to honor him.’’ The act of donating time, labor, and possibly materials to the community enhances the donor’s standing. The people planning to recognize his gift are endorsing his community service and adding to their own stocks of social capital by recognizing his service and giving the reception in the donor’s honor. At the end of the event the library will have been attractively landscaped, and the donor landscaper will have contributed to a public good and enhanced his standing in the community. Old bonds will be reinforced and new bridges may be built across different social groups as a result of the various ways people participated in the project, including the opportunities made available to chat and build or reinforce networks during the reception. The new social capital will be generated as a result of activities focused around making the new Chattahoochee branch public library a more attractive, welcoming community asset.

108

LINDA R. MOST

Most of the Chattahoochee library’s users and staff members consider the library to be a social good – a symbol that their town is still alive and vital, a site where positive activities happen, an important informational and recreational resource, and a locale that supports and reinforces their sense of community. One interviewee explained: ‘‘It’s just amazing for little Chattahoochee to have this.’’ Another described the library as ‘‘a wonderful commodity to have in the community.’’ The branch manager reported, ‘‘We actually were the only library in the county that had a great increase in our circulation for this past year.’’ Ultimately, the Chattahoochee branch demonstrates some public sphere characteristics but operates within system-wide limits imposed by county government and the library administration. The first limit – the lack of wireless Internet access – restricts some potential library users’ access to information except through controlled, filtered library computers. The second limit – decisions about plaques, wall dećor, and other extra furnishings like benches and trash cans are made by the library administrators – requires local members of the Friends of the Library to submit all their plans to the system administrators for review and approval. The new Chattahoochee branch does not appear to be used as a third place by community members in the same ways they used the old library building. There is little evidence of recreational or informal social use of the building – either positive or destructive – though the collections offer recreational and entertainment materials for library users to borrow and enjoy elsewhere. The intimate secondary relationships formed between staff members and library users at the old building appear to be continuing at the new building and their intimate secondary nature is confirmed because library users do not categorize these relationships as social. The new building appears to function as an informational place and landmark for the community and visitors. Library users and staff are very proud of their new library building. It provides a focal point for activities that generate social capital. It supports ongoing public intimate secondary relationships focused around book and movie lending and other libraryrelated services. It serves as a beneficiary of community members’ charitable energy, and it offers opportunities for people to enhance their access to social capital through formal and informal networking. It supports personal growth and development by hosting community and library-sponsored programs in the meeting room and by facilitating formal educational opportunities and informal life-long learning initiatives.


109

Havana Branch Library The Havana Branch Library is housed in the first of the three new library buildings in Gadsden County to open. The new Havana library opened to the public in 2003 (Mock, 2008) after having been housed in a downtown storefront. The building is located at one end of the city park adjacent to the Veterans’ Memorial and two blocks away from Main Street. The location is a source of great pleasure to many library users. When asked what they thought about the location of the library, several interview respondents cited its proximity to the park as an asset. One interviewee provided a more complicated response to the location of the library. She said she believes that the library can grow more and that it will in time, but she noted, ‘‘I kind of think that [any future expansion] could be an interruption with the park, because people love the park as much as they love the library, so I believe that they [should] expand it in the opposite direction, or probably on the side of the library instead of trying to mess with the park area.’’ She seems to want to protect the sight lines between the park, the memorial, and the library and not lose any of the park land to library expansion. Library users’ affection for the building and its location are also indications that the library branch functions as a familiarized locale (Lofland, 1998) that has become a part of people’s daily routines and is important to their public lives. Havana library users did not directly articulate a strong sense that the branch library functioned as an expression of the Habermasian public sphere as did some of the Chattahoochee branch users. Havana library users did so indirectly by mentioning certain social impacts of the public library that support the public sphere including welcoming children and young people, providing free access to news and information, and providing a place where people do not have to act as consumers but can sit quietly to read and reflect (Alstad & Curry, 2003). Havana interview respondents differed in their indications as to whether or not the Havana branch library functions as a third place for its users, but all the Havana library interviewees described their branch as having the limited third place characteristics of an informational place – it occurs on neutral ground, serves as a social leveler in that it is inclusive and accessible to the general public, and functions as a home away from home that does not feature conversation or socializing as the main activities (Fisher et al., 2007). The Havana library supports all types of information-seeking

110

LINDA R. MOST

activities as well as individual and social reading practices. It provides computers to use for communications, social networking, recreational Internet surfing, and formal research to support education, as well as books and movies in all formats for people to borrow. Havana library users report strong, ongoing, intimate secondary relationships (Lofland, 1998) with the library staff members, just as Chattahoochee library users did. One user was emphatic about the helpfulness of the staff members, saying ‘‘I think the people who work here are very caring and friendly people who go out of their way to make sure you are comfortable – make sure you get what you want. If you need extra help, they are always here. I’ve never been in here a time when help was refused or it seemed as if they didn’t want to help.’’ Another described the staff similarly, recalling ‘‘I’ve watched them help out a little old lady one time, she had a bunch of magazines or something, and they came out and helped her. I just thought it was really – they’re very nice here.’’ Library survey respondents from Havana reported all kinds of brief social conversations indicative of public realm intimate secondary relationships in their answers to the question – what do you talk to the staff about? Responses ranged from ‘‘social amenities,’’ ‘‘how they are doing,’’ ‘‘general info about the computer and everyday life,’’ ‘‘family, good books to read, similar reading habits,’’ ‘‘location of books, DVDs, and movies, just because I enjoy talking with employees and getting to know them,’’ to ‘‘whatever is going on in town.’’ All of these survey answers indicate ongoing public realm relationships that appear to be important to the participants even though 20 of the 31 Havana survey respondents ranked a place to socialize as the least important service the library provided, and none ranked it as the most important service the library provides. The staff members seem to reciprocate their users’ enjoyment of the intimate secondary relationships engendered by the library. The branch manager reported consistently positive feelings about library users. When asked to describe the best feature of the library, she responded, ‘‘I would say the patrons, I mean, as a whole, the patrons.’’ She went on to describe her attitude toward library users and her interactions with them as overwhelmingly positive. Later in her interview she described taking a motherly role with some of the library users – advising young mothers that they and their babies are always welcome but that they have to tend to their children while in the library. Havana library users and staff stressed the importance of books and book-related activities that reflect the social nature of reading in response to questions about why they had come to the library on the day of the


111

interview and why they had visited the library in the month previous to their interview. The book and reading-related activities they described provide opportunities for networking and facilitate production of social capital for Havana library users. The few survey respondents from Havana who were willing to identify any shortcoming of their library mentioned the small collection as a weakness. One respondent wrote ‘‘there is just not a real big selection of materials. It is bigger than the old [library] but [is] still on the small side.’’ Another said the worst feature of the library was ‘‘[the] lack of my favored fiction subjects due to its small size.’’ The Havana branch manager described several book-related services the library sponsors that support the social nature of reading and generate increased social capital for all the participants. All the Gadsden County library locations provide space for a formal book exchange that operates outside the libraries’ circulation system. People without library cards can come in and take a book off the exchange shelf understanding that they are expected to eventually return it or provide another book in its place. Beyond the library system-endorsed book exchange, the Havana branch houses an even more loosely structured free materials shelf. Here people can donate books or magazines they no longer want, and anyone who wishes can come in and take whatever they like from the shelf in any quantity they wish without any suggestion that they should donate something back in exchange. The book donation opportunities generate a lot of good will toward the library on the part of the donors. They feel a stronger sense of belonging and contributing to their community, and their sense that they are doing something positive for the community may increase their stocks of linking social capital. Participants in the various book donation programs may develop a sense of partnership with the library and a sense that, by donating their old books and magazines, they are providing a resource others in the community can use rather than throwing away something that may still have value. Those that take a book from either the book exchange or the free shelf are benefiting from the library’s willingness to host services that are not counted in their circulation statistics. They may perceive the library as an asset for the entire community – not just for those with library cards – thus increasing the library’s stock of social capital in the eyes of the community at large. The meeting room in the Havana branch library – as in Chattahoochee – was designed to operate independently of the main library. It can be locked off from the library and accessed directly when the library is closed. Groups including Toastmasters, homeowners associations, and a legal services

112

LINDA R. MOST

society use the room regularly. Independent tutors use the library to work with students. Library sponsored programs held in the meeting room include weekly story hours for pre-school children and regularly scheduled activities to support home-schooled students. During the two weeks preceding the 2008 presidential election, all meeting room activities were suspended so the space could be used for early voting. All these types of activities facilitate participants’ ability to increase their stocks of social capital and position the library as a valuable resource that provides a place where social capital can be generated. In conclusion, the Havana branch of the GCPLS functions as a community resource on many levels. It is an important familiarized locale that engenders feelings of affection and is part of many residents’ daily or weekly routines. Being adjacent to the park enhances the library’s status and value for many of its users. The Havana branch library is a noncommercial place where people can access information and recreational materials in electronic or print form, study, read, and relax. It functions as an informational place (Fisher et al., 2007) providing all members of the community with access to computers and the Internet, and reading materials, and many of its programs and services support the social aspects of reading. The Havana library building supports ongoing public intimate secondary relationships between library users and staff members, and library users seem to value these relationships even without recognizing them as social relationships. Like the Chattahoochee branch, the Havana library benefits from community members’ charitable impulses and in turn makes their donations available to others who can benefit from them. It provides opportunities for people to increase their stock of social capital through selfimprovement, through participation in library-sponsored activities and by providing a place where community-sponsored activities can occur.

Quincy – The McGill Main Library The William A. ‘‘Bill’’ McGill Library – the main library in Quincy – opened to the public in June 2006 (Mock, 2008). It is the largest of the three Gadsden County library buildings and houses the administrative, management, and professional staff for the library system as well as those who work in the main library’s public service positions. Additionally, many of the administrative staff members work with the public regularly throughout the week. Quincy library users are proud of their new library and report that,


113

from their perspectives, all the resources and services it offers are well used. However, several interview respondents observed that the library is still not big enough to serve the community and that it needs more current items in the collection and more computers for public use. Library users offer little direct evidence of the main library functioning as an expression of the Habermasian public sphere though some of the staff members are very aware and supportive of the library building’s role as a facilitator of public interaction. One interviewee commented approvingly on the controls the library system has put in place over certain levels of information access – a limit to the library’s ability to facilitate the formation of the public sphere – when she described the library’s use of filters on the Internet computers. Another library user seemed to expect strong controls on the types of information accessible when she reported being surprized that people were able to access the website Mi Pagina – the Spanish language version of MySpace. She felt that the computers should be kept available for other, presumably more important uses. These observations seem to demonstrate citizens’ acceptance of certain limitations on the library’s role in facilitating the formation of the public sphere. By contrast another respondent positioned the library as very much facilitating the formation of the public sphere, saying that people are free to use the library as they wish, ‘‘like it’s their personal choice, whatever reason they use it for it’s their personal choice.’’ Another also observed the library facilitating the formation of the public sphere by providing a place where people can come together to freely discuss relevant issues. He described a meeting he had observed being held at the library saying, ‘‘just last week [September 2008] apparently some people from [across the state line] were using it to hold a meeting of some kind. It sounded like a union meeting, so they didn’t want to be – it’s just a guess – but it sounds like they didn’t want to be seen in [their town]. I’d never seen the parking lot that crowded.’’ Alstad and Curry (2003) describe characteristics that encourage the public sphere to coalesce, including (1) guaranteeing access to people of all ages and races in a clean, safe environment; (2) resisting colonization by commercial entities; and (3) treating visitors as citizens, not customers. One of the Gadsden County library system’s staff members endorses an analysis of the main library as a place where the public sphere can form when she describes it using the same concepts as Alstad and Curry. The staff member describes one of the library’s key functions as providing neutral or noncommercial space for all types of use. As do the branch libraries, the main library supports the formation of the public sphere within the limits imposed by local authorities. Although the

114

LINDA R. MOST

Internet access computers default to filtered status, unfiltered Internet access is available to adults if they ask to have the filters lifted. Staff members report lifting Internet filters regularly. The meeting rooms are available to all members of the community for any noncommercial use within the scope of the library system’s policies, and the library system welcomes both residents and visitors to all its locations with no conditions for entry imposed. There is mixed evidence as to whether the main library’s adult users think their library functions as a third place. One interview respondent commented specifically, ‘‘it’s a quiet place and everyone comes here to do what they came to do, so they don’t come here just to socialize or hang around.’’ Another reported, ‘‘I see a lot of people strictly studying and [using it for] business purposes.’’ Some describe using the library as a place to relax and read the newspaper because of the quiet atmosphere. One respondent noted the different ways people use the library saying, ‘‘a lot of people come here to actually – like myself – to do a lot of homework, but you’ve got a lot of other people that come and get on the Internet and play games – I’m not just talking about children, I’m talking about older people listening to music and stuff like that.’’ Other respondents commented that people use the library for what they considered to be the expected purposes, saying they ‘‘come to study, because it’s a quiet place to study and same old thing – using the computers whether it’s for personal or school reasons.’’ One main library staff member provided a similar perspective on the way the library is used, saying ‘‘I see it being used as a place to come and do schoolwork or to get away from home, and [as] somewhere quiet to stay and get away from distractions.’’ James Katz, a professor who studies communication technologies at Rutgers University, questions whether the places where people go to access the Internet – using either wired or wireless technology – can fill the social role of third places. He describes cyber cafes as hollowed out because people interact socially through the computers rather than with the people who are in the same room. The same phenomenon is apparent around library public service Internet computers. Katz says these places are ‘‘physically inhabited but psychologically evacuated’’ (Nomads at last, April 12, 2008, p. 10). They are not functioning as third places where people go for refreshment, social interactions, and a playful atmosphere (Oldenburg, 1999), but as communication centers where adults go to make contact with others in different geographic locations and do not pay any attention to the people with whom they are sharing the place where the computers are located.


115

Library staff members reported evidence of a corollary of Katz’s analysis when they described parents or other caregivers who bring their children with them to the libraries but become engrossed in whatever they are doing on the computers and lose track of their children. The result of their lack of involvement with any of the people in the library – let alone their children – in favor of computer-mediated interactions is that the unsupervised children start behaving in ways other adults consider inappropriate for a library and become a disruptive element. The main library seems to be serving more of its users as an informational place and familiarized locale than as a third place (Fisher et al., 2007; Lofland, 1998). One main library respondent – interviewed on a Sunday afternoon – explained that she and her family came to the library because the church they usually go to was not open that day. She described her family’s use of the library as focusing on the books and the Internet. Her whole family uses it regularly for information access, recreational reading, and studying. Another interviewee describes the library’s resources – specifically the Internet computers – as its best feature. She visits the library to ‘‘use the computer, check out books, videos and DVDs, and make copies.’’ Another reported coming to the library because he ‘‘had to do some work for school.’’ He said he used the library for ‘‘looking for jobs [and] doing schoolwork.’’ A young woman said she has a computer at home, but she uses the library for ‘‘homework, job-hunting, personal [use] y I don’t check out books.’’ A long-time Quincy library user who used the library in its previous locations and now uses the new building says the new library is a great improvement over the old one but that it still needs more computers because, ‘‘as you know there are a lot of children who are in school, they’re using the computers more now than they did y when I was a kid, so sometimes – certain times of day when you come here you can’t really use the computer because all of them are full.’’ Other regular main library users appreciate the library’s support of their educational efforts. As at the branches, people taking online classes are allowed to use a library computer as long as needed. For many of the main library interview respondents – as with those who use the Havana branch – the new library has become a familiarized locale (Lofland, 1998) that is an important part of their ordinary daily or weekly routines. Most of the ways respondents say they use the main library and the ways they report having seen others use the library seem to fit more closely within the model of Fisher et al.’s (2007) informational places than they do with Oldenburg’s (1999) description of third places. Most of the main

116

LINDA R. MOST

library interview respondents indicated they use their library as a place they visit often where they can address needs and interests related to information finding and seeking, recreational reading, formal study, and life-long learning. By contrast, one interview respondent spoke positively of the ways teens use the library as a third place, saying: I think [the way people use the library] is good, especially for the young people – teenagers. When they come in here they basically use the computers, and for one thing, it keeps them off the street. It keeps them busy. So, you know, they get to use the computer and play games on it, and I like that – listen to their music – and then also there’s a lot of resources around so they can learn new things on the computer as well as play games.

The distinction this respondent makes between how adults and young people use the library for recreational purposes may be significant. Attitudes toward young people coming to the library in groups to use the computers for social purposes may be different than those toward adults coming to the library to use the computers for recreational purposes. Although discussion of the ways children and teenagers use their public libraries as place is beyond the scope of this study, it is worth mentioning the possible roles public libraries play as third places for teens. Large urban and suburban libraries with enough space in their buildings have dedicated entire rooms to teen use. Their library programming for teens features interactive and recreational activities during after school hours.3 Not all the main library interview respondents came to the library to use the computers. Two study participants reported bringing children or grandchildren to check out books and attend regular children’s art club programs offered by the library. One user reports coming to the library strictly to check out books and videos. He said he uses the library mainly for entertainment reading. These uses seem to demonstrate some ways the main library supports the social nature of reading and functions as a familiarized locale that serves an important purpose in their daily or weekly lives. Some Quincy library users see the library as an object of charity – a place where they can donate books and videos to benefit the community. One interviewee borrowed from the library’s video collection almost every day. He said the videos are the only entertainment that keeps his father – who has Alzheimer’s disease – calm and entertained. He is very appreciative of the library’s video collection and says he intends to donate his father’s video collection back to the library when the time is right. Another says he used to use the library’s book exchange collection. He considers it a community asset and says he has donated books from his personal collection when he finishes with them. As at the branch libraries, the main library’s various


117

book donation programs encourage people to feel good about contributing to the library, thus enhancing their personal stocks of social capital by helping to make the library stronger for those who will keep using it. Interview respondents at the main library did not mention their relationships with library staff members as frequently as did respondents at the branches. However – as at the branches – most of their references to main library staff members were positive. Main library survey respondents indicated that they did not talk with the staff members at the library as often as survey respondents did at the branches. Those main library survey respondents who did talk with the staff reported conversations similar to those held at the branches. They said they talked about ‘‘anything,’’ ‘‘small talk,’’ ‘‘how to find books, being friendly,’’ ‘‘new books, personal conversation,’’ and ‘‘social amenities.’’ These comments indicate that some main library users participate in intimate secondary relationships (Lofland, 1998) when they visit the library but apparently not to the same extent as those who use the library’s branches. Main library staff members described some social use of the library, with most of those social activities focused around the library’s resources, programs, and services. One staff member reported observing social activities that indicate some third place characteristics of the library. ‘‘You know people come in here whether it’s to get in out of the rain or out of the hot, out of the cold. They do use [the library] to come in and socialize.’’ Another said, ‘‘I see lots of people come here, they hang out and get on the – you know – computers – and chat with each other, group up in certain areas of the library and have little discussions and stuff.’’ Another user noted that, ‘‘frequently people come in to use the computers, and they see somebody they haven’t seen in a long time, and there are a lot of informal sort of things that go on.’’ Another suggested different scenarios in response to being asked how the library is used socially that indicate the social nature of reading. Although the staff members report these types of social activities in the main library, the activities staff members described are focused around books, reading, study, and computer use. They do not have the third place characteristics of recreational time passing – hanging out – and social contact as their objectives. During the period of this study, community members regularly used the main library meeting room and small conference room, and library users indicated an awareness of the meeting rooms as a community resource. In addition to the union meeting and the children’s cultural programs previously described, the main library’s meeting rooms are heavily used in a variety of ways that may help generate fresh social capital for participants.

118

LINDA R. MOST

During the study period the meeting room housed library programming for children on multiple days each week. Two local sororities met weekly and the Veterans of Foreign Wars held their monthly meetings in the meeting room or the conference room. Two groups held multiple meetings at the library to plan their upcoming family and class reunions. Small groups from community and county organizations also use the library’s conference room regularly for their meetings. A care-givers respite group, a census worker training class, and a juvenile justice association meeting were held in the conference room during the study period. The Friends of the Library board met in the conference room every month during the study period. Many of these uses are congruent with the noncommercial quality of the library as place as previously described by library staff members. These uses also support and encourage the development of bridging and bonding social capital at the community level as community members are able to come together to work toward their group goals. Most main library interview respondents were proud of the new library building and described it as badly needed and as an important resource for the community. ‘‘It’s a hip thing to have, it’s good for the children of Gadsden County and it’s good for also the grown-ups. Like I come in, look for jobs, research, so it’s a good thing to have in Quincy.’’ One interviewee has used the Gadsden County public libraries all her life. She said I grew up here and I’ve been going to the library for a very long time here in Gadsden County so it’s much better than it was when it was located at TCC [Tallahassee Community College’s Gadsden County campus] and even better than when it was located at that smaller building they had. y I think it’s really beautiful. I was very surprised when I first saw it built y I was in and out of Quincy for a while, so it looks really nice. I’m pretty proud of it actually.

Survey respondents at the main library agreed with interviewees about the library as a positive asset for the community. When asked what they felt was the best feature of the library, one described it as ‘‘spacious and modernized to suit the community’s needs’’ and ‘‘a major asset to our community. It provides Internet access, reference books, and videos. [It is a] community workshop that is essential to personal and professional growth.’’ Staff members are also very proud of the new building: ‘‘The building is brand new, which is a blessing. We had a very bad facility before so it’s a brand new building. Two years we’ve been here and it’s been great. The public has enjoyed it, our numbers increased, everybody enjoys it.’’ In conclusion the new main library in Quincy appears to be functioning in ways similar to the Chattahoochee branch as a source of civic pride and a


119

symbol of the county’s investment in the local communities. It is a focal point for activities that generate social capital at the individual, community, and county levels. The main library is functioning as an informational place (Fisher et al., 2007) and familiarized locale (Lofland, 1998) for many of its regular users but the relationships between the library users and staff members appear to be less significant to the main library users than they are to those who use the library branches. There is also less evidence in the main library interviews and surveys of people coming to the main library to experience the social nature of reading as compared to survey and interview responses from the branches in which people spoke strongly about the importance of the book collections to their reading needs.

Contextualization of the Gadsden County Libraries Fisher et al. (2007) speculate that in Seattle, the library system branches fit more closely with Oldenburg’s (1999) third place framework than does the main library in terms of encouraging tighter social cohesion and providing more support for recreational activities. Patterns of use at the much smaller Gadsden County library locations seem to encourage but not fully support Fisher et al.’s speculation. Interview and survey respondents from the main library indicate subtle differences in the atmosphere and use patterns of the main library as compared to those from the branches, but none of the responses go so far as to indicate that the branches function as third places except possibly for teens. People did not say they visit any of the Gadsden County library locations to seek out friends or colleagues or that they are visiting looking for a persistent, playful mood, things they or Oldenburg would consider to be social purposes (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 83). As Fisher et al. found in Seattle, this study found that the mood and interests of adults when using all three Gadsden County libraries was closer to one of study, productivity and individual reading and recreation than one of playfulness or levity. Some study participants who are long-time Gadsden County library users hinted that the old library buildings may have had more characteristics typical of third places than do the new buildings. Although this study did not go deeply enough into the question of whether people use the new libraries differently than they did the old ones, portions of responses to other questions – especially from the Chattahoochee interviews – imply that people who used the old buildings may have experienced them as being

120

LINDA R. MOST

closer to third places than they do the new buildings. But third places and familiarized locales have characteristics in common. Fisher et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of an informational place as one that ‘‘comprises all themes regarding information finding and seeking, reading, life-long learning, learning resources, and [the] learning environment’’ (p. 153) – though derived from research conducted at a large urban public library – may be the strongest theoretical explanation of the role of the GCPLS’s buildings as place, but it is not sufficient. The library locations also need to be understood in the context of Lofland’s (1998) discussion of the public realm. Lofland’s work focuses on urban public space but is relevant to the current study because even small towns have commercial centers and include ‘‘a social territory in which many different kinds or categories of people are mixed up together [author italics]’’ (p. 118). Lofland describes a series of public realm-based relationships between people and public places, and one of those relationships – in which public places become familiarized locales for those who frequent them regularly (p. 66) – seems to explain many of the ways Gadsden County library users respond to their libraries. Respondents in Chattahoochee indicated that their new library building has not yet become a familiarized locale as the old library was, but they are using the new building regularly to access library services in some of the ways they used the old building. The intimate secondary relationships with the library staff that were established through use of the old Chattahoochee library appear to have transferred to the new location. In Havana, at the oldest of the new buildings, library users indicated that the branch has become very important to their lives as a familiar stop in their daily or weekly public routines. The Havana branch appears to function as a familiarized locale for many of its users. At the main library in Quincy, the building has also become a familiarized locale for many of its users. Main library users come regularly for many reasons and indicate that visiting the library is an anticipated part of their or their children’s weekly routines. All three libraries are comfortable, attractive, welcoming places that are used for informational and reading-related activities. Another of the categories of the public realm relationships Lofland (1998) describes is a group of relationships that form between strangers who share a social territory and play specific roles in that world. Many people who regularly use the Gadsden County libraries have developed intimate secondary relationships – ongoing emotionally infused public relationships – with library staff members, and they indicate that they value those relationships though they do not categorize the relationships as social. Library staff


121

members in their turn also value the relationships they have formed with their library users and do what they can to make their libraries welcoming places for their users. Because the libraries are familiar places that people visit regularly for purposes important to them, they support the generation of bridging and bonding social capital at both the individual and community levels. As Fisher et al. (2007) found in Seattle, and Putnam and Feldstein with Cohen (2003) found at the Chicago Public Library’s Near North branch, bonding social capital is generated when groups of like-minded people meet at the library to further their goals. Bridging social capital is generated when different types of people come together for a library-sponsored or community function held at the library. The Gadsden County libraries welcome all residents and visitors to use their facilities and encourage all groups whose purposes fall within the scope of the library system’s meeting room use policy to meet in their buildings. The libraries also use their meeting rooms to offer library sponsored programs and activities in which people from all across the community may come together to participate in an event hosted by the Friends of the Library, a book club meeting, or a children’s or family cultural or enrichment activity. The library buildings house community-endorsed activities that benefit the participants both individually and as community members. Audunson et al.’s (2007) research into the role of Norwegian public libraries as facilitators of the production of social capital can be helpful in understanding how the Gadsden County libraries fill the same role for their communities. Their theory of low-intensive meeting places suggests that communities need noncommercial places that follow Habermas’ model of supporting the public sphere to promote informal social contact and provide an environment that helps create a minimum level of community identity. Oslo survey respondents identified their public libraries as important meeting places where people can meet and chat not only with their friends and neighbors but also as places where they have a great possibility of meeting people very different from themselves. Audunson et al. have described suburban Oslo’s public library buildings as sites that promote social inclusion and help create vital local communities thereby supporting the creation of weak ties, generalized trust, and bridging social capital. Because Gadsden County’s libraries serve much smaller and less cosmopolitan communities than the Seattle, Chicago, and Oslo libraries just cited, there are fewer opportunities for people at the GCPLS libraries to informally encounter people very different from themselves, even though all are welcome to use the libraries and attend the library programs.

122

LINDA R. MOST

In Chattahoochee, the library welcomes tourists who use the federal and state campgrounds along the river. At the main library, people of all ages and races come together for library programs like the Friday evening children’s art club; the respondents quoted earlier who described accompanying young children to art club were a white grandfather and a black mother. At the Havana branch, the book clubs are popular, and the manager invites local and regional authors to speak, drawing large audiences to the programs. Though the Gadsden County libraries function on a much smaller scale than those in Oslo, Seattle, and Chicago, it appears that they share social roles that transcend community size and that theory used to interpret the roles large urban public libraries play in their cities is relevant to understanding the role of small rural public libraries as community places.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION When the study’s findings are contextualized according to theoretical frameworks, the libraries can be understood collectively to function as informational places (Fisher et al. 2007) and to varying degrees, as familiarized locales (Lofland, 1998) that support the generation of social capital. As community members are getting used to their new library buildings, the new buildings are becoming locales people value as places where parts of their daily or weekly public lives occur. The buildings also support the development of intimate secondary public realm relationships between library users and library staff members. Over time those relationships – many of which were transplanted from the old buildings – have become important parts of library users’ lives and may add another dimension to their library visits as they stop to chat before and after pursuing the purpose of their visits. Because the libraries are noncommercial, nonreligiously affiliated, nongovernmental county-sponsored public places, they provide a more neutral environment than any other public places available in the county. As such they support conditions that encourage the formation of the democratic public sphere in the Habermasian sense of the concept. The new libraries encourage a sense of belonging and of community for many of their users and they facilitate the creation of bridging, bonding, and linking social capital (Halpern, 2005) by providing places where people can come together in pursuit of common goals and participate in community-oriented activities. The new libraries are among the very few places in the county


123

where library users can encounter visitors, guest speakers, and other people different from themselves. As such they bring a touch of cosmopolitanism to their small towns. The libraries provide a basic but reliable level of Internet connectivity that is very important to many library users. An unknown number of people who come to the library to use the computers to access the Internet do not have computers or Internet access in their homes; the libraries are their primary source of Internet connectivity.

Contribution of the Theoretical Framework The multipart theoretical framework this study used to attempt to understand the role of the GCPLS libraries as place makes possible a multifaceted interpretation of the way the libraries function as places. This study contends that no single social theory is broad enough or deep enough to encompass all the ways people use public libraries. It suggests that using multiple theories helps to understand generally the many aspects of a public library as place, and in particular how this community’s public libraries function as places. People experience public libraries in different ways, and the use of multiple theories facilitates (a) contextualizing the qualities of the libraries as physical places or settings, (b) explaining the public relationships people experience when visiting the libraries, and (c) understanding the results of the activities people pursue while at the libraries. The Public Sphere Habermas’ theory of the public sphere (1974, 1991) provides one piece of the philosophical foundation that supports the concept of public in public libraries. The public sphere is the conceptual arena in which people can experience the public or civic aspects of their lives, aspects that are not played out at home (the private sphere) or under direct control of government (the sphere of the state). The public sphere forms when people come together to discuss civic issues. Some critics have questioned whether public libraries still serve as civic places that allow for public assembly and discourse or whether they have been downgraded into places that only support leisure and entertainment (Buschman, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Alstad and Curry (2003) are among those who identify the public library as one of the few remaining institutions that provides physical and psychological space for public discourse. Although they worry that public libraries have shifted their focus from public enlightenment to public recreation and entertainment, Alstad and

124

LINDA R. MOST

Curry (2003) offer several examples of public library social impacts that support the public sphere, including welcoming children and young adults and not perceiving them as threats; providing free access to news and information that allows individuals to take part in political and social debate; serving as symbols of positive activity and growth; offering a place where people do not have to act as consumers but can sit quietly, read, and reflect; and welcoming new immigrants and offering them unique opportunities to learn English. Habermas’ philosophical explanation of the role of the public sphere in society along with Alstad and Curry’s grounding of public libraries within the framework of the public sphere have provided a context for understanding the philosophical position of the Gadsden County public libraries in their communities. The libraries’ identities as noncommercial, public places underscore and set boundaries for the way they serve as places for the community. Third Places Oldenburg (1999) describes the core settings of informal public life as third places. These third places fill the spaces in people’s lives between home (first places) and work (second places). Third places are grounded in the commercial world of pubs and coffee shops. One of their key values is that, over time, they provide their habitue´s with enriching relationships that come from participation in informal group relationships that are very different from individual friendships people treasure. Many public libraries have tried to position themselves as third places for their communities, but Fisher et al. (2007) tested the new Seattle Public Library for third place characteristics and found that it met only three of Oldenburg’s eight characteristics of third places. Understanding the roles third places play in society and the characteristics that make those roles possible is important because most public libraries are not well situated to serve as third places or to support third place-dependent group relationships. The one exception to these limits may be in the area of teen services. Gadsden County’s teens have attempted to use the libraries as their after school gathering places, but they appear to have been discouraged from pursuing interactive and recreational behaviors in favor of studying. If public libraries can carve out space in their buildings to dedicate to teen services, those dedicated rooms may become third places for their young users. Otherwise the most important contribution of third place theory to understanding Gadsden County’s public libraries is that it provides the intellectual framework to support the emerging theory of informational places as a distinct category of place.


125

Informational Places The emerging theory of informational places comes from Fisher et al.’s (2007) test of whether the new downtown Seattle Public Library can be understood as a third place. Fisher et al. concluded that the new library met only three of the eight criteria that define third places and they proposed the idea of informational places to explain the new library’s role in the city. They define informational places as those that support and encompass information finding and seeking, reading, and lifelong learning, learning resources, and the learning environment. The emerging theory of informational places provides a useful framework for understanding many of the roles the Gadsden County libraries play as place and provides a large part of the answer to this study’s guiding question. Fisher et al. also suggest that there may be differences in the roles of branch public libraries and main public libraries for the communities they serve. They ask whether branch libraries might more closely reflect the attributes of third places because they function on a smaller scale and their users and staff members show a tighter cohesiveness. There were differences in the ways the Gadsden County main library and the branches functioned as place, but those differences were not great enough to suggest characterizing the branches as third places. This study finds that the key differences between the way people use the branches and the way they use the main library is in the greater number of branch library users who indicated participating in ongoing public realm relationships with library staff members, and the greater number of people indicating they came to the branch libraries for reading materials and reading-related activities. Public Realms Public Realm theory provides a structure for understanding how people relate to the urban public places through which they move and the people they encounter in the public settings in which their lives take place. Lofland’s (1998) concept of public realm person-to-place relationships provides a useful way to conceptualize much of what people reported about how they experience the Gadsden County public libraries. The concept of places functioning as familiarized locales that are important parts of peoples’ weekly, and even daily, public routines explains much about the way participants in this study generally seem to experience the roles their public libraries play in their lives. This holds true even with respect to those in Chattahoochee who are still getting used to their new library building. Understanding public libraries as familiarized locales better explains the way the study’s population members use their libraries than does trying to position these libraries as third places for their users.

126

LINDA R. MOST

The public realm operates through a series of indigenous person-toperson relationships that grow out of principles of normative behavior that govern urban living (Lofland, 1998). People who regularly encounter people they do not know respond in typical ways. Fleeting relationships and routinized relationships end when an interaction ends or they transform into the next levels of public relationships – quasi-primary and intimatesecondary relationships. These develop as positive or negative emotions become parts of public relationships. Intimate-secondary relationships are those that occur among people who connect with each other in some public way and who build on that connection. They can last a long time, be positive and meaningful, and yet never become intimate primary relationships. This study shows that the concept of intimate-secondary relationships is useful in explaining the relationships library users often develop with library staff members. It contextualizes most of the conversations that library users and staff members described, and explains much about the nature of the social relationships that support people’s public reading-related activities. This study has shown that many positive and utilitarian characteristics of the public realm that are most often found in urban settings are relevant to understanding the roles of small town libraries in the lives of their users. These characteristics include providing an environment for informal social learning, providing informal communication centers for those who visit, supporting the practice of politics in the informal sense of people of different backgrounds coming together and learning to act together, and facilitating cosmopolitanism as residents learn about tolerance and civility by sharing spaces with people different from themselves (Lofland, 1998). McKenzie et al. (2007) applied public realm theory as a way of understanding how two groups of people used the public library meeting rooms in their communities and concluded that the libraries they studied functioned as places that ‘‘support a variety of relationships and host a variety of realms’’ (p. 131). In Gadsden County, the public libraries collectively appear to serve most frequently as public realm familiarized locales and to support ongoing emotionally rich intimate-secondary public realm relationships that participants themselves do not consider to be social relationships. Social Capital Social capital is the glue that holds social institutions and relationships together. The concept refers collectively to the nontangible assets that belong to individuals and members of communities, and to communities themselves. Bonding social capital increases the strength of existing connections, bridging social capital facilitates links to outside groups and external resources on the


127

same social levels; linking social capital is a type of bridging social capital that crosses social classes and provides access to powerful individuals and organizations. Social capital is an asset that can be depleted and regenerated. It can be measured in terms of social trust, or how much ‘‘people in a given community, region or nation trust each other’’ (Halpern, 2005, p. 33). Public libraries build social capital by providing public places where people can come together to work toward personal or community goals. They provide resources that enable people and groups to establish and nurture relationships, and they also facilitate people from different groups and perspectives coming together in pursuit of common goals. Public libraries provide access to information that helps people participate in community life and in the democratic process, and they do all this without any means tests or entry fees. Gadsden County’s library users agree that the new library buildings function in many ways that encourage the generation of social capital. The libraries welcome all members of the community and visitors, they support both formal education and lifelong learning, and they help people empower themselves by providing access to information and recreational materials. They also provide noncommercial meeting rooms where groups can come together to work toward their goals and they provide programs in which people can participate, thereby making new connections. The theory of social capital helps explain how Gadsden County’s public libraries enhance quality of life for library users. This study has shown that theories developed to explain social behaviors in urban settings are relevant to rural and small downtown settings as well. For the most part, it found that differences in the way social activities and interactions play out in small rural and large urban or suburban public libraries are differences of scale, not content. This study also shows that theories generated through the study of urban experiences are relevant to contextualizing the roles public libraries play in small towns and rural communities.

Implications and Risks of Multiple Theory Analysis Multiple theoretical interpretations allow different ways of understanding people’s use of the libraries as places but also create the potential for disagreement in the theoretical analysis of their roles. What one interpreter sees as evidence that the libraries demonstrate characteristics of third places (Oldenburg, 1999), another may see as evidence the libraries are informational places (Fisher et al., 2007) or have become familiarized locales that are part of the users’ daily or weekly public lives (Lofland, 1998).

128

LINDA R. MOST

Multiple interpretations of the roles libraries play in the lives of their users are evident in this study and in the larger research into public libraries in general as librarians attempt to position libraries as third places for their communities (K. Harris, 2003; C. Harris, 2007; Lawson, 2004). Fisher et al.’s (2007) study of the new downtown Seattle Public Library effectively demonstrated that the new library met only three of eight third place characteristics and differed from third places in important ways, leading their team to develop the concept of an informational place – a concept that ‘‘incorporates information seeking and consumption as a core aspect of place’’ (p. 153) and that embraces and reflects all the ways people use libraries and their expectations of libraries. Fisher et al. (2007, p. 152) identified three key characteristics shared between third places and these informational places. They both occur on neutral ground, both are social levelers, and both are a home away from home because of the psychological comfort and support they extend. Because the characteristics of informational places come from a subset of the characteristics of third places, it is easy to confuse the two. Third places can also be confused with familiarized locales because both are public places people visit regularly and value, but for subtly different reasons. Third places are typically commercial entities and offer companionship, relaxation, congenial conversation, and consumption of light refreshments – usually alcoholic or caffeinated. Familiarized locales are public places of all types that feature in people’s daily or weekly public routines. They can include the local market, a newspaper stand, a public library, or any other places people visit regularly in the course of their ordinary public life. Familiarized locales are typically staffed by longtime employees and those people – by virtue of their roles – become parts of the visitors’ public social world. Public relationships that begin based on simple social courtesies – ‘‘good morning,’’ ‘‘how are you today,’’ ‘‘thank you’’ – can and often do grow over time into relationships with depth and texture as those brief social conversations expand to cover broader topics and the participants develop a shared history. These relationships grow without any conversation or interaction necessarily ever taking place outside the setting in which the relationship is based. Third place theory frequently has been misapplied to public libraries because it is a popular and accessible theory with easily understandable components; public realm theory appears to be more relevant to understanding the role of Gadsden County’s public libraries as places in the social world. The libraries’ collective basic character is defined by their public sphere characteristics and their fundamental roles as providers of informational and recreational reading, listening, and viewing materials; but they


129

function on multiple levels. The most common collective roles libraries play for their regular users are as informational places and familiarized locales that are important to adults’ daily or weekly public routines – not as third places. Though these small town public libraries may appear to demonstrate the third place trait of being a home away from home that people frequent for recreation, relaxation, and social contact, this study shows that they function as a home away from home in the sense that Fisher et al. (2007) use the term – as a characteristic of informational places. In addition to functioning as informational places, they also become familiarized locales for their habitue´s by virtue of repeated use.

Relevance of Methods The methods this study followed replicated those used in two studies of larger urban library systems. Surveys and interviews of library users are research methods that work very well in most library communities. The size of the study population is smaller in smaller communities, but the methods’ effectiveness is not impacted by the community’s size. The survey responses may be more representative of the community’s opinions because the survey distribution conceivably covers a larger percentage of the people who come to the library buildings. Seating sweeps as a method of unobtrusive observation provide a less realistic representation of how people use smaller libraries because the number of observations they record is small enough that not all library behaviors or uses will be apparent during an observation period. In a larger setting with many more people present it is more likely that a set of seating sweeps will record a representative set of group behaviors. In a small setting where fewer people are present at any one time, some type of incremental observation method whereby the individuals are followed on paper as they move through the library would capture a better representation of the way people use smaller libraries. Replicating prior research is one way to increase the credibility of studies, and a new study in which existing research questions are asked in different settings or of different populations can add to the body of knowledge that informs the research questions. The study instruments should be carefully evaluated for evidence of decay and for continuing relevance to the research questions in the new setting. In this study, the survey instrument – while still generally relevant – did show some evidence of decay in the questions relating to Internet and computer use in public libraries. Additionally, rigid replication of the methods used in the studies on which this one was based

130

LINDA R. MOST

would have precluded adding the meeting room reservation documents to the current study’s body of data sources. Replicating prior studies provided this study with a framework on which to build and helped insure the reliability of the study methods. However, replication had to be approached with an awareness of the possibility of decay over time in the instruments and the need to edit these study instruments and methods to suit the parameters of the current study site.

Overall Study Limitations Measuring people’s use of a public library has several problems. Library use is not consistent across days, weeks, months, or the course of a year, but patterns of use are often evident in library user statistics. The amount of library usage indicated by the data collected at this library system over a period of 10 weeks was dependent on the time of year in which the study was conducted. Because the branch libraries in the study served as early voting locations during the 2008 presidential election, data collection was suspended during what might have been a period of very atypical library use. Because this study replicated previous work and used an existing study design and instruments, limitations in the study instruments were evident. May (2007) discussed the limitations of the questionnaire she had uncovered, noting that it asks library visitors about their use of electronic library resources without defining the term. During the unobtrusive observation period – the seating sweeps – people using library computers were noted but they were not asked what use – research, communication, games, social networking, or other recreational uses – they were making of the computers. Any system restrictions placed on specific computers were noted. People at these computers were counted by type of computer being used but the study design did not allow for enough specificity to determine what people were doing while using library computers. Given and Leckie (2003) note that observations made during seating sweeps are limited to what people are doing at a given moment. They do not explain why people are behaving as observed. Any understanding of why people are doing what they do at the library is only possible through triangulation of the results of all the data collection methods. As previously discussed, seating sweeps appear to be more reliable when used in larger settings. For this study some kind of time lapse observation that traced library users’ movements through the library may have provided a better representation of library use than that provided by the seating sweeps.


131

Finally, this study does not provide a comprehensive profile of how Gadsden County’s adult citizens use their libraries. It does not address or track use of library resources outside the physical library locations. This study focused on the public, physical, social spaces of Gadsden County’s new public library buildings and only recorded and analyzed the activities of adults physically in the libraries. The study did not address the ways people under age 18 use the library as place except as noted during the seating sweeps portion of the study and obliquely through the observations adult library users offered during their interviews.

Implications of the Study for Practice This study demonstrates that many adult public library users value their libraries as familiarized locales that are an important part of their daily or weekly routines. Adult library users also value their relationships with library public service staff members, but they don’t see these relationships as social. These relationships appear to fit the pattern of intimate secondary relationships (Lofland, 1998) and the concept seems to have strong relevance when applied to public libraries – it appears to provide a context for understanding library user to staff relationships that are grounded in the interpersonal exchanges that inform people’s many reasons for visiting public libraries. Reading, borrowing books, audio and video recordings, and questions related to computer use are often the subjects of the conversations, but many social pleasantries are exchanged at the same time. Informal information exchanges also take place during these conversations. More people reported talking to staff members at the branches than did at the main library and some of the terms people used frequently to describe the staff included friendly and helpful. The relationships library users build with library staff members over time appear to be equally as important to the users as the features of the new buildings, but the relationships are not the main reasons people visit the libraries. The Gadsden County public libraries are not third places for their adult users. Gadsden County’s adult library users value their public libraries as community resources and places that support all types of educational goals, including both formal education and lifelong learning. The libraries function equally as informational places and communication centers that provide Internet access, as much as they are places that provide access to entertainment materials and support all types of book and reading-related activities. They are places where people come to get out of the weather and

132

LINDA R. MOST

to relax, but they are not places people come for what the people themselves consider to be social activities. Study participants reported that the Internet service these libraries provide is the only Internet access available to some community members. As one study participant said, ‘‘Not everybody has a computer at home.’’ Internet access at the public libraries has allowed community members who would not otherwise be able to attend college to take online classes, and the libraries accommodate their needs by providing extended Internet access time during their class sessions. Providing public Internet access is crucial to community members, but the behavior patterns some library users exhibit when accessing the Internet is very different than that of people who use other library resources. Their intense focus on the screen in front of them can lead to the hollowing out of the place where they are physically located. The Internet users’ deep focus on the world to which they are connected via computers can change the library’s ambience from one that encourages public social interaction and sense of community to one where some of the people are physically present but ‘‘psychologically evacuated’’ (Nomads at last, April 12, 2008, p. 10). Gadsden County’s public libraries facilitate a touch of cosmopolitanism and provide enrichment to their small communities in several ways: through library programming that features authors and speakers from the region or the state; by welcoming visitors from outside the county; and by providing access to the larger world through computers, books, videos, and programs. Library users as a group seem supportive of the opportunities the library programming provides. They are also supportive of the way the libraries’ public meeting rooms are used by other community members. The Gadsden County public libraries may be the only places county residents and visitors of different backgrounds, religious beliefs, race, or educational level can come together without being on one or another group’s turf. As one staff member explained, a member of a Baptist church might not want to attend a caregiver’s respite group meeting held in a Catholic church, but would be very willing to attend the same meeting with the same people if it was being held on unaffiliated public ground at the public library. The library meeting rooms add an important dimension to the way this county perceives the libraries as place.

Future Research Directions Findings indicate that the library users in this study considered their ongoing, library-based, public realm, intimate secondary relationships with


133

library staff members as important aspects of their library visits. Further investigation into the nature and intensity of the relationships between library users and library staff members and their importance to library users in other sizes of public libraries would contribute much to understanding how people use public libraries as place and what they value about their library visits. This study supports Fisher et al.’s (2007) emerging concept of public libraries as informational places where people come when they have an information-related need or want to find an environment with an atmosphere that supports fulfilling information-related needs whether for educational, business, or recreational purposes. It encourages further research to test Fisher et al.’s conceptualization of informational places as ‘‘comprising all themes regarding information finding and seeking, reading, life-long learning, learning resources, and learning environment’’ (p. 153) to expand and validate the concept.

Final Thoughts Despite the limitations uncovered in this study’s design, it produced good data and reliable conclusions. Gadsden County’s library users identified their libraries as important community resources and sources of pride. The new libraries meet many important community needs, facilitate community members’ quests to achieve personal and professional goals, and help satisfy their needs for recreational and entertainment materials in a county with very few other informational or recreational resources. Using a multipart conceptual framework of theories drawn from other intellectual disciplines offered many rich resources with which to work when attempting to identify how Gadsden County’s adult residents use their public libraries as place. Each of the theories contributed to the overall analysis and the combined results indicate the real danger of attempting to explain how people use public libraries by relying on just one theory. Although there may be disagreement as to which theory is most relevant to contextualizing certain data units, drawing on multiple theories permits a richer, more multilayered analysis and interpretation. This study has shown that these small town public libraries are very important places in the lives of their users. The new libraries are symbols of life and growth in places where change comes very slowly, if at all. They are manifestations of residents’ belief in their communities and in a strong future for their citizens. They provide noncommercial public places where

134

LINDA R. MOST

people can pursue their personal goals and meet their recreational and informational needs. They are both portals and landmarks and the communities they serve are stronger in many ways because of their new public libraries.

NOTES 1. According to the 2000 census Miami-Dade County’s minority population is 87.6% overall, but 57.3% Hispanic and 20.3% black or African-American. http:// factfinder.census.gov/. 2. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). 3. The Detroit Public Library’s H.Y.P.E. Center (www.detroit.lib.mi.us) and the Enoch Pratt Free Library Student Express center (www.prattlibrary.org) in Baltimore are two examples. In each case the library building is big enough for administrators to be able to dedicate a room to teens for their use.

REFERENCES Aabo, S. (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(4), 205–211. Abbady, T. (2007). Broward’s Minority Population climbs to 51%, Census says. South Florida Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, FL], August 9. Available at www.sun-sentinel.com/ ALA breaks attendance records despite Marriott boycott. (2001). American Libraries, 32(7), 68–82, August. Alstad, C., & Curry, A. (2003). Public space, public discourse, and public libraries. Libres: Library and Information Science Electronic Journal, 13(1). Available at libres.curtin.edu. au/libres12n1/pub_spce.htm American Library Association. (2008). The state of America’s libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, April. Available at www.ala.org/2008state Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61(3), 429–441. Audunson, R. (2007a). Public libraries – arenas for citizenship: An investigation of the public library as a meeting place in a digital and multicultural context [funded research abstract, 2007–2011]. The Research Council of Norway – Forskningsradet. Available at www.forskningsradet.no/en/Homeþpage/1177315753906 Audunson, R. (2007b). Public libraries – arenas for citizenship: An investigation of the public library as a meeting place in a digital and multicultural context [funded research proposal,


135

2007–2011]. Oslo University College, Faculty of Journalism, Library and Information Science. Available at www.hio.no/enheter/avdeling_for_journalistikk_bibliotek_og_ informasjonsfag/place Audunson, R., Varheim, A., Abo, S., & Holm, E. D. (2007). Public libraries, social capital, and low intensive meeting places. Information Research, 12(4) paper colis20. Available at InformationResearchR.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis20.html Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9–24. Battles, D. M. (2009). The history of public library access for African Americans in the South: Or, leaving behind the plow. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. [BEBR] Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2007). Florida county perspective: Gadsden. Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. [BEBR] Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2009). Estimates of population by county and city in Florida: April 1, 2009. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Available at www.bebr.ufl.edu/files/2009_Population_Estimates_Table01_1.pdf Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. (2006a). Drafted: I want you to deliver e-government. Library Journal, 131(13), 34–37. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Langa, L. A., & McClure, C. R. (2006b). Public access computing and Internet access in public libraries: The role of public libraries in e-government and emergency situations. First Monday, 11(9). Available at firstmonday.org/isuses/issue11_ 9/bertot/index.html Boggs, C. (2002). Social capital as political fantasy. In: S. L. McLean, D. A. Schultz & M. B. Steger (Eds), Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and ‘‘bowling alone’’ (pp. 183–202). New York: New York University Press. Bourke, C. (2005). Public libraries: Building social capital through networking. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(2), 71–75 (June). Burnett, G., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Small worlds, life worlds, and information: The ramifications of the information behaviors of social groups in public policy and the public sphere. Information Research, 13(2): Paper 346, June. Available at informationr. net/ir/13-2/paper346.html Buschman, J. E. (2003). Dismantling the public sphere: Situating and sustaining librarianship in the age of the new public philosophy. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Buschman, J. E. (2004). Staying public: The real crisis in librarianship: As libraries grow more entrepreneurial their change of focus is dismantling the public sphere. American Libraries, 35(7), 40–43. Buschman, J. E. (2005a). Libraries and the decline of public purposes. Public Library Quarterly, 24(1), 1–12. Buschman, J. E. (2005b). On libraries and the public sphere. Library Philosophy and Practice, 7(2), 1–8. Available at libr.unl.edu:2000/LPP/lppv7n2.htm Buschman, J. E., & Leckie, G. J. (Eds). (2007). The library as place: History, community, and culture. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In: C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cart, M. (2002). America’s front porch – the public library. Public Library Quarterly, 21(1), 3–21.

136

LINDA R. MOST

Center for Public Education. (2008). School demographics: What is the poverty level of our schools? [Research and practice]. Available at www.centerforpubliceducation.org/ [CSRL] Center for Small and Rural Libraries. (n.d.). Defining ‘rural’ (and small) libraries. Clarion College. Available at jupiter.clarion.edu/Bcsrl/definition.htm. Accessed on January 19, 2008. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Curry, A. D., Dunbar, E. G., & Marshall, D. (2004, June 18). Public library branch design: The public speaks! [conference presentation], June 18. Available at www.slais.ubc.ca/ RESEARCH/current-research/AC_Final_June23.ppt Dart, B. (2007). Census finds 6 ‘majority-minority’ counties in Florida. Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau, Cox News Service, August 9. Available at www.coxwashington. com Fidishun, D. (2007). Women and the public library: Using technology, using the library. Library Trends, 56(2), 328–343. Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fisher, K. E., Saxton, M. L., Edwards, P. M., & Mai, J. E. (2007). Seattle Public Library as place: Reconceptualizing space, community, and information at the central library. In: J. E. Buschman & G. J. Leckie (Eds), The library as place: History, community, and culture (pp. 135–160). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Fister, B. (2006). Reading as a contact sport. Alaska Library Association Annual Conference, February. Available at homepages.gac.edu/%7efister/reading.html Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gadsden County Public Library. (2008) [blog]. Retrieved from http://www.gcpls.blogspot.com/ Given, L., & Leckie, G. J. (2003). ‘‘Sweeping’’ the library: Mapping the social activity space of the public library. Library and Information Science Research, 25, 365–385. Goulding, A. (2004). Libraries and social capital [editorial]. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 36(1), 3–6. Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere (1964) [reprint of an encyclopedia article]. New German Critique, 3, 49–55, Autumn (S. Lennox & F. Lennox, Trans.). Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (original work published 1962). Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Harris, K. (2003). Your third place or mine? Public Library Journal, 18(2), 26–29. Harris, C. (2007). Libraries with lattes: The new third place. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 20(4), 145–152. Harris, K. (2003). Your third place or mine?. Public Library Journal, 18(2), 26–29. Henderson, E., Miller, K., Craig, T., Dorinski, S., Freeman, M., Isaac, N., Keng, J., O’Shea, P., & Schilling, P. (2010). Public libraries survey: Fiscal year 2008 (IMLS-2010–PLS-02). Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Heritage: They knew it all along in Quincy Florida. (1988). Journey [magazine of the Coca-Cola Company], 24–27, February.


137

Hersberger, J. A., Sua, L., & Murray, A. L. (2007). The fruit and root of the community: The Greensboro Carnegie Negro Library, 1904–1964. In: J. E. Buschmann & G. J. Leckie (Eds), The library as place: History, community, and culture (pp. 79–100). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Hillenbrand, C. (2005a). Public libraries as developers of social capital. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(1), 4–12. Hillenbrand, C. (2005b). A place for all: Social capital at the Mount Barker Community Library, South Australia. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 18(2), 41–60. Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kranich, N. (2001). Libraries create social capital. Library Journal, 126(19), 40–42. (November 15). Lawson, K. (2004). Libraries in the USA as traditional and virtual ‘‘third places’’. New Library World, 105(3/4), 125–130. Leach, E., Jr. (2004). Rural library survey summary report, part 1. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Available at www.ala.org/ala/olos/outreachresource/docs/ruratf_surveysumpt1.pdf Leckie, G. J. (2004). Three perspectives on libraries as public space. Feliciter [Journal of the Canadian Library Association], 50(6), 233–236. Leckie, G. J., & Hopkins, J. (2002). The public place of central libraries: Findings from Toronto and Vancouver. Library Quarterly, 72(3), 326–372. Libraries connect communities: Public library funding & technology access study, 2007–2008. Principal Investigators: D. M. Davis, J. C. Bertot, C. R. McClure & L. Clark (Eds), Chicago: American Library Association. Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social Problems, 15, 236–249. May, F. (2007). Libraries as public space: Patterns of use in Nova Scotia public libraries. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (AAT MR26876). May, F. (2009). In the words of the users: The role of the urban public library as place. In: Libraries as space and place: Proceedings of the pre-congress satellite for the IFLA World Library and Information Congress, Turin, Italy, 19–21 August 2009. Available at www.ifla2009.it/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Final.May.pdf May, F., & Black, F. (2010). The life of the space: Evidence from Nova Scotia public libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 5(2). Available at: www.ejournals. library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/6497 McKenzie, P. J., Prigoda, E. M., Clement, K., & McKechnie, L. E. F. (2007). Behind the program room door: The creation of parochial and private women’s realms in a Canadian public library. In: J. E. Buschmann & G. J. Leckie (Eds), The library as place: History, community, and culture (pp. 117–134). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People’s Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–113. Mock, J. (2008). A brief overview of the [Gadsden County Public] library including a historical perspective, mission, goals and objectives of the library [unpublished narrative]. Nomads at last. (2008). The Economist [A special report on mobility]. 387(8575), 1–18, April 12.

138

LINDA R. MOST

Oder, N. (2006). How’d you come out. Library Journal, 131(10), 38–42 (June 1). [OMB] Office of Management and Budget. (2007). Update of statistical area definitions and guidance on their uses. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2007/b0701.pdf Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe & Co. Oldenburg, R. (Ed.) (2001). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the ‘‘Great Good Places’’ at the heart of our communities. New York: Marlowe & Co. Osburn, C. B. (2007). Regaining place. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 24, 53–90. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. Preer, J. (2001). Where are libraries in Bowling Alone. American Libraries, 32(8), 60–62 (September). Proctor, B. D. (n.d.). Poverty. [U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division and Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.] rev. January 18, 2001. Available at www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/poverty.html Public Agenda. (2006). Long overdue: A fresh look at public and leadership attitudes about libraries in the 21st century. Public Agenda, New York. Available at www.publicagenda. org/files/pdf/Long_Overdue.pdf Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35–42. Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(4), 664–683. Putnam, R. D. (1996a). The strange disappearance of civic America, American Prospect, 24(15), 34–48. Putnam, R. D. (1996b). Robert Putnam responds. American Prospect, 25, 17. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L. M., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ross, C. S., McKechnie, L. E. F., & Rothbauer, P. M. (2006). Reading matters: What the research reveals about reading, libraries, and community. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shoham, S. (2001). Users and uses of the public library reading rooms. Public Library Quarterly, 20(4), 33–48. Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992). Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang. State Library & Archives of Florida. (2008). 2007 Florida library directory with statistics. Available at dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/research_office/2007LibraryDirectory/index.cfm Strauss, A., & Corbin, C. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


139

Tucker, J. M. (Ed.) (1998). Untold stories: Civil rights, libraries and black librarianship. UrbanaChampaign, IL: Illinois University at Urbana Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Urban Libraries Council. (2007). Making cities stronger: Public library contributions to local economic development. Available at www.urbanlibraries.org/files/making_cities_ stronger.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, April 4. Available at www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html [USDA ERS] U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2003a). Measuring rurality: 2004 county typology codes. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/ Typology/ [USDA ERS] U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2003b). Measuring rurality: 2004 rural-urban continuum codes. Available at www.ers.usda.gov/ Briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbCon/ Van Slyck, A. A. (1995). Free to all: Carnegie libraries & American culture, 1890–1920. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Varheim, A. (2007). Social capital and public libraries: The need for research. Library & Information Science Research, 29, 416–428. Warren, R. L. (1978). The community in America (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Webster, F. (2002). Information management and manipulation: Jurgen Habermas and the concept of the public sphere. In: F. Webster (Ed.), Theories of the information society (2nd ed., pp. 161–201). New York: Routledge. Wiegand, W. A. (2000). American library history literature, 1947–1997: Theoretical perspectives?. Libraries & Culture, 35(1), 4–34 (Winter). Wiegand, W. A. (2003). To reposition a research agenda: What American Studies can teach the LIS community about the library in the life of the user. Library Quarterly, 73(4), 369–373. Wiegand, W. A. (2005a). Library as place. North Carolina Libraries (Online), 63(3/4), 76–81, Fall/Winter. Available at www.nclaonline.org/NCL/ncl/NCL_63_3-4_Fall-Winter 2005.pdf Wiegand, W. A. (2005b). On the social nature of reading. In: D. Herald & W. Wiegand (Eds), Genreflecting (6th ed.). Prepublication online June 15. Available at www.lu.com/ranews/ June2005/wiegand.cfm Williamson, M. (2000). Social exclusion and the public library: A Habermasian insight. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 32(4), 178–186. Wilson, A. (1992). The culture of nature: North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Wooden, R. A. (2006). The future of public libraries in an Internet age. National Civic Review, 95(4), 3–7(Winter). Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zukin, S. (1995). The culture of cities. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zweizig, D. L. (1973). Predicting amount of library use: An empirical study of the role of the public library in the life of the adult public. Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Zweizig, D. L. (1976). With our eye on the user: Needed research for information and referral in the public library. Drexel Library Quarterly, 12, 48–58.

140

LINDA R. MOST

APPENDIX A. LIBRARY USER SURVEY Hello, Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this survey. Please answer each question to the best of your knowledge. Please try to answer all the questions but if you would like to skip a question you may. Please return your completed survey to the survey return box at the information desk. PART I. About Your Library Visits 1)

Where do you live? (Please circle one) Chattahoochee Greensboro Gretna Havana Midway Quincy Other: please specify __________________

2)

How long does it take you to travel from your home to this library by your usual means of transportation? (Please circle one) Under 15 min

3)

30–60 min

1–2 h

more than 2 h

How long do you typically stay at this library? (Please circle one) Under 30 min

4)

15–30 min

30–60 min

1–2 h

2–4 h

4–6 h

Over 6 h

On average, how often have you visited this library during the past twelve months? (Please circle one) Once a week Two or Once a Once every A few times Once or more three times month other a year (today) a month month

5)

What day or days of the week do you usually visit this library? (Please circle all that apply) Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Thursday

141


6)

What time of day do you usually visit the library? (Please circle one) Morning (before noon)

7)

Afternoon (Noon – 5:00)

Evening (After 5:00)

Don’t Know

What hours do you prefer the library to be open? (Please circle one) Morning (before noon)

8)

Afternoon (Noon – 5:00)

Evening (After 5:00)

Don’t Know

How many people usually come with you to this library? (Please circle one) None: go to question 9

One other person

Two or more people

If one or more other people usually come with you to the library, are they primarily: (please circle all that apply) a. Friends 9)

b. Relatives

c. Co-workers

d. Other

Will you be visiting any stores or services near the library today? ___Yes ___No ___Don’t know

PART II. How You Use This Library 10)

Without this library, how would your life change? (Please circle one answer) 1

Not at all 11)

2 Very Little

3

4

5

Somewhat

Considerably

Major impact

Why do you use this library rather than other libraries? Please explain in your own words:

______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ (You may continue on the back of this page if you need more room.)

142

LINDA R. MOST

12)

Do you borrow materials from other Gadsden County Library locations? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, which locations? Please specify: __________________________

13)

Do you borrow materials from libraries other than Gadsden County Library System libraries? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, which libraries? Please specify: ___________________________

14)

Why did you come to this library today? (Please circle the most important reason and check any others that may apply with a check mark): ___a. Use public meeting room ___b. Use children’s services ___c. Browse ___d. Borrow/return materials for myself ___e. Borrow/return materials for others (children, family, friends) ___f. Consume food/drinks ___g. Look for information on a subject ___h. Meet a friend ___i. View art work, displays, bulletin boards ___j. Obtain help from library staff ___k. Read ___l. Study in library with own materials ___m. Use photocopiers ___n. Use microfiche/film ___o. Use CD ROMs ___p. Use the on-line catalog ___q. Use the Internet ___r. Use electronic databases ___s. Use e-mail ___t. Other: Please explain here: _______________________________ ___________________________________________________________

15)

When you visit this library, how often do you use electronic resources (e.g., the Internet, on-line catalog, CD-ROMS, electronic databases)? Please circle one: 1

2

3

4

5

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

143


16)

Please rank the importance to you of electronic resources in this library (e.g., the Internet, on-line catalog, CD-ROMS, electronic databases). Please circle one: 1

2

Unimportant

Somewhat Important

3 Important

4

5

Very Important

Extremely Important – Crucial

17)

Do you ever bring a laptop computer with you to use in this library? ___ Yes ___ No

18)

Do you ever bring in any other electronic equipment with you in this library (e.g., cell phone, digital scanner) ___Yes ___ No If yes, please specify: _________________________________________

19)

How user-friendly is this library? (Please circle one) 1

2

3

4

5

Extremely user- Very user- User-friendly Only a little bit Not userfriendly friendly user-friendly friendly 20)

Do you ever talk to the library staff when you come here? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, what do you talk to them about? __________________________ ____________________________________________________________

21)

Please circle the single MOST important service this library provides: (Please circle only one) a. Access to technology b. A place to read c. A place to socialize d. Community events e. Community information f. Life-long learning (educational support) g. Personal study (homework, research, etc) h. Provides fiction/literature (for recreational reading) i. Reference and information services j. Other: please specify ______________________________________

144

LINDA R. MOST

22)

Please circle the single LEAST important service this library provides: (Please circle only one) a. Access to technology b. A place to read c. A place to socialize d. Community events e. Community information f. Life-long learning (educational support) g. Personal study (homework, research, etc) h. Provides fiction/literature (for recreational reading) i. Reference and information services j. Other: please specify ______________________________________

23)

Do you ever use this library’s non-English language materials? ___ Yes ___ No

24)

Do you ever use this library as a place to meet tutors? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, what kind of tutoring? ___ English as a second language ___ Homework help ___ New reader/Literacy ___ Other, please explain:_____________________________________

25)

What other services or resources would you like to see introduced here: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ (you may continue on the back of this page if you need more room)

26)

Before this library was built did you use the old library? ___ Yes ___ No If you answered yes, do you use this library differently than the old library? ___Yes ___ No ____ Don’t know

27)

What is the ONE BEST feature of this library: ___________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________


28)

145

What is the ONE WORST feature of this library: ________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

29)

What words do you think best describe the physical space of this library? (Please circle all that apply)

Attractive

Badly Designed

Modern

Needs Renovation

Bright

Quiet

Clean

Unattractive

Comfortable Crowded

Uncomfortable Unfriendly

Dark

User Friendly

Dirty

Well Designed

Friendly

OTHER WORDS YOU THINK DESCRIBE THIS LIBRARY: please write in this column

Loud

Lots of Space 30)

What is your favorite location or place in this library: ____________ ____________________________________________________________

31)

In your opinion, what is the PRIMARY purpose of this library: ____ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

32)

Please add any additional comments you wish to make (you may write on the back of this form if you need more space)

146

LINDA R. MOST

Please tell us your thoughts about the following features of this library. Use the following scale to rate the features by circling the best number for each feature

Features: circle one number for each feature

1 ¼ very 2¼ 3¼ 4¼ 5¼ 0¼ unsatisfactory unsatisfactory Neutral Satisfactory Excellent Don’t know Rating: Reasons for your answer?

OUTSIDE: Parking Walkways and other pedestrian space Building Entrance Signs Outside Book Return Landscaping/ Lawn/Benches (If appropriate) INSIDE: Lights Windows Signs Inside Colors Tables/Study Carrels Seating Children’s Area Arrangement/ organization of the library Please use the back of this

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

0 0

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

0 0 0

page to write more about

PART III: Library User Profile 33)

34)

Sex: ____ Male

____ Female

Age Category (please circle one):

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–65

Over 65

147


35)

Highest level of educational attainment: (Please circle one) a. Elementary school b. Some high school c. High school diploma d. Some university or college e. University or college degree/diploma f. Some post-graduate university study g. University post-graduate degree

36)

Languages spoken (Please check all that apply) ___ English ___ Spanish ___ Other(s): List here

37)

Primary Occupation (please circle one):

a. Student: b. Unemployed c. Retired d. Homemaker e. Professional (e.g., lawyer,

High School

College University

Other: please explain__________

accountant, psychologist) f. Management/Administrative (e.g.,

store or office manager) g. Artistic/Literacy (e.g., writer,

journalist) h. Clerical/Retail (e.g. secretary,

sales person) i. Technical (e.g. electrician,

computer repair) j. Unskilled Labor (e.g., food server,

cashier) k. Skilled Labor (e.g. carpenter,

hairstylist) l. Other: Please specify

______________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Please deposit your completed survey form in the survey box at the Information Desk. If you wish to enter to win a $25 Wal-Mart gift card please fill out the last page and return it in the ‘‘Survey Contest’’ box at the Information Desk.

148

LINDA R. MOST

Please submit only one survey! OPTIONAL Gift Certificate Drawing Entry Form If you choose, you may leave your name and telephone number to enter to win a $25 gift card for Wal-Mart Name:________________________________ Telephone Number: _____________________ Please detach this page from your survey, fold it in half, and put it in the Survey Contest box at the Information Desk. Thank you very much again for completing the survey.

APPENDIX B. LIBRARY USER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Sex:

Male

Female

Age:

under 30

30–60

Over 60

1) What do you think of this library building? Prompts: well designed, hard to find things, bright, dark, comfortable 2) What do you think of the space around the library and the location? Prompts: attractive, dirty, easy to find, too much traffic 3) What is the best feature of this library building? 4) What is the worst feature of this library building? 5) Where is your favorite location or place in this library? 6) Is there another library you prefer to use? Yes/No, If yes: Why do you prefer the other library? 7) Why did you come to the library today? Prompts: to borrow/return materials, read, study, attend a program, find information, use the computer 8) What have you used the library for in the past month? Prompts: to borrow/return materials, study, read, attend a program, find information, use the computer


149

9) What do you think about how people use this library? Prompts: to socialize, meet friends, study, bring children 10) Can you describe any ways you’ve seen people use this library (either good or not so good) that have surprised you? Thank you very much for your participation! Here is an entry form for the drawing for a Wal-Mart gift card as a thank you for participating in this interview. If you would like to enter the drawing please complete this form and place it in the gift-card box at the front desk.

A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT Jennifer Campbell-Meier ABSTRACT This study investigated the development of institutional repositories (IRs) at doctoral institutions, identifying factors that influence development and best practices using a comparative case study analysis approach to gather and analyze data. The development of a repository is one of the more complex projects that librarians may undertake. While many librarians have managed large information system projects, IR projects involve a larger stakeholder group and require support from technical services, public services, and administration to succeed. A significant increase in the development of repositories is expected with technology and process improvements for digital collection development so further study is warranted. Both institutional and subject repositories were examined for the case studies. Best practices and recommendations for future developers, such as early involvement of stakeholder groups and the need to educate both librarians and teaching faculty about open access collections, are also discussed. This study contributes to a more informed understanding of the development of IRs and identifies a model framework for future IR developers. The best practices framework incorporates the processes from the case study sites and includes additional factors identified from the case study interviews. Key to the framework is the Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 151–185 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030006

151

152

JENNIFER CAMPBELL-MEIER

inclusion of stakeholder groups on campus and assessment measures. While the case studies focused on doctoral institutions, the framework can be adapted to any size institution. Keywords: Institutional repositories; framework; management

INTRODUCTION The development of institutional repositories (IRs) at academic institutions worldwide has greatly increased with the growth of open source initiatives in scholarly communication and software development. In part, the demand for IRs has developed out of changes in scholarly communication models as well as from the need or desire to develop a clearinghouse for the scholarly output of a particular college or university (Crow, 2002). Electronic communication tools allow authors to easily distribute and share information, articles, and data. While scholarly information may be available on personal webpages, wikis, or blogs, adding such content to a university IR provides a controlled venue for open access documents. A Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource Coalition (SPARC) position paper has identified several factors leading to the growth and development of IRs: technology, the increasing volume of research, ‘‘dissatisfaction’’ with current publishing models, and preservation concerns (Crow, 2002). The development of electronic IRs increases ‘‘institutional visibility and prestige’’ and develops a new publishing paradigm for scholarly communication. In addition, libraries are also working with faculty to retain the rights to selfarchive and redistribute scholarly work, becoming ‘‘aggregators and distributors’’ of information (Crow, 2002, p. 4). However, repositories have been slow to develop in the United States, and many librarians involved in the IR developmental process are frustrated by the pace of growth.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An IR is a set of services built around an organized collection of digital objects pertaining to or generated by a particular research or educational organization (Lynch, 2003; Jones, Andrew, & MacColl, 2006). Johnson (2002) identifies an IR as being scholarly, cumulative and perpetual, and

A Framework for Institutional Repository Development

153

open and interoperable. Although new technology and publishing practices have reinvigorated the discussion about IRs, the concept of developing an organized collection of a university’s scholarly output has been discussed before. With the development of electronic communication, academic research has introduced new technologies and tools for scholarly communication. As the landscape surrounding scholarly communication changes, alternatives and uncertainty grow. The Internet’s decentralization of publishing creates obstacles to finding a university’s intellectual output. According to Rogers (2003), uncertainty ‘‘implies a lack of predictability, of structure, of information’’ (p. 6). Time constraints, fear, or distrust of online documents and a ‘‘loss of control’’ seem to be limiting faculty participation in open access repositories. Occurring at the university level, IR developers can allay faculty concerns by creating policies and procedures to aid in encouraging faculty participation. However, many universities have faculty statements that support the use of articles placed in an open access repository for tenure and promotion. Most IR policies allow for the deposit of scholarly output by anyone connected to the host institution. This output includes preprints, postprints, data sets, images, music, and multimedia content (Johnson, 2002). According to Charles Bailey, Assistant Dean for Digital Library Planning and Development at the University of Houston, 30% of all Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institutions ‘‘had an operational IR at the beginning of 2006’’ (Bailey, 2006, p. 13). In January 2006, 87 of 123 ARL member libraries responded to an IR development survey. From the responses, Bailey found that the top three reasons for implementing an IR were increased global visibility, preservation, and the free provision of the institution’s scholarship (2006, p. 14). The development of IRs has been discussed by Crow (2002), Pinfield, Gardner, and MacColl (2002), Shearer (2002), Lynch (2003), and Gibbons (2004), among others. Pinfield et al. (2002) outline the necessary stages required to implement an Eprint repository. Shearer (2003) identifies steps to develop a repository using Eprint. Gibbons (2004) discusses development issues in repositories, including content acquisition and faculty participation. However, none of the literature includes comparative studies of IR development. Gibbons (2004) identifies five core features of IRs: ‘‘they contain digital content; are community driven and focused; institutionally supported; durable and permanent; and they provide accessible content (p. 6).’’ Since IRs are institutionally defined, Lynch’s (2003) description as a ‘‘set of services’’ provides a general overview of what an IR is, while Gibbons describes features included in the service program they support (p. 2).

154


Models Crow (2002, p. 7) identifies four components of scholarly publishing: registration, certification, awareness, and archiving. Current IR models are able to provide some, but not all, of these components. Simply entering the research into the IR will register the concept by date stamping its inclusion in the database. The interoperability and open access will allow search engines to access the content when it is added to the IR. Inclusion in an IR provides researchers with a permanent archive. It is assumed the institution will maintain the accessibility of the research by updating formats and/or providing a stable storage location and medium. Problems arise with certification. Most academic journals have a tradition of peer review built into the acceptance process. However, IR software has yet to develop such a function. Pinfield et al. (2002), on the other hand, discuss the Eprint pilot projects at the Universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham. The discussion focuses on document types, preservation, submissions, and metadata. The authors also discuss the costs involved with IR development. Eprints, like DSpace, are open source. The program is freely available so that programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, and the software evolves. Users are expected to make additional code freely available to other users. According to Pinfield et al. (2002), the cost of initial setup is staff time. The IR requires one to two days for software installation and another three days for web interface customization. Though no specific monetary costs are discussed, the authors identify managing the IR and the costs associated with encouraging faculty participation as the largest ongoing expenses in an IR budget. Of the documentation currently available, most literature thoroughly describes the work flow processes within the repository software but spends little time defining the entire project process. Although colleges and universities do not fall into a single operating platform, there should be enough similarities between institutions to develop a basic project plan. In 2008, DSpace is the only site with any project planning steps; however, the steps they identified may be too general to provide assistance to other institutions. For example, the timeline documentation developed by MIT (2004) did not include information about stakeholder groups other than the needs assessment during the service definition phase. Marketing and training are incorporated into the timeline, but assessment is not discussed. Currently, DSpace users are linked to a JISC Digital Repositories infoKit (2009) for project management. The management framework provided


155

includes basic information on planning, strategies, staffing, and institutional change. However, the management and the technical frameworks are identified as discrete content areas.

Growth and Development According to Swanepoel (2005), IRs are still in a growth phase. Current studies are underway, such as a research project conducted at the University of Michigan on IR user behavior. The building and development of an IR has yet to be addressed empirically in the literature. By examining how IRs are developing and the challenges that they face, a framework and a generalized view of how an IR is developed can be identified According to the Project Management Institute’s A Guide to the Project Manager’s Book of Knowledge (2000), ‘‘the better you know your project, the better you are able to manage it’’ (p. 6). This can be done by identifying key areas, activities and stakeholders and applying a project management context, thus developing a project process. While Cervone (2007) discusses the use of a project charter for repository development, the focus is on the technical infrastructure needed for a repository, not the services needed to develop repository content. In order to provide a project framework for institutions developing IRs, this study surveys those currently working with IRs to identify key project management processes. The survey also identifies various steps, issues, and concerns that librarians developing IRs should be aware of prior to the project’s inception.

METHODOLOGY The case study methodology was chosen for this research because of its focus on context and ‘‘lessons learned’’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By interviewing those involved with IR development at several institutions, noticeable patterns or regularities of IR development became apparent. Using multiple cases, developed in different contexts, expands the generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003). In addition, multiple cases expand the usefulness of the research for those who are planning and developing IRs, especially since much of the information about development is local and not published. The unit of analysis for the study is the IR. A comparative case

156


study analysis approach was employed to gather and analyze data, and provides a detailed account and analysis of six academic IRs. The research questions that guide this study were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What are the factors influencing IR development? How are IRs developing? How should IRs develop? What are the best practices for IR development? What is the best model(s) for IR development?

In order to identify potential sites for study, a number of websites associated with open access initiatives and IR development were consulted. The links at these sites were explored in an effort to discover potential academic repositories for the sample. Links were identified through the Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR), ProQuest Digital Commons, DSpace Federation, and Eprints. A list of potential repositories was compiled from the various sources. The study initially focused on IRs in the United States that contained 2,000–9,000 items. According to ROAR data, only six university repositories had more than 9,000 items in December 2006. These sites were removed as study sites since they were the institutions that developed IR software; had reached a critical mass of articles and were removed from the development process; may have acquired content from providers, such as ProQuest or Elsevier; or participated in the preliminary interviews. After comparing the list of respondents with the location of existing IRs or ones that were in development, the research focused on the six repositories in Indiana, Washington, and British Columbia. These included those at Purdue University, Indiana University, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia, and the University of Washington, all of which were used as case study sites. In addition to the university-level repositories, subject repositories located at Indiana University, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Washington were included in the study. Including IRs developed or developing at the department or subject level provides insight into faculty participation. It was felt that IRs sponsored by a particular department or in a research field might have to consider a different set of development factors. For example, faculty participation is expected to be higher if one’s department or school is running the repository. The data used in developing the case studies included the information developed during site visits for interviews and documents and archival records that were collected during the visits and from each

157


university website. The UBC repository was a pilot project; the other eight sites were live at the time of the interviews. Eprint, Digital Commons, PKP, and DSpace sites are represented in the study. Although all of the IRs are at institutions that offer PhD programs, preliminary research showed that, regardless of size, librarians were experiencing similar issues during repository development (Table 1). A semistructured interview approach (see Interview Guide attached in the Appendix) was selected to address the ambiguous language of IRs as well as local terms and meanings that may be used in unique ways in each of the individual cases. The questions were developed to guide interviews and identify the process and procedures in place during IR planning, as well Table 1.

Case Study Sites (December 2007).

Studentsa

Repository

Software

Number of Itemsb

Purdue University

38,712

Digital Commons

6,674

IUPUI Indiana University

29,933 37,958

Simon Fraser University (SFU)

26,670c

DSpace DSpace EPrints DSpace

384 260 494 1,127

University of British Columbia

43,000

DSpace PKP

0 23

University of Washington

40,216

Purdue e-Pubs (part of Purdue e-Scholar) IDeA IUScholarWorks IUBio Archive Simon Fraser University Institutional Repository cIRcle Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness DSpace at the University of Washington DSpace at the University of Washington Health Sciences Libraries (HSLIC)

DSpace

2,229

DSpace

242

University

a

SFU (2004, 2005): http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/for_media/sfu_facts.html; UBC Vancouver (2004, 2005): http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcfacts/index.html#students; Purdue West Lafayette (Fall 2005): http://www.purdue.edu/Purdue/about/index.html; IUPUI (Fall 2005): http://factbook. indiana.edu/Burr/factbook/fbook05/fast_facts/fastfacts3.shtml; Indiana University (Fall 2005): http://factbook.indiana.edu/Burr/factbook/fbook05/fast_facts/fastfacts2.shtml; University of Washington (2006, 2007): http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/. b As of November 3, 2008. c Enrollment may include students from Vancouver (2,200 students) and Surrey (1,200 students) campuses.

158


as to collect information about the perceived usefulness of various project management techniques. The questionnaire included questions designed to collect quantitative data collection and open-ended questions that allowed for a freer participant response (Creswell, 2003).

EXAMINING CORE FUNCTIONS During the interviews, questions about the core functions of repositories and factors influencing the development of repositories were developed from the literature and initial case studies. Many of the functions and factors identified are developmental issues that arose in the course of IR development that had not been considered by development teams at the time the IR was started or that had not initially been considered important to development. For example, accessibility and permanence, core functions discussed by Gibbons (2004), were identified as part of the software package used in building the IR and, therefore, were not of major concern to development teams.

Materials Submission Materials submission is relatively standard across the cases. Units and faculty formed groups that were set up by the repository managers that decided what content was appropriate for their collections. Anyone with a campus email address was allowed to submit materials, but some institutions were looking at allowing noninstitutional research access to collections that were being developed in response to a grant or as part of a research project. Student participation may be limited to dissertations and theses unless the student is part of a group created by a department or faculty member. Some institutions were considering the submission of fourth year undergraduate papers. The sites took individual and batch submissions; batch loading was preferred, especially if the metadata was consistent. Individual faculty members at most sites had the choice of adding records through the web interface or having someone involved in the project add them. Materials from research centers and departments are typically batch loaded. In some instances, repository developers have agreed to scan and submit items for groups and departments, but it is not a practice the developers at these institutions plan to provide for the long term.


159

Metadata Application Most of the sites used some sort of modified or qualified version of the Dublin Core metadata format for the repository. Both author and library supplied metadata is used. Ideally, all the metadata should be author supplied, although most participants believed that the more work required of faculty, the less likely they were to submit materials for the repository. The use of author-supplied metadata was more prevalent in ‘‘quasi-library’’ collections like the Archives of Traditional Music at Indiana University. Most of the batch loading done by the libraries had some associated metadata, but many sites were relying more on the full-text search function rather than metadata to aid discovery. In many electronic theses and dissertation (ETD) collections, the digital copy was the copy of use. As such, call numbers are not a necessity, given that author supplied keywords or subject headings, in conjunction with fulltext searching, provide points of access. However, metadata does have value in open access collections. For instance, Purdue University is using the metadata associated with its dissertations to create links to identify the dissertations from a particular department or chair. Sites are looking at repurposing metadata to develop reports from various research centers on campus or to add content to faculty activity reports.

Access Control For the most part, the materials within the repositories are open access. However, there are some exceptions. On several campuses, groups have been created that are closed to the public with the content embargoed either permanently or for a limited time period. Purdue is considering the use of permanent embargo, allowing the record for the item to exist within the database but restricting access to its content. By placing an embargo on documents, the information on the item is still available or findable; there is still a record of publication that would not exist if the item was not included, but intellectual property of grantors and classified materials could be protected. Other institutions have embargoed dissertations and theses, either because they were going to be published elsewhere or because they contain propriety information about a particular industry or company. Still other institutions have used the DSpace environment for collaborative work projects like the Buddhist manuscript project at the University of Washington. The manuscripts used in this project and work documents

160


generated are closed to the public at this time, but, once a book about the manuscripts is published, the collection will be made available through open access. Software choice also limits access. For example, the full-text of the dissertations available in Digital Commons is only available to the host institution, though the first 24 pages of the dissertations are freely available to the public.

Discovery Support Other than adding the repositories with different registries, like ROAR or Repository 66, most institutions rely on the repository software to make things openly accessible, allowing the content to be accessed by search engines. The search function within DSpace does have problems; IUPUI is planning to develop its own interface for the eArchive repository for special collections and archival material to avoid some of the problems. Other repository site developers plan to incorporate some sort of federated search tool that will search all university based digital collections. The sites are interested in developing or finding a federated search tool that will allow users the ability to search all digital collections on campus.

Distribution Distribution, as identified by Gibbons (2004), is the ‘‘mechanism by which a copy of the digital file can be provided or displayed to the user’’ (p. 8). None of the sites involved considered this to be an issue. The software serves the files, and it is generally agreed that it is up to the individual user to have the appropriate tools to access the information included in the database. It was pointed out that, while one did not need to have the actual software to run the files, one nevertheless needed some sort of emulator that would allow access. At this time, most of the files held in open access databases consist of PDF documents, but, if collections start to add multimedia content or datasets, then access of files other than MIME type ones will have to be addressed.

Preservation Although developers acknowledge that a plan for long- and short-term preservation is an issue, none has developed one that treats all of the files

161


stored in a comprehensive way. The IUScholarWorks repository is covered to some extent by the preservation plan developed by the Digital Libraries Program, and, once the repository is moved to Fedora, it will be part of its systematic plan. Other sites have hired consultants, but no public plan had been developed by any of the repositories studied at the time these case studies were being developed. Throughout the interviews conducted for this study, migration was identified as a possible solution since librarians have been able to migrate data in the past. It was also pointed out that archiving a file and making it function are two different things. With many file types, the repository can archive the files, but that does not mean that the content is accessible. Resources According to Bailey (2006), IRs cost at least $100,000 per year to operate. But, even when reallocated staff are used, the interview participants believed that the estimated staffing expenses involved in the project alone would exceed that amount. From the interviews, it is concluded that a dedicated staff person was needed to manage not just the development, but content recruitment and that allocating a single person for at least 50% full-time equivalency (FTE) was optimal for development (Table 2). While the reallocation of staff and funding to develop the repository is a cost-effective way to start a program, it is unclear how this will affect Table 2. Indiana University

Funding

Reallocated staff

Staffing .5 (FTE) Graduate 15 hr/week assistants Programmer 30 hr/month a

Resource Comparison.

Indiana Purdue Simon University University of University University Fraser of British Washington Purdue University Columbia University at Indianapolis Part of the materials budget As neededa

No budget No budget No budget

No budget

2/3

As needed

.5

As needed

20 hr/week

–

–

–

–

.1

–

As needed

.25

As needed

The eArchive at IUPUI has 1 full-time librarian.

162


long-term development. Subject repositories, especially those started with a grant, are having some problems maintaining momentum because of a lack of appropriate staffing. In order to grow, a repository needs staff dedicated to identifying collections, assisting with submissions, and marketing the service. Reallocating librarians for repository development may work in the short term, but at least one dedicated person who understands and is committed to the project is needed to maintain the repository and identify the appropriate people needed when assistance is necessary.

Responsibility Out of the six repositories surveyed that were running at the university level, four of the projects were initiated by library administration. Administrative support did not mean that the projects would be successful, but it does encourage projects that would not necessarily have existed if the project had only been championed by librarians below that level in the hierarchy. Administrative support was important for the repositories developed at the grassroots level. At Simon Fraser University, the repository was successfully created in response to a faculty request, but with the support of the Library Director. At the University of British Columbia, a new Dean of Libraries, unfamiliar with open access and repositories, did not initially provide the resources required to develop the repository, and the project suffered as a result. Where the responsibility for administering repository projects has been placed varies from library to library, and no one area seems to be better suited than any other for handling this task. In the case studies developed, repository development was always centered outside of public services (Systems, Digital Initiatives, Digital Libraries, Archives, Collections, and Research). While the participants all planned to use subject liaisons to aid in content recruitment, the liaison librarians were not always actively involved in the developmental process. While some site developers worked closely with faculty, others just assumed that liaison librarians would recruit content. Because the liaisons librarians were not involved in the process, many were still unsure what the IR was supposed to do and how they related to it. The repository software can provide a home to a wide variety of content and without a clear project definition, librarians may be unsure whether the project is about preservation, open access, electronic publishing, faculty research, student research, or all of the above. For IRs to be

163


successful, developers must work with public service personnel to embed the repository into the library program and change the way librarians think about their roles in scholarly communication.

EXAMINING DEVELOPMENT FACTORS Adoption The process of adoption over time can be represented by a bell curve or a normal distribution. According to Rogers (2003), adoption of an innovation is divided into five categories: Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and Laggards. In a normal distribution, the first 2.5% of adopters are considered Innovators while the following 13.5% are the early adopters. Early majority (34%) and the late majority (34%) fall in the center of the distribution. The Laggards compose the final 16% in the distribution’s tail. Swanepoel (2005) also placed IR development in Europe at the early majority phase. When asked about IR development, most of the interview participants in this study also believed that they were not early adopters, but in the early majority even though the interviews took place approximately two years after Swanepoel’s survey was published (Table 3). This may be explained by the European leadership role in open access; not only does the European Commission have a proposed Open Access SelfArchiving Mandate, as of October 2010, there were over 500 repositories in Europe. At present, the United States has only 317 registered repositories even though there are 2,919 four-year colleges and universities (Repository66, 2011; Carnegie Foundation, 2010). By comparison, there are 92 Canadian public and private not-for-profit universities and university-degree level colleges, and 57 of those have developed repositories for e-journals, e-theses, subject repositories, and IRs. Table 3. Adoption. Indiana University

Early adopter First majority

Indiana Purdue Simon University University of University University Fraser of British Washington Purdue University Columbia University at Indianapolis |

|

|

|

|

|

164


Although not specifically identified during the interviews, the slow rate at which repositories are developed may lead librarians to identify as early majority since most sites began working with DSpace within months of its release. When examining repository growth according to ROAR statistics, five of the six repositories developed collections prior to 2006. With more support for OA initiatives, European and Canadian repository development may be in the First Majority stage. This support may have increased the diffusion of information about repositories. When a new innovation is released, it is communicated through members of a social system, in this case, library professionals. While not every innovation will be adopted, there is a need for repository software. However, at this time, the technical and financial investment needed may be too great for smaller institutions in the United States to adopt. At the university level, there are three separate groups working through the innovation-decision process (the path through which an individual or unit passes during the adoption process (Rogers, 2003)): implementers, librarians not involved in the implementation process, and faculty. Repository implementers in the case studies developed here were all librarians, but those involved in developing them should not be limited to librarians; stakeholders across campus should be involved in the process. The process includes Knowledge, persuasion, Decision, implementation, and Confirmation. Implementers have developed repositories and are now trying to figure out how to use them at the individual institutions (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Innovation-Decision Process for Repository Implementers, Librarians, and Faculty.


165

While the software and structure may be in place, the implementers are unsure if the repositories will be adopted by the larger campus community. Librarians and faculty are at slightly different stages in the implementation process (Fig. 1). Librarians span several stages depending on familiarity with the open access movement and the librarian’s personal relationships with faculty on campus. Librarians who are familiar with open access and who have close ties to faculty groups on campus may be early adopters and may be at the implementation stage. Librarians unfamiliar with open access or with fewer ties to faculty may still be waiting in the persuasion stage, observing how the repository develops prior to making a decision. Faculty also span several stages. Early adopters on campus may have already developed collections, while other faculty members are still unsure why the library wants to collect papers and datasets. Interpersonal relationships may also affect adoption rate because interpersonal networks and relationships increase diffusion (Rogers, 2003). Those developing the repositories, liaison librarians identifying content, and faculty may or may not have relationships with each other. This may be especially true if the repository project is located in technical services or a systems department that does not regularly interact with faculty members. Repository developers from these areas need to develop relationships with other librarians and faculty, relationships that may not have been necessary before IR development. Hiring a repository coordinator who is new to the institution and its library may also be a detriment since someone new to the institution will have to develop a relationship or trust level with faculty members from scratch. Faculty may be unwilling to submit items to the repository based on system attributes (Rogers, 2003). For example, the DSpace menus can be complex and difficult to understand, and the organizational system can be difficult to follow. As a result, people may not be willing to finish submissions. At many sites, repository administrators are loading items for faculty and easing the process of building the repository’s database. Finally, explicitness can affect adoption (Rogers, 2003). The goals and rationale of the repository may not be clear to faculty or librarians. While the advantage for faculty is higher citation rates, these benefits may not be observable at the outset (Harnad & Brody, 2004). The motivating factors for developing a repository are not very explicit, and few sites have developed a narrative to explain the purpose of the repository, how it works, and the benefits of participating for faculty and departments.

166


Motivating Factors Four of the sites visited participated in the ARL SPEC Report on Institutional Repositories that asked respondents to identify which motivating factors applied to their institution’s repository development. These motivators include implicit values of librarianship; collecting and preserving an institution’s scholarship and ensuring that it is accessible. It was concluded from the data gathered for the case studies that many of the respondents may have been in library administration rather than directly involved in developing the repository. During the interviews, participants were asked what motivated the founding of the repository (Table 4). Extrinsic motivation in the form of interest from library administration in Table 4.

Motivators for Developing a Repository.

Indiana Indiana Purdue Simon University University of University University University Fraser of British Washington Purdue University Columbia University at Indianapolis Response to administrative interest To provide open access to materials To preserve scholarly material on campus To participate in the scholarly communication process Response to requests from faculty To support the archives To develop collaborative workspace/file sharing space To increase the visibility of the institution

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

| | |

|


167

repository development was the most frequent response. Respondents were also asked about any other motivating factors. Many of the factors identified were the same as those identified by Bailey: access to the materials, faculty requests, visibility of the institution, and preservation. However, several other intrinsic factors should be considered as well: participating in the scholarly communication process, archival support, and the development of a collaborative workspace. During the interviews, motivation was not explicitly discussed by the interview participants. Participants did not elaborate on motivating factors; they identified outside requests for an IR, benefits of IRs, and philosophical issues for development. Many of the philosophical issues are technological frames (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). Access and preservation are core values of library science and, as such, librarians prioritize collecting and cataloging information to make it available to a specified user group if not the general public. With the development of digital collections, including IRs, technology is applied to these core values. According to Orlikowski and Gash (1994), the technological frame includes the ‘‘nature and role of the technology,’’ as well as the ‘‘conditions, applications, and consequences of that technology in particular contexts of use’’ (p. 178). The librarians are applying a technological frame by preserving print and electronic materials on campus and making them accessible through the IR. Further, this frame is not held by all librarians. Some librarians are concerned about the potentially negative effects of open access on the scholarly publishing market, copyright, or the peer review process. Both the SPEC report and the librarians involved in the case studies identified extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for IR development. The extrinsic factors in both cases are responses to requests from library administration or faculty. The intrinsic motivation is tied to the values representing the core values of the institution and librarianship. During my discussions with librarians, faculty and administrative requests were often the major reason for developing a repository at a university, while intrinsic factors motivated the individual librarians involved with the projects. These intrinsic factors are related to the values identified by the participating libraries in mission statements or strategic planning documents and by the American Library Association (ALA). In 2004, the ALA Council adopted a set of core values to inform the profession about the role libraries are expected to play in society at large and within their parent institutions (ALA, 2004). Among these values are access, preservation, intellectual freedom, service, and social responsibility (ALA, 2004). These values correspond to several of the motivators

168


listed in Table 4, specifically providing open access to materials and preserving scholarly materials. Other motivators can be linked to core values. Participating in the scholarly communication process and increasing the visibility of the institution can relate to the values of intellectual freedom, service, and social responsibility. One of the more interesting factors is the participation in the scholarly communication process. The development of IRs is moving the library from a passive role characterized by collecting and distributing published information to a more active one in which the library identifies and distributes materials that may fall outside of the publication process. This active role ties the mission of the library more closely to the values identified by the ALA Council (Table 5). While similar to preservation, the idea of stewardship was also identified as a motivating factor behind the desire to preserve access to scholarly communication on campus. More frequently discussed in terms of land or natural resource management, stewardship, conceptually, combines sustainable management with preservation and protection of long-term integrity (Stewardship, 2007). Conceptually, the definition of stewardship is similar to the mission of IRs that is to preserve and make available the scholarly output of a particular institution. It also reflects the definition of the Hawaiian word kuleana that includes ‘‘right, privilege, concern, responsibility, portion, jurisdiction, authority, liability, interest, claim, ownership, province; reason, cause, function, and justification’’ adding the sense of duty to responsibility (Pukui & Elbert, 1986). Both stewardship and kuleana represent values promoted and upheld by most librarians and combine the ALA core values of preservation, public good, and social responsibility. Providing long-term preservation and access to materials located within the repository is the kuleana of all librarians at the institution, not just those directly responsible for the development, though not everyone incorporates these values into their work.

Planning Project planning was an area that did not get much attention from the project teams. No formal assessment of faculty interest was made prior to repository development on the campuses covered by these cases. Two sites did, however, work with faculty prior to repository development to identify what faculty needs were. Purdue University began the process of IR development by speaking with faculty members and departments about their scholarly communication needs. They first identified what faculty were interested in doing with their scholarly output and then identified the tools that were necessary to meet those needs. The University of British


Table 5. University

169

Library Goals and Values Associated with Repository Development. Document

Goals and Values


Strategic Plana

Advance the preservation of and access to institutional knowledge Improve and expand access to collections Provide access to and promote use of new methods of scholarly communication


Strategic Plan

Enriches the quality of life and advances intellectual discovery by connecting people with knowledge Values service, scholarship and respect, and resources

Purdue

Strategic Planb

Values democracy, inclusiveness, and accessibility Preserve the intellectual and cultural record

IUPUI

Mission Statementc

To create unique scholarly resources To enhance the availability of scholarly information Values diversity, opportunity, and academic and intellectual freedom

Indiana University

Mission Statementd

Become active partners in research Emphasize the role of the IUB Libraries as the university’s primary provider of educational and scholarly resources Preserve digital resources

Simon Fraser University

Strategic Plan

Enhance scholarly communication Expand virtual library

IR Mission Statemente

Capture, preserve, and communicate digital intellectual output of SFU faculty and researchers Provide long-term storage and preservation of digital products

a

The University of British Columbia Library’s Strategic Plan: Furthering Learning and Research 2004–2007. University of British Columbia Library. Retrieved on 25 September 2008 from http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/planning/UBC_SP_04-07_FA.PDF. b Purdue University Libraries Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Retrieved on 25 September 2008, from http://www.lib.purdue.edu/admin/stratplans/plan2011.html. c IUPUI University Library Mission. Retrieved on 25 September 2008, from http://www.ulib. iupui.edu/about. d IUB Llibraries: Mission. Retrieved on 25 September 2008, from http://www.libraries.iub.edu/ index.php?pageId¼5429. e Mission. SFU Library. Retrieved on 25 September 2008, from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/about/ projects/institutional_repository/about/mission.htm.

170


Columbia conducted a faculty survey on scholarly communication. The survey contained questions about open access publishing and was used to identify faculty who already publish in open access sources and may turn into early adopters on campus. The survey took place about the same time that the library held an informational session about open access publishing. Library staff and faculty discussed what open access means and cleared up some of the misconceptions associated with it at a forum with more than 70 faculty members. Identifying both faculty needs and interest in scholarly communication provided the librarians at each institution with information that was used to make decisions about software and content recruitment. Although many of the sites began with pilot projects, none of the sites developed assessment measures, and only one site chose to develop a business plan. Although the business plan framework was not intended for this type of project, the exercise helped identify what the issues were, including determining the resources and staffing needed for the development of the repository. Once it was accepted, the business plan was used to identify the project’s missions and goals and to set a timeline for development.

Stakeholders In addition to the problem of a general lack of planning, stakeholders on campus were not always identified prior to repository development. Stakeholder groups on campus may include liaison librarians, faculty, administration, and students. Often, the repository development was managed by a single person or team that did most of the content recruitment and management. While having a single person responsible for the repository was recommended by IR developers, it is clear that stakeholders’ views relating to the development of these repositories need to be incorporated into all aspects of the development of the project. The Health Services Library at the University of Washington is running its own instance of DSpace that contains collections from the medical school on campus. Unfortunately, the only librarian working on the repository left, and, as a result, nothing has been deposited in the repository since February 2007 (J. Araki, personal communication, July 19, 2007). Campus information sessions were scheduled for faculty interested in open access, but were not necessarily open to or marketed to encourage the librarians to attend. Not only is this a new product for librarians and faculty, but content recruitment is a new role that librarians may not be comfortable with. If the liaison librarians had been included in repository


171

planning, content identification and recruitment may have developed faster. In addition, faculty and liaison librarians could build relationships and facilitate discussions about open access opportunities. While librarians will be included in repository development at some point, the public services librarians is often left out of early discussions about IR development. Repository developers with ETDs found that developing relationships with graduate divisions was key to a successful project. It was also easier for librarians to develop ETD projects if they were already part of the print dissertation process. Repositories that developed without stakeholder input are often marketed as a tool for scholarly output. This tool-based approach does not assist faculty with their scholarly publishing needs. Repositories, like Purdue’s eScholar, that were developed after identifying faculty needs, have garnered more interest from departments and faculty than ones that began as preprint and postprint archives. An IR is not just a library project; it involves the entire campus community. The IR serves as the warehouse for scholarly output of a campus and benefits all involved: faculty, with increased access to research; librarians, with alternative publishing models and means to access and preserve materials; students, by exposing theses and dissertations to a larger audience; and administration, by collecting and showcasing faculty and student research. Campus communities rely not just on the ties between members of a particular department, school, or organization on campus, but on the ties between these groups and the development of communities of practice within the institution. Although the scholars at an institution may be collocated geographically, they are working in distinct units and departments and may not have opportunities to interact with the larger campus. Depositing items in a shared repository may increase opportunities for scholars to identify others within the institution for collaborative research. While collaborative research between faculty members through IR participation was not documented in the case studies, Churchman and Stehlik (2007) argue that communities within an academic institution can increase diversity by promoting collaboration and interdisciplinary research. As such, repositories are tools to promote knowledge sharing activities and cross-campus collaborations.

Assessment One of the difficulties with assessment identified by participants was the changing nature of the repository. Not only are the repositories still under

172


development, those involved are still identifying sustainable material. One librarian noted that it was too early in the process to develop good qualitative measures and that the repositories need more than a year or two of growth. While assessment measures are still being developed, participants found that the number of peer-reviewed publications may not be a true measure of success. Most institutions found it easier to develop quantitative measures of success. Those measures include the number of requests, the amount of peer-reviewed materials included, and a variety of other impact factors. Qualitative measures from user feedback and faculty feedback were also identified. Articles in repositories, especially on specialized topics, are finding a new audience via open access Internet searches. Repository working groups are attempting to develop processes that will provide both quantitative and qualitative measures for assessing the repository. Repository developers are attempting to find approaches to populate IRs that identify areas where the IR can meet the business needs of the institution by providing a shared workspace and linking materials to faculty and department annual reports.

Defining Success When directly asked about success, the institutional representatives replied that they were in the process of developing qualitative and quantitative assessment measures. At least one institution was not entirely convinced that enough sustainable content had been collected to develop outcome measures. It was also noted that the process of developing the repositories and collecting the content, especially with ETD collections, took more time than anticipated and that the repositories were not as far along as initially anticipated. Librarians were able to identify potential measures of success, including faculty involvement, the uniqueness of content, and whether the repository met the needs of faculty and the university (Table 6). While assessment outcomes and measures have not been identified at the case study sites, several developers identified measures that identify failing projects. Lack of faculty participation was identified most readily with failure; however, the content that is being collected and preserved in the repositories is not necessarily faculty dependent. It was noted that there are benefits in developing and maintaining an IR, but the difficulty lies with defining them, describing them, and actually confirming that they are


Table 6.

173

Definitions of Success.

Indiana University

Identifying relevant content on campus Preserving the relevant content

Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis

Implement continuous improvement Provide the service

Purdue University

Problem solving scholarly communication issues of faculty (ID 359)


Stable access to quality material Faculty involvement Author awareness of rights with publishers Routine self-archiving Provide a safe home for the content Sensible and feasible preservation practices in place Provide visibility for the author(s) and institution


Number of hits Quantity of material Uniqueness of the material Knowledge of the library staff Faculty participation rate Content representative of the university


Fitting the business needs of the university

happening. By identifying more subtle types of linkages, relationships or outcomes than quantitative indicators of success will allow the repository developers to assess the impact of a repository, not just its size. Content Content in repositories does vary considerably from institution to institution. Although many primarily collect peer-reviewed faculty output, ETDs were also frequently collected. Theses and dissertations provide repositories with a unique base collection. While many schools have had difficulties changing the process for submitting dissertations and theses into a repository, four of the six sites have developed a relationship with the graduate division on campus. Since there is a process in place to collect the print dissertations, many universities have been able to edit the process to include electronic submission or offer students the choice of depositing the paper. Prior to the development of the IR, most dissertations and theses

174


were only available in print on campus through University Microfilms International (UMI), and now they can be accessed through the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. And, in many cases, masters’ theses are only available from departments on campus, and the content is not available elsewhere. Adding the content to a repository makes it more accessible and showcases the work of a university’s scholars by making it available to new audiences. In addition to ETDs, repository groups are identifying digital documents and collection across campus that need to be preserved. However, identifying these collections has proved difficult. They are often projects that faculty are working on or archiving on a personal webpage or departmental server. This is especially true of campuses without large digital library collections. Indiana University is focusing on ETD, preprints, postprints, and journals because other types of content are better served by the Digital Libraries Program. Sites without robust digital library development are using the repository to house materials that may not otherwise be archived in a print collection. Not limiting the collections to faculty and student scholarship may create a repository that can adapt to the needs of the campus.

Content Recruitment Many repository collections have been growing since case study interviews took place between December 2006 and March 2007 as sites market the services to faculty and further define the repository’s role on campus. cIRcle, UBC’s information repository, was officially launched in the spring of 2008 (cIRcle, 2007). It is interesting to note that UBC has chosen to call their DSpace environment an information repository, rather than an IR, using the broader term information in hopes that it will help the repository acquire regional collections of interest to scholars. For the most part, the repositories in this study have been slow to add content. In addition to installing and turning on the software, branding the repository, and identfiying collections to incorporate, librarians may have to verify copyright, digitize documents, and add the appropriate metadata. Content is often batch loaded, creating small monthly increases. While IUPUI, IU, UW, SFU, and UBC have chosen DSpace, Purdue used Digital Commons at the time of the case study. Digital Commons is a ProQuest product that incorporated Digital Dissertations (now ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) records from the institution. Purdue gained more than 4,000


175

dissertation records but only offers full-text access to the records on campus or with a campus username. Other institutions, like Simon Fraser, have been scanning theses, but have to wait for copyright permission before the fulltext theses can be made available to the public. In fact, SFU has developed a successful scanning procedure for theses and was contracted by the University of Victoria to digitize 500 of its theses. As the repositories grow, it seems that there is a need to populate the IR with a critical mass of articles before suggesting that the repository has been truly adopted on campus to ensure that it begins life with a reasonable level of credibility. In examining Purdue’s IR growth, offering the Proquest records may have created this critical mass of documents, leading to greater interest from the campus community. Incoporating ETD collections into the repository provides a model to share with groups on campus as an example of what the IR can do.

Policy Development There are some differences in policy development between institutions. Three models were identified in the case studies: The repository group creates base policies on group formation and acceptable content. The repository group lets individual groups create policies. The repository group sets no policies. Faculty at many of the institutions expressed fear that the librarians were going to become the gatekeepers for acceptable content. Some repository developers believed that policy development would restrict submissions and interest. If the repository develops too many policies about metadata standards, document removal, and content format, the repository may not be flexible enough to archive content that needs to be preserved. It should be noted that the only content the repositories accepted directly from students was dissertations and theses. However, other student content was allowable if part of a collection developed by a faculty member, department, or school.

Marketing None of the repositories have developed long-term marketing plans. Developing a brochure or a handout is helpful for both librarians and

176


faculty, but a larger effort is needed to ensure repository growth. Creating a larger stakeholder group during repository development also creates a larger network for diffusing information about the repository.

Sustainability While many participants were not convinced that DSpace is sustainable, they are sure that the collections developed can migrate to another platform if needed. Those involved with collection development are more concerned with identifying materials that should be preserved before they disappear in print or electronic forms than with the limitations of the chosen repository software.

Perceived Benefits While many of the perceived benefits respond closely to the motivating factors identified by Bailey (2006), repository implementers also identified other benefits. These benefits included changes in the role of librarians on campus, creating a dialogue with faculty, and becoming more involved in research (Table 7). While most of the benefits identified deal with the long-term access and preservation of scholarly materials at an institution, the individuals interviewed also identified the perceived benefits as intrinsic motivators. Malone and Lepper (1987) identified factors that promote intrinsic motivation, what people will do without external inducement, as challenge, creativity, control, fantasy, competition, cooperation, and recognition (Table 8). By associating the intrinsic motivating factors with the perceived benefits, repository development is viewed as a challenging and creative opportunity. It allows librarians to cooperate with faculty to provide access to scholarly materials. It may also provide librarians with a leadership role on campus.

BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT IR software models have been developed, but organizational differences and motivations lead to different developmental practices. All of the case study sites followed the same basic development path (Fig. 2).


177

Table 7. Perceived Benefits. Case Study Site

Perceived Benefits

Indiana University

Scholarly communication discussions between faculty and librarians Content accessible to researchers Providing a home for undergraduate research

Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis

Interacting with faculty Being involved in something new to the library world Centralized space for particular content – e.g., Conference proceedings

Purdue University

Access Collects the intellectual output of the institution Value adding to content (not just a storage spot) Problem solving Working with faculty and departments in new ways Making existing resources more usable/accessible


Experience with digitization projects Central space to store items Creating a ‘‘permanent’’ archive Provides a ‘‘safe’’ home for digital materials Visibility for authors Visibility for the institution Providing open access to materials


A chance to make discipline specific material more accessible Being able to ‘‘put stuff out there in a systematic way’’ Make the intellectual output of the university accessible Creating a leadership role for the librarian in scholarly communication Support the learning, research, teaching of a university Showcase for work that happens at a university Building bridges across campus (faculty, IT services y) Taking the library in a new directions Becoming more involved with research on campus


Identify the scholarly output of the institution Store and preserve hybrid and digital content Central system Provides a ‘‘space’’ for and access to collections that would not be easily accessible elsewhere Aids dialogue about abstract concepts

178


Table 8.

Intrinsic Motivation, Factors, and Benefits of IR Development.

Factors Identified by Malone and Lepper

Perceived Benefits from the IR Case Studies

Challenge

Problem solving

Creativity

Control

Centralized space for particular content – e.g., Conference proceedings Aids dialogue about abstract concepts

Cooperation

Scholarly communication discussions between faculty and librarians Interacting with faculty Support the learning, research, and teaching of a university Becoming more involved with research on campus and building bridges across campus (faculty, IT services y) Make the intellectual output of the university accessible

Recognition

Creating a leadership role for the librarian in scholarly communication Showcase for work that happens at a university

Being involved in something new to the library world Value adding to content (not just a storage spot) Working with faculty and departments in new ways Taking the library in a new directions

Based on the case studies, a more robust developmental framework appears (Fig. 3). The best practices framework incorporates the processes from the case study sites and additional factors identified from the case study interviews. Some suggestions include the following: Working Group – Developing a working group that includes stakeholders from interested segments of the campus community identifies champions on campus. The stakeholders can be early adopters or those interested in open access publishing. The working group can develop a needs assessment and build interest in the IR. Campus Needs Assessment – The working group works within the campus community to identify who has materials to archive, what the materials are, and where they are located. The assessment identifies what the repository can provide for the campus. In addition, the needs assessment announces the IR project to the campus and may lessen the need for liaison librarians to recruit content at a later date.

179

A Framework for Institutional Repository Development Repository implementers

Knowledge

Persuasion

Decision

Implementation

Confirmation

Persuasion

Decision

Implementation

Confirmation

Persuasion

Decision

Implementation

Confirmation

Librarians

Knowledge

Faculty

Knowledge

Fig. 2.

Basic IR Development Framework.

Founding

Identify

Choose

Recruit

Event

Team

Software

Content

Fig. 3.

Best Practices Framework for IR Development.

Development of a Project Narrative – Using the data collected during the needs assessment, the working group can create a narrative that will define the repository. The narrative is used to further specify the collections that will be relevant to the project and provides the project manager/team with a scope or vision for the repository. Identification of Collections – Using the narrative for guidance, the working group and the project team can further identify collections on campus and create interest. Identification of a Project Manager/Team – While a working group is useful at the beginning of repository development, there has to be a person or team responsible for continuing development and assessment. A manager or team

180


would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the IR. Working group members or others with special skills could be added to the team as needed. Project Plan – Tied to the narrative, the project plan identifies the resources, people, and assessment measure that will be used during IR development. The plan provides goals and objectives for the project manager/team and any librarians working on collection development. Software – Many of the case study sites downloaded DSpace and then identified collections. Rather than force content into the software, the collections on campus can and should inform software choices. The IR does not have to be based on a single type of software, but can incorporate a collection of services that provide the best access to the content being preserved. Content Recruitment – There are many collections that can be easily added to an IR on campus, but content librarians and early adopters must talk to individuals and groups on campus to identify those collections and create more interest. Storytelling can be used by the librarians and early adopters to share positive experiences associated with the IR. Assessment – In addition to the development of quantitative and qualitative assessment measures, assessment can also include reflection on how the repository is developing, whether it is still meeting the needs of the campus community, and what realignment is required in the narrative and project plan to meet existing or emerging needs. Although the framework above stops with Assessment, development of an IR should be an iterative process, with assessment measures linking to content recruitment, collection identification needs assessment, and the development of a project narrative. The Campus Community and Marketing – The campus community and marketing initiatives should be present throughout several stages and should encompass repository development in this model; both are needed to create a sustainable repository. It is important to identify key stakeholders in the campus community in the process used in developing the repository and include them in a Working Group. In addition, the community can provide information about collections on campus and assessment. Marketing creates awareness of the repository and is needed to diffuse information about the IR to the campus community.

CONCLUSION Though they differ in size and scope, IRs and subject repositories experience the same problems with faculty participation, resources, and


181

marketing. By identifying stakeholders and working group members early in the development process, a community of practice is developed around the repository, creating a network for marketing and content acquisition. Successful repository development requires that the views of stakeholder and librarians working throughout all library departments to be solicited and considered. Building a community of practice in the library around repository development and creating a narrative that reflects this community development effort will provide a framework for librarians seeking faculty input. The Best Practices Framework developed from the experience described in the case studies incorporates these areas and creates opportunities for projects assessment based on a locally developed narrative.

REFERENCES American Library Association. (2004). Core values of librarianship. Available at www.ala.org/ ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/corevaluesstatement/corevalues.cfm. Retrieved on January 17, 2011. Association of Research Libraries. (2006). New models for scholarly communication. Scholarly Communication. Available at www.arl.org/osc/models/index.html. Retrieved on June 23, 2006. Bailey, C. W. (2006). Institutional repositories: SPEC Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Carnegie Foundation. (2010). Distribution of institutions and enrollments by classification category. Available at classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/enrollment_ profile.php. Retrieved on January 17, 2011. Cervone, H. F. (2007). The system development life cycle and digital library development. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(4), 348–352. Churchman, D., & Stehlik, T. (2007). Transforming academic work: Communities of practice in Australian universities. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 4(3), 263–278. cIRcle: UBC’s Information Repository. (2007). Available at circle.ubc.ca/. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Available at www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Final_Release_102.pdf. Retrieved on November 25, 2005. Gibbons, S. (2004). Establishing an institutional repository. Library Technology Reports, 40(4), 11–14. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Available at www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/ harnad/06harnad.html JISC. (2009). Digital repositories infoKit. Available at www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/ repositories/index_html. Retrieved on September 5, 2010.

182


Johnson, R. (2002). Institutional depositories: Partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11). Available at www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/ johnson/11johnson.html Jones, R., Andrew, T., & MacColl, J. (2006). The institutional repository. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lynch, C. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. ARL Bimonthly Report, No. 226. Available at www.arl.org/bmBdoc/ br226ir.pdf Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds), Aptitude, learning and instruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. MIT Libraries. (2004). Work sheet: Project planning timeline. Available at dspace.org/ implement/project-plan.pdf. Retrieved on June 15, 2006. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–207. Pinfield, S., Gardner, M., & MacColl, J. (2002). Setting up an institutional E-Print archive. Ariadne, 31. Available at www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/eprint-archives/ Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Pukui, M. K., & Elbert, S. H. (1986). Hawaiian dictionary: Hawaiian-English, EnglishHawaiian. Available at wehewehe.org/ Repository66. (2011). Available at maps.repository66.org/ Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Shearer, K. (2002). A guide to setting-up an institutional repository. Available at www.carl-abrc. ca/projects/institutional_repositories/setup_guide-e.html Stewardship. (2007). Definitions of stewardship on the web. Available at www.google.com/ search?q ¼ define%3A þ stewardship Swanepoel, M. (2005). Digital repositories: All hype and no substance?. New Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 13–25. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


APPENDIX. INTERVIEW GUIDE Development Core Functions Materials Submission a. How are materials submitted? b. Do you have an editor(s)? c. How do you judge content? d. How do you know if something is appropriate? e. How do you know if something belongs in a collection (subdivision)? f. Do you take all formats? Metadata Application a. What types of metadata do you collect? b. Is it author supplied? c. Is it library supplied? Access Control a. How do you manage digital rights? b. Do you authenticate? c. Do you support logins? d. Do you have to be on campus to access or submit? Discovery Support a. Where can you search for items? b. Do you belong to a larger cooperative? c. How can you access the IR on campus (linking)? Distribution a. Are there limits on viewing full text (on campus; by the author)? b. Do you need plug-ins? Preservation a. Do you have a preservation plan? b. Do you back up your data? c. How often? d. Do you convert file formats (i.e., Word to PDF or HTML)? e. How often will you update formats?

183

184


Additional Resources a. What are the sources of funding for the IR? b. What resources were necessary to develop the IR, such as technology or people? Are these resources necessary for the ongoing operation of the IR? c. What are the challenges and opportunities you see for the IR? d. If you could develop the IR again, what would you do differently? Responsibility a. What experience do you have in libraries? b. What are your current roles and responsibilities at the library? i. Who initiated the project? ii. Who is involved on campus? c. Is the IR one of many digital initiatives? d. Is one person or department responsible for all digital initiatives? e. What task roles do the different library departments (technical services, public services, archives) play in IR development? Factors IR motivation a. What were the events that led to the founding of the IR? b. Were there any forces that influenced the founding? c. What was the biggest motivating factor? Stakeholders a. What individuals, organizations, or resources played key roles in the founding of the IR? What were the roles? b. Is there anyone you brought to IR planning after it began? c. Why was the person included? d. Is there anyone who should have been included initially? Planning a. Did you assess the need for an IR prior to planning? How? b. How did you decide what software to use? c. Who was involved in the initial planning of the IR? d. How could the process been improved? e. What obstacles were encountered in the founding of the IR and how were they addressed? Assessment a. How is the IR assessed? b. How would you define IR success? c. How are assessments being used?


185

d. Do you have any examples of the benefits the IR has produced? e. What lessons or challenges are faced by IR developers that may impact development? Content a. What formats are collected? b. What types of materials? c. Who authors the materials? d. Is there a collection policy? e. Is archival material included? Policy Development a. Have you created any written policies? b. Where they created before or after you developed the IR (are they are response to a problem?) c. Who can deposit? d. What do you collect? e. Who can the authors be? f. Is there an approval process? g. Can things be withdrawn? h. Do you support versioning? i. Who owns the content? j. Is participation mandatory for some groups (dissertations)? k. Who checks copyright? Marketing a. Are you marketing the repository? b. How? c. To whom? Costs a. Does your IR have a budget? b. What is it? c. What does it include? Sustainability a. Do you think this repository is sustainable? b. How long will it last? Perceived IR Benefits a. What are the benefits to the repository? Best Practices a. What challenges did you face? b. How did you manage them? c. What went well? d. What would you do differently? e. What did you do right?

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER LIBRARY SERVICES: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUES Jennifer K. Sweeney ABSTRACT Library service to youth in detention faces many challenges and difficulties. Results of an exploratory study suggest that cooperation among libraries and other service agencies within juvenile correctional facilities is associated with effective library service on many levels. Using definitions of cooperation and collaboration compiled from the library and information science, public administration, and social services fields, the author draws evidence from interviews with librarians in the field that helps define the nature of cooperative aspects of library services in detention. Information uncovered in this study highlights areas where cooperation appears to influence the effectiveness of libraries, such as (1) working with complex administrative policies and structures for housing, educating, and treating youth, (2) understanding the various roles of corrections staff and in communicating with them, (3) sorting out differences in expectations and understanding of basic library purpose, and (4) integrating library services into educational and other programs. Keywords: Interagency; cooperation, juveniles; detention; corrections; libraries Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 187–206 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030007

187

188

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

INTRODUCTION This chapter reports on a recent research project on library services to juveniles in detention – a project that uncovered stories of great need as well as stories of great accomplishment. On any given day, some 92,000 teens, preteens, and young adults are currently detained in this country, most of them from disadvantaged and minority groups, and many who have experienced poverty, violence, and neglect (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2008). Library service to these at-risk young people is vital, and yet they are one of our least-served populations. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, evidence in the study reported here suggests that many residential facilities housing young people do not provide adequate access to library services, books, or programs that would educate and foster positive change for these young people.1 Librarians and others who serve in these environments confront daily impediments in providing even the most basic services to a population with complex and urgent needs while coping with the many troubling paradoxes of serving within the juvenile justice system. Providing access to books and reading for detained youth is perhaps one of the last true frontiers in library service. While prison libraries have been around for some time (in this country they first appeared roughly 200 years ago), libraries for incarcerated juveniles have not. The practice of detaining children for wrongdoing or protection is not new either, but education for these youth was first mandated in this country in the mid-1970s (Dohrn, 2002; Rosenheim, Zimring, Tanenhaus, & Dohrin, 2002). While the American Library Association has pledged to support library services to youth in detention, these facilities are not required to provide access to reading materials for their residents, nor are libraries required by the standards for correctional education for juveniles (Correctional Education Association, 2004). Library service to juveniles in detention is still in its infancy. The purpose of the ongoing study described here is twofold: first, it is to discover and document the breadth and extent of library services to detained youth, specifically to answer questions such as how much access do youth in detention have to books and reading? What kinds of reading guidance, programming, and literacy assistance do youth need, and how much do they receive? What are the benefits of reading for this particular group? Second, the study seeks to elicit information from service providers about how services can or should be improved. A preliminary exploration in the literature and interviews with librarians uncovered numerous problems that require attention. These issues reach

Interagency Cooperation

189

beyond basic concerns such as the sheer lack of library collections and services in many institutions, insufficient resources, lack of trained staff, and inadequate facility space. Even where library services do exist, adequate access to books and programming is often thwarted by institutional characteristics peculiar to the detention environment. Youth can be restricted from visiting facility libraries or denied access to reading materials in their cells, depending on security conditions. Popular reading materials can be censored inordinately despite the existence of agreed-upon collection policies. Access to computers can be restricted or denied based on local administrative policies. Volunteers bringing in books and programs can be denied entry, depending on security conditions. And, on a higher level, facility rules and policies can change frequently and without notice. Evidence in the study thus far suggests that the nature of communication, cooperation, and collaboration among librarians, corrections administrators, and staff is central to how well these problems are addressed – or if they are addressed at all. The topic addressed in this chapter concerns this narrow yet critical slice that is of particular interest to library directors and service managers: Given the unique constraints of libraries operating within the juvenile justice system, what are the characteristics of communication and collaboration between librarians in detention facilities and the corrections, social services, and other personnel who administer those facilities? Are there barriers to collaboration, and, if so, what are the effects of these barriers on library services? By way of introduction, it is important to address why cooperation is so significant in the detention environment. To some extent, the implementation of library services within correctional facilities has always had fundamental areas of conflict with parent correctional institutions. Libraries provide access to information, education, and recreational reading for prisoners, while security concerns often must limit that access in various ways. Librarian cooperation with corrections personnel – particularly in terms of adhering to security rules – has long been recognized as essential in meeting facility as well as library objectives. There is, however, more to this in the juvenile justice environment. There are very different underlying tensions that set juvenile facilities apart from adult corrections. Today’s juvenile detention centers in the United States are products of two opposing perspectives – what has been referred to as a ‘‘perpetual tug-of-war’’ between the rehabilitation of wayward youngsters and the punishment of youthful criminals (Springer & Roberts, 2009; Rosenheim et al., 2002). Rehabilitation presumes that the young person who has strayed can be steered back in the right direction.

190

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

Punishment, on the other hand, seeks retribution for wrongdoing through punitive actions such as incarceration. The juvenile justice system in this country has developed over the past 100 years or so under social pressures from both ends of this spectrum. This has resulted in complex, confusing, and often inconsistent systems of rules and procedures. The juvenile justice system in general has often been cited for its failure to communicate and cooperate adequately within its own departments as well as with external agencies, particularly the social services organizations that provide substance abuse, mental health, education and vocation training, and other services needed by delinquent youth for successful reentry into society (Altschuler & Armstrong, 2002; Loeber, Farrington, & Peterchuk, 2003). Systemic barriers such as poor communication, misunderstanding of roles and functions, and a lack of shared objectives regularly hinder cooperative efforts among probation staff, educators, counselors, health professionals, and others. Lack of effective cooperation remains a longstanding problem despite repeated statements from researchers that fostering collaborative multiagency relationships is essential for effective intervention with troubled youth (Landsberg & Rees, 2009; Armstrong, 1998). Although there are a few success stories of library programming and services for juveniles in detention, lack of communication and cultural differences between librarians and corrections staff appear to be the most problematic areas in library relations with corrections agencies and personnel. Despite these persistent problems, the climate for cooperation within the juvenile justice system has begun to look more optimistic. Growing evidence from federal juvenile justice program evaluations indicates that comprehensive interventions addressing multiple needs are more successful, and that these types of interventions typically enlist cooperation from multiple resources across communities and agencies (Guerra, Kim, & Boxer, 2008; Clark County (WA) Juvenile Court, 2008; Weitekamp & Kerner, 2001). Libraries thus far have not been visible or vocal participants in these studies, but it is not difficult to envision their potential contribution. Improvement in communication and cooperation will certainly serve this end.

RESEARCH METHODS This study began as a qualitative exploration to discover the breadth of library services to juveniles in detention in the United States. While there exists a thin but arguably comprehensive body of literature on adult prison libraries, there is very little written specifically about services to detained


191

juveniles. The overall research questions for this exploration centered on several broad areas, including services offered; staffing and funding; information-related needs of this user group; major issues and challenges in the current detention environment; and knowledge, skills, and personal characteristics needed for service providers. The intent of this exploration was to capture an overall picture of the current state of library services rather than to cover each of these topics in detail. A two-phase study was designed to collect (1) descriptive information on library services and (2) quantitative measures on the extent of those services in facilities nationally via a survey. This chapter presents information collected in the first phase of the study. Interviews were conducted with 24 librarians and library services providers, public library outreach coordinators, state library institutional consultants, and volunteers involved with bringing reading materials and/or libraryrelated programming into detention facilities. Participants were solicited via email invitations sent out to two key email lists for this population, YALSALOCKDOWN and PRISON-L.2 Initial respondents were asked to suggest additional potential respondents, and those identified were also contacted via email. A third group of service providers was identified through the literature review and was invited to participate via personal email from the author. Telephone interviews of approximately one to two hours in length were recorded and transcribed. Several key participants then contributed additional time for a series of more in-depth interviews. Site visits were conducted at two detention facilities, one in California and one in Washington state. The ATLAS.tit qualitative software program was used to assist in the coding and analysis of transcripts, notes, and memos. The literature review covered a broad range of issues related to library services in juvenile detention, including: the history and current state of library programs in detention facilities; aspects of the juvenile justice system, process, and history relevant to libraries; standards and guidelines related to juvenile corrections, libraries, and correctional education; reading and literacy issues relating to juveniles in detention and at-risk youth; and interagency cooperation and collaboration across government, private, and nonprofit organizations within the broad range of library and information studies, corrections, public health, and social services sectors. The following section presents relevant portions of this review.

192

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

BACKGROUND Several aspects of juvenile detention provide context regarding today’s challenges in developing a spirit of cooperation and collaboration between librarians and others in the juvenile justice system. This background discussion covers three broad areas: a brief introduction to the types of library services offered to juveniles in detention; a compilation of definitions of interagency cooperation and collaboration from relevant literature in the correctional, public health, and social services arenas; and organizational issues in detention facilities that speak to the nature of cooperation and its relationship to library service. Services Offered at the Present Time For those detention facilities that do provide some kind of access to books, other media, and/or programming, there are several mechanisms for providing service. Some public libraries operate small branch libraries within facilities (Angier, Cohen, & Morrison, 2001). Other public libraries operate outreach services to juvenile halls and other facilities, either maintaining deposit collections on site or bringing materials to the facility via bookmobile or on book carts (Jones, 2004; McLellan & Suellentrop, 2007; Angier & O’Dell, 2000; Carlson, 1997). Facility libraries can also be operated by a state education agency, local school district, or facility school in some centers, possibly staffed by a school library media specialist or teacher librarian (Davis, 2000; Fenster-Sparber, 2008). Other libraries are operated by the juvenile facilities themselves, or by a state, county, or municipal youth services agency, judicial entity, or similar organization working within the facility (Bodart, 2008). Nonprofit groups and volunteer organizations also provide outreach services in juvenile halls on occasion (Herald, 2004; UCLA, 2008). Some facilities have dedicated library space and equipment while others do not. Staffing can include degreed professional librarians, certified school library media specialists or teacher-librarians, paraprofessionals, detention personnel, or community volunteers with or without training. Interagency Cooperation and Collaboration The context for this chapter specifically concerns interagency cooperation and collaboration across the various organizations involved with library


193

services in juvenile detention. The terms ‘‘cooperation’’ and ‘‘collaboration’’ are often used loosely to describe relationships among entities or people working together. This section presents a more precise definition of these terms. Research on collaboration involving libraries has tended to focus on establishing partnerships for combining services across multiple libraries (Malizia, Bottoni, & Levialdi, 2010; Gaetz, 2009), collaboration in interdisciplinary research activities in academia (Gunawardena, Weber, & Agosto, 2010), and collaboration in information instruction (Oberg, 1999). Although the types of collaborative activities that are examined in these studies help to define what is meant by collaboration, they are not completely transferable to the present inquiry. There has, in fact, been very little research from the library field on collaboration across multiple agencies of the sort that operate in juvenile corrections or on the types of problems that arise in this environment. However, there is a substantial body of study from government organizations and nonprofit agencies that has developed useful definitions of interagency collaboration, including the barriers that exist to this kind of collaboration and what organizations can do to foster good collaborative relationships. In addition to library and information science, literatures from the public administration, public health, and social services arenas are particularly useful and are explored below. Research within the field of public administration has described interagency collaboration broadly as two or more entities working together toward a common goal, or working jointly with others for mutual benefit, without distinction from concepts such as cooperation or coordination (Vogel et al., 2007; Bardach, 2001). Collaboration frequently requires contribution of resources from involved parties, and assumes some kind of merging of effort and decision making as well as a rationale for cooperation (Linden, 2002). A key identifying element of true collaborative effort is often a shared goal or vision for which all participants will take ownership and/or credit. In the process of developing collaborative relationships, organizations have been observed to go through a series of identifiable stages in partnership toward collaboration from cooperation through coordination, where collaboration is the ultimate goal (Thompson, Socolar, Brown, & Haggerty, 2002). Gardner’s model of the stages of collaboration identified four steps in this process, with each representing greater program integration, commitment, and capacity (Gardner, 1999) (Table 1). Drawing from the field of organizational science, Gunawardena et al. (2010) describe a similar continuum of increasing integration among individuals

194

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

Table 1. Stage Stage One: Information exchange Stage Two: Joint projects Stage Three: Changing the rules Stage Four: Changing the system

Gardner’s Stages of Collaboration. Description Organizations learn about each other’s mission and activities. Organizations launch a project jointly, conducting activities within existing systems and structures. Organizations reorganize or restructure project personnel, resources, or activities to overcome obstacles that impede success. Organizations pursue system-level changes in accountability, policies, and/or culture in order to improve organizational as well as project success.

Source: Gardner (1999).

working together. Relationships between parties begin at the lowest level of integration with simple cooperation, advancing in coordination and ultimately developing into collaboration, with each step demonstrating increased integration in terms of shared mission, resources, acknowledgment, and rewards, as well as more robust exchange of information. As partnerships move toward the collaborative end of the spectrum, they exhibit more shared rules and norms, better-defined relationships, more shared responsibility and authority, and more joint planning. In New Models for Collaboration for Public Service Delivery, researchers at the Center for Technology in Government investigated the ways in which government agencies and the private and nonprofit sector agencies could work together to provide public services (Gant, 2003; Dawes, 2003; Prefontaine, 2003). Collaboration for delivery of public services is defined here as reciprocal and voluntary support provided by two or more different agencies, often by way of a formal agreement outlining each one’s responsibility as it relates to the objective of the collaboration and the sharing of tangible and intangible responsibilities and obligations, resources, costs, risks, and benefits. Agreements can either establish horizontal and vertical models of collaboration among public agencies, depending on whether the arrangement is being made between departments at the same level of government (horizontal) or between agencies at different levels (e.g., municipal, regional, national) in vertical agreements. Public–private models can be more diverse, utilizing private funds while retaining sufficient government control to assure protection of the public interest. Working together can produce more value: contributions of different entities can create a synergy where the final product becomes more valuable


195

than the accomplishments of any one individual or organization working alone. Cooperative and collaborative programs have the potential to benefit from better design since multiple organizations working together can draw upon a greater store of resources and expertise and can approach problems more creatively (Vogel et al., 2007). Motivation for successful collaboration can come from internal priorities that require collaboration to reach goals, from external legislative or political pressures, or from the needs of constituents (Johnson, Zorn, Tam, & Lamontagne, 2003). A sense of commitment and trust among partners is essential as is good leadership and the right mix of contributors in terms of professional skills, and personality and leadership characteristics. Shared values, needs, and interests often help the cooperative venture succeed, and good communication can help individuals understand vocabularies and ways of doing things in different organizational cultures. Collaboration across agencies that differ significantly in organizational culture presents particular challenges. Poor communication and radical differences in values can be difficult to overcome. High-level support may be lacking, and without such support it may be difficult to obtain buy-in from front line staff. Rigid bureaucratic structures often preclude flexibility in funding streams, and some organizational cultures actively resist change and thwart information sharing, making cooperation very difficult. Collaboration can be obstructed by management problems such as poorly designed or understaffed programs, lack of clear guidelines, and inadequate resources. Gunawardena et al. (2010) note that collaboration between individuals can be stressful if the relationships are too informal or if responsibilities and commitments are not well defined. An investigation of collaboratives involved with providing mental health services found that while there were many informal relationships across agencies, there were few formal relationships, little centralization, and fragmented and insufficient resource flows (Polivka, Dresbach, Heimlich, & Elliot, 2001). Barriers to collaboration in a study of child protection agencies and mental health service providers pointed to factors such as mutual mistrust across professional domains, inadequate resources, gaps in processes, and unrealistic expectations (Darlington, Feeney, & Rixon, 2005). In another study, researchers observed deeply ingrained mistrust and a lack of understanding of the other agency’s values, goals, and perspectives as challenges to collaboration in a child welfare system-substance abuse care cooperative (Green, Rockhill, & Burns, 2008). Similarly, differences in disciplinary paradigms may foster

196

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

misunderstandings if parties have different expectations for participation and use different vocabularies that are not understood by all parties (Gunawardena et al., 2010).

Organizational Issues What is crucial to grasp is that each institution involved with the juvenile justice system – police, the courts, probation, detention facilities, and myriad social service agencies that are involved with children’s placement in detention – has its own responsibilities, expectations, and goals. Rosenheim notes that the term ‘‘system’’ here is used loosely, as it refers to a group of agencies that make independent decisions about interventions into children’s lives without shared or consistent goals (Rosenheim, 2002). What is more, individual agency objectives are not typically negotiated with other offices, nor do they share value systems. These agencies do not usually work harmoniously or well together, and, more often than not, they compete for public attention and resources rather than coordinate their needs. These characteristics permeate the juvenile justice environment. Political factors are also at work in the juvenile justice system. Government policies and local public opinion have fluctuated continually throughout history between protection of vulnerable children and punishment of ‘‘bad’’ children. The early juvenile courts established at the turn of the 20th century observed the overriding need for children to be treated sympathetically and sensitively (Rosenheim et al., 2002). Over time, however, that perspective has shifted. Since the late 1970s, the justice system has significantly moved to criminalize children, particularly during the 1990s as a result of political pressure to ‘‘get tough’’ on youth violence and crime (Griffin, 2003). More teens are now transferred to adult criminal courts and tried as adults than ever before, and the disproportionate number of African American youth in custody is growing. Youth in detention also have many special needs. About a half of all youthful offenders have substance abuse issues, and 90% meet the diagnostic criteria for one or more mental disorders (Feldstein & Ginsburg, 2009). Treatment for these and other problems is often sporadic and uncoordinated. A 1998 report noted continuing deficiencies in the conditions in detention, including insufficient living space, poor security, lack of control of suicidal and violent behavior, and inadequate health care, education, and treatment services (Puritz & Scale, 1998). While the overall numbers of incarcerated children have begun to decline slightly since 2000, the overriding aim of detention remains starkly punitive rather than rehabilitative.

197


Educational Issues In this climate, the educational needs of youth have taken a back seat, despite repeated calls for improvement in the conditions of detention that specifically cite deficiencies in education (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000; Puritz & Scale, 1998). Looking back, the quality of education in juvenile detention has been deemed substandard throughout its history (Blomberg, Blomberg, Walso, Pesta, & Bellows, 2006). This deficiency no doubt has multiple interrelated causes, but a brief look at the history of the juvenile court system is instructive. The first juvenile court in this country was established in Illinois in 1899, with more than half of the other states following suit within two decades. These various state systems did not evolve consistently: states and localities developed their own judicial structures according to their own needs and priorities, with practices varying widely from place to place. This fragmentation resulted at least partly in the marginalization of the educational needs of juveniles in detention (Rosenheim, 2002). Schools in detention centers were frequently neglected and the educational needs of students ignored. A large number of class action lawsuits over the past 20 years has been directed at the ongoing weaknesses and failures in juvenile education, attesting to this long-term neglect (Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program, 2005). Library quality often follows educational quality. Although sporadic reports of early reformatory and juvenile training school library practices and policies began to appear in professional library journals during the early 20th century, the first standards for libraries in juvenile detention were not developed until the mid-1970s (American Correctional Association and American Library Association, 1975). A 1974 study of library programs in adult and juvenile facilities under state administration documented a dismal level of library services and grossly inadequate funding (Ledonne, Christiano, & Scantlebury, 1974). Even with the presence of standards, a 1980 survey of library service in local correctional facilities noted major problems facing existing library service and noted the numerous difficulties of bringing service to the enormous number of facilities still without libraries (Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies, 1980). There has been no large-scale survey of library services since that time. Library service to juveniles in detention has seen a resurgence in interest over the past few years, however, with more service providers sharing experiences, program ideas, and advice in scholarly and professional trade

198

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

publications, email discussion groups, and at professional conferences (Bodart, 2008; Fenster-Sparber, 2008; Gilman, 2008; Jones, 2004). The emphasis in this emerging literature is on information sharing, although problems and challenges are often mentioned. The focus in these discussions has been on instructing others on best practices and sharing programming ideas rather than addressing real solutions to underlying or systemic problem areas.

Parallel Challenges in Social Work Comparing the roles that social workers play in the juvenile justice system to those of librarians provides instruction on the challenges librarians face. Professional standards and practice guidelines for social work strongly support involvement of social workers in the rehabilitation, treatment, and care of delinquent youth (Springer & Roberts, 2009), just as the current standards for libraries promote a strong and proactive role supporting and strengthening the facilities’ ‘‘total program of treatment and education’’ (Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies and American Library Association, 1999). However, the clinical needs of youth in the justice system are frequently dispersed across multiple areas such as child welfare, substance abuse, mental health, and education, and treatment providers and educators typically do not consult with each other, or with social workers (or librarians). Treatment goals established by the courts are usually focused more on the infraction rather than on any co-occurring clinical issues, and tend to take priority in case planning. Whether or not a youth has been found guilty of an offense also affects whether a youth will have access to treatment at all. Juveniles often also have multiple needs that do not necessarily fit into the predetermined categories of services offered by various agencies (Provan, Veazie, Teufel-Shone, & Huddleston, 2004). A youth may have emotional difficulties stemming from a dysfunctional family environment, low literacy due to an untreated learning disability, and substance abuse problems. Provan et al. note that the need for service integration across areas is particularly important for vulnerable populations such as children and minorities, for whom service coordination and tracking is more challenging, and who have likely been marginalized in the past. Although the care mandates of the social worker suggests a more engaged role in the juvenile justice process, the role of social workers is often restricted to outpatient or crisis counseling outside of the detention

199


environment. Training in the specific skills needed to operate in the juvenile justice system is also not provided by most schools of social work (Neighbors, Green-Faust, & Beyer, 2004). In a similar manner, the role of the librarian in detention is often relegated to mere provision of books and other reading materials without opportunity to provide additional useful services such as readers’ advisory, literacy instruction, book discussion, or referral to resources on the outside after reentry. Very few graduate programs in library science offer programs in corrections librarianship; fewer include adequate coverage of juvenile detention librarianship.

SELECTED FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY Librarians in this study shared many stories, observations, and perceptions of the challenges presented in providing library services within juvenile detention centers. The following selected findings illustrate aspects of interagency cooperation and collaboration in detention centers that appear to affect library service related to administrative structures and differences in organizational cultures.

Administrative Structures Many facilities house different categories of residents, such as youth who are detained awaiting adjudication (similar to an adult trial) and youth who have been committed to a period of detention for their offense. In addition, youth who are guilty of status offenses as well as delinquent youth could be housed in the same location.3 Numerous studies have noted that there are problems associated with housing status offenders with more seriously delinquent youth, as well as housing youth together who are under different administrative jurisdictions (McNamara, 2008). The issues for library services have to do with the administrative complexity associated with multiple populations. Within some facilities, different agencies can be responsible for youth, depending on where they are in the judicial process. There could be two or more different administrative bodies responsible for the youth’s education, such as a facility school for committed residents run by the local youth services/corrections agency and a branch of the local school district for those students who are detained preadjudication – all in the same facility. How the library interfaces with these entities might vary, depending on local custom, resource availability, or the

200

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

personalities of the librarians and the administrators of the detention facility. One library consultant described such a situation this way: Sometimes there are two different school systems under one roof. The school district is responsible for the detained residents, and once they’re committed, the Department of Youth Authority is responsible for their education y .there are two sets of teachers, two sets of classrooms, usually separate. In some cases they have worked it out, but it’s a challenge for them deciding who’s responsible for the library. It’s also a challenge to provide similar services to these two different populations. In one facility here, the principal in charge of the committed residents doesn’t want to take responsibility for the library, and neither does the school district principal. So they just have a [corrections] staff person take responsibility on top of their other duties such as security, administrative assistant, etc., or have teachers check out books in their spare time y The challenge for me in working with different agencies is that I am under the Department of Education but the facilities are under the Department of Youth Corrections. In some places, I have to figure out if I am going to work with a school district principal or teacher, or with a DYC principal, and/or a variety of staff too y The fact is I am in a support role and I can’t go in and tell people what to do.

Differences in Organizational Culture The interviews provided evidence of differences in organizational cultures between librarians and corrections staff in a number of facilities. These differences seemed to contribute to a lack of understanding of facility rules and procedures on the librarian’s part, and also possibly affected juveniles’ use of the library and access to collections. Several librarians reported being confused about how decisions were made regarding who gets to visit the library and when, or why library visiting privileges were denied. One librarian commented: In theory, each class goes down [to the library] once a week. But it gets very confusing, I am never quite sure what’s going on. There is always confusion. Even when you ask [corrections staff], they are always vague. The residents are supposed to go down once a week, not with their class but with a guard. Some guards are really good, but it varies. Sometimes they don’t show up, and I never know why they don’t come y . There are many different layers of staff, and I am never quite clear on whose job is what.

A contrasting view was provided by another librarian, whose working relationships with facility staff seemed much more positive and inclusive: I feel very lucky that staff is supportive. When I first got here it was difficult because we are so isolated. [Corrections] staff had not been in an urban library in a long time, and they didn’t understand it is not a quiet place, they just wanted to see kids sitting and reading y A lot of it has to do with trust. You need to build rapport and trust with


201

the staff, so they know you are not going to do anything crazy. Staff trusts me now y I think I work well with them, and I collaborate with the school also and that works well. They include me in what they do.

There was also evidence of differences in expectations between librarians and other staff regarding fundamental conventions of library service such as the basic purpose of a library and the degree of integration of library services into educational or other programs. Not surprisingly, there were also sharp differences in expectations concerning what types of materials the residents should be permitted to read. These differences also varied widely across facilities, with higher levels of library integration and understanding in certain facilities and less in others. One librarian characterized the lack of understanding of the library’s purpose and goals at her facility this way: The other obstacle is just getting the juvenile detention staff sort of on board, it’s the censorship. It’s hard to get them to understand how important these books are. We know we need to get the kids interested in reading. We need to get the staff to understand what teen fiction is all about, why it’s important to get kids thinking about these things. I haven’t been able to address that at all y One person who works at the detention center came to my storytime [at the public library] and went off on a tirade about how we were bringing in books that were harming the children y I took that opportunity to say, ‘‘wow, I understand how you feel’’ and then I tried to share my perspective on why we do what we do.

From a state library consultant’s point of view, the librarian has a complex and difficult role to play in terms of balancing library objectives with corrections objectives. The very mindset of the corrections environment is based on a punitive view, while libraries are all about access and free choice. Several librarians talked about the difficulties of establishing trust with detention staff who want to restrict reading to certain kinds of ‘‘beneficial’’ materials while censoring ‘‘dangerous’’ or ‘‘harmful’’ literature. One librarian shared this perspective: We love to say, as a profession, we are all about giving access, but in reality that doesn’t happen, even in the public library. You’ve got to play nicely with the governing agency, while upholding library ethics. This is only compounded in prison. Not only do you have the school agencies breathing down your neck, you have law enforcement y You have to maintain the trust of the non-librarian staff in those agencies. It is much more complicated and incredibly difficult.

The variety in differences across institutional perspectives could also be a function of the variation in a number of different institutional characteristics, including organizational culture, leadership, and the type of residents.

202

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

A state library institutional consultant noted these differences across facilities: Going out to these other two facilities, you will see how very different correctional facilities can be from each other y all pursuing the same mission but in terms of how they do it, there are many different ways y because the culture is different, the administration is different, the offender population is different.

At one end of the spectrum are detention center cultures that seem almost antagonistic to libraries. Two librarians in different locations commented on their challenges: [Librarian 1:] The whole idea that the library contributes to a sense of community – even in prison – as well as life enrichment, fell on deaf ears. [Librarian 2:] [The challenge is] working in an environment where books are contraband. Another is working in an environment with adults who don’t believe in children’s right to read and who don’t uphold it y Third, coming into an environment where people do not use libraries or see the need for libraries.

At the other end of the spectrum are detention facilities whose environments are more conducive to fostering library services and programs. There seems to be a strong connection between the effectiveness of the library program and the close coordination among librarians and facility staff, particularly facility directors and educators, as described by one librarian: After many discussions with my supervisors (the associate facility superintendent and the director of the education program), we decided to concentrate our curriculum on the reading aspect y Many of the students here have not been to library ever in their lives. Reading is a big priority of the school curriculum. We are trying to coordinate with the academic coordinator here to improve student reading as much as we can while they are here y The curriculum for these guys is concentrated on giving them current reading material, interesting reading material, and encouraging them to read.

CONCLUSION This study begins an exploration of some of the key issues in providing library services to juveniles in detention. Evidence from interviews with librarians suggests that cooperative relationships with corrections and other personnel are associated with the effectiveness of services to this at-risk population. Library cooperation with other detention facility departments was noted as an issue for libraries in several areas. These include working with complex administrative policies and structures for housing and educating youth, understanding the various roles of corrections staff and

203


in communicating with them, sorting out differences in expectations and understanding of basic library purpose, and integrating library services into educational and other programs. The unique characteristics and tensions within the detention environment present barriers to communication and cooperation among the various service entities that operate in detention, including libraries, and these deficiencies have been long documented in the social services and corrections fields. Although multiagency partnerships that integrate services have been noted for their effectiveness in youth interventions, libraries have thus far lacked visibility in these partnerships. Reading and literacy for these at-risk youth is as important as reading and literacy for everyone else. Libraries need to help these teens prepare to reenter society where they may not have adequate support from family, school, or community. Better understanding of communication and cooperation across agencies is needed in order to improve library services to juveniles in detention.

NOTES 1. A comprehensive survey of library services to juveniles in detention conducted by the author was underway in 2010–2011, funded in part by a Diversity Research Grant from the American Library Association. 2. YALSA-LOCKDOWN is coordinated by the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA). PRISON-L is coordinated by the Association of Specialized and Cooperative Libraries Association (ASCLA). 3. Status offenses are relatively minor transgressions such as running away, truancy, or underage drinking – activities that would not be considered crimes for adults but which are not permitted for juveniles. Delinquent offenses are activities that are considered criminal at any age, such as theft, arson, or assault.

REFERENCES Altschuler, D. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2002). Juvenile corrections and continuity of care in a community context: The evidence and promising directions. Federal Probation, 66, 72–77. American Correctional Association and American Library Association. (1975). Library standards for juvenile correctional institutions. College Park, MD: ACA/ALA Health and Rehabilitative Library Services Division Joint Committee on Institution Libraries. Angier, N., Cohen, R., & Morrison, J. (2001). Juvenile justice outreach: Library services at detention centers. PNLA Quarterly, 66, 16.

204

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

Angier, N., & O’Dell, K. (2000). The book group behind bars. Voice of Youth Advocates, 23, 331–333. Armstrong, M. L. (1998). Adolescent pathways: Exploring the intersections between child welfare and juvenile justice, PINS, and mental health. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies. (1980). Survey of library service in local correctional facilities. Chicago: American Library Association. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies and American Library Association. (1999). Library standards for juvenile correctional facilities. Chicago: American Library Association. Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 149–164. Blomberg, T. G., Blomberg, J., Waldo, G. P., Pesta, G., & Bellows, J. (2006). Juvenile justice education, no child left behind, and the National Collaboration Project. Corrections Today, 63, 143–146. Bodart, J. R. (2008). It’s all about the kids: Presenting options and opening doors. Young Adult Library Services, 7, 35–45. Carlson, L. (1997). A day in detention. ALKI, 13, 18. Clark County (WA) Juvenile Court. (2008). Balanced and restorative juvenile justice. Available at http://www.clark.wa.gov/juvenile/balanced.html Correctional Education Association. (2004). Performance standards for correctional education programs in juvenile institutions. Elkridge, MD: Correctional Education Association. Darlington, Y., Feeney, J., & Rixon, K. (2005). Interagency collaboration between child protection and mental health services: Practices, attitudes and barriers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1085–1098. Davis, V. A. (2000). Breaking out of the box: Reinventing a juvenile-center library. American Libraries, 31, 58–61. Dawes, S. (2003). The role of trust in new models of collaboration. New models of collaboration: A guide for managers. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY. Dohrn, B. (2002). The school, the child, and the court. In: M. K. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring & D. S. Tanenhaus (Eds), A century of juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feldstein, S. W., & Ginsburg, J. I. D. (2009). Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ rolling with resistance: Motivational interviewing in juvenile justice settings. In: D. W. Springer & A. R. Roberts (Eds), Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York: Springer. Fenster-Sparber, J. (2008). New York City’s most troubled youth: Getting caught reading at Passages Academy libraries. Knowledge Quest, 37, 30–33. Gaetz, I. (2009). Collaborative librarianship: New light on a brilliant concept. Collaborative Librarianship, 1, 1–12. Gant, J. P. (2003). Information sharing, communication and coordination in E-government collaborations. In: New models of collaboration: A guide for managers. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY. Gardner, S. (1999). Beyond collaboration to results: Hard choices in the future of services to children and families. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Collaboration for Children. Gilman, I. (2008). Beyond books: Restorative librarianship in juvenile detention centers. Public Libraries, 47, 59–66. Green, B. L., Rockhill, A., & Burns, S. (2008). The role of interagency collaboration for substance-abusing families involved with child welfare. Child Welfare, 87, 29–61.


205

Griffin, P. (2003). Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Boxer, P. (2008). What works: Best practices with juvenile offenders. In: R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra & P. Boxer (Eds), Treating the juvenile offender. New York: Guilford Press. Gunawardena, S., Weber, R., & Agosto, D. E. (2010). Finding that special someone: Interdisciplinary collaboration in an academic context. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51, 210–221. Herald, D. T. (2004). Making a difference: Incarcerated teens speak. Young Adult Library Services, 3, 20. Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Tam, B., & Lamontagne, M. (2003). Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69, 195–209. Jones, P. (2004). Reaching out to young adults in jail. Young Adult Library Services, 3, 16–19. Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program (2005). 2004 annual report to the Florida Department of Education: Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program. Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL. Landsberg, G., & Rees, J. (2009). Forensic practices and serving dually diagnosed youth involved with the juvenile justice system. In: D. W. Springer & A. R. Roberts (Eds), Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Ledonne, M., Christiano, D., & Scantlebury, J. (1974). Survey of library and information problems in correctional institutions. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Linden, R. (2002). A framework for collaborating. The Public Manager, 31, 3–6. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Peterchuk, D. (2003). Child delinquency: Early intervention and prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention. Malizia, A., Bottoni, P., & Levialdi, S. (2010). Generating collaborative systems for digital libraries: A model-driven approach. Information Technology and Libraries, 29(4), 171–186. McLellan, K., & Suellentrop, T. (2007). Serving teens doing time. Voice of Youth Advocates, 30, 403–407. McNamara, R. H. (2008). The lost population: Status offenders in America. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Neighbors, I. A., Green-Faust, L., & Beyer, K. V. (2004). Curricula development in forensic social work at the MSW and post-MSW levels. Social work and the law: Proceedings of the National Organization of Forensic Social Work, 2000. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Oberg, A. (1999). The school librarian and the classroom teacher: Partners in curriculum planning. In: K. Haycock (Ed.), Foundations for effective school library media programs. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M. A. (2000). And justice for some: Differential treatment of minority youth in the justice system. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. Polivka, B. J., Dresbach, S., Heimlich, J., & Elliot, M. (2001). Interagency relationships among rural early intervention collaboratives. Public Health Nursing, 18, 340–349. Prefontaine, L. (2003), Risk management in new models of collaboration. New models of collaboration: A guide for managers. Quebec City: Centre Francophone d’Informatisation des Organizations (CEFRIO).

206

JENNIFER K. SWEENEY

Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Teufel-Shone, N. I., & Huddleston, C. (2004). Network analysis as a tool for assessing and building community capacity for provision of chronic disease services. Health Promotion Practice, 5, 174–181. Puritz, P., & Scale, M. A. (1998). Beyond the walls: Improving conditions of confinement for youth in custody. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Rosenheim, M. (2002). The modern American juvenile court. In: M. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring & D. S. Tanenhaus (Eds), A century of juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenheim, M. K., Zimring, F. E., Tanenhaus, D. S., & Dohrin, B. (Eds). (2002). A century of juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (2008). Census of juveniles in residential placement databook. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Springer, D. W., & Roberts, A. R. (Eds). (2009). Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York: Springer. Thompson, D., Socolar, R., Brown, L., & Haggerty, J. (2002). Interagency collaboration in seven North Carolina counties. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 8, 55–64. UCLA. (2008). Young Adult and Children’s Services @ UCLA: Nidorf Project. Available at http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/yalsa/service.html Vogel, A., Ransom, P., Wai, S., & Luisi, D. (2007). Integrating health and social services for older adults: A case study of interagency collaboration. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 30, 199–228. Weitekamp, E. G., & Kerner, H. J. (Eds). (2001). Restorative justice: Theoretical foundations. Washington, DC: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Virginia D. Martin ABSTRACT School library media specialists (SLMSs) often struggle with assuming leadership roles. Discrepancies existed in perceptions of SLMSs of their leadership preparedness, their opportunities to exert leadership, and their assumption of leadership roles. The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore the perceptions of SLMSs regarding their instructional leadership and to examine the extent to which they practiced instructional leadership. The study was designed to determine whether there were differences between SLMSs perceptions of the importance of their leadership roles and their opportunities to practice those roles. The results of the study indicated that SLMSs perceived all of the leadership roles to be more important than they were able to carry out in practice and that supportive administrators were the most essential factor in providing SLMSs the opportunity to practice and expand their roles as instructional leaders. Keywords: Leadership; school library media specialists; leadership roles; media specialists roles; perceptions of library media specialists

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 207–287 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030008

207

208

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

The school library, well stocked with fiction, nonfiction, and a host of reference books, has always been the heart of the school. Rather than a storehouse of books and magazines, the school library media center now includes electronic books, multimedia resources, and remote access to a broad range of electronic resources. Information literacy, once perceived only as the ability to use printed reference sources, has now evolved into a capacity to use multiple types of technology effectively. Students now use online databases instead of encyclopedias, blogs and email instead of handwritten letters, and multimedia presentations in lieu of research papers. With the abundance of information and new technologies available to students today, it is imperative that instructional strategies shift to address the cognitive skills needed for students to effectively locate, analyze, evaluate, and communicate ideas and information. Media specialists are in unique positions to assist students in developing the essential skills they need to become successful information seekers and users of information for the 21st century. The most notable information literacy guidelines were established by the American Library Association (ALA) and outlined in the book Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning [American Association of School Librarians (AASL) & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), 1998]. Until recently, this guidebook supplied school library media specialists (SLMSs) with national standards that documented the need for them to engage in leadership activities in an effort to guide and foster academic achievement. It also encouraged SLMSs to assume ‘‘more visible, proactive leadership roles’’ in their schools (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 53). In October 2007, the AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (AASL, 2007) were released at the Opening General Session of the AASL. These learning standards expanded on the information literacy standards published in Information Power (1998). Martin (2009) wrote that, when these 21st century standards are ‘‘embedded into integrated, collaborative, content-based lessons, students gain the competencies needed to use, create, and share knowledge’’ (p. 7). She acknowledged further that ‘‘The part of librarianship that gets shortchanged in the day-to-day work of the library media specialist is leadership and advocacy’’ (p. 6). In keeping with this thought, SLMSs should initiate advocacy programs to promote the school library media program as essential to teaching and learning (AASL, 2009). AASL recently published Empowering Learners: Guidelines for Schools Library Media Programs (AASL, 2009). The guiding principles set forth in this publication focus on building a ‘‘flexible learning environment with the goal of producing successful learners skilled in multiple literacies’’

Perceptions of SLMSs Regarding the Practice of Instructional Leadership

209

(AASL, 2009, p. 5). These new guidelines call for SLMSs to develop their leadership skills and to build strong school library media programs that focus on empowering students to be ‘‘critical thinkers, enthusiastic readers, skillful researchers, and ethical users of information’’ (p. 5). When SLMSs are active leaders in their schools, they create a collaborative environment that enables them to support classroom teachers and instruction. This collaboration provides students enhanced opportunities to build the essential skills and competencies they need to be effective users of information. Such an environment also provides SLMSs the opportunity to ‘‘instill a love of reading and information literary skills in their students’’ (Lance, 2002, p. 77) while providing them with the opportunity to become more actively engaged in instruction. However, when two SLMSs were interviewed, both felt unprepared to be leaders when they first assumed their duties. One of the two responded that although her administrators and colleagues acknowledged her as a school leader now, gaining that recognition was a lengthy process that developed out of her personal initiatives to improve her own personal effectiveness. Even now, she admitted that she had to continually work at being recognized as a leader in curriculum areas. Accordingly, this study was based on the professional vision that media specialists demonstrate leadership abilities as they collaborate with teachers and administrators, manage the school library, supervise staff, and mentor others. Collaborative efforts allow them to more effectively assist learners in meeting their information needs. Collaboration also increases the opportunities for SLMSs to introduce and promote new technologies and participate in curriculum reform efforts.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Many of the research studies examined during the literature review focused primarily on the traditional roles of the SLMS (McCracken, 2000; McIntosh, 1994; Shelton, 2002). School library studies have traditionally focused primarily on evaluating school library media programs in an effort to discern the impact of SLMSs and to substantiate the impact of school library media programs on academic achievement (Lance & Loertscher, 2005; Lance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2000b). In 1993, Grover and Fowler cited the need for more studies to investigate the connection between leadership and the roles of the SLMS. According to Pace (2007), there was still a need for ‘‘additional research in the leadership roles and traits of the school library media specialist’’ (p. xi). Pace (2007) identified a need for additional studies

210

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

that would examine the effect that administrative support has on the the school library media program. As early as 1978, leaders in the field of library education recognized the need for graduate schools to offer advanced levels of certification and specialization for school library media professionals. Vandergrift (1978) stated, ‘‘Improved standards for certification are necessary if future generations of information users are to receive the kind of introduction to and appreciation of libraries that a talented and well-trained school media specialist can provide’’ (p. 606). In a review of literature related to the education of SLMSs, Barron (1990) reported that the ‘‘Research base for the education of school library media specialists is meager’’ (p. 221). Shannon (2002) concluded that SLMSs should enter the educational setting with the attitude that professional preparation has just begun and that it is a constant, ongoing learning process that makes continuing education and professional learning critical.

The Problem In the midst of pressure for higher test scores and greater accountability, coupled with inadequate support from administrators and teachers, SLMSs often struggle to assume instructional leadership roles. Library literature and current library research emphasized the importance of SLMSs assuming leadership roles in their schools; however, discrepancies exist between the leadership preparedness of SLMSs, the opportunities to exert leadership, and the actual practice of those roles. The problem of SLMSs not having leadership skills has an impact on schools because national library media guidelines and state media specialist evaluation instruments have established standards with the expectation that SLMSs will assume leadership roles immediately upon entering the profession. The assumption of effective leadership roles is requisite as SLMSs collaborate with teachers and administrators to assist students in meeting their information needs (AASL & AECT, 1998). Barriers are present that prevent SLMSs from fulfilling those expectations. These include a lack of support and understanding from administrators and teachers who are inadequately educated about the role of the SLMS, a lack of leadership training for SLMSs, and a lack of practical work experience may compound this problem. This study explored the SLMSs’ perceptions of their roles as leaders. It was anticipated that the findings of this study would reveal that SLMSs do


211

not practice the instructional leadership roles to the extent that they are perceived to be important. Haycock (1999) stated, You cannot simply transfer a teacher from the classroom to the library resource center and presume that the knowledge of information skills and strategies, collaborative planning, team teaching, resource-based learning and the evaluation, selection, and organization of materials is all intuitive. (p. 9)

Williams (2005) echoed Haycock’s conclusions and stated, ‘‘Leadership skills for individuals require the appropriate staff development and training to develop the necessary skills to be the leaders in our schools and profession’’ (p. 5). Lack of confidence in their own ability to lead, a lack of time to practice leadership roles, and the lack of administrative support may also prove to be barriers that prevent SLMSs from becoming active leaders (Hartzell, 2003; Roberson, Applin, & Schweinle, 2005). The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore the perceptions of LMS’s relating to the role of instructional leadership and to determine the extent to which SLMSs currently practice instructional leadership. This study also examined the difference between SLMSs’ perceptions of the importance of the leadership roles and the actual practice of these roles. The research questions that guided this study were: 1. What are the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the importance of their role in instructional leadership? 2. What are the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the degree to which they currently practice the role of instructional leadership? 3. What is the difference between the SLMSs’ perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and their practice of those roles? Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and the practice of those roles. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and the practice of those roles.

Conceptual Framework The metaphor of the school as a community of learners emerged as a predominant theme in the 1980s. This paradigm called for both individual and collective growth, as well as a move to a more collaborative environment

212

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

that characterized the school as a learning organization (Lambert et al., 2002). The sense of a learning community not only referred to the bonding of students and teachers into a cohesive educational environment, but also extended to the idea of a community of leaders with shared responsibility for school governance and the achievement of goals (Barth, 1990, 2001). The conceptual framework of this study was based on the principle that constructivist leadership promotes informed decision making and shared inquiry when principals, educators, and SLMSs work together from within the school to improve educational practices. Lambert et al. (2002) encouraged school districts to adopt a constructivist character that promoted informed decision making. Constructivist leadership principles emphasized shared inquiry and action research as important means of problem identification and as a method for improving educational practices (Lambert et al., 2002). The concept of constructivist leadership called for school leaders to create a shared purpose of schooling among the learning community (Lambert et al., 2002). Effective leaders, according to Lambert et al. (2002), understood the importance of distributed leadership and believed that all members of the learning community were responsible for student achievement. According to Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001), the theory of distributed leadership focused on leadership as it related to the transformation of teaching and learning. This transformative perspective of leadership promoted empowering others by distributing leadership among positional and informal leaders (Spillane et al., 2001), including the SLMS. According to Barth (2001), the teaching profession was in desperate need of educators who worked from within to provide a quality education for students while subtly changing the underlying culture of the school. For SLMSs, this type of leadership involved ‘‘leading from the middle’’ (Herrin as cited in AASL & AECT, 1988, p. 53) by coaching others, assisting key decision makers, and leading others as such opportunities become available (AASL & AECT, 1998). With the rise of information technologies, the traditional notion of information literacy has been transformed to include a number of literacies essential for the 21st century living (Bruce, 2004). Bruce stated, ‘‘Information literacy is a natural extension of the concept of literacy in our information society, and information literacy education is the catalyst required to transform the information society of today into the learning society of tomorrow’’ (p. 1). Bruce acknowledged that the teacher-librarian was essential in building information literacy into the curriculum. The AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (2007) promote positive social change by specifically addressing the need for students to learn how to ‘‘share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as


213

members of our democratic society’’ (p. 5). These standards encourage students to: participate and collaborate as members of a social and intellectual network of learners; connect learning to community issues; show social responsibility by participating actively with others in learning situations; and use information and technology ethically and responsibly. (AASL, 2007, p. 5) SLMSs have the opportunity to promote positive social change and create environments that encourage curiosity and critical thinking, offer opportunities that encourage students to learn, and provide the tools necessary to seek knowledge through reading. Intellectual and personal growth from such opportunities enables students to effect social change as they take their places in society. Information literacy not only empowers individuals to take control of their own lives, but also provides society the opportunity to take action for the benefit of others and for the greater good (Ward, 2006).

THE LITERATURE This literature review begins with an historical overview of the three major turning points in social development and the subsequent implications for education, for the development of school libraries, and for the development of an information society. A review of learning theories related to information literacy is also discussed followed by a review of library impact studies and related research. Subsequent sections examine the perceptions of the learning community toward the roles of the SLMS. Historical Background Social ‘‘wavefront’’ analysis, as defined by Toffler and Toffler (1995), ‘‘looks at history as a succession of rolling waves of change and asks us where the leading edge of each wave is carrying us’’ (p. 21). Toffler (1980) stated: A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles; changed ways of working, loving, and living; a new economy; new political conflicts; and beyond all this an altered consciousness as welly . The dawn of this new civilization is the single most explosive fact of our lifetimes. (p. 25)

214

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

According to Toffler (1980), the human race has lived through three great waves of change. The First Wave, the Agricultural Revolution, lasted thousands of years and was the first turning point in human social development. Although the Second Wave, the Industrial Revolution, lasted only 300 years, it brought about many changes that continue to influence our lives today. The nuclear family, the factory-style school, and the giant corporation were the three defining social institutions of Second Wave societies (Toffler, 1980). As field workers became factory workers, standardization became the accepted norm for all areas of life including education. The concept of mass education, based on the factory model, stressed basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. Factory labor demanded workers who could take orders without question, arrive at work on time, and perform repetitious operations. The underlying educational curriculum of the Second Wave echoed the factory model and stressed punctuality, obedience, rote performance, and repetitive work. The Third Wave, which was the migration from an industrial to an information society, challenged the Second Wave ethics of synchronization, standardization, and punctuality, and called for a decentralized philosophy with a shift to decentralized decision making. The merge of the First Wave ‘‘producer’’ with the Second Wave ‘‘consumer’’ gave birth to the ‘‘prosumer’’ of the Third Wave (Toffler, 1980, p. 283). The Third Wave also challenged the Second Wave notion that education must take place in a classroom. Toffler predicted that more learning would occur outside of the classroom, that the years of compulsory schooling would decrease, and that education would become more interwoven with work.

The Second Wave and the Development of School Libraries During the 19th century, the public recognized the need for school libraries. The earliest known school library was established in 1844 (Johnson, 1965), and the first trained school librarian was employed fulltime in a Brooklyn, New York, school in 1900 (Cole, 1959). By 1875, 20 states had enacted laws to establish school libraries; however, these were not very successful. The lack of facilities to house growing book collections and the lack of qualified personnel for selecting and circulating the collections proved to be a hindrance to the success of early school library programs (Cole, 1959). As early as the 1880s, the importance of having books available at all times was realized as school systems began to promote reading for pleasure (Johnson, 1965). However, after 1900 the concept of an independent school


215

library was widely accepted. Educational theories of the time emphasized the importance of creating a child-centered school where the child was to be ‘‘educated not for a profession but for a well-rounded, meaningful life’’ (p. 342). Although elementary schools preferred classroom collections, secondary schools preferred a centralized library. In keeping with the needs of an industrial society, Johnson noted that the typical method of instruction was lecture and rote memorization, negating the need for collaboration between the teacher and the school librarian. However, by 1920, the presence of a school library was more common, and a demand for teacher-librarians became the answer to school library staffing needs. In 1925, the ALA and the National Education Association (NEA) jointly published a set of recommended standards for elementary school libraries (Michie & Holton, 2005). Then, in 1945, using quantitative measurements, the ALA compiled and published a second set of standards for school libraries that contained six sections related to the quality of library service including: ‘‘school library in education; service to pupils and teachers; standards of personnel, book collection and other library resources; housing the library; and administration, supervision, and extension’’ (p. 7). After World War II, the number and types of libraries grew rapidly in terms of the number of library facilities as well as in the types of services offered by the library staff. This growth prompted a response by the ALA that called for a full-time trained school librarian for every 250 students with one clerical worker for every 500 students (Johnson, 1965). From 1999 to 2007, the number of school library media centers increased by 6% as a result of population growth, the need for additional elementary and secondary public schools, and the need for more school library media centers to service teachers and students (Davis, 2009).

The Third Wave and the Development of the Information Society By the 1950s, the industrial society of the Second Wave succumbed to the Third Wave’s push toward an information-driven society. All areas of business, government, education, and entertainment saw dramatic changes through the broadening expansion of television broadcasting and the use of computers. Brown (1999) stated, ‘‘There has never been a time in our history when so much information has been available to the general public and never before have our lives depended so much on our ability to use information successfully’’ (p. 66). Society, as well as an education in general,

216

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

was challenged by the transformation from an industrial to an information society. The move from the industrial society of the Second Wave to the information society of the Third Wave also called for a corresponding shift in education and a need to develop students’ abilities to think critically, solve problems, and develop competence in information literacy (Doyle, 1999). Toffler (1980) characterized the Third Wave as an ‘‘information bomb y exploding in our midst, showering us with a shrapnel of images and drastically changing the way each of us perceives and acts upon our private world’’ (p. 156). Throughout the nation, educators introduced new curricula focused on computer technology, but they failed to realize that the ‘‘requirements for effective functioning in the information society goes far beyond computer literacy’’ (Breivik & Gee, 1989, p. 12). In 1974, in a proposal submitted to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Paul Zurkowski introduced the concept of ‘‘information literacy’’ (Spitzer, Eisenberg, & Lowe, 1998, p. 22). Information literacy was more than the ability to access and evaluate information; it was: A process of thinking that enables one to seek, gather, retrieve, discern, analyze, evaluate, and apply information to solve the problem y and [it] enables one to assimilate and accommodate the information into one’s developing cognitive structure as knowledge, thus enabling the individual to solve future problems. (Mendrinos, 1994, p. 4)

Yet, the most influential event in the development of the concept of information literacy occurred with the 1987 establishment of the ALA’s Presidential Committee on Information Literacy (Spitzer et al., 1998). Their final report [Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 1989] defined information literacy and confirmed the need for information literate people in a democratic society: How our country deals with the realities of the Information Age will have enormous impact on our democratic way of life and on our nation’s ability to compete internationally. Within America’s information society, there also exists the potential of addressing many long-standing social and economic inequities. To reap such benefits, people – as individuals and as a nation – must be information literate. To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information. Producing such a citizenry will require that schools and colleges appreciate and integrate the concept of information literacy into their learning programs and that they play a leadership role in equipping individuals and institutions to take advantage of the opportunities inherent within the information society. Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. They know how to learn because they know how knowledge


217

is organized, how to find information and how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them. They are people prepared for lifelong learning, because they can always find the information needed for any task or decision at hand. (ACRL, 2010, p. 1)

The ability to think effectively is essential to a society whose political foundation was built on ‘‘an informed citizenry able to evaluate the merits and determine the consequences of various courses of action’’ (Mancall, Aaron, & Walker, 1986). Breivik and Gee (1989) stated: Information literacy is a survival skill in the information age. Instead of drowning in the abundance of information that floods their lives, information-literate people know how to find, evaluate, and use information effectively to solve a particular problem or make a decision, whether the information they select comes from a computer, a book, a government agency, a film, or any of a number of other possible resources. (pp. 13–14)

Mendrinos (1994) stressed the importance of creating and using resourcebased learning environments in the information literacy process. Mendrinos stated: The process of information literacy in a resource-based learning environment penetrates the foundation of instructional theory, expanding the potential of all levels of learners, particularly special needs, learning disabled and average students. Professional library media specialists are needed in partnerships with teaching faculty to explore, expand, and integrate resource-based learning within the curriculum. (p. 1)

Because of the move toward global communications and electronic information exchange, school media center standards underwent many subsequent revisions in an effort to reflect new developments in these programs. In 1988, the AASL in collaboration with AECT co-authored and published Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs. This text emphasized the importance of developing partnerships between teachers, principals, and library media specialists for the purpose of designing and implementing media programs that would meet the instructional needs of the school. The guidelines further recommended that SLMSs strengthen their leadership skills by participating on leadership teams, becoming involved in policies and decisions made at the district, state, and regional levels, as well as by becoming active members of professional organizations (AASL & AECT, 1988). In a subsequent effort to assist SLMSs in coping with the significant changes resulting from the explosion of information resources, AASL and AECT revised and updated the previous guidelines with greater emphasis on information literacy. Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning served as the guide for library media specialists as they developed effective

218

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

and dynamic student-centered school library media programs (AASL & AECT, 1998). The mission of the school library media program, as defined in this version of Information Power, advocated information literacy as the foundation for creating independent and ethical lifelong learners (AASL & AECT, 1998). At the end of the 20th century, the shift from the Industrial Age to the Information Age saw the rise of jobs that required employees to be innovative thinkers with the ability to solve problems, to possess effective communication skills, to work as a team, and to manage information effectively. The continuing growth of new information literacies demands that all students acquire thinking skills that enable them to become independent learners, use technology as tools for learning, and demonstrate ethical behavior when using social tools. In an effort to meet the challenges of educating students with these new skills and to provide a foundation for developing a strong school library media program in every school, the American Association of School Libraries (AASL) developed the new Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (AASL, 2007). These standards focus on the 21st century skills, and content knowledge and expertise, emphasizing deeper understanding instead of a shallow, low-level of knowledge. The new standards are based on nine foundational common beliefs:

Reading is a window to the world. Inquiry provides a framework for learning. Ethical behavior in the use of information must be taught. Technology skills are crucial for future employment needs. Equitable access is a key component for education. The definition of information literacy has become more complex as resources and technologies have changed. The continuing expansion of information demands that all individuals acquire the thinking skills that will enable them to learn on their own. Learning has a social context. School libraries are essential to the development of learning skills. (AASL, 2007, pp. 12–13) The new school library media standards are divided into four broad areas that describe how learners use skills, resources, and tools to: inquire, think critically, and gain knowledge; draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and create new knowledge;


219

share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of our democratic society; and pursue personal and aesthetic growth. (AASL, 2007, p. 14) For students to be successful in the 21st century, SLMSs must lead the way in building school library media programs that provides opportunities for students to locate and use information resources in a responsible and ethical manner (AASL, 2009).

Learning Theories Learning theories followed, in kind, society’s migration from an industrial to an informational global culture. Information literacy was ‘‘intricately tied to the models of teaching and instructional theory’’ (Mendrinos, 1994, p. 8). John Dewey (1916, 1959) viewed education as a social process in which the school is the community in which students can share and use resources for social goals. Dewey promoted the idea that students make sense of new knowledge when they work together. According to Dewey (1959), learning was an active process in which students build knowledge by interpreting and acting on information and experience. Dewey (1916, 1943, 1959) further encouraged the use of group processes that reflected the process of living in a democracy and maintained that authentic experiences, which developed reflective attention, were essential to learning. Reflective attention was attained through judging, reasoning, and deliberating and was developed when students had the opportunity to ask questions and then find answers to their own questions by seeking and selecting relevant material (Dewey, 1943). Building on the work of Dewey and the social construction of knowledge, Bruner (1960a, 1960b) and Vygotsky (1978) encouraged educators to create learning opportunities in which learners cooperated with one another in a supportive, active learning environment. Both theorists emphasized the need for a cognitive-developmental approach to curriculum reform and believed social interaction was vital to cognitive development. To fulfill the function of education, schools were to nurture the social and emotional needs of the child (Bruner, 1960a, p. 9). Slavin (1990) advocated cooperative learning as a means to promote group skills by sharing knowledge. However, cooperative learning extended beyond group learning only for the sake of knowledge and skills. Later research by Newmann and Wehlage (1995) emphasized and encouraged the use of standards for authentic instruction

220

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

beyond that of hands-on projects and advocated cooperative learning to promote teaching for understanding. According to Barth (2001), the community of learners’ underlying culture was one of support for the learning of others. The ability to work as a team, solve problems, communicate effectively, think creatively, and function as a leader were only a few of the skills that business leaders looked for in their employees (2001). Students who thrived in the 21st century would be those who became active, life-long learners (Barth, 2001). Proponents of modern education asserted that the role of schools was to promote authentic learning by all students (AASL & AECT, 1998; Harada, 2002; Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Authentic learning was not just about developing students who knew the facts, but also about graduating people who were able to interpret, process, and apply facts to solve real-world problems in ways that were meaningful to them (Carlson, n.d.). SLMSs, adept in accessing, evaluating, and using information, were in unique positions to assist students in becoming active users of information and critical thinkers (AASL & AECT, 1998).

Leadership in the Information Age During the Industrial Revolution era of the Second Wave, an unprecedented number of immigrants, unfamiliar with the English language, migrated to America, and the growth of factories introduced the need for a large number of factory workers. During this era, the goal of higher education was to produce a new professional and managerial class of citizens (Mulkeen, 1981). By using statistical analysis, children were grouped according to intelligence and academic performance. American children and children of more affluent families were considered superior to the immigrants and more suited to higher education and management roles (Lambert, 2002), whereas immigrant children were trained to be factory workers. Society’s belief in racial and ethnic superiority justified the sorting of students in preparation for fulfilling their life’s work. Schools then ‘‘assumed the role of society’s sorters, selectors, and certifiers,’’ (Mulkeen, 1981, p. 312) bestowing society’s approval on the more ‘‘deserving’’ students by providing further educational opportunities, thus better jobs and higher social status, while encouraging the more ‘‘undeserving’’ students to pursue vocational training to learn occupational skills appropriate to the working class (Mulkeen, 1981). Ability grouping and student tracking persisted well into the Information Age of the Third Wave, and this continued to limit students’ opportunities beyond school (Lambert et al., 2002). Although pressure to eliminate


221

grouping increased, the practice of grouping students based on ability was persisted. The movement that resulted in grouping and tracking students also shaped the concept of leadership and the relationship of the leader toward teachers in the school (Lambert et al., 2002). The role of the school’s leader was to ‘‘learn to deal with the different abilities of teachers and manage them successfully; and that teachers will naturally sort themselves into high-, average-, and lowperforming groups, much like students’’ (Lambert et al., 2002, p. 19). Lambert (2002) explained the disadvantages of this model by stating: This old model of formal, one-person leadership leaves the substantial talents of teachers largely untapped. Improvements achieved under this model are not easily sustainable; when the principal leaves, promising programs often lose momentum and fade away. As a result of these and other weaknesses, the old model has not met the fundamental challenge of providing quality learning for all students. (p. 37)

The limitations of this managerial style of leadership emphasized the need for educators to construct a framework for instructional leadership that would produce a more sustainable means for school improvement (Lambert, 2002). The creation of sustainable school improvement necessitated a change in leadership that would transcend ‘‘individuals, roles, and behaviors’’ (p. 36) and that ‘‘addresses the need for sense-making, for coherence, and for seeing educational communities as growth producing entities’’ (p. 35). A new definition of leadership emerged from reexamining the concept of leadership in light of the constructivist approach to learning. The ‘‘reciprocal process that enables an educational community to construct meanings that lead toward a shared purpose of schooling’’ (p. 36) became known as constructivist leadership (Lambert et al., 2002). In other words, instructional leadership was shared with everyone in the learning community, and, thus, the school culture was imbued with opportunities for participating in leadership roles (Lambert, 2002; Lambert et al., 2002). As the needs of the information-driven society changed, the role of the principal as the sole leader, authority, and decision-maker in the school changed. Effective principals created a shared vision with members of the school community, evoked and supported leadership in others, and encouraged and modeled collaborative practices (Lambert, 2002).

School Library Research The past 15 years were noted for the influx of state library impact research studies designed to examine the effect of school library media programs on

222

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

academic achievement and to encourage the integration of information literacy into the school curriculum. In 1993, Keith Curry Lance spearheaded the first Colorado study designed to determine the impact of school media centers on student achievement. This study confirmed that students who attended schools with well-funded library media centers scored better on reading tests regardless of their socioeconomic background (Lance, Welborn, & Hamilton-Pennell, 1993). The Colorado study findings also showed a positive correlation between academic achievement as measured by standardized test scores and the extent to which SLMSs were engaged in teaching information literacy skills and collaborating with teachers (Hamilton-Pennell, Lance, Rodney, & Hainer, 2000). Although the first Colorado study presented strong support for the importance of the school media specialist’s instructional role, these findings were based only on the number of hours the media staff spent locating and providing materials for teacher-developed instructional units and for time spent planning the units with the teachers. This study was also limited in that it represented only a small number of secondary schools, and it based academic achievement on standardized test scores instead of on more authentic student assessments. Stephen D. Krashen (1995), Professor Emeritus of Learning and Instruction at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA), initiated a study to examine the relationship between the number of books in a library and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scores. The results of the study confirmed the results of the Colorado study and yielded a positive correlation between reading comprehension scores and the number of books per student in school library media centers. Krashen (1995) also reported that school library media centers that receive substantial funding have larger book collections, allowing students greater access to books and thus producing higher reading scores. It was interesting to note that expenditures used to improve the quality of the school library media center were significant predictors of reading comprehension scores, while total school expenditures did not have as great an effect on the scores for reading comprehension. In 1999, the Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries (PCBL) contracted with the Library Research Service (LRS) to replicate the 1993 Colorado study (Lance et al., 2000b). The Pennsylvania study, directed by Keith Curry Lance, included a more detailed list of media staff responsibilities. Additional activities studied included how much time media staff spent in a typical week providing information literacy and library skills instruction to individual or groups of students as well as time spent preparing and


223

delivering staff development training to other educators. This study also included the time spent by the media staff in providing reading motivation and activities (Lance et al., 2000b). A noteworthy finding of the Pennsylvania study was the strong link between student achievement with respect to information literacy and school media centers. In addition, Lance and his associates noted that a significant improvement in reading scores occurred in schools where the media center staff spent more time teaching students how to access and use information resources. More importantly, the study revealed a positive correlation between student achievement and the increase in staffing, the increase in information resources and information technology, and the amount of time the media staff spent in instruction (Lance et al., 2000b). Lance and associates (Lance et al., 2000b) concluded: As library staffing rises, reading scores rise. This correlation is not explained away by other school conditions, such as per pupil expenditures by schools or the teacher-pupil ratio. Likewise, the relationship is not explained away by community conditions, such as poverty and low adult educational attainment. (p. 35)

One of the most significant findings of the Pennsylvania study was the importance of utilizing an ‘‘integrated approach to information literacy’’ (Lance et al., 2000b, p. 57). A large collection of books, periodicals, and other resources made a positive difference in student achievement if students used them in conjunction with information literacy instruction. Lance et al. (2000b) stated, ‘‘For school library programs to be successful agents of academic achievement, information literacy must be an integral part of the school’s approach to both standards and curriculum’’ (p. 57). As instructional leaders, SLMSs must work to build collaborative relationships with teachers to ensure that 21st century skills are embedded in the school library media program. In 2000, the findings of the Second Colorado Study confirmed the importance of the library media specialist’s involvement in leadership activities. According to Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell (2000a), While not having a direct effect on test scores, leadership involvement on the part of the library media specialist (LMS) has a strong impact on whether or not the LMS is working closely with teachers and students. At both elementary and middle school levels, the more the LMS is involved in school and library media professional activities, the higher the level of collaboration. Collaboration, in turn, does have a direct impact on test scores. Higher levels of collaboration result from (a) meeting regularly with school administration, (b) serving on standards and curriculum committees, (c) working with faculty at school-wide staff meetings, and (d) meeting with library media staff at the building level. (p. 4)

224

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Additionally, the Second Colorado Study revealed that a well-developed school library media program was a predictor of student performance. According to the study findings, reading test scores increased significantly in schools where the school library media center was well-staffed, better funded, and where students had access to appropriate information and technology resources (Lance et al., 2000a). Lance, working with Marcia Rodney and Christine Hamilton-Pennell, completed studies similar to the original Colorado study in seven diverse states. The unanimous conclusion from these studies was that, regardless of social and economic factors in the learning community, school library media programs that had a full-time library media specialist, support staff, and a computer network that connected the media center resources to the classrooms resulted in higher student achievement (Lance, 2001, 2004). Until 2002, state impact studies focused primarily on the relationship between the school media center and its effect on student achievement in regard to standardized test scores. In an effort to examine the complex dynamics of student learning beyond test scores, the Ohio Educational Library Media Organization initiated a research study of 39 effective school libraries involving 13,123 students (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004). This study was dependent on student evaluation of the media center and sought to identify and measure the ‘‘nature and extent of help provided by the school library in relation to student learning’’ (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 1). Students responded to 48 statements regarding the relationship between student learning and the school library media center. Of the students in grades 3 through 12 that responded, 99.44% indicated, ‘‘that the school library and its services, including roles of school librarians, have helped them in some way, regardless of how much, with their learning in and out of school as it relates to the 48 statements’’ (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 5). The conclusions reached in the Ohio study indicated that ‘‘an effective school library, led by a credentialed school librarian who has a clearly defined role in information-centered pedagogy, plays a critical role in facilitating student learning for building knowledge’’ (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 6). The findings of the Ohio study reinforced the need for SLMSs to develop leadership skills needed to critically evaluate their school library media centers and to engage in learning initiatives (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004). Collectively, the results were consistent in all studies examined, across all states and grade levels. In all studies, there was a positive correlation to test scores concerning (a) the number of library staff; (b) the size of the library collection; (c) the activities of the library staff in teaching information skills, providing information access, and in information delivery; (d) program


225

administration; and (e) the availability of library resources through networked computers throughout the school (Lance et al., 1993, 2000a, 2000b; Todd & Kuhlthau, 2004). The findings of the many library impact studies focused much needed attention on the needs of the school library. In many cases, this attention helped to strengthen school library programs throughout the nation by bringing to light the need to increase collection size and student library visits, as well as to achieve more flexible scheduling. However, a need remained to determine whether specific library interventions, such as program initiatives, products, practices, and policies, resulted in a measurable improvement in test scores (Lance & Callison, 2005). These researchers noted that the question was not whether libraries had a positive effect on student achievement, but rather how did achievement and learning improve when media specialists collaborated with the rest of learning community, when media centers were flexibly scheduled, and when administrators provided increased support and funding for media centers. Closer examination of professional practices was needed to provide a basis for understanding how exemplary school libraries influenced student achievement (Kenney, 2006). Indiana completed the most recent of the library impact studies in 2007. This study differed from previous state impact studies in that it not only replicated the quantitative research design from the original Colorado and other earlier state studies, but it also examined other aspects of the school library media program using a qualitative design. The Indiana Study explored the relationship between library media specialists, principals, and teachers and confirmed the findings of the other studies concerning improved test scores in schools with school media programs that were better-staffed, better-funded, and had well-stocked library media centers (Lance, Rodney, Russell, & RSL Research Group, 2007). The study defined better-performing schools as those schools where the principal not only valued the collaborative efforts between the SLMS and teachers, but also where the SLMS participated on school committees and met regularly with the principal. The Indiana Study clearly demonstrated that, at the elementary level, better than average test scores were evident when library media specialists perceived that principals and teachers acknowledged them as school leaders.

Perceptions of the Role of the School Library Media Specialist Although research showed that strong school library programs had a significant effect on student achievement, curriculum, and instruction, many

226

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

people in the learning community still did not fully understand the roles of the school media specialist (Angelo, 1994; Lance, 2001; McCracken, 2000, 2001). The learning community typically acknowledged only teachers as having an impact on student learning (Hartzell, 2005). Recognition of successful teachers was easy. Conversely, it was quite difficult to distinguish the extent to which the success of the teacher was a direct result of the instructional support provided by the SLMS or from the resources provided by the school library media center (Hartzell, 2005). Loertscher and Todd (2003) emphasized that the primary role of the SLMS ‘‘center[ed] on pedagogical intervention that directly impacts on and shapes the quality of student learning through their engagement with information’’ (p. 2). A pedagogical role such as this relied on the collaborative efforts of the SLMS and the classroom teacher as they worked together to ‘‘design authentic learning experiences and assessments that integrate a range of information and communication abilities needed to meet curriculum objectives, and to provide learning opportunities that encourage students to become discriminating users of information and skilled creators of new knowledge’’ (Loertscher & Todd, 2003, p. 2). Many factors affected teacher use of the school library media center and of the SLMS including ‘‘involvement in program planning by the teacher-librarian and team teaching, in-service programs organized or led by the teacherlibrarian, administrative support for the program, and the behaviors and qualifications of the teacher-librarian’’ (Haycock, 1999). The principal, according to Haycock, (1999) ‘‘is the key player in seeing that a [quality school library media] program is developed, supported, and enhanced’’ (p. 5). Corr (as cited in Haycock, 1995) concluded that the principal’s attitude toward the roles of the teacher-librarian was also an important factor that affected teacher-librarian involvement in curricular issues. Library research also indicated that teachers and principals did not fully utilize their library media programs (Roberson et al., 2005). Roberson and associates affirmed that, ‘‘As the instructional leader of the school, there is no greater influence upon a school’s culture than the attitude and actions of the school principal’’ (p. 51). The principal was a significant factor in developing an effective school library media program by allocating resources, adjusting schedules, and encouraging teachers and the media specialist to collaborate (Gniewek, 1999; Haycock, 1995; Roberson et al., 2005; Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005). Yet, in a national survey of 1,000 principals and 1,000 SLMSs, over 68% of the principals responded that they were not adequately trained in the management and function of school library media centers (Wilson & Blake, 1993). Over 78% of the principals agreed that they needed additional training


227

in the functions of the school library media centers (1993). These findings were supported by the results of the Indiana Study, which focused on principals’ perceptions of the role of the SLMS (Lance, Rodney, & Russell, 2007). Using the Wilson and Blake survey, Lance, Rodney, and Russell (2007) found that approximately 90% of the principals that responded to the survey learned about what SLMSs do through their on-the-job experience, whereas 26% of the principals learned about school library media centers from reading professional literature and only 7% reported gaining knowledge from college coursework (Lance, Rodney, & Russell, 2007). Vandergrift (1994) stated, ‘‘Some school administrators and parents have very little real idea what [media specialists] do’’ (p. 22). Hartzell (2005) claimed that the inability of administrators to recognize specific contributions of the SLMS in instructional support might have caused them to disassociate curriculum and instruction with school library media center services. Another reason media specialists and their programs are often overlooked was that media specialists did not promote themselves or their activities (Hartzell, 1997). Zmuda and Harada (2008) explained that one of the most common concerns expressed by SLMSs is that their administrators and colleagues have only minimal knowledge of the library media profession. Most administrators do not have a fundamental understanding of what the SLMS is capable of accomplishing if given the opportunity, resources, and support needed to become an effective teacher leader. The notion that principals often do not consider the role of the SLMS as important to curriculum was evident in a personal communication received from a local school media specialist. When this specialist was asked whether she would be attending the Georgia Conference of Media Organizations, she replied that she would be unable to attend because her principal only had professional development funds for training related to school improvement needs (K. Wyble, personal communication, October 8, 2007). Incidents such as this affirm the importance of demonstrating how the school library media program is essential to student academic achievement. How, then, could the perceptions of the SLMS be changed in the learning community? The first step, according to AASL, was for school media specialists to establish effective working relationships with teachers, administrators, and parents (AASL & AECT, 1998). Eisenberg and Miller (2002) encouraged media specialists to articulate their vision and agenda and to employ strategic thinking and planning by ‘‘spreading the message that school library programs promote student achievement and well-being’’ (p. 48). Media specialists should strive to become politically perceptive by recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities to promote the media

228

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

center, connecting with key participants in the learning community, and be recognized as a vital force within the school (Eisenberg & Miller, 2002). Wright and Davie (1999) also encouraged media specialists to become leaders in the school and in the community (p. 241). Harada (2002) stated, ‘‘To assume a visible and vital role in developing learning communities, school library media specialists must move beyond the service role of the profession to one of instructional leadership’’ (p. 15). Media specialists must substantiate their roles by documenting how they affect student learning and by becoming advocates for their programs (Snyder, 2000). Haycock (1999) declared, ‘‘There are clear and straightforward approaches that can be taken to ensure strong [school library media] programs and their continued development’’ (p. 3). The most important advocacy challenge for media specialists was to create an awareness of the school library media program for the learning community (Edsall, 1984). As technology continues to grow in importance, the responsibilities of the SLMS has expanded in terms of assisting students in developing the skills needed to be successful in the 21st century. To this end, the AASL revised the mission statement for school library media programs. According to the AASL (2009), The mission of the school library media program is to ensure that students and staff are effective users of ideas and information. The school library media specialist (SLMS) empowers students to be critical thinkers, enthusiastic readers, skillful researchers, and ethical users of information. (p. 8)

To accomplish this mission, SLMSs must ‘‘offer leadership from a peer level’’ (AASL, 2009, p. 47), and they must lend their expertise to assist the school in developing new models of teaching and learning to enable students to thrive in a global economy (AASL, 2009).

Meeting the Learning Needs of the 21st Century Student The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008) reported, ‘‘Creating an aligned, 21st century public education system that prepares students, workers and citizens to triumph in the global skills race is the central economic competitiveness issue for the next decade’’ (p. 1). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills further articulated that every American needed to become adept using 21st century skills that would ‘‘increase their marketability, employability, and readiness for citizenship’’ (p. 10). The Partnership highlighted six essential skills needed for workplace success. These skills


229

included the ability to (a) think critically and to make judgments; (b) solve complex, multidisciplinary, open-ended problems; (c) think creatively; (d) communicate and collaborate with others; (e) innovatively use information and knowledge; and to (f) make wise financial, health, and civic decisions (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 10). To succeed in this 21st century environment and to be competitive in this global environment, students must develop a high level of skills, attitudes, and responsibilities. The school library media center, traditionally known for ‘‘differentiation and the pursuit of authentic, inquiry-based tasks’’ (Zmuda & Harada, 2008, p. 10), is a natural venue for students to develop these fundamental 21st century skills. Although a strong connection existed between this new global, 21st century society and the school library media center, Zmuda and Harada (2008) noted that many SLMS positions are being eliminated and replaced with paraprofessionals in an effort to save money. Zmuda and Harada (2008) stated: This cost-saving strategy is based on the misguided supposition that it is the space and not the specialist that is required for 21st century learning. The theory is that if centers are well stocked with resources and are accessible for teacher use, then the skills will be automatically interwoven into the students’ existing curricula experiences. (p. 11)

In an effort to combat this misguided cost-saving strategy that is becoming more commonplace in many school systems, Zmuda and Harada (2008) encouraged SLMSs to recast their library media centers’ mission statements to include ‘‘expectations for student performance’’ (p. 12) and to directly support and reflect the mission and vision of the school. Zmuda and Harada (2008) further stated that, in a school where the mission becomes the mindset of the media program and where teachers and SLMSs work collaboratively, instructional time becomes a time in which students are engaged in ‘‘rigorous, authentic, transfer-oriented tasks that train them to intellectually grapple with big ideas, develop fundamental skills, and communicate effectively’’ (p. 23). This type of school reform requires that every staff member becomes accountable for student achievement (Zmuda & Harada, 2008).

The School Library Media Specialist as a Learning Specialist According to Zmuda and Harada (2008), the learning specialist plays a vital role in student achievement. Learning specialists are distinguished from

230

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

classroom teachers in that they are not responsible for the full assignment of students. According to Zmuda and Harada (2008), learning specialists are informal leaders who ‘‘have a teaching license as well as additional certification or credentials in a specialized area’’ (p. 24). Zmuda and Harada (2008) encouraged school administrators to think of the SLMS as a learning specialist to ‘‘create an additional layer of leadership within the school’’ (p. 24). SLMSs ‘‘have the potential for collegial leadership’’ (Zmuda & Harada, 2008, p. 37) and the ability to ‘‘forge partnerships that include all stakeholders in the educational process, including principals, teachers, and students’’ (Zmuda & Harada, 2008, p. 39). SLMSs hold unique leadership positions that have the potential to increase the expertise of the teaching staff by using collaborative activities, by designing and teaching staffdevelopment workshops, and by modeling skills lessons in the school library media center (Zmuda & Harada, 2008).

The School Library Media Specialist as Leader Leadership is defined as ‘‘the ability to influence or inspire others to achieve shared goals’’ (Dees et al., 2007, p. 11). Accomplished library media specialists demonstrate instructional leadership when they: develop programs and advocate for educational opportunities for the learning community; work in partnership with others to provide access to appropriate research and professional articles; use data identifying strengths and weaknesses of library media programs, and review best practices; keep the learning community informed of educational trends and developments; reinforce the importance of information literacy in daily life; and are members of their professional associations and willingly accept the challenge of leadership at the district, state, regional, or national levels. (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001, pp. 43–44) SLMSs demonstrate leadership when they actively participate in curriculum reform, when they promote reading and new technologies, as well as when they collaborate and share the responsibilities for instruction with teachers (Dees et al., 2007).


231

METHODOLOGY For this study, a nonexperimental survey research strategy was used to explore the perceptions of school media specialists concerning the importance and practice of the leadership role that they play in schools. Denscombe (2007) described the survey strategy as an ‘‘approach in which there is empirical research pertaining to a given point in time which aims to incorporate as wide and as inclusive data as possible’’ (p. 8). A survey was used to collect quantitative data regarding the attitudes of SLMSs toward instructional leadership. Use of the survey allowed for rapid turnaround in data collection and provided the means to identify attributes of the population using a small group of participants (Creswell, 2003). This method was also chosen for expediency in data collection, reduced cost, and the advantage of generalizing the attributes of the sample to a larger population (Creswell, 2003).

Setting and Sample The target population for the study consisted of approximately 300 practicing SLMSs within 14 school districts in Georgia that varied in demographics. All SLMSs in the 14 districts were invited to participate. Table 1 summarizes characteristics relevant to these districts. Permission to conduct the survey was requested from each district before survey implementation. All SLMSs from each of the 14 districts received either email invitation or a letter by mail inviting them to participate in the study. The email and letter offered a brief introduction that explained the purpose of the study, the importance of the participant’s response to the study, and the estimated length of time required to complete the survey. The invitation to participate included a guarantee of the confidentiality of the responses, a link to the online survey, and directions on how to access the survey (Appendix A). After opening the survey link, participants were asked to read the consent form and to agree to participate or to opt out of the study. The consent form acknowledged the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study; identified the obligations of the researcher and the participants; and assured participants that their participation was voluntary and that their responses were confidential. The survey was available to participants for five weeks. One week after the initial mailing, a follow-up email was sent as a friendly reminder to ask the

a

28 29

21,889

17

18

3

100

32,646

62

11

2

85.4

2

48 53

1

Georgia Department of Education.

No. of schools No. of school library media specialists No. of students enrolled % of students economically disadvantaged % of students with disabilities % of students not proficient in English % of schools meeting adequate yearly progress 2009a

District

88.2

4

10

49

12,268

17 17

3

Table 1.

92.3

1

10

59

10,527

13 15

4

90.9

8

11

65

7,302

11 13

5

100

9

11

70

5,443

10 11

6

88.9

0

7

32

6,810

9 11

7

88.9

8

9

67

7,505

9 13

8

71.4

1

13

65

4,078

7 7

9

85.7

2

14

53

4,680

7 8

10

Characteristics of School Districts Studied.

80

1

9

67

3,253

5 5

11

100

3

8

65

2,394

3 2

12

100

1

12

48

3,832

7 7

13

94.7

9

11

38

106,079

114 134

14

232 VIRGINIA D. MARTIN


233

participants to complete and return the survey. A second follow-up email containing the directions for participating and the survey link was sent to all nonrespondents two weeks after the initial mailing as additional encouragement to participate. Potential respondents, who had not submitted the survey after three weeks, were sent a third email containing the survey link. The survey included descriptive items for participants to complete to identify the number of years of professional experience they had as a SLMS as well as to identify the number of years each participant had accrued as a classroom teacher. The descriptive items were also used to gather information regarding the certification level of the participant, whether or not they had read Information Power (1998) or Standards for the 21st-Century Learner, and if they were members of a professional library/ media or technology organization. Demographic information was also obtained for each participant based on grade levels (kindergarten through fifth grade for elementary school, sixth through eighth grades for middle school, and grade levels ninth through twelfth grades for high schools). The survey contained 15 statements representing various leadership activities that are recognized as being integral to developing a successful 21st century school library media program (Appendix B). The 15 statements were grouped into four domains: administration, advocacy, collaboration, and professional learning. To reduce bias, the survey was divided into two sections, each containing the four domains listed above, along with the same 15 leadership statements. In the first section of the survey, participants were asked to rate the 15 statements according to the degree to which they perceived each statement to be an important leadership role for SLMSs. In the second section of the survey, participants were asked to rate the same 15 statements according to the extent to which they currently practiced that role. It was anticipated that, by dividing the survey into two sections, participants’ responses to the importance section would not influence their responses to the practice section. At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide further details regarding the leadership statements by responding to two open-ended questions. An open-ended text box was provided for additional comments. For the first open-ended question, participants were asked to describe the factors that enabled them to practice or expand their role as an instructional leader. The second question asked participants to describe the factors that prevented them from practicing the role of instructional leadership. The answers to the open-ended questions served to clarify the views of the participants and were useful in identifying

234

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

enabling factors that encouraged SLMSs to engage in leadership activities. These answers also provided a better understanding of the constraining factors that prevented SLMSs from assuming more active leadership roles in their schools. Attitude scales are used to measure participants’ attitudes, viewpoints, or disposition toward ideas. For this study, the researcher chose to use the Likert attitude scale used in a study developed by Anne McCracken (2000). The McCracken Likert scale allowed for a legitimate comparison between importance and practice items. Permission to use McCracken’s Likert attitude scale was obtained before survey implementation. To measure the attitudes regarding each statement for each section, participants were asked to express agreement or disagreement for each of the 15 statements using the five-point Likert scale. The Likert scale for each statement allowed participants to select from five response categories to rate their degree of agreement. The following numerical values were assigned to the various agree and disagree choices: 1, not at all; 2, to a small extent; 3, to a moderate extent; 4, to a great extent; and 5, to a very great extent (McCracken, 2000).

Data Collection and Analysis Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data generated by this study. Initially, data were placed into a raw-data matrix. The researcher then used descriptive statistics to summarize and organize the raw quantitative data into a more manageable form. Demographic items were summarized using descriptive statistics that were appropriate to the measurement scale. Inferential statistics were used to draw additional conclusions from the data. Responses to each of the 15 quantitative survey items were entered into the data table using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) analysis software. The SPSS Statistics software was then used to compute the mean, median, and the standard deviation for the responses to the survey statements resulting in a general overview of the distribution of the survey responses. To review, the research questions that guided this study were: 1. What are the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the importance of their role in instructional leadership? 2. What are the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the degree to which they currently practice the role of instructional leadership?


235

3. What is the difference between the SLMSs’ perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and their practice of those roles? For the first two research questions, the mean and the standard deviation were computed for all Likert scale items for both importance and practice. Comparison of the means and the standard deviations for each response were used to indicate if SLMSs practice the leadership roles that they perceived to be more important. For the third research question, a paired sample t test was used to assess the possible difference between importance and practice for all Likert scale survey items. The adopted level for statistical significance, po.01, was used to control for Type I error. The open-ended responses were analyzed using the SPSS Text Analysis for Survey software (Nie & Hull, 2008). This software was used to identify patterns of responses that were positively or negatively associated with the practice of the leadership roles. The openended responses also served to clarify the reasons why some leadership activities were practiced more often than others. A new survey instrument was developed to collect numerical data to determine the degree of importance SLMSs place on the leadership role and to assess the extent to which SLMSs practice these roles (Appendix A). A pilot study was then conducted to establish the content validity of the survey instrument, and provided useful information that allowed for the improvement of questions, reformatting of the survey instrument, or the revision of the scales. Ten percent (N ¼ 19) of the SLMSs in 13 of the 14 districts being studied were selected from the population to participate in this pilot study. The pilot participants were asked to follow all procedures associated with the survey and then to identify any problems they encountered that were associated with the distribution and completion of the survey. The pilot study was also used as a means to determine the feasibility of the study, provided the researcher the opportunity to assess the appropriateness and practicality of the research methodology, and was used to determine whether further refinement of the survey was needed. After analysis of the pilot survey data, it was determined that the survey was sufficiently valid and reliable to implement on a larger scale. It was also determined that the collection procedures were appropriate and adequate for survey deployment without revision. In educational research, reliability is the extent to which a measuring instrument yields the same result on repeated trials. For this study, internal consistency reliability and construct validity were established during the pilot study by administering the survey to a small group of SLMSs at two

236

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

different points in time. The responses from the pilot study were examined to determine whether similar results were obtained from items that reflected the same construct and to decide if the results were consistent for each item for the same construct within the measure (Trochim, 2006). To test the reliability of the survey instrument, the researcher used the testretest method. Three weeks after the initial survey deployment, the survey was administered again to the same group of participants. A correlation coefficient, known as the coefficient of stability, was calculated using the Pearson correlation, between the individual scores on the same measures from each of the survey administrations. By taking two measurements at different times from each of the SLMSs, the researcher was able to compute the correlation between the item responses from the initial survey administration and the item responses from the second administration of the survey. The correlation coefficient for the pilot study was .691, which is just slightly below the target level of .70. When reliability of the survey subscales was calculated, it was determined that the Importance coefficient was .857 and the Practice coefficient was .482. The higher scores on the Practice items suggested that the act of completing the survey and subsequent reflections on their beliefs may have influenced the practices of the SLMSs between the time of the test and the retest. A second measure of reliability is how internally consistent the questions on the survey are in measuring the characteristics, attitudes, or qualities they are supposed to measure. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to test for internal consistency. Coefficient alpha describes how well different items complement each other in their measurement of the same quality or dimension. The estimate of internal consistency of the survey was obtained using an analysis of the individual test items after a single administration of the test. Coefficient alpha is an appropriate method for computing reliability when survey items are not scored dichotomously, but have several possible answers such as those associated with attitude scales. The results of the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the pilot study administration of the survey are displayed in Table 2. The coefficient alpha measure was calculated for each distinct construct. The total values for the coefficient alpha for the Table 2. Items Importance Practice

Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha.

Set 1 Test

Set 2 Retest

Total

.768 .867

.888 .941

.915 .921


237

Importance and Practice items exceed .9 for both constructs, which suggests a high degree of internal consistency between items. Content validity addresses the extent to which the content is appropriate to the measuring instrument. To establish content validity, the statements for the survey were written using information from similar research (McCracken, 2000; McIntosh, 1994; Pickard, 1993). The survey items were aligned with the roles identified by national guidelines, and congruency exists between items and the established roles for SLMSs within the library media profession. Approximately 300 (n ¼ 300) SLMSs in 14 Georgia school districts were invited to participate in this study. Four mailings were conducted. One hundred and seventeen surveys were returned. Of the surveys returned, 88 participants responded to all statements including the two open-ended questions. Four participants responded to all of the statements but to only one of the open-ended questions, and 19 of the participants responded to all of the statements, but none of the open-ended responses. Six participants provided partial responses. Initially, survey participants were asked to respond to eight descriptive questions. These questions were designed to assist the researcher in identifying a) the school district of the participant, b) the number of years of professional experience the participants had as a SLMS and as a classroom teacher, c) the highest degree level earned by the participants, d) the current grade level of the participant, and e) whether or not the participant was a member of a professional library/media or technology organization. Because the statements were based on leadership roles as defined by Information Power and Standards for the 21st-Century Learner, participants were also asked whether they had read either of these books. Survey responses for the descriptive data as well as the responses to each of the survey statements were entered into a data table using SPSS. Table 3 provides an overview of the descriptive data that was collected using the survey. Within the 14 districts surveyed, 117 SLMSs responded to the invitation to participate in the study. District 1 (n ¼ 47) had the most respondents with a 97.9% return response rate. No responses were received from the two SLMSs in District 12. Other than District 12, the lowest percentage of respondents was from District 14 (n ¼ 134), the largest of the participating school districts, with only 12.7% of the surveys returned. District 14 requested that the school email system should not be used to communicate with the SLMSs; therefore, the researcher used postal mail to invite SLMSs in District 14 to participate in the study. It is possible that the low return

238

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Table 3. Descriptive Characteristic

School districts District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 District 10 District 11 District 12 District 13 District 14

Descriptive Characteristics. N

47 28 15 13 12 10 10 10 7 8 5 2 3 134

Number of Participants

Response Rate, %

46 13 5 7 5 6 3 4 3 5 1 0 2 17

97.9 46.4 33.3 53.8 41.7 60.0 30.0 40.0 42.9 62.5 20.0 0.0 66.7 12.7

N ¼ 304 N ¼ 117 Years of professional experience as a school library media specialist 1–5 34 6–10 36 11–15 22 16–20 9 21–25 6 26 or more 10

29.1 30.7 18.8 7.7 5.2 8.5

N ¼ 117 Years of professional experience as a classroom teacher None 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26 or more

30 33 25 10 11 4 3

25.9 28.4 21.6 8.6 9.5 3.4 2.6

N ¼ 116 Grade level of current assignment Pre-K to K-3 Elementary school Middle school High school Other (grades 6–10)

5 57 20 33 1 N ¼ 117

4.3 49.6 17.1 28.2 0.8


239

Table 3. (Continued ) Descriptive Characteristic

N

Number of Participants

Highest degree level Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts Master’s degree Education Specialist’s degree Doctorate degree (Ed.D.) Doctorate degree (Ph.D.)

1 64 48 3 1

Response Rate, %

0.9 54.7 41.0 2.6 0.9

N ¼ 117 Read information power: Building partnerships for learning Yes No

107 10

91.5 8.5

N ¼ 117 Read standards for the 21st-century learner Yes No

85 32

72.6 27.4

N ¼ 117 Member of professional library/media or technology organization Yes No

70 47

59.8 40.2

N ¼ 117

response rate from District 14 may be related to the fact that postal mailings were not as effective as using email invitations when soliciting responses to a web-based survey. In addition, the survey was administered late in the school year, within four weeks of school closings, and this may also have had an adverse effect on the response rate. Approximately 25% of the SLMSs surveyed had no experience as a classroom teacher, while 28% of the population had one to five years classroom experience, and 45% had more than five years of classroom experience. Of the participants, 29% had between one and five years of experience as a SLMS. The majority, 49.5%, of SLMSs that responded had between 6 and 15 years’ experience as a SLMS. Only 22% of the population surveyed had more than 15 years of professional experience as a SLMS. Approximately 53% of the respondents were elementary SLMSs. Seventeen percent of the respondents were SLMSs in middle schools, and 28% were SLMSs in high school media centers. Approximately 55% of the population surveyed had a Master’s degree and 41% had an Education Specialist’s

240

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

degree. Less than 4% of the population had doctoral degrees. The majority, 59.8%, the respondents were members of a professional library/media or technology organization. The books, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning and Standards for the 21st-Century Learner, supply SLMSs with the national standards that guide services provided by school library media centers. Although 92% of the respondents had read the 1998 version of Information Power, only 73% of the SLMSs indicated that they had read the latest standards prescribed for school library media programs as set forth in the book Standards for the 21st-Century Learner.

Results of the Study The importance and practice responses to each of the 15 quantitative survey items were entered into the data table using SPSS software. For the first two research questions, the means and the standard deviations were computed for all Likert scale items for both importance and practice. Comparison of the mean and the standard deviation for each response was examined to determine whether SLMSs practice the leadership roles that they perceive to be more important. Table 4 displays the mean, standard deviation, and mean difference for all importance and practice items for each of the 15 survey statements. For each leadership role statement the mean response to the importance scale was higher than the mean response to the practice scale. The mean difference for the responses indicated that SLMSs perceived all the leadership roles to be more important than they were able to carry out in practice. Across the 15 importance item totals on the survey, the standard deviation of 7.534 equated to approximately 0.5 point of deviation in participation per survey item on average. This indicated that respondents were very similar in terms of their perceptions and that they perceived all the leadership items to be extremely important; whereas, the standard deviation on the practice total was higher with 0.74-point average for each item. The standard deviation for the practice total showed more variation overall among respondents as to the extent to which they were able to practice the leadership roles. A summary of the ranges of mean responses for the importance and practice items are listed in Table 5. An examination of the ranges of mean responses revealed that responses for 13 of the 15 importance items have a

241


Table 4.

Mean and Standard Deviation for Survey Items.

Survey Statements

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

Administration and management of the SLM program Administration of the SLM budget Administration and supervision of staff Developing and maintaining SLM advocacy program Communicating knowledge and research findings Assuming active roles in professional organizations Communicating program plans and activities with the principal Fostering collaboration by working with teachers Serving on committees to develop SLM program Collaborating with the technology staff Serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning Mentoring newcomers to the library media profession Orchestrating access to information resources Pursuing opportunities for updating personal competencies Serving as a leader in staff development activities Total

Importance

Practice

Mean Difference

Mean

Standard deviation

Mean

Standard deviation

3.66

.529

3.40

.784

0.26

3.58

.729

3.12

1.114

0.46

3.35

.777

2.98

1.031

0.37

3.46

.789

2.70

1.067

0.76

3.24

.841

2.37

1.144

0.87

2.52

1.024

1.85

1.259

0.67

3.53

.655

3.08

1.055

0.45

3.64

.566

3.05

.840

0.59

3.40

.762

2.74

1.158

0.66

3.43

.651

3.04

.877

0.39

3.57

.595

2.99

.883

0.58

3.09

.878

2.46

1.197

0.63

2.77

.969

2.30

1.125

0.47

3.37

.713

3.11

.835

0.26

3.11

.896

2.62

1.071

0.49

49.820

7.534

41.534

11.124

8.286

242

Table 5.

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Ranges of the Mean Responses to the Importance and Practice Scales.

Scales

Importance Practice

Number of Statements with Means between 4.0 and 4.99

3.0 and 3.99

2.0 and 2.99

1.0 and 1.99

Less than 1.0

0 0

13 6

2 8

0 1

0 0

mean in the range of 3.0–3.99 (3 ¼ to a great extent) with only two responses having a mean in the range of 2.0–2.99 (2 ¼ to a moderate extent). No importance items had a response of less than 2.0. On the practice scale, only 6 of the 15 practice items had a mean greater than 3.0 (3 ¼ to a great extent). Eight of the 15 practice items had a mean in the range of 2.0–2.99 (2 ¼ to a moderate extent) on the practice scale, with one statement having a mean response of 1.0 (1 ¼ to a small extent). The majority of the importance responses, 86.7%, were between 3 and 4 on the Likert scale (3 ¼ to a great extent and 4 ¼ to a very great extent), indicating that the respondents perceived the 15 leadership statements to be important. Sixty percent of the practice responses were between 0 and 2 (0 ¼ not at all, 1 ¼ to a small extent, and 2 ¼ to a moderate extent) on the Likert scale indicating that SLMSs were less likely to be able to practice the leadership roles that they perceived as important. Table 6 (importance ratings) and Table 7 (practice ratings) display the same descriptive statistics used in Table 4 for the 15 survey statements; however, these tables are sorted by mean from greatest to least for each of the importance and practice items. Using the five-point Likert scale with 0 equal to not at all and 4 equal to to a very great extent, the highest rating received for both the importance and practice items was survey statement 1, ‘‘Administration and management of the SLM program’’ (M ¼ 3.66 for importance and M ¼ 3.40 for practice). These results suggest that the respondents perceived statement 1 to be the most important leadership role for SLMSs and that they practiced this role to a very high degree. Other statements that were ranked as very important included statement 8, ‘‘Fostering collaboration by working with teachers’’ (M ¼ 3.64), statement 2, ‘‘Administration of the SLM budget’’ (M ¼ 3.58), and statement 11, ‘‘Serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning’’ (M ¼ 3.57). For the third research question, a paired sample t test was used to assess the possible difference between importance and practice for all Likert scale

243


Table 6.

Descriptive Statistics for Importance Ratings Sorted by Highest Rating.

Rank

Survey Statements

Mean

Standard Deviation

1 8 2 11 7 4 10 9 14 3 5 15 12 13 6

Administration and management of the SLM program Fostering collaboration by working with teacher Administration of the SLM budget Serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning Communicating program plans and activities with the principal Developing and maintaining SLM advocacy program Collaborating with the technology staff Serving on committees to develop SLM program Pursuing opportunities for updating personal competencies Administration and supervision of staff Communicating knowledge and research findings Serving as a leader in staff development activities Mentoring newcomers to the library media profession Orchestrating access to information resources Assuming active roles in professional organizations

3.66 3.64 3.58 3.57 3.53 3.46 3.43 3.40 3.37 3.35 3.24 3.11 3.09 2.77 2.52

.529 .566 .729 .595 .655 .789 .651 .762 .713 .777 .841 .896 .878 .969 1.024

Table 7.

Descriptive Statistics for Practice Ratings Sorted by Highest Rating.

Rank

Survey Statements

Mean

Standard Deviation

1 2 14 7 8 10 11 3 9 4 15 12 5 13 6

Administration and management of the SLM program Administration of the SLM budget Pursuing opportunities for updating personal competencies Communicating program plans and activities with the principal Fostering collaboration by working with teachers Collaborating with the technology staff Serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning Administration and supervision of staff Serving on committees to develop SLM program Developing and maintaining SLM advocacy program Serving as a leader in staff development activities Mentoring newcomers to the library media profession Communicating knowledge and research findings Orchestrating access to information resources Assuming active roles in professional organizations

3.40 3.12 3.11 3.08 3.05 3.04 2.99 2.98 2.74 2.70 2.62 2.46 2.37 2.30 1.85

.784 1.114 .835 1.055 .840 .877 .883 1.031 1.158 1.067 1.071 1.197 1.144 1.125 1.259

244

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

survey items. In an effort to control for Type 1 error, the adopted level for statistical significance was po.01. Table 8 displays the paired sample and t test values for each of the items. The results of the t test comparing the importance items and the practice items confirmed that there was a relationship between perceived importance and practice. There was a statistically significant difference between the importance items taken for the survey overall and the practice items. In addition, when each individual item pairing (e.g., importance item 1 with practice item 1) was examined, it was evident that there was also a statistically significant difference for every one of the 15-item pairings. After examining the mean values of the descriptive items, it was also evident that the SLMSs perceived all the leadership roles to be much more important than they were able to practice. Two open-ended questions and one open comment box offered participants the opportunity to provide additional information regarding their roles as instructional leaders. The two open-ended response questions for this study were as follows: 1. What factors enable you to practice or expand your role as an instructional leader? 2. What factors prevent you from practicing the role of an instructional leader? Table 8. Paired Samples Correlations. Pair

Pair 1 Importance 1 & practice 1 Pair 2 Importance 2 & practice 2 Pair 3 Importance 3 & practice 3 Pair 4 Importance 4 & practice 4 Pair 5 Importance 5 & practice 5 Pair 6 Importance 6 & practice 6 Pair 7 Importance 7 & practice 7 Pair 8 Importance 8 & practice 8 Pair 9 Importance 9 & practice 9 Pair 10 Importance 10 & practice 10 Pair 11 Importance 11 & practice 11 Pair 12 Importance 12 & practice 12 Pair 13 Importance 13 & practice 13 Pair 14 Importance 14 & practice 14 Pair 15 Importance 15 & practice 15 Overall importance & practice

N

M

t

Significance (2-tailed)

114 113 113 109 109 111 109 111 108 110 110 111 111 108 111 97

.254 .434 .478 .771 .917 .676 .450 .586 .676 .383 .582 .631 .495 .287 .495 8.309

3.804 4.283 6.003 9.163 8.405 6.442 5.114 8.289 7.069 5.228 6.920 6.973 5.913 3.584 5.089 9.856

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000

245


In an effort to identify patterns of response that were positively or negatively associated with the practice of the leadership roles, the openended responses were analyzed using the SPSS Text Analysis for Survey software (Nie & Hull, 2008). The text analysis software allowed for the automation of the categorization process for the responses to the questions. By using the software, it was possible to quickly create categories and code responses more consistently. The open-ended responses served to clarify the reasons why some leadership activities were practiced more than other leadership activities. Table 9 displays the list of factors, in order of the frequency of response, that SLMSs reported as enabling them to practice or expand their role as an instructional leaders. Sixty percent of the survey respondents who answered the open-ended questions believed that a supportive administrator was the most critical factor in expanding their leadership role, and approximately 38% of the participants indicated that collaboration was essential to their success in expanding their role as a leader. Becoming more proactive in assuming leadership roles, pursuing professional development opportunities, having a supportive faculty, and having clerical support also ranked as important enabling factors. Table 10 displays the list of factors, in order of the frequency of response, which SLMSs reported as preventing them from practicing or expanding their instructional leadership roles. Seventy percent of the respondents that answered the second open-ended question declared that lack of time was the greatest factor that prevented them from effectively practicing instructional

Table 9. Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Factors Enabling School Library Media Specialists to Practice Leadership Roles (N ¼ 85). Enabling Factors

Total Responses

Percentage of Respondents

Supportive administrators Collaboration and planning opportunities Assuming leadership roles Professional development opportunities and activities Supportive faculty Clerical support Flexible schedule Available resources Welcoming environment Own willingness to develop leadership abilities

51 32 21 21 17 9 5 5 2 2

60.0 37.6 24.7 24.7 20.0 10.6 5.9 5.9 3.4 2.4

246

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Table 10. Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Factors Preventing School Library Media Specialists from Practicing Leadership Roles (N ¼ 84). Preventing Factors

Total Responses

Percentage of Respondents

Lack of time Lack of clerical support and other assigned duties Lack of administrative support Lack of support and interest by teachers Lack of adequate funding Resistance to the idea of SLMS as a leader Lack of district and state support Inadequate physical space Personal characteristics Technology limitations

59 33 17 16 16 9 5 3 3 2

70.2 39.3 20.2 19.0 19.0 10.7 6.0 3.6 3.6 2.4

leadership roles. Further analysis of the open-ended responses revealed that the lack of sufficient clerical support combined with other assigned duties was a major barrier in performing the roles of instructional leadership. Although only 20% of the respondents that answered the second open-ended question indicated that the lack of administrative support was an important factor that prevented SLMSs from effectively practicing instructional leadership roles, it was ranked as the number one enabling factor. One could argue that administrative support, in conjunction with the decisions that the administrator makes for the site, has a profound effect on the opportunities available for the SLMS to develop and practice the skills needed to be a leader.

Summary This study collected data regarding the perceptions of SLMSs toward the role of instructional leadership. Factors that were identified as being essential to developing a strong school library media program included: administration and management of the school library media center program; administration of the school library media center budget; administration and supervision of staff; developing and maintaining a school library media advocacy program; communicating knowledge and research findings regarding the impact of school library media programs on student achievement;


247

assuming active roles in professional organizations; communicating program plans and activities with administrators; fostering collaboration and building effective teams; serving on school improvement committees; collaborating with technology staff; serving as instructional partners in teaching and learning; mentoring newcomers to the profession; orchestrating access to information resources; pursuing opportunities for personal professional development; and, serving as a leader in staff development activities.

There were three research questions. The first explored the perceptions of SLMSs toward the importance of their role in instructional leadership. The second examined the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the degree to which they currently practice the role of instructional leadership. The third analyzed the difference between SLMSs’ perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and their practice of those roles. For research questions 1 and 2, the mean and standard deviation were computed for all Likert scale items for both importance and practice. For each of the leadership role statements, the mean response to the importance scale was higher than the mean response to the practice scale. The mean difference between the means of the importance and the practice items revealed that SLMSs perceived all the leadership roles to be more important than they were able to accomplish in practice. Overall, SLMSs who participated in this study perceived that the administration and management of the school library media program was the most important leadership role they played, and that they practiced this role to a very high degree. The leadership role that was perceived to be the least important and the least practiced was that of assuming active roles in professional organizations. A paired sample t test was used for the third research question to assess the possible differences between the importance and practice items for all Likert scale items. The results of the t test revealed a relationship between perceived importance and practice of the leadership roles. After examining the mean values of the descriptive items, it was evident that the participants perceived all the leadership roles to be a great deal more important than they were able to carry out in practice. The open-ended responses served to explain the reasons why some of the leadership activities were practiced to a greater extent than other activities. The open-ended responses also illuminated the factors that enabled SLMSs

248

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

to practice or expand their roles as instructional leaders as well as the factors that prevented them from practicing those roles. Overall, the participants agreed that a supportive administrator was the most essential factor in providing SLMSs the opportunity to practice and expand their roles as instructional leaders. Consequently, the lack of a supportive administrator was found to be a barrier that prevented them from fully realizing their potential as instructional leaders. Other factors that enabled participants to expand their leadership roles included the existence of opportunities for collaboration and planning, proactively assuming leadership roles, participating in professional development opportunities and activities, a supportive faculty, clerical support, a flexible operating schedule, sufficient resources, a welcoming environment, and their own willingness to develop leadership skills. Further analysis of the open-ended responses revealed that a lack of time was the greatest factor that prevented the SLMSs from successfully fulfilling all of the leadership roles. Closely tied to the barrier posed by time constraints were the lack of clerical assistance and the assignment of other duties to them that were not related to the media program. Participants acknowledged that the lack of adequate staffing in the media center prevented them from performing all the duties and responsibilities associated with leadership activities. Other factors that participants noted that prevented them from practicing instructional leadership roles to a greater degree included the lack of support and interest of teachers, lack of adequate funding, resistance to the idea of the SLMS as a leader, lack of district and state support, inadequate physical space, personal characteristics, and technology limitations. The importance and the necessity of dedicated support from school administrators and teachers toward SLMSs cannot be overemphasized. As noted in the findings from the Indiana study, better-performing schools were those schools where the principal valued and encouraged collaborative efforts between SLMSs and teachers (‘‘The Indiana Study,’’ 2007). Roberson and associates (2005) also noted that the support of the school principal was essential to developing an effective school library media center because principals were positioned to allocate needed resources, adjust schedules, and require that teachers and media specialists collaborate (Gniewek, 1999; Haycock, 1995; Roberson et al., 2005). Hartzell (2003) also confirmed the importance of having principal support in order to develop a quality school library media program. Hartzell (2003) stated, ‘‘Perhaps nowhere is a principal’s power to affect library programs more apparent than in the extent to which the teacher-librarian has the opportunity to serve


249

in a leadership capacity outside the library itself’’ (p. 22). Although many SLMSs surveyed reported that inadequate budgets provided by school principals were barriers to achieving their goals, money should not be considered as the only measure of support (Hartzell, 2003).

A DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS During informal interviews with local SLMSs, several participants commented that they were not prepared to be leaders when they became SLMSs. A review of school library media literature and school library impact studies revealed that strong school library programs had significant effects on student achievement, curriculum, and instruction (Angelo, 1994; Lance, 2001; McCracken, 2000, 2001). Library research further revealed that teachers and principals did not fully utilize their library media programs (Roberson et al., 2005). With impetus from organizations such as the AASL and The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, it has become evident that every student must become adept at using 21st century skills to be competitive in a global society. Although the school library media center was recognized as a natural venue for students to develop these fundamental 21st century skills, it has become apparent that media specialists must lend their expertise to assist schools in developing new models of teaching and learning to enable students to thrive in a global economy (AASL, 2009). Although a strong connection exists between the new global, 21st century society, and the school library media center, it was noted that many SLMS positions are being eliminated and that schools are replacing qualified SLMSs with paraprofessionals in an effort to save money (Zmuda & Harada, 2008). School library literature also documented the need for additional research studies that would investigate the connection between leadership and the roles and traits of the SLMS (Grover & Fowler, 1993; A. K. Pace, 2002). The conceptual framework of this study was based on the tenet that constructivist leadership promoted informed decision-making when school administrators, teachers, and SLMSs worked together to improve educational practices. In 1995, Linda Lambert and colleagues (Lambert et al., 1995) described constructivist leadership as ‘‘the reciprocal processes that enable participants in an educational community to construct meanings that lead toward a shared purpose of schooling’’ (p. 42). In 1998, Lambert redefined the concept of leadership to include ‘‘leadership capacity’’ (p. 425) as a framework for teacher leadership (Lambert, 2003). According to Lambert, a school with high leadership capacity has ‘‘broad-based, skillful

250

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

participation in the work of leadership on the part of teachers as well as other school community members’’ (p. 426). Effective principals evoked and supported leadership in others, as well as encouraged and modeled collaborative practices (Lambert, 2002). The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of SLMSs relating to the role of instructional leadership and to examine the extent to which they practiced instructional leadership. The results of the data analysis indicated that SLMSs perceived all the leadership roles to be more important than they were able to accomplish in practice. Data collected from the survey was used to address three research questions. The first research question explored the perceptions of SLMSs relating to the importance of their role in instructional leadership. The second research question examined the perceptions of SLMSs concerning the degree to which they currently practice the role of instructional leadership. The third research question analyzed the difference between SLMSs’ perceptions of the importance of leadership roles and their practice of those roles. For the first two research questions, the mean, standard deviation, and mean difference were computed for all Likert scale items for both importance and practice. Comparisons of the means and the standard deviations for each response were analyzed to determine whether SLMSs practiced the leadership roles to a greater extent if they perceived that role to be more important. For the third research question, a paired sample t test was used to determine the difference between the importance and practice responses for all survey items. The average deviation across the 15 important item totals was approximately 0.5 point of deviation, which indicated that overall the respondents perceived that all the leadership roles were extremely important. The average deviation across the 15 practice item totals was approximately 0.74 point of deviation, which showed more variation overall among respondents in the extent to which they were able to practice the leadership roles. For each leadership role statement, the mean response to the importance scale was higher than the mean response to the practice scale, which indicated that SLMSs perceived all of the leadership roles to be more important than they were able to carry out in practice. The ALA set the standards for SLMSs in regard to managing the school library media program. In the book, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (1998), effective management of resources was touted as the ‘‘key to maintaining a student-centered library media program’’


251

(p. 113). Information Power stressed the need for SLMSs to develop strong management skills that would be needed to supervise staff, coordinate complex technologies and resources, as well as to manage people, funds, equipment, time, and physical resources to provide maximum services to the learning community (AASL & AECT, 1998). Information Power also encouraged districts to provide ‘‘full and appropriate professional and support staffing, strong commitment from the principal and other administrators, and an adequate financial base’’ (p. 114) for school library media programs. In order to uphold the responsibilities of the school library media program, there existed a need for leadership in the form of certified SLMSs (AASL & AECT, 1998). The most recent guidelines, published by AASL in Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs (AASL, 2009), emphasized leadership by the SLMS as essential to developing an effective school library media program. According to Information Power (1998) and Empowering Learners (2009), the SLMS demonstrated leadership through the effective administration and management of the school library media program. This included creating plans for the library media program that give direction to the allocation, organization, and management of human, physical, and financial resources; assessing the program regularly; overseeing the daily operation of the library media program; and developing long-range strategic plans for continuous assessment of the library media program. (AASL & AECT, 1998; AASL, 2009) Overall, respondents to the survey perceived that the administration and management of the school library media program was the most important leadership role for the SLMS. The data analysis also revealed that SLMSs practiced the role of administration and management of the media program to a very high degree. In an effort to gather insight into the future of the school library media profession in regard to a 21st century learning environment, AASL Vision Summit conducted phone and web surveys with members of the learning community throughout the nation. Respondents of the AASL online survey were asked to rank the four primary roles of the SLMS (e.g., teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, and program administrator) in order of importance as they applied to the respondents’ current position (AASL, 2009). Respondents were then asked to rank the four primary roles in order of importance based on the future success of the school library

252

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

media program. Respondents perceived the role of teacher to be the most important primary role. However, AASL survey respondents believed that SLMSs must make a shift from the role of teacher to that of an instructional partner. The AASL survey respondents identified the role of leader as a fifth role to be added to the four primary rolls of the SLMS. According to AASL (2009), assuming leadership roles would be integral to ensuring the future of the school library media profession. In contrast, the AASL phone and online survey identified the role of program administrator to be the least important of the primary roles of the SLMS both now and in the future. However, in direct contradiction to the outcome of the AASL survey (2009), respondents to this study perceived that the role of program administrator was most important and that it was the primary role that was practiced to the highest degree. Kaplan (2006) stated, ‘‘The power of an exemplary school library media program is judged not only on the size of the collection and the physical space of the library but on the success of collaboration between the school library media specialist and the classroom teachers’’ (p. 37). Research confirms that higher levels of collaboration between the SLMS and teachers have a positive impact on test scores (Lance et al., 2000a). Doll (2005) expressed the concept of collaboration as the ‘‘coordination of classroom and school library media center activities and cooperation between teachers and the school library media specialist undertaken to ensure coordination of activities’’ (p. 4). Doll further underscored the need for teachers and SLMSs to collaborate as a vital component to prepare students for success in the 21st century (2005). Doll (2005) cautioned that the responsibility for attaining the new vision of a collaborative environment was not the sole responsibility of the SLMS but that it takes a concerted effort from everyone in the school community to make collaboration possible. Just as the SLMS must work to integrate library skills and information literacy throughout the curriculum, teachers must work to become more involved in teaching information literacy and should welcome the expertise that the SLMS is able to bring to that subject area (2005). As the instructional leader of the school, principals ‘‘powerfully affect the extent to which information literacy instruction is embedded in the body of the school’s curriculum and how the school addresses meeting state standards in varying disciplines’’ (Hartzell, 2003, p. 22). As a leader and role model for information literacy skills, the SLMS must communicate to the learning community that they have been trained as teachers as well as being prepared to be a source for information literacy skills (Doll, 2005).


253

According to Information Power (1998) and Empowering Learners (2009), the SLMS demonstrates leadership by fostering collaboration and building effective teams throughout the school and community. This includes working with teachers to integrate information literacy skills into the curriculum, and by identifying resources that support and enhance the curriculum; offering programs and services to parents and families; and connecting with community agencies and businesses to support the library media program. (AASL & AECT, 1998; AASL, 2009) Consistent with the findings of The Vision Summit survey (AASL, 2009), respondents to the survey viewed collaboration and the role of instructional partner to be crucial to the success of a school media specialist as a leader. One respondent stated that the ‘‘willingness of the learning community to collaborate and accept the assistance given by the media specialist’’ was a major factor in how successful a media specialist could be as an instructional leader. Although collaboration and interaction between teachers and the SLMS are important to the successful integration of literacy skills into the curriculum, many impediments exist that make it difficult to accomplish these goals in schools. Other impediments including poor scheduling, the lack of sufficient time for collaborative planning activities, and the perceptions of administrators and teachers all combine to make collaboration, and thus the integration of literacy skills, challenging in schools. Although fostering collaboration by working with teachers was regarded as being extremely important, respondents perceived that they were not able to practice this role to a great degree. Respondents commented that collaborating with teachers was very important but noted that finding time to meet with the teachers was very difficult. Respondents also reported that the lack of a full-time clerk was a major factor that prevented them from practicing this role. Respondents who had only part-time support staff indicated that clerical duties such as managing the circulation desk, making student identification badges, and answering the phone severely limited the amount of time available for them to meet with teachers in order to design instructional lessons or to teach students information literacy skills. Many respondents also noted that the opportunities available to them for collaborating with teachers were a direct result of support provided by the school principal. Conversely, respondents who perceived that they were not able to collaborate with teachers indicated that the lack of support on the part of teachers and the principal coupled with the lack of time, were the greatest barriers preventing them from growing as a leader in the area of collaboration.

254

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Hartzell (2003) confirmed the importance of the role of the principal in ensuring that teachers and SLMSs have the opportunity to collaborate. Respondents remarked that recent budget cuts have forced many school districts to eliminate key media personnel, both clerical and professional. This has severely affected the ability of the SLMS to perform effectively the duties and responsibilities associated with the administration of the media center. Outdated book collections, old technology, and a lack of current resources were also perceived as barriers that affected the performance of the SLMS to effectively manage the media program. Hartzell (2003) affirmed the importance of principal support as an essential element that was required for improving the quality of the school library media program. Hartzell (2003) stated that although money is important, it is equally important to create an environment where students have the opportunity to use the school library media center and where collaboration and interaction between teachers and the SLMS are valued and encouraged. Many research studies have noted the relationship between the quality of the school library media center program and the amount expended on those programs. The results of the Colorado school library impact studies revealed a relationship between student performance on tests and the expenditures provided for the school library media center. According to Lance et al. (1993), ‘‘Students at schools with better funded LMCs [library media centers] tend to achieve higher average test scores, whether their school and communities are rich or poor and whether adults in community are well or poorly educated’’ (p. 93). The study also found that, although funding was important, its specific purposes are to ‘‘ensure adequate levels of staffing in relation to the school’s enrollment and a local collection which offers students a large number of materials in a variety of formats’’ (p. 93). One of the key findings of the Indiana Study (2007) was that, regardless of grade level, students that attended schools with school library media centers that were ‘‘better-staffed, better-stocked, and better-funded’’ (p. 4) performed better on the state standardized test. McCracken’s (2000) study of over 500 SLMSs throughout the nation revealed that the second most cited barrier to expanding the roles of the SLMS was a lack of funding to purchase materials and equipment. According to Information Power (1998) and Empowering Learners (2009), the SLMS demonstrated leadership through the effective administration of the school library media budget. This included: overseeing acquisition and use of space, furnishings, equipment, and resources;


255

working with the administration to develop a budget that provides for the purchasing and upkeep of all resources the library media program requires to meet instructional needs; and organizing materials, resources, equipment, schedules, and space to stimulate and support productive and focused learning. (AASL & AECT, 1998; AASL, 2009) Overall, respondents to the survey perceived administration of the school library media center budget to be very important and perceived that they practiced the administration of the budget to a high degree. However, many respondents commented on the lack of sufficient funding to provide services and resources for the school library media program. One survey respondent noted that she had not had a school library media budget for the past three years and that that had prevented her from purchasing the necessary books, materials, and resources to improve her school library media center. Many survey respondents attributed the shortage of computer technology, the lack of sufficient equipment, and the inadequacies of the library book collection to be a direct result of the lack of an adequate yearly library media center budget. Hartzell (2003) noted that the size and currency of the school library media center collection, the hours of available service, the size of the media staff, the existence of adequate support staff, and the availability of a fulltime qualified SLMS were all tied to budget decisions made by the principal. However, comments provided by respondents of this study indicated that many of the decisions that affected school library media center funding were the result of inadequate funding provided by the school district. One respondent stated, ‘‘The county cut our second media specialist this year. Serving a high school of 1700 students and 100 þ teachers has been a problem.’’ Another respondent replied, ‘‘Certain procedures and policies that are put in place at the county level prevent me from practicing the role of an instructional leader.’’ Other comments regarding inadequate school library media funding included funding for media centers has been suspended indefinitely; loss of support for library media and technology due to loss of districtlevel supervisor positions; budget cuts; and loss of clerical support in the school library media center. Although respondents attributed the lack of sufficient funding to decisions made at the local school district-level, it is important to note

256

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

that several factors have directly influenced the allocation of budgets and staffing for school library media centers. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is the regional accreditor schools for the southern states. According to their 2005 Accreditation Standards for Quality Schools, the purpose of those standards was ‘‘to provide schools with guidance and support to develop and maintain a quality program with services that reflects a commitment to student success’’ (Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2005, p. iv). These standards required schools to provide ‘‘sufficient human, financial, physical, and material resources to support its vision, mission, and goals’’ (p. 7) and specifically required schools to employ qualified SLMSs based on the site’s FTE count. The standards also required that secondary schools with large enrollments employ two SLMSs. Within this document, there are nine standards directly related to maintaining and improving the school library media center including a directive for schools to provide sufficient budgets for library media services and resources. In subsequent editions of the SACS guidelines, specific requirements for staffing the school library media center were eliminated. The 2010 edition of the accreditation guidelines provided only a vague statement requiring schools to hire ‘‘a sufficient number of qualified staff – with appropriate education or experiences in library and/or other learning/information resources – to accomplish the mission of the institution’’ (Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2010, p. 29). Because of the changes in accreditation standards, many districts have begun to reduce the number of certified staff in the school library media centers in order to divert funds to other areas. In 2010, the State Legislature of Georgia voted to remove all expenditure controls for school libraries. House Bill 908, also known as the ‘‘flexibility bill,’’ waived expenditure mandates over media center funding until 2012– 2013 (Coleman et al., 2010). House Bill 908 granted school districts the discretion to redirect state library media funds to other school system programs. As a result, local school districts were free to reduce or eliminate all funding for school library media centers. In addition, due to a reduction in state revenues for the past two years, many schools across the state lost the second SLMS position, and many school library media center clerks were either reduced to part-time or saw their positions eliminated. Respondents perceived that assuming active roles in professional organizations to be the least important of the 15 roles they assume, and that this role was practiced to a lesser degree than the other 14. Although the


257

results of the survey indicated that active participation in professional organizations was the least practiced, 59.8%, of SLMSs that responded to the survey indicated that they were members of a professional library/media or technology organization. Only one respondent commented on the need to hold active memberships in various professional organizations as a means to become aware of trends and interests as well as increasing her knowledge of 2.0 technologies. According to the results of the text analysis, supportive administrators were cited as the most essential factor in providing SLMSs the opportunity to practice and expand their roles as instructional leaders. This supported McCracken’s findings that supportive administrators were the most essential factor in providing SLMSs the opportunity to practice and expand their roles as instructional leaders. As one SLMS stated: The main factors I have found over the years to be beneficial in promoting any program or practice in the school is how much the administrator supports/or does not support any media center program. When the administrator is willing to bring the SLMS into the fold and allows them the opportunity to do their job–then the sky is the limit.

Other comments that reinforce the need for a supportive administration included, ‘‘It is essential to have the support and respect of the school administrator. Promoting the LM program as an essential part of the school community by showcasing the activities, projects, goals, and services to staff, students, parents, and the community at large gives credibility to the LMS,’’ and ‘‘My administrator views me as an instructional leader. They see me as an important part of the instructional staff.’’ Responses also revealed that support from other media staff, other school staff, and district leaders were factors that enabled the SLMS to better perform in leadership roles. Collaboration was another category that the SLMSs noted as being an enabling factor. Many respondents cited evidence of being proactive in their collaborative endeavors by having sought out one or two teachers with whom to form a partnership in the hopes that other teachers would see the value in collaborating with the SLMS. One respondent stated, ‘‘A good rapport with teachers enables me to take advantage of opportunities for collaboration.’’ Another respondent stated that teachers wanted and expected her to teach information access skills and the Georgia Performance Standards. She indicated that she was proactive in establishing a collaborative environment by ‘‘working hard to develop a good relationship’’ with the teachers in an effort to meet their instructional needs. Additional comments made by respondents included the need to build personal relationships with teachers, take the lead on media and curriculum

258

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

committees, serve as site advisors in the use of technology, and stay abreast of changes in the instructional programs of the school. A permanent position on the school’s leadership team was also perceived to be important to expand the leadership role of the SLMS. However, although respondents recognized the need to participate on the leadership team, it was noted that support of the site administrator was essential to ensure that outcome. One respondent stated, ‘‘I have an extraordinary working relationship with the administrative leaders at my school, and I am included as a part of the school’s leadership team.’’ As a result, the administrators do not ‘‘assign me other duties that take away from my time in the media center.’’ Zmuda and Harada (2008) recognized that the extent to which faculty members accepted SLMSs as learning specialists was directly related to the degree to which ‘‘leadership structures that support learning specialists’’ were evident within the culture of the school (p. 27). Seeking opportunities for professional development and holding active memberships in various professional organizations were also noted as being essential elements for SLMSs. Taking advantage of professional development activities and opportunities to participate in professional organizations were perceived to be essential for improving technology and information literacy skills as well as for staying abreast of current trends and issues. According to the respondents, participating in professional development and professional organizations afforded them the opportunity to stay aware of current trends and issues of professional interest. One respondent stated that attending activities provide by professional organizations, ‘‘Helps me stay up-to-date with the latest Library 2.0 technology that can be used to promote active, problem-based learning opportunities for students.’’ She also stated that ‘‘serving as a member of my school district’s media leadership team provides opportunities for the exchange of ideas (brainstorming) with colleagues.’’ Respondents noted that having a faculty that supports their efforts was vital to their efforts to become leaders in their schools. One respondent indicated that supportive teachers who were willing to allow her classroom time to provide information standards and literacy skills instruction were instrumental to her role as an instructional leader. Having sufficient clerical support, a flexible schedule, available resources for students and teachers, and a welcoming media center environment were noted as important factors that needed to be in place for SLMSs to become successful leaders. A few respondents cited their own willingness and personal motivation as the factors that enabled them to develop their role as leaders.


259

The majority of the respondents acknowledged that the lack of adequate time to perform school library media duties was the greatest factor that prevented them from effectively practicing instructional leadership roles. One respondent stated, ‘‘Though I feel all of the leadership roles listed in the survey are important, I don’t feel I have enough time to truly develop all of these roles.’’ Additional issues associated with a lack of sufficient time included: having adequate time to attend professional development workshops; having adequate time to collaborate with teachers to jointly plan lessons; having adequate time to provide staff development workshops for teachers; having adequate time to integrate information literacy skills into the curriculum; and existing time constraints due to standardized testing requirements. Other activities that consumed time during the instructional day included the time needed to maintain equipment and other inventories and the time needed to attend to other assigned duties not directly related to the media center program. One respondent noted that there were many duties assigned to her that had no influence on the media center program, and these additional duties detracted from her time and reduced her ability to have an impact on technology, instruction, and collaboration. Additional time barriers cited included useless paperwork, unnecessary interruptions to the instructional day, time constraints on staff and students, and fixed schedules that limited the time available for specialists to spend with students and teachers at the point of need. The lack of time to sufficiently develop and improve the qualities that make SLMS leaders was the most cited reason as to why SLMSs were not valued as leaders at their sites. Zmuda and Harada (2008) confirmed that planning collaboratively with teachers was difficult if ‘‘time structures do not exist in the school day for that collaboration to occur’’ (p. 39). The findings from this study indicated that lack of adequate time to perform leadership activities remains a persistent challenge for SLMSs. The lack of sufficient clerical support combined with a host of other assigned duties was often mentioned as major barriers in performing the roles of instructional leadership. These two barriers had a direct impact on the amount of time that was available for the SLMS to fulfill leadership role requirements. One respondent described the situation by stating, ‘‘It’s almost impossible to run the circulation desk and make IDs while trying to meet with a teacher in regards to a lesson or teach the students.’’ Other comments included ‘‘Having a part-time clerk limits the time that I can

260

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

pursue leadership activities within the school,’’ and ‘‘The lack of full-time media clerks for every school, regardless of FTE count greatly reduces our role as full-time Library Teachers.’’ This respondent explained, ‘‘In effect, the state is paying people with Master’s degrees to do clerical work. This is work that must be done for libraries to run smoothly, and prevents me from accomplishing more valuable tasks.’’ Other duties as assigned limited media center staff from effectively performing leadership roles. According to responses, many SLMSs perform routine clerical duties such as making student ID badges, maintaining numerous asset inventories, moving and setting up equipment, processing new or condemning old equipment, shelving and processing books, dealing with copier issues, managing textbooks, and laminating materials for the staff. The lack of adequate clerical support forces SLMSs to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on clerical duties rather than dedicating their efforts and expertise toward more meaningful activities such as collaborating with teachers, working with students, and developing information literacy lessons that will improve student achievement. The lack of administrative support was often stated as an important factor that prevented SLMSs from effectively practicing instructional leadership roles. The decisions that the administrator makes for the site has a profound effect on the opportunities available for the school media specialist to develop and practice the skills needed to be a leader. As one respondent stated, ‘‘If the administrator is not interested in and/or does not see the need for students to read or gain information access skills; for teachers to have ongoing learning opportunities in-house; for the media center to be an all day long every day learning environment – then it is NOT going to happen, no matter what the SLMS does.’’ This sentiment was echoed by other respondents with comments such as, ‘‘It is the leadership of the administrator that can prevent media specialists from being fully indoctrinated into the role of instructional leader.’’ Another respondent felt that the perceptions of the administrators prevented her from having the freedom to build relationships with the teachers. The lack of support and interest of the teachers was the fourth most cited factor that prevented SLMSs from practicing leadership roles. Respondents commented that teachers were unwilling to give up classroom instructional time to collaborate with the SLMS or that teachers were ‘‘so busy’’ that it was difficult for them to make time to collaborate. One respondent attributed the failure of teachers to collaborate to the regimented schedules imposed on the teachers. Another reason cited by the respondents as a barrier was that teachers do not understand the role of the SLMS as an


261

instructional leader. The teacher ‘‘often views collaboration as an intrusion’’ while other teachers, even though they valued the role of the school media specialist as a leader, were unable to commit to the time necessary for collaboration because of the ‘‘mountains of paperwork [and] testing concerns’’ that teachers face daily. Resistance to the idea of a SLMS as a leader was also cited several times as a barrier. Respondents believed that regardless of the number of leadership roles that they practiced, administrators and teachers still did not recognize them as leaders. Respondents also reported that SLMSs were often overlooked as leaders and not viewed as partners in the education of students. To overcome the negative perceptions of the learning community, it is time for SLMSs to reevaluate their current practices and to move away from practices that allow students to just ‘‘collect information or resources in the library media center and then leave’’ (Zmuda & Harada, 2008, p. 40). As Zmuda and Harada stated: There is no upside to library media specialists collaborating with classroom teachers on tasks that are bad business. If library media specialists participate in the design and orchestration of this type of task even though they know that it is ‘‘bad business,’’ they become unwitting accomplices in the assignment of yet another task that dilutes inquiry to answering the number of pages read, and reduces the construction of knowledge to a cutting-and-pasting exercise. The library media specialist must insist that every learning experience in the library-classroom aligns with the learning goals of both the classroom teacher’s curriculum and the library curriculum. (p. 41)

Zmuda and Harada (2008) affirmed that success was not measured by the number of staff members who collaborated with the SLMS but was defined by the quality of the work completed by students while in the school library media center and by engaging students in the process of investigating and gaining knowledge to critically evaluate and use information appropriately and effectively (Zmuda & Harada, 2008). Lack of district and state support, inadequate physical space for the media center, personal characteristics such as shyness, lack of creativity, or not working hard enough to prove themselves as a leader, as well as limitations due to outdated equipment or inadequate technology skills were also cited as issues that prevented SLMSs from performing leadership roles to a higher degree. One respondent effectively summed up the barriers to the effective implementation of instructional roles by stating: Too many administrative duties, not enough time, and only a part-time clerk drastically limit my ability to collaborate with teachers, get out of the media center and visit rooms to form bonds and build relationships. I am unable to provide professional development

262

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

for teachers and monitor students constantly coming in and out, answer the telephone, etc. by myself. The same holds true when trying to teach a lesson to a class while other students are coming in needing assistance. It’s impossible to be an effective media specialist or participate in leadership roles when you don’t even have relief for lunch or restroom breaks part of the week.

CONCLUSION There exists a need for SLMSs to develop and use leadership skills in order to prepare students to be successful in a 21st century society. SLMSs are able to promote positive social change by creating environments that encourage curiosity and critical thinking, by offering opportunities that encourage students to learn, and by providing the tools necessary to seek knowledge through reading and through research. Information literacy not only empowers individuals to take control of their own lives but also provides society the opportunity to take action for the benefit of others and for the greater good (Ward, 2006). SLMSs are strategically positioned to effect positive social change by taking an active role in developing and encouraging collaboration with teachers for the purpose of teaching information literacy skills in order for students to become information literate (Doll, 2005). SLMSs promote literacy, and literacy promotes positive social change and growth. A society that is literate has the ability to use information to make informed decisions. To achieve a higher level of literacy, the educational community must utilize school library media centers and their resources. It is imperative that SLMSs become more effective leaders in their schools so that they can build successful collaborative relationships with teachers to support instruction and, thus, guide students to become lifelong learners and readers. The intellectual and personal growth that students achieve as a result of the collaboration efforts of the SLMS enable students in turn to effect social change as the take their place in the new global society. Although the population for this study was small and was limited only to library media specialists working in 14 Georgia school districts, the findings are significant. With the advent of new technologies, the vital need to teach 21st century learning skills, and the changing roles of the SLMS, it is evident that educational stakeholders must realize the importance of supporting and cultivating these professionals’ leadership skills. The findings from this study highlighted several obstacles that must be addressed in order for SLMSs to fully realize their leadership potential in their schools.


263

According to Information Power (1998) and Empowering Learners (2009), the SLMS demonstrates leadership by developing and maintaining a library media advocacy program that ensures that parents, members of the community, administrators, and educators are aware of the impact of library media programs on student achievement; communicating current knowledge and research findings related to community stakeholders regarding the impact of school library media programs on student achievement; assuming active roles in local, state, and national professional organizations; and regularly communicating with the principal regarding program plans, activities, and accomplishments, and reports the results of program assessment to teachers and administrators. (AASL & AECT, 1998; AASL, 2009) The immediate action needed is for SLMSs to realize the importance of advocating for their school library media programs and to begin to establish advocacy programs at their sites. The ALA provides a wealth of information and support for building advocacy programs for school library media centers on topics such as public awareness campaigns, updates on library-related legislation, tips on how to contact legislative representatives, and library funding updates (ALA, 2008). The findings of this study also revealed that the support of school administrators and classroom teachers was crucial in providing SLMSs opportunities to flourish as instructional leaders. Collaboration was noted as a factor that enabled SLMSs to expand their leadership role. This study supports the previous findings that many administrators and teachers do not fully understand the role of the SLMS, and, as a result, the full integration of literacy and information skills into the school curriculum is hampered (Doll, 2005; Hartzell, 2007; Wilson & Blake, 1993). Hartzell (2007) noted that the antiquated teaching model used in the 19th century (i.e., one room, one teacher, and a textbook) is the same model that exists in many classrooms today, while AASL (2009) concluded that many American schools ‘‘still embody a 20th century industrial model that focuses on individual learning and the memorization of facts rather than on the development of high-level thinking, problem-solving skills, and collaborative work’’ (p. 46). Because teacher training and experience revolves around these outdated models and because most administrators started their careers as teachers, few school administrators understand the importance of the school library media center (Hartzell, 2007). An examination of literature

264

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

and research studies regarding principals’ knowledge of the school library media centers found that many principals did not receive formal instruction regarding the importance of the school library media program (Church, 2007; Hartzell, 2007; Wilson & MacNeil, 1998). This study substantiates the existing literature and research studies in recognizing the importance of integrating school library information into preparation courses for principals. It is essential that administrators receive professional development and support to strengthen their instructional leadership and management skills and that they strive to create learning environments that are conducive to help students achieve proficiency in 21st century skills (Arizona Summit, 2007). Because universities do not train administrators about the potential value of school library media programs, SLMSs will continue to be the major advocates for school library media programs (Hartzell, 2007). Hartzell (2007) affirmed the need for administrator preparation programs by stating, ‘‘Because advocates are made rather than born, the absence of information about library impact in teacher and administrator preparation programs implies that a concerted effort should be made to get instruction about libraries and librarians into those programs’’ (p. 34). College educational programs and professional development for pre-service and in-service school administrators should include information about the value of school library media programs. SLMSs advocate for their role as information literacy specialists to administrators, teachers, and the learning community. As Doll (2005) stated, ‘‘It may also be necessary to remind people that a SLMS is also a teacher, not merely a guardian of books’’ (p. 16). The need for SLMSs to assume more proactive advocacy roles cannot be overstated. In-service and faculty trainings provide opportunities for SLMSs to showcase and highlight their skills. Newsletters, the school library media center website, wikis, and blogs are practical ways to share knowledge and expertise in information literacy to raise awareness of the importance of the school library media program. It is essential that SLMSs reevaluate their library media programs to ensure that they are meeting the 21st century instructional needs of their students. They must ‘‘assume a proactive role in the promotion of the library media program and its role in instruction to ensure the position is not eliminated, diminished in importance, or replaced entirely’’ (Mosqueda, 1999, p. 130). In the book, Being Indispensable, Toor and Weisburg (2011) reinforced the need for SLMSs to be more proactive and stated: The world has changed, and what you do has become more critical than ever. However, too many school librarians have not been proactive in their buildings, and there has been


265

an ongoing disconnect between what you know you do and what administrators and teachers think you do. This lack of understanding, especially in an economic downturn, has led to severe cuts and elimination of positions. Many wonder if school librarians have become an endangered species. You no longer have an option about becoming an indispensible building leader. Your students and your job depend on it. (p. ix)

The results of this study also revealed that regardless of the extensive body of evidence that substantiates how the school library media programs support and enhance student achievement, the state government and the state department of education do not provide adequate support and funding to fully implement school library media programs in Georgia. Many school districts have experienced a reduction in tax revenue, and school library media staff and library programs have suffered the effects of the budget crisis in terms of reductions in staffing and funding cuts. Although budget cuts may be unavoidable in the present economic climate, the need for advocates to ensure that policy makers understand the link between the library and student achievement is more critical now than ever before (ALA, 2008). Leadership is the key to create the 21st century school library media programs; however, SLMSs face many challenges as they strive to overcome the misconceptions of the learning community toward their role as instructional leaders. SLMSs should move toward a more collaborative form of leadership, and should work to weave technology, media, and information literacy skills into the curriculum in order ensure that students develop the skills necessary to succeed in both work and life. SLMSs should increase their skills and abilities by participating in professional development opportunities, mentoring people new to the profession, reading professional journals and literature, and by attending professional conferences for networking with other school library media professionals.

REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2007). Standards for the 21st-century learner. Chicago: Author. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2009). Empowering learners: Guidelines for school library media specialists. Chicago: Author. American Association of School Librarians (AASL) & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (1988). Information power: Guidelines for school library media programs. Chicago: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians (AASL) & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association.

266

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

American Library Association (ALA). (2008). Issues & advocacy. Available at http://www.ala.org/ ala/issuesadvocacy/advocacy/index.cfm Angelo, J. W. (1994). An analysis of school library media resources in Massachusetts as compared with state standards. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. AAT 9423441). Arizona Summit (2007). Teaching and learning for the 21st century: Report and recommendations of the Arizona summit on 21st century skills. Available at http://www.p21.org/ documents/arizona_summit_on_21st_century_skills_report.pdf Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy: Final report. Chicago: Author. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/ mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2010). Introduction to information literacy. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/ intro/index.cfm Barron, D. (1990). Research related to the education of school library media specialists: Papers of the Treasure Mountain research retreat, Park City Utah, October 17–18, 1989. In: B. Woolls (Ed.), The research of school library media centers (pp. 215–230). Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Breivik, P. S., & Gee, E. G. (1989). Information literacy: Revolution in the library. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company. Brown, J. (1999). Navigating the ‘90: The teacher-librarian as change agent. In: K. Haycock (Ed.), Foundations for effective school library media programs (pp. 65–72). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Bruce, C. S. (2004). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In: P. Alan (Ed.), Proceedings ‘‘lifelong learning: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution?’’ (pp. 8–19). Yeppoon, Queensland: The 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference. Bruner, J. S. (1960a). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1960b). The relevance of education. New York: Norton & Company, Inc. Carlson, A. (n.d.). Creating a culture of writing: Authentic learning: What does it really mean? Innovative Teaching Showcase. Available at http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/showcase2001/ authentic_learning.htm. Retrieved on September 2, 2005. Church, A. (2007). Elementary school principals’ perceptions of the instructional role of the school library media specialist. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. AAT 3288684). Cole, T. J. (1959). The origin and development of school libraries. Peabody Journal of Education, 37(2), 87–92. Coleman, B., Maxwell, H., Neal, J., Lindsey, E., England, T., & Sims, B. (2010). House Bill 908: Quality Basic Education Act. (10 HB 908/AP). Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2005). Accreditation standards 2005 for public schools serving students in kindergarten through grade 12. Decatur, GA: Council on Accreditation and School Improvement. Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2010). Principles of accreditation: Foundations for quality enhancement (1st ed.). Decatur, GA: Council on Accreditation and School Improvement.


267

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davis, D. M. (2009).The condition of U.S. libraries: School library trends, 1999–2099. American Library Association. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/research/librarystats/ librarymediacenter/Condition_of_Libraries_1999.20.pdf Dees, D. C., Alexander, K., Besara, R., Cambisios, R., Kent, T., & Delgado, J. P. (2007). Today’s school library media specialist leader. Library Media Connection, 25(4), 10–14. Denscombe, M. (2007). Good research guide. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1943). The school and society. Toronto, Canada: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1959). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. Doll, C. A. (2005). Collaboration and the school library media specialist. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc. Doyle, C. (1999). Information literacy in an information society. In: K. Haycock (Ed.), Foundations for effective school library media programs (pp. 97–100). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Edsall, M. S. (1984). Practical PR for school library media centers. New York: Neal-Schuman. Eisenberg, M. B., & Miller, D. H. (2002). This man wants to change your job. School Library Journal, 48(9), 46–50. Gniewek, D. (1999). School library programs and student achievement: A review of research. Available at http://www.libraries.phila.k12.pa.us/misc/research-sum.html Grover, R. & Fowler, S. G. (1993). Recent trends in school library media research. School Library Media Quarterly, 21(4). Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/ aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/selctgrover2.cfm Hamilton-Pennell, C., Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Hainer, E. (2000). Dick and Jane go to the head of the class. School Library Journal, 46, 44–47. Harada, V. H. (2002). Taking the lead in developing learning communities. Knowledge Quest, 31(2), 12–16. Hartzell, G. N. (1997). The invisible school librarian. School Library Journal, 43(11), 24–29. Hartzell, G. N. (2003). Why should principals support school libraries?. Teacher Librarian, 31(2), 21–23. Hartzell, G. N. (2005). The implications of selected school reform approaches for school library media services. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/ slmrb/slmrcontents/volume4200/hartzell.cfm Hartzell, G. N. (2007). How do decision-makers become library media advocates?. Knowledge Quest, 36(1), 32. Haycock, K. (1995). Research in teacher-librarianship and the institutionalization of change. School Library Media Quarterly, 23(4), 227–233. Haycock, K. (1999). Strengthening the foundations for teacher-librarianship. In: K. Haycock (Ed.), Foundations for effective school library media programs (pp. 3–11). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Johnson, E. D. (1965). A History of libraries in the western world. New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Kaplan, A. G. (2006). Benign neglect: Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards school library media specialists. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. AAT 3220729). Kenney, B. (2006). Ross to the rescue: Rutgers’ Ross Todd’s quest to renew school libraries. School Library Journal, 52(4), 44–47.

268

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Krashen, S. D. (1995). School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly, 23(4), 235–237. Lambert, L. (2002). A Framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37–40. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 421–430. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Gardner, M. E., Lambert, M. D., & Ford-Slack, P. J. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College Press. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M. E., & Szabo, M. (2002). The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Lance, K. C. (2001). Proof of the power: Quality library media programs affect academic achievement. MultiMedia Schools, 8(4), 1–21. Lance, K. C. (2002). What research tells us about the importance of school libraries. Teacher Librarian, 30(1), 76–80. Lance, K. C. (2004). Libraries and student achievement: The importance of school libraries for improving student test scores. Threshold. Available at http://www.henhudschools.org/ files/78223/W04-librariesachievement.pdf Lance, K. C. & Callison, D. (2005). Enough already? Blazing new trails for school library research: An interview with Keith Curry Lance, Director, Library Research Service, Colorado State Library & University of Denver. School Library Media Research. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/ lance/interviewlance.cfm Lance, K. C., & Loertscher, D. V. (2005). Powering achievement: School library media programs make a difference: The evidence (3rd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000a). How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study. Denver, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000b). Measuring up to standards: The impact of school library programs & information literacy in Pennsylvania schools (Available at http://www.lrs.org/impact.php#pa). Greensburg, PA: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Russell, B. (2007). How students, teachers, and principals benefit from strong school libraries: The Indiana study. Indianapolis, IN: Association for Indiana Media Educators. Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., Russell, B., & RSL Research Group (2007). The Indiana study: How students, teachers, and principals benefit from strong school libraries. The Professional Organization for School Library Media Specilists, Indianapolis. Available at http://www.ilfonline.org/clientuploads/AIME/2007MSArticle.pdf Lance, K. C., Welborn, L., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (1993). The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Loertscher, D. V., & Todd, R. J. (2003). We boost achievement: Evidence-based practice for school library media specialists. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Mancall, J. C., Aaron, S. L., & Walker, S. A. (1986). Educating students to think: The role of the school library media program. A concept paper written for the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. School Library Media Quarterly, Journal of the American Association of School Libraries, 15(1), 18–27.


269

Martin, A. M. (2009). Promote, lead, & refuse: Librarianship in tough times. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 6–10. McCracken, A. (2000). Perceptions of school library media specialists regarding their roles and practices. Doctoral dissertation. Available at ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. AAT 9968476). McCracken, A. (2001). School library media specialists’ perceptions of practice and importance of roles described in Information Power. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/ divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume42001/mccracken.cfm McIntosh, C. (1994). The evolution of the role of the K-12 public school library media specialist. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International (Order No. 9422281). Mendrinos, R. (1994). Building information literacy using high technology: A guide for schools and libraries. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Michie, J. S. & Holton, B. A. (2005). Fifty years of supporting children’s learning: A history of public school libraries and federal legislation from 1953 to 2000 (NCES 20058-311). US Government Printing Office. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005311.pdf Mosqueda, B. R. (1999). The perceptions of the role of the library media program and the library media specialist in selected National Blue Ribbon Schools in Florida. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. AAT 9923715). Mulkeen, T. A. (1981). Higher education in the coming age of limits: An historical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(3), 310–316. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). Standard X: Leadership, advocacy and community partnerships. NBPTS Library Media Standards (pp. 43–44). Arlington, VA: Author. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (Available at http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cors/Successful_School_Restruct.html). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nie, N. H., & Hull, C. H. (2008). SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys (Version 15.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Pace, A. K. (2002). Standard issue: Defining standards and protocols (Vol. 22). Information Today, Inc. Pace, T. M. (2007). Perceptions of Florida school library media specialists relative to the saliency of collaboration, leadership, and technology tasks outlined in Information Power: Changes since 1996. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Order No. AAT 3260084). Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Available at http://www.p21.org/documents/21st_century_ skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf Pickard, P. W. (1993). Current research: The instructional consultant role of the school library media specialist. School Library Media Quarterly, 21(2). Available at http://www.ala.org/ ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/editorschoiceb/infopower/selctpickard.cfm Roberson, T. J., Applin, M. B., & Schweinle, W. (2005). School libraries’ impact upon student achievement and school professionals’ attitudes that influence use of library programs. Research for Educational Reform, 10(1), 45–52.

270

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Shannon, D. (2002). The education and competencies of school library media specialists: A review of the literature. School Library Media Research, 5. Available at http:// www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/ volume52002/shannon.cfm Shelton, P. B. W. (2002). Perceptions of the changing role of the library media specialist. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database (Order No. 3051365). Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Snyder, T. (2000). Getting lead-bottomed administrators excited about school library media centers. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Spitzer, K. L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Lowe, C. A. (1998). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. Todd, R. J. & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Student learning through Ohio school libraries: Background, methodology, and report of findings. Available at http://www.oelma.org/ StudentLearning/documents/OELMAReportofFindings.pdf Todd, R. J., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2005). Student learning through Ohio school libraries, part 2: Faculty perceptions of effective school libraries. School Libraries Worldwide, 11(1), 89–110. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Toffler, A., & Toffler, H. (1995). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the third wave. Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing, Inc. Toor, R., & Weisburg, H. K. (2011). Being indispensable: A school librarian’s guide to becoming an invaluable leader. Chicago: American Library Association. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006, October 20). The research methods knowledge base. 2nd ed. Available at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/. Retrieved on September 21, 2008. Vandergrift, K. E. (1978). The making of a school librarian. American Libraries, 9(10), 605–606. Vandergrift, K. E. (1994). Power teaching: A primary role of the school of the school literary media specialist. Chicago: American Library association. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, D. (2006). Revisioning information literacy for lifelong meaning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), 396–402. Williams, J. L. (2005). AASL: Lighthouse for our profession. Knowledge Quest, 34(1), 5–7. Wilson, P. J., & Blake, M. (1993). What principals should know about library media centers. Streamlined Seminar, 12(3), 3–6. Available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED404997.pdf Wilson, P. P., & MacNeil, A. J. (1998). In the dark: What’s keeping principals from understanding libraries?. School Library Journal, 44(9), 114. Wright, K. C., & Davie, J. F. (1999). Forecasting the future: School media programs in an age of change. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press. Zmuda, A., & Harada, V. H. (2008). Librarians as learning specialists: Meeting the learning imperative for the 21st century. Westport, CN: Libraries Unlimited.


APPENDIX A. SLMS LEADERSHIP SURVEY

271

272

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

School Library Media Specialist Leadership Survey You are now ready to begin the survey. The survey consists of two sets of 15 statements based on the leadership role of the school library media specialist (SLMS) as defined in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning and Standards for the 21st Century Learner. Please read each statement and indicate your level of agreement using the following scale:

Not at all To a small extent To a moderate extent To a great extent To a very great extent Please respond to the two open-ended questions at the end of the survey.

Statements Set 1: Importance School Library Program Administration 1. Administration and Management of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective administration and management of the school library media program to include creating plans for the library media program that give direction to the allocation, organization, and management of human, physical, and financial resources


273

2. Administration of the SLM Budget The SLMS demonstrates leadership through effective administration of the library media center budget by working with the administration to develop a budget that provides for the purchasing and upkeep of all resources the library media program requires to meet the needs of the program.

3 Administration and Supervision of Staff The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective supervision of staff by participating in hiring, training, and evaluating library media staff, and by monitoring and supervising technical staff, clerical staff, and volunteers to facilitate the smooth operation of the library media program.

274

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

Advocacy 4. Advocacy for the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by developing and maintaining a library media advocacy program that ensures that parents, members of the community, administrators, and educators are aware of the impact of library media programs on student achievement.

5. Advocacy and Impact of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by communicating current knowledge and research findings to community stakeholders regarding the impact of school library media programs on student achievement.

6. Advocacy and Professional Organizations The SLMS demonstrates leadership by assuming active roles in local, state, and national professional organizations.


275

7. Advocacy and Communication The SLMS demonstrates leadership through regular communication with the principal regarding program plans, activities, and accomplishments and reports the results of program assessment to teachers and administrators.

Collaboration 8. Collaboration and Effective Teams The SLMS demonstrates leadership by fostering collaboration and building effective teams throughout the school and community by working with teachers to integrate information literacy skills into the curriculum and by identifying resources that support and enhance the curriculum.

9. Collaboration and Committees The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving on committees at the building, district, and/or state level to develop and implement plans that align the library media program with the information literacy standards for student learning, and with the school’s goals and priorities, and national curriculum standards.

276

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

10. Collaboration and Technology The SLMS demonstrates leadership by collaborating with the technology staff to identify and use the full range of available technologies and by assuming a proactive role in promoting the use of technology.

11. Collaboration and the Instructional Partner The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning by assisting teachers in incorporating information access skills into the curriculum.

12. Collaboration and Mentoring The SLMS demonstrates leadership by mentoring new teachers and new SLMSs to the profession.


277

13. Collaboration and Information Access The SLMS demonstrates leadership by orchestrating access to information resources within and beyond the school, to include promoting relationships with external information sources, such as public libraries, government agencies, and business organizations, in support of learning.

Professional Learning 14. Professional Learning and Personal Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by pursuing personal opportunities for staff development and continuing education by updating personal competencies, knowledge, and skills on an ongoing basis.

15. Professional Learning and Promotion of Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as a leader in staff development activities to include offering and promoting staff development

278

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

including the integration of information technology and the use of information literacy standards for student.

Statements Set 2: Practice School Library Program Administration 1. Administration and Management of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective administration and management of the school library media program to include creating plans for the library media program that give direction to the allocation, organization, and management of human, physical, and financial resources

2. Administration of the SLM Budget The SLMS demonstrates leadership through effective administration of the library media center budget by working with the administration to develop a budget that provides for the purchasing and upkeep of all resources the library media program requires to meet the needs of the program.


279

3. Administration and Supervision of Staff The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective supervision of staff by participating in hiring, training, and evaluating library media staff and by monitoring and supervising technical staff, clerical staff, and volunteers to facilitate the smooth operation of the library media program.

Advocacy 4. Advocacy for the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by developing and maintaining a library media advocacy program that ensures that parents, members of the community, administrators, and educators are aware of the impact of library media programs on student achievement.

280

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

5. Advocacy and Impact of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by communicating current knowledge and research findings to community stakeholders regarding the impact of school library media programs on student achievement.

6. Advocacy and Professional Organizations The SLMS demonstrates leadership by assuming active roles in local, state, and national professional organizations.

7. Advocacy and Communication The SLMS demonstrates leadership through regular communication with the principal regarding program plans, activities, and accomplishments and reports the results of program assessment to teachers and administrators.


281

Collaboration 8. Collaboration and Effective Teams The SLMS demonstrates leadership by fostering collaboration and building effective teams throughout the school and community by working with teachers to integrate information literacy skills into the curriculum and by identifying resources that support and enhance the curriculum.

9. Collaboration and Committees The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving on committees at the building, district, and/or state level to develop and implement plans that align the library media program with the information literacy standards for student learning, and with the school’s goals and priorities, and national curriculum standards.

10. Collaboration and Technology The SLMS demonstrates leadership by collaborating with the technology staff to identify and use the full range of available technologies and by assuming a proactive role in promoting the use of technology.

282

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

11. Collaboration and the Instructional Partner The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning by assisting teachers in incorporating information access skills into the curriculum.

12. Collaboration and Mentoring The SLMS demonstrates leadership by mentoring new teachers and new SLMSs to the profession.

13. Collaboration and Information Access The SLMS demonstrates leadership by orchestrating access to information resources within and beyond the school, to include promoting relationships with external information sources, such as public libraries, government agencies, and business organizations, in support of learning.


283

Professional Learning 14. Professional Learning and Personal Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by pursuing personal opportunities for staff development and continuing education by updating personal competencies, knowledge, and skills on an ongoing basis.

15. Professional Learning and Promotion of Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as a leader in staff development activities to include offering and promoting staff development including the integration of information technology and the use of information literacy standards for student.

284

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN


285

APPENDIX B. SURVEY STATEMENTS 1. Administration and Management of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective administration and management of the school library media program to include creating plans for the library media program that give direction to the allocation, organization, and management of human, physical, and financial resources. 2. Administration of the SLM Budget The SLMS demonstrates leadership through effective administration of the library media center budget by working with the administration to develop a budget that provides for the purchasing and upkeep of all resources the library media program requires to meet the needs of the program. 3. Administration and Supervision of Staff The SLMS demonstrates leadership through the effective supervision of staff by participating in hiring, training, and evaluating library media staff and by monitoring and supervising technical staff, clerical staff, and volunteers to facilitate the smooth operation of the library media program.

286

VIRGINIA D. MARTIN

4. Advocacy for the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by developing and maintaining a library media advocacy program that ensures that parents, members of the community, administrators, and educators are aware of the impact of library media programs on student achievement. 5. Advocacy and Impact of the SLM Program The SLMS demonstrates leadership by communicating current knowledge and research findings to community stakeholders regarding the impact of school library media programs on student achievement. 6. Advocacy and Professional Organizations The SLMS demonstrates leadership by assuming active roles in local, state, and national professional organizations. 7. Advocacy and Communication The SLMS demonstrates leadership through regular communication with the principal regarding program plans, activities, and accomplishments and reports the results of program assessment to teachers and administrators. 8. Collaboration and Effective Teams The SLMS demonstrates leadership by fostering collaboration and building effective teams throughout the school and community by working with teachers to integrate information literacy skills into the curriculum and by identifying resources that support and enhance the curriculum. 9. Collaboration and Committees The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving on committees at the building, district, and/or state level to develop and implement plans that align the library media program with the information literacy standards for student learning, and with the school’s goals and priorities, and national curriculum standards. 10. Collaboration and Technology The SLMS demonstrates leadership by collaborating with the technology staff to identify and use the full range of available technologies and by assuming a proactive role in promoting the use of technology.


287

11. Collaboration and the Instructional Partner The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as an instructional partner in teaching and learning by assisting teachers in incorporating information access skills into the curriculum. 12. Collaboration and Mentoring The SLMS demonstrates leadership by mentoring new teachers and new SLMSs to the profession. 13. Collaboration and Information Access The SLMS demonstrates leadership by orchestrating access to information resources within and beyond the school, to include promoting relationships with external information sources, such as public libraries, government agencies, and business organizations, in support of learning. 14. Professional Learning and Personal Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by pursuing personal opportunities for staff development and continuing education by updating personal competencies, knowledge, and skills on an ongoing basis. 15. Professional Learning and Promotion of Staff Development The SLMS demonstrates leadership by serving as a leader in staff development activities to include offering and promoting staff development including the integration of information technology and the use of information literacy standards for student.

THE PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS ON THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS Kelli Steverson Ragle ABSTRACT The purpose of this nonexperimental research was to examine the perceptions of state-certified teachers regarding Library Media Specialists (LMS). Through collaboration and the use of social constructivist learning theories, teachers at three high schools in Georgia were interviewed regarding the roles and responsibilities of LMS. The primary research question asked how the perceptions of teachers on the practices of the role of the school LMS differ from the way the teachers perceive these roles to be important at their high schools. The secondary research questions addressed the correlations between high school teachers’ demographic information and both the importance of and the practice of the roles of the high school LMS. Quantitative data were collected through a survey developed by McCracken (2000). A paired sample t-test was used to compare the theoretical and practical scales in each category of the LMS roles, and a Spearman rank-ordered correlations test was used to compare the 13 descriptive variables to theoretical and practical scales. Teacher participants reported each of the roles of the LMS to be more important than what is actually being practiced in their school settings and that similar views existed on both the practice scale and the importance scale. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 30, 289–334 Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2011)0000030009

289

290

KELLI STEVERSON RAGLE

Implications include community and educator awareness of the role of the school LMS, an increased educator awareness of the roles of a state-certified school LMS to compliment the high school curriculum, and an increased awareness for the need of a LMS in public schools. Keywords: School Libraries; School Librarians; Library Media Centers; Library Media Specialists; Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT); American Association of School Librarians (AASL); Standards; Information Power Traditionally, teachers have not been trained to work along with a Library Media Specialist (LMS) as part of an instructional team because there is a competition for resources in the school and because schools are defined by teaching and learning in classrooms led by teachers and administrators with little consideration given to the role of the LMS (Stripling, 1999). Rapid changes in technology and preconceptions based on the traditional school librarian role have caused confusion among members within an educational community, creating a significant barrier to adapting the role to address the changing needs of the school (McCracken, 2000). The school LMS is frequently isolated and overlooked (Hickel, 2006) largely because classroom teachers do not seem to have a complete grasp on the many skills that the LMS possesses (Hickel, 2006). ‘‘Suggesting resources, locating and acquiring needed materials, recommending strategies, facilitating use of technologies, and instructing students and teachers in optimal information-seeking methods replace the traditional librarian tasks of material circulation’’ (Simpson, 1996, p. 2). The library media program has shifted from its past focus on development an appropriate collection of resources to providing services for teachers and students in an effort to meet the needs of everyone in a technology-enriched and collaborative 21st-century school environment (Stripling, 1999). Libraries have changed significantly over the past 10 years, but the central purpose of information providers remains the same (Baule, 1998). The LMS collaborates with teachers, students, and administrators to achieve higher test scores and overall student achievement. LMSs affect student achievement ‘‘by collaborating and planning with teachers, teaching information literacy, designing assessment procedures, and providing supplemental curriculum material’’ (Georgia Department of Education, 2008, p. 2). As a result, students perform better academically when the school LMS (a) is part of a planning or collaborative team with teachers in the classroom, (b) teaches information literacy, and (c) provides tutoring to students (Lance, 2001). Media specialists at their best exhibit leadership qualities as they blend

Perceptions of High School Teachers

291

technology, a variety of resources, and a school library program that benefits all members of an educational community (American Association of School Librarians [AASL] & Association for Educational Communications and Technology [AECT], 1998). Stripling (1999) stated that, ‘‘Though collaboration is a joint effort, it is critical that the library media specialist assume leadership and major responsibility for its success’’ (p. 148). Additionally, Stripling discussed the need to replace the traditional model of the school librarian with a new model that can fulfill the needs of students, teachers, and administrators in an age of information. Stripling claimed that many educators are unfamiliar with the new model, and, as a result, there is a need to understand the classroom teachers’ current perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of a LMS. As Lowe (2000) suggested, Library media specialists need to do a better job of clearly articulating their roles in preparing students for the information- and technology-rich workplace of the future. It is essential for library media specialists to commit themselves to the central principles that define their roles as information specialists and educators helping students to achieve optimum use of information literacy. (p. 3)

PROBLEM STATEMENT In an effort to comply with the national standards set forth by AASL and AECT, this research focused on the roles and responsibilities of Georgia’s high school LMSs and perceptions of them as they relate to current practice in high schools. A change in the role of the LMS to that of an instructional partner who collaborates with classroom teachers has created an opportunity for the LMS to become an instructional partner with other educators within schools to help students achieve (Stripling, 1999). ‘‘Many teachers, however, may not readily recognize the instructional expertise that can be provided by their SLMS [school library media specialist]’’ (Craver, 1994, p. 123). The misunderstandings regarding the role of the school LMS may be overcome by discussing the differing perceptions among librarians, principals, and teachers about the roles of a school LMS (McCracken, 2000). A survey of state-certified educators teaching at the high school level in three rural southeastern Georgia school districts was used to collect data to determine the perceptions of high school educators on the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS and to determine the extent to which the school LMS implements these roles. School A employed 62 state-certified high school teachers and enrolled 929 students in grade 9 through 12 for the 2008 school year. The subjects taught by the teachers and numbers of the

292


teachers are language arts (10), mathematics(8), science (7), social studies (7), fine arts (2), foreign language (2), special education (10), health and physical education (5), and career and technical education (11). School B employed 65 state-certified educators and enrolled 949 grade 9 through 12 students for the 2008 school year. The teachers included language arts (9), mathematics (7), science (8), social studies (8), fine arts (3), special education (8), gifted (1), health and physical education (5), driver’s education (3), and career and technical education (13). School C employed 72 state-certified teachers who taught grades 7 through 12, with 34 of these teachers being high school educators who taught grades 9 through 12. This school had an enrollment of 541 grade 9 through 12 students for the 2008 fiscal school year. Four of the teachers were language arts teachers, 4 mathematics, 4 science, 3 social studies, 2 fine arts, 4 special education, 2 gifted, 3 health and physical education, 2 driver’s education, 1 Spanish, and 5 career and technical education. For purposes of comparison, teachers at the three high schools were asked for their perceptions of the roles that classroom teachers identified to be important for the school LMS, the roles they perceived that the LMS was currently implementing using an instrument developed by McCracken (2000) for an earlier study of current perspectives of the LMS, and the importance of the role of the LMS in the school and of the actual practice of these roles. The research questions and hypotheses that guided this study were as follows: 1. How do the perceptions of high school educators on the practices of the role of the school LMS differ from the way that these educators perceive these roles to be important at their high schools? Ha0: There is not a significant relationship between the teachers’ perceptions of the practice of the roles of the high school LMS and the importance of those roles. Ha1: There is a significant relationship between the teachers’ perceptions of the practice of the roles of the high school LMS and the importance of those roles. The independent variable for the study was the teachers’ perceptions of the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS. The dependent variable was the teachers’ perceptions of their practice in fulfilling these roles and responsibilities. 2. What are the correlations between high school teachers’ years of experience, subject taught, level of education, gender, age, and number


293

of times that they have utilized the school LMS services in a school year and the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS? Ha0: There is no significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers (highest level of education, number of years teaching, subject taught, and so forth) and the reported importance of the high school LMS. Ha2: There is a significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers and the reported importance of the high school LMS. The independent variables were the teachers’ descriptive variables. The dependent variable was the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS. 3. What are the correlations between high school teachers’ years of experience, subject taught, level of education, gender, age, and number of times that they have utilized the school LMS services in a school year and the practice of views of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS? Ha0: There is no significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers (highest level of education, number of years teaching, subject taught, and so forth) and the reported practice of the high school LMS. Ha3: There is a significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers and the reported practice of the high school LMS. The independent variables were the teachers’ descriptive variables. The dependent variable was the practice of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS.

CONCEPTUAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The job of a media specialist has changed over the past 20 years (Stripling, 1999). The primary goal of a school librarian before the introduction of the new AASL and AECT national standards was to support instruction. But technology and changing curriculum standards have changed that (Marcum, 2001). The AASL and the AECT (1998) discussed three unified themes within their vision for the role of the school LMS: collaboration,

294


leadership, and technology, themes designed to guide an effective LMS in developing the services and functions required in a student-centered library media program (AASL & AECT, 1998). These themes will also illustrate ways that the LMS can demonstrate an essential leadership role in a school by becoming involved students and other faculty members to promote social change within an educational community. As the AASL and AECT maintained, The ultimate goal behind this vision is to help students become full members of the learning community – the global web of individuals and organizations who are interconnected in a lifelong quest to understand and meet constantly changing information needs. Library media programs are vital neighborhoods for the learning community, and the library media specialists are crucial to their neighborhoods’ success. By exerting leadership as they work in collaboration with teachers, administrators, and others to use information technology to help learners meet their information needs, library media specialists bring the learning community to life. (pp. 48–49)

Information literacy standards for student learning are at the center of the conceptual framework in that figure. The child is at the center of the educational process, which makes student learning the heart of the library media center’s (LMC) program (Hannigan, 1982). The success of school library media programs is measured by the success of the student (AASL & AECT, 1998; Anderson, 1999). Collaboration, leadership, and technology are components that provide ‘‘theoretical and practical grounding both for the program and for all the activities of the library media specialist’’ with student learning at the center of importance (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 49). Anderson (1999b) stated that these components underlie the vision of a successful library media program. The three intersecting circles within the graphic, learning and teaching, information access, and program administration demonstrate an essential component for the principles of school library media programs and student learning. The elements collaboration, leadership, and technology provided by the AASL and AECT (1998) demonstrate the important services provided by the LMS, including being an instructional partner in teaching and learning, providing information access and delivery, and administering and managing the program. These three elements suggest the roles that the school LMS plays in student learning (AASL & AECT; Anderson, 1999). ‘‘The functions and services necessary to the learning and teaching and the information access roles will promote that learning directly; program administration activities offer underlying organizational support to the program’’ (AASL & AECT,


295

1998, p. 49). These three elements all revolve around student learning because ‘‘student achievement is the bottom line’’ (Anderson, 1999, p. 22). The roles and responsibilities outlined by the AASL and AECT (1998) include teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, and program administrator. The theory of collaboration for teachers and the school LMS is grounded in the social constructivist learning theories of Dewey (1963), Bruner (1968), Vygotsky (1978), and others (Montiel-Overall, 2005). They see collaboration as a new way of learning for students and a new way of planning and teaching for the school LMS and teachers (Fulton, 2003). Social constructivism ‘‘is an approach that encourages all members of a learning community to present their ideas strongly, while remaining open to the ideas of others’’ (Beck & Kosnik, 2006, pp. 7–8). Dewey (1916) stated, ‘‘Education is not an affair of ‘telling’ and being told, but an active and constructive process’’ (p. 46). It is about transferring an idea from one person to another. Dewey (1963) described social constructivism further by saying that, even though people use other people’s ideas, people construct them and modify them rather than just using them in their preexisting form. He (Dewey, 1963) described collaboration as a process where each individual provides expertise to the learning process with intentions of enhancing student learning. Within that context, when acting collaboratively, the school LMS integrates information literacy skills as well as his or her skills as a teacher to expand the community’s opportunity for learning. Each teacher in a learning community learns and shares ideas with colleagues. A school LMS may proactively approach these teachers to collaborate, illustrating that it can be a positive experience. Bruner (1968) believed, ‘‘Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge’’ (Kearsley, 2009, p. 1). Bruner described learning from a constructivist view. A learner selects information and alters it, builds hypotheses, and makes decisions by means of cognitive structures (Kearsley, 2009). Through collaboration, classroom teachers and the school LMS can help each other as they create lessons designed to improve the student’s conceptual development and create a unique learning experience that expands the students’ learning potential (Bruner, 1968). Educators construct meaning from their prior knowledge (Bruner, 1968). If the school LMS works to provide new ideas regarding 21st-century processes and offers ways that teachers can help to provide a meaningful learning experience for students, teachers can be expected to gain from these new constructs and become more receptive to the idea of collaboration.

296


Vygotsky (1978) provided a theoretical structure for a collaborative environment by describing collaboration as a social process in which meanings are constructed among group members as discussion takes place. He theorized that man learns through social engagements with others and that the construction of knowledge is a social and cooperative venture (Moran & John-Steiner, 2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) model for envisioned learning through experiences that are constructed socially involves more capable people being grouped with those that are less capable of understanding ideas beyond their developmental level (Vygotsky, 1978). His overall belief is that, through social interaction and collaboration, concepts that people develop will expand into modern day society, including those relationships between teachers, the school LMS, and students. This framework provides a theoretical base on which the school LMS can develop an understanding of the characteristics that contribute to the school if they become an active member in a learning community.

THE LITERATURE Multiple studies document the perceptions of LMSs regarding their own roles and responsibilities (DeGroff, 1996; McCracken, 2000; Mosqueda, 1999). The study being conducted here has a complimentary relationship with previous research because it fits into the realm of studies on the roles of the school LMS as it explored an area beyond the focus of previous studies. Additional studies demonstrated the classroom teachers’ or administrators’ perceptions on the roles of the LMS (DeGroff, 1996; Detwiler, 1990; McCracken, 2000; Mosqueda 1999). One study compared the school LMS’s roles to the standards set forth by the professional associations AASL and AECT (McCracken, 2000). There was also some research including teachers’ or principals’ perceptions of the school LMS acting in the roles of teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, or program administrator (Cate, 1998; Church, 2007; Straessle, 2000).

Background Evaluating student achievement plays a part in the creation or modification of the school vision and its possible improvement. One leadership role understood by teacher leaders relative to locating necessary resources to aid


297

in student achievement is that of a LMS (Howard & Eckhardt, 2005). Howard and Eckhardt (2005) stated, The library media center program is the heart of the school; as the library media specialist looks at changes that will improve the program, she should work with students and other members of the staff who will be impacted by the changes. (p. 33)

The LMS collaborates with other school community members to enhance student achievement. To receive full advantage, other educators must take advantage of the services and collegial relationships with the school LMS to increase student achievement and to positively influence their school communities, recognize the LMS as a leader who may be of assistance in many different situations, and must view that person as a professional development teacher who can instruct teachers on the uses of technology to enhance their teaching (Howard & Eckhardt, 2005). School libraries are critical to meet schools’ instructional goals and objectives (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 35). As educators aim to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and adequate yearly progress (AYP), all educators within a school need to work collaboratively to meet these requirements (Anderson, 2007). The LMS is a key player in helping educators meet the requirements set forth by NCLB (2002). The purpose of NCLB subpart 4 – Improving Literacy through School Libraries, Section 1251 – was to improve the literacy skills and academic achievement of students ‘‘by providing students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials, a well-equipped, technologically advanced LMC, and well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists’’ (NCLB, 2002, p. 143). As a result, Anderson (2000) discussed the importance of professional development for the school LMS to insure that he or she stays current with school community changes to positively impact student learning. Anderson said that the LMS can then assist in the professional development of her colleagues to increase student achievement. The school LMS must be visible within an educational community, forming partnerships with other teachers and with students. When this happens, ‘‘librarians become more visible and school-wide reform is achieved through enhanced student achievement’’ (Edwards, McConnell, & Sprouse, 1999, p. 18). For a school to be successful, everyone must work together, including the LMS, teachers, administrators, and other certified educators (Harvey, 2005). AASL and AECT (1998) believe the roles and responsibilities of the LMS of collaboration, leadership, and technology help to create a student-centered library media program. The teacher, instructional

298


partner, information specialist, and program administrator, working together support student learning (AASL & AECT, 1998).

Research on the Roles and Responsibilities of the LMS Historical Background The LMS is part of a service profession with a long history that has grown and evolved over time (Dubiel, 2008). Congress ‘‘put school libraries on the education map when it passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), providing $100 million specifically for school libraries’’ (Michie & Holton, 2005, p. 1). At that time, the primary job of the school librarian was to organize the books in the library and to help both teachers and students locate resources (Pratschler, 2007). The traditional challenges of the job remain unchanged, including collection and equipment maintenance, observance of copyright, student and teacher assistance, lesson planning, professional development, and the like (Fitzgerald & Waldrip, 2004). However, educators have really begun to see the educational benefit of the integration of the school library media program into curriculum during the past 40 years. The changes library media specialists have experienced during the past forty years are remarkable, transforming their roles from librarian to library media specialist and their programs in myriad ways – from a book depository in the 1960s; to a library media center with audiovisual materials, the emerging philosophy of service to teachers, and the support of the instructional programs in the 1970s; to the integration of information skills into the context of the instructional program, resource-based learning, and the incorporation of curriculum development in the job description for the library media specialist in the 1980s; to the instructional consulting and partner role and the integration of numerous types of technology in the 1990s. (Kearney, 2000, p. xix)

As having the LMS and other educators working collaboratively benefits students, it is important to turn attention to the historical information regarding the national standards that form the ideas for the LMS in school. The National Education Association’s (NEA) Committee on Library Organization and Equipment broadcast the first set of national standards and guidelines for school libraries in 1920 (Haycock, 1998). These were a set of quantitative standards relating to the role and training of the school librarian as envisioned by the NEA’s Department of Secondary Education and the American Library Association (ALA). They served as a guide for use by all in preparing state and regional standards. These were then revised by ALA and included six sections, ‘‘the school library in education; service to


299

pupils and teachers; standards of personnel; book collection and other library resources; housing the library; and administration, supervision, and extension’’ (Michie & Holton, 2005, p. 7). There was an attempt in this set of standards to link the quantitative measures from the previous set of standards to the quality of the library services provided. The areas reviewed included staffing specifications, size of the book collection, and magazine and newspaper subscriptions, but nothing was included regarding audiovisual materials. In 1960, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) created another set of standards that reflected new developments within school library media services (Michie & Holton, 2005). ‘‘The three parts of the 1960 standards document were the school library as an educational force, planning and implementing school library programs, and resources for teaching and learning’’ (p. 8). The publication of the standards was accompanied by a campaign by the AASL to familiarize school personnel of the importance of the roles of the school LMS and their programs. Another milestone in the development of national library standards was Media Programs: District and School, developed in 1975 jointly by the AASL and AECT. This document focused on qualitative goals for the school library media program with quantitative measures regarding staffing, collections, and facilities. Next, the ALA and AECT (1998) published guidelines for school library media programs. This publication was ‘‘primarily qualitative with some quantitative recommendations presented in the areas of personnel and facilities’’ (Michie & Holton, 2005, p. 8). The most recent set of national standards published also by the AASL and AECT (1998) are used today to assess the effectiveness of school libraries. This publication focuses on information literacy in its standards and excluded the kind of illustrative data that was presented in former iterations. The AASL and AECT defined the roles of the school LMS in 1988 as functioning within a school environment that is always changing (Buzzeo, 2006). Buzzeo defined the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS, including teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, and program administrator (AASL & AECT, 1998), providing a foundation for the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS as expected by the ALA and AECT. Haycock (1998) stated, ‘‘The new Information Power clarifies the role and goals for the library media specialist in improving program effectiveness’’ (p. 26). Through the decades, there is a clear pattern of expanding the roles and responsibilities of the LMS. These changes have been made as the need arose. As schools added new technologies, the job of the school LMS

300


changed, and the title librarian was modified to LMS to reflect the changes in expectations (Pratschler, 2007). LMSs have responded quickly to change, expanding their instructional role during the 1980s, and continuing to evolve to the present (Craver, 1986). Much of the literature available demonstrates consistent progress toward establishing collaborative practices between classroom teachers and the LMS (Russell, 2002). Current standards provide the conceptual and theoretical foundation for a library program, the roles of the school LMS (AASL & AECT, 1998), and an underlying vision for a school library media program based on collaboration, leadership, and technology.

Unifying Themes and Theories of the Roles and Responsibilities of the LMS Collaboration AASL and AECT (1998) identified collaboration as a unifying theme for the school LMS. LMSs today are expected to place focus on learning rather than just support instruction. They are continually seeking ways to collaborate with other educators in school communities (Heard, 2007). ‘‘The library media specialist, whether in the role of teacher, instructional partner, information specialist or program administrator, plans collaboratively with other teachers to teach information literacy skills in conjunction with curriculum assignments’’ (Young, 2005, p. 14). The LMS is expected to instigate partnerships with teachers to plan, conduct, and evaluate learning activities in any curricular area (Simpson, 1996). ‘‘School librarians expand their areas of influence to include the classroom when they collaborate with classroom teachers to meet the information needs of students’’ (Simpson, 1996, p. 2). As teachers do not always expect this kind of help from the LMS, the LMS must initiate contact and demonstrate what the LMC can offer to teachers and their students (Heard, 2007). Students benefit from collaboration in that it aligns the support systems available to them and helps them to receive individualized help and encouragement to complete an assignment or project. Ruffin (2006) said that students gain from collaboration in six ways. Collaboration enables work to be completed in smaller groups, facilitates independent help and study, offers a variety of approaches that address varied learning styles, and allows the students to use a greater variety of resources. Ruffin also suggested that collaboration allows for more on-task behavior time and for


301

modeling skills necessary for life, to include cooperation, acceptance of differentiation, and the need for lifelong learning. Collaboration is meant to improve student learning as it helps students meet NCLB standards. Buzzeo’s (2006) description of collaboration summarizes the important aspects of the collaboration among members of a school community to help students. Buzzeo (2006) described collaboration in the following manner: Collaboration, of course, is all about productive collision courses: the combination of one or more curriculum content areas with information literacy skills; the intersection of two or more great minds, intent on creating and delivering something bigger and better than they might create and deliver alone; the juncture of educational standards, mandates, and federal requirements with our desire for our students to learn, to know, and to achieve. (p. 19)

To accomplish this ultimate goal, information literacy skills need to be taught by the classroom teacher and the LMS. Next, the student should interact with the teacher and the LMS to locate information to fulfill the curriculum standard(s) to be accomplished. Finally, the teacher and the LMS need to remain abreast of the required educational standards and mandates that students need to know and understand to succeed in the classroom (Buzzeo, 2006). Change must take place within a school community from a supportive staff and administration for a LMS to perform his or her job effectively. As schools progress into the 21st century and become more active in student learning and collaboration, the role of the school LMS must adjust and advance with the school. As part of this, the LMS must proactively seek to collaborate with teachers and administrators (Simpson, 1996). This can be stressful in that most of the energy in an association is dedicated to ‘‘maintaining the existing order of things; change is always resisted, internally and externally’’ (Stripling, 1999, p. 149). Teachers need to keep an open mind to move forward collaboratively, and a big part of the job of the LMS is to calm those teachers who do not adjust well to the rapidity of change (Starkman, 2007). Leadership Multiple theories exist for leadership in general, but the path-goal theory of leadership formulated by House (1996) encompassed the characteristics that relate most closely to the role played by the school LMS acting as a leader. This theory postulates that leaders are most successful and effective in performing, satisfying, and motivating subordinates when they offer rewards

302


for achieving performance goals, clarify paths to take to accomplish these goals, and remove obstacles to the performance of these goals (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Whether or not leadership behavior can fulfill needs of subordinates effectively also depends on situational factors. There are four types of leadership styles that depend on situational factors. These four leadership styles are achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive (House, 1996). Those who use directive leadership provide specific advice to the group, ground rules and structure are established, expectations are clarified, and work tasks to be accomplished are specified or assigned. Supportive leaders promote positive relations and sensitivity toward subordinates’ needs. Participative leaders emphasize consultative decisionmaking information sharing within the group. Finally, achievementoriented leaders set challenging goals and encourage high performance while confidence is shown in the groups’ ability to meet the challenge placed before them (House, 1996). The path-goal model for leadership stated that the four leadership styles are fluid depending on what the situation demands. This flexibility relates directly to the leadership role of the LMS. The LMS is expected to set goals for the teachers to encourage collaboration and to clearly lay out expectations (Doll, 2005). Then, the school LMS must adjust the leadership approach used to proactively forge relationships with other educators to meet common objectives, using any or all of the four leadership styles (House, 1996). As the LMS aids other educators, a second key leadership role is promoting curriculum standards across grade levels. The LMS must be knowledgeable in the Georgia state curriculum for each subject area in the grade levels applicable to their school (Wisely, 2003). By taking the initiative to work along with teachers, the LMS fulfills each of the four leadership styles. Clarifying expectations (directive), promoting a good working relationship by supporting the teachers (supportive), consulting with the group to make decisions (participative), and boosting the teachers’ confidence by encouraging high performance (achievement-oriented) all demonstrate leadership skills (AASL & AECT, 1998; Dees et al., 2007; Stripling, 1999). The school LMS can demonstrate leadership qualities through daily interaction with administrators, teachers, students, parents or parent volunteers, and community partners (Dees, et al., 2007), serving proactively as an advocate for the library media center. However, LMSs have limited training about how to be advocates, and many other educators and administrators are unaware of their potential to support school programs (Alexander, Smith, & Carey, 2003).


303

There are several ways for a LMS to advocate for their services and for the LMC. One way is to become a part of the school improvement team. The school LMS ‘‘strengthens the program’s connections by working as a curriculum and instructional leader on the school’s leadership team’’ (AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 125). This offers the opportunity to inform members of the leadership team that available resources in the media center can enhance teaching and learning, in addition to increasing their awareness of the LRC needs required to meet the needs of the students. Businesses or community organizations are willing to put resources together to benefit the needs of local area schools. Alerting these organizations to the needs of the school media center gives that center the chance of receiving donations that can help the center grow. A LMS may demonstrate leadership by promoting information literacy within the school. The AASL and AECT (1998) highlighted the significance of the LMS in producing information literate students. ‘‘The library media specialist takes the lead in educational reform by showing the connections between information-based learning and the skills students will need in the twenty-first century’’ (p. 52). One final method for a school LMS to demonstrate leadership is by knowing the curriculum of the school and what is happening at the district, state, and national levels (Levitov, 2007), making him or herself a point of reference for students, teachers, and administrative staff. Showing an interest in school events and at school meets helps to demonstrate the LMS’s leadership potential. Howard and Eckhardt (2005) asserted that publicizing their capabilities will, in turn, enhance the achievement level of the students and increase their perceived leadership role within that learning community. Lance (2001) described this key leadership role of a LMS as a program administrator who promotes information literacy with school administrators at faculty and curriculum committee meetings. As a school leader, the LMS may face challenges with staff dedication. Stripling (1999) maintained that the school library media program must become a center geared more toward student learning using collaboration, leadership, and technology. Stripling (1999) contended that the school LMS must produce change in our schools with a philosophical center that supports student learning as well as the commitment to provide an education that prepares each student for living in an information age. Stripling also maintained that Some administrators might react negatively to a ‘movement’ initiated by the library media specialist to revise or reform the school’s curriculum or teaching methods. Some teachers may have no interest in changing either the content of their units or the manner

304


in which those units are presented and evaluated. Funds may not be available for the support materials and training necessary to launch an information literacy skills program. (p. 75)

As positive change occurs in the LMC, a change in the school will also occur. It takes dedication and understanding on the part of the entire staff of a school community to promote a strong LMC and to encourage student use of its abundant resources (Stripling, 1999). Technology The LMS is a primary leader in the area of technology utilization in schools. AASL and AECT (1998) identified technology as the third major role played by a LMS and a catalyst for school reform. Technology is playing a key role in providing access to critical information necessary for students to excel. ‘‘The earliest modern information technologies – whether the card catalog or the microfiche – brought library media specialists to the forefront of technology use to enhance information access and use’’ (p. 54). However, many school LMSs view technology as a threat or just one more thing to do in the course of a day (Anderson, 2005). Media specialists should support and encourage the involvement of technology within a learning organization and to proactively integrate technology into their jobs and into the learning community (Anderson, 2005). ‘‘Technology connections allow learners to apply the information literacy standards for student learning and to participate in a community of learners that spans the globe’’ (AASL & AECT, p. 130). It is important for students to find a connection between the information literacy standards and the technology that they are utilizing and applying it to their everyday lives. School community members, including teachers, administrators, other support staff, and students, will benefit from the services of the school LMS when technology is introduced into the curriculum. One challenge for the LMS is funding. As the need for technology in school libraries grows, more funding is necessary to provide and maintain it if they expect to increase student achievement. Libraries struggle to do more with less money as administrators look for ways to increase student achievement with less funding (Dearman & Alber, 2005). To convey the importance and need for resource funding, the LMS must help administrators understand what resources are needed in the LMC. Stripling (1999) deemed that the LMSs in many schools no longer receive adequate funding, nor are they guaranteed funding for library resources, including those for technology. To ensure that the needs of a school LMC are met, four goals have been set forth by the AASL and AECT (1998): (a) work


305

with the learning community to determine the school’s information and instructional needs and to develop a budget that provides for the purchasing and upkeep of all resources the library media program requires to meet those needs; (b) administer the budget according to sound accounting procedures to meet all informational and instructional needs and report all expenses as required by local policies; (c) maintain current information on the costs of traditional and electronic resources, on auxiliary expenses such as telecommunications rates and other professional charges, and on sources of funding beyond the school budget for meeting these expenses; and (d) investigate and use financial methods and resources to meet the information needs of the learning community, including centralized processing, purchase discounts, partnerships with local organizations, and collaborative grant writing for special purchases and programs (p. 110).

LMS of the Twenty-First Century The industrial age ‘‘has been replaced by the information age and y a knowledge of facts is no longer as critical as the ability to creatively solve problems and continue learning throughout life’’ (Knapp & Glenn, 1996, p. 9). The LMS is a key player in addressing this need. According to Stripling (1999): The library media specialist in the information-age school is more than a resource provider. The library media specialist is a partner on the instructional team and an expert in the process that leads to information literacy. The library media specialist and teachers collaboratively plan and teach, with the library media specialist as the resource and process expert of the school, the teacher as the content and context expert, and the principal as the facilitator. Together they form a team for providing inquiry-based learning for the information-age school. (p. 20)

The school LMS must adapt to the 21st-century students’ needs of growing up in a technology-rich environment (Young, 2007). This is best accomplished by collaborating with classroom teachers, exercising leadership in the school, and creating and maintaining a strong relationship between the school library media program and the technology. However, because the balance among these roles performed by the school LMS is weak, the focus lies on how each concept can be carried out to positively affect the achievement of students (Abilock, 2004).

306


The LMS Role of Teacher School LMSs of the past ‘‘focused on a consultancy role and stressed locational guidance, but current practice demands a true partnership role, in which the school library media specialist and classroom teacher are engaged throughout the instructional process’’ (American Library Association [ALA] & American Association of School Librarians [AASL], 2003 p. 7). Harvey (2005) discussed the role of a LMS as a teacher and her responsibility for working with students in the media center, the computer lab, and the classroom to improve information literacy. The conceptual framework of collaboration, leadership, and technology are interwoven into the LMS role of teacher to advance the school’s educational program (DeGroff, 1996). The LMS collaborates with teachers and students to provide resources to enhance learning; leads as an expert in information literacy; works effectively with teachers, administrators, and other staff; and uses information technology to enhance student learning and the presentation of materials to students (AASL & AECT, 1998). Lamb and Johnson (2007) described the LMS as an effective educator with the knowledge or skills necessary to cover a variety of educational topics across disciplines and grade levels that include teaching, learning, and information literacy. The LMS can help ease a teacher’s workload, bring different teaching styles to the learning environment, and integrate library skills into the curriculum (Hylen, 2004). Although the school LMS is involved in a variety of tasks within a school, it appears that there is a need to review the role of the LMS with staff members, especially the role of teacher-librarian as this responsibility fosters learning in reading (Braxton, 2008). A part of the teaching responsibility of the school LMS is to ensure that the needs of students and educators are analyzed and met, and constant updates of progress here are necessary (American Association of School Librarians [AASL], 2007). The range of teaching that is demonstrated by the school LMS relating to instructional technology is expected to vary depending on the abilities of the users, the presence or absence of a technician in educational technology, and the expectations of the individual school (Craver, 1994). ‘‘Teaching may only entail the preparation of user instructions pertaining to entering, exiting, and manipulating the system, or short tutorials to be executed while using the new software’’ (p. 115). The LMS Role of Instructional Partner The role of instructional partner, or instructional consultant, was identified by the AASL and AECT as one of the most important roles of the school LMS (Rosenfeld, 2006). In this role, the LMS collaborates and works


307

to ensure that all teachers in an educational community are integrating research and technology skills and strategies into the curriculum (DeGroff, 1996). An LMS must take the leadership in building partnerships in the school to promote information literacy throughout the school (Lamb & Johnson, 2007). The AASL and AECT argue that the LMS should be an instructional partner, suggesting that the school LMS be viewed as an equal to classroom teachers (Morris, 2004). The AASL (2007) says that As instructional partner, the library media specialist joins with teachers and others to identify links across students information needs, curricular content, learning outcomes, and a wide variety of print, nonprint, and electronic information resources. Working with the entire school community, the library media specialist takes a leading role in developing policies, practices, and developing curricula that guide students to develop the full range of information and communication abilities. Committed to the process of collaboration, the library media specialist works closely with individual teachers in the critical areas of designing authentic learning tasks and assessments and integrating the information and communication abilities required to meet subject matter standards. (p. 2)

The LMS’s job is to know enough about the curriculum of the school to select materials that support that curriculum (Hylen, 2004). The literature also conveyed that the LMS supports the instructional consultant role by providing advice on the acquisition of new and various technologies to meet emerging needs based on quality, affordability, and whether they are beneficial to the educational community (Craver, 1994). The LMS works along with other educators in a school to promote an effective environment for student learning (AASL, 2007). The LMS Role of Information Specialist DeGroff (1996) described the LMS role of information specialist as the role that is most traditional, which includes operating the library with a schedule for classes to access research materials and maintaining a collection that includes library resources. Lowe (2000) maintained that LMSs are ‘‘the original information specialists’’ (p. 2) and, in this role, he or she must teach students to judge the informational resources that they use in their studies and also teach them how to use the appropriate technologies to locate information. The LMS can guarantee that students with varying interests, learning abilities, and styles can access information and technologies equally (Everhart, 2007). The AASL (2007) supported the role of information specialist by including collaboration, leadership, and technology. As information specialist, the library media specialist provides leadership and expertise in acquiring and evaluation information resources in all formats; in bringing

308


an awareness of information issues into collaborative relationships with teachers, administrators, students, and others; and in modeling for students and others strategies for locating, accessing, and evaluating information within and beyond the library media center. (p. 3)

The school LMS is responsible for providing leadership in the area of information literacy, and teachers of all disciplines look to the LMS as the provider of the media necessary to support the curriculum at all grade levels. Most educators rely on the expertise that the LMS has to offer during collaborative efforts (Harvey, 2005). In addition to collaboration and leadership (AASL & AECT, 1998), the LMS must be proficient in the use of these innovative resources, maintain a focus on the quality of these resources, and use them along with the traditional tools to meet the needs of the school. The LMS Role of Program Administrator The AASL and AECT (1998) suggested that the LMS works as a collaborator with members in a learning community to help define all policies of the school library media program as well as all activities that relate to it (AASL, 2007, n.p.). The LMS directs all activities associated with the library media program including material acquisitioning, budgeting, staffing, and other instructional responsibilities required to make the program a success (AASL & AECT, 1998; Stripling, 1999). The LMS must understand how to manage a LMC and to make changes when necessary, communicate clearly with other educators, be prepared to make strategic risks when necessary, and create a learning environment that enhances student achievement (ALA & AASL, 2003, p. 8).

Perceptions of the Roles and Responsibilities of the School LMS Kearney (2000) held that the perceptions many teachers have about the role of the school LMS complicate the participation of the LMS in the planning process for the school. Teachers and administrators often misunderstand the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS as envisioned by the AASL and AECT (Hartzell, 1997). One way to understand today’s school libraries and media specialists is by becoming acquainted with Information Power, a position statement from the professional organizations (American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology) to which school library media specialists belong. (DeGroff, 1996, p. 3)


309

Often, this is because the LMSs are not visible in the school promoting their capabilities (Hartzell, 1997). ‘‘The message is clear: librarians must make themselves more visible by better articulating their mission and the impact they have on student learning’’ (Lau, 2002, p. 52). ‘‘It takes work to change people’s perceptions; not just more work, but work that is qualitatively different from that required to create and operate a technically sound library media center’’ (Hartzell, 1997, pp. 27–28). The recommendations for a school LMS to become visible in a school setting are (a) break the current momentum in which teachers and administrators are unaware of the capabilities that the LMS possesses, (b) change the perceptions held by teachers and administrators of the school LMS, and (c) build a foundation for the training teachers and administrators to understand the current roles and responsibilities of the school LMS as the basis of successful future relationships and collaborative efforts (Hartzell, 1997, p. 27). ‘‘Turnaround media specialists recognize the importance of implementing the small changes, the tipping points, that can transform low-achieving students into high-achieving ones’’ (Jones & Zambone, 2008, p. 32). As the school LMS works to reappear in the scene of learning, she becomes visible to the educational community and a channel for school reform (Edwards et al., 1999).

Research on Collaboration with the LMS Teachers should stay abreast and participate in available professional development opportunities. ‘‘Studying one’s professional practice, therefore, promotes improvement of those practices and associated contexts for learning and teaching. Ultimately, it improves and promises to improve student learning’’ (Cole & Knowles, 2000, p. 13). When teachers reflect upon their own practices, they are targeting areas that are in need of improvement. Educators may foster reciprocal relationships with colleagues to improve learning within a school by modeling such a relationship and by creating opportunities for teachers to expand their knowledge. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) stated, ‘‘Teacher leadership is influencing others toward improved educational practice’’ (p. 7). They also maintained that, ‘‘By taking on roles such as teachers of demonstration classrooms, peer coaches, action researchers, and study group leaders, teachers have the potential to influence teaching and learning in schools’’ (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001, p. 30). As a LMS takes the initiative to establish a system of collegiality

310


by creating opportunities to increase teacher and student knowledge regarding research and technology skills, he or she is modeling the behavior of a teacher leader and of an educator who harvests the benefits of collaborating with others. When the LMS sees the need for professional development, it is his or her responsibility to use it to address a knowledge gap in the school community (Harvey, 2006; Stripling, 1999). As LMSs work to enhance the knowledge of their colleagues, this effort can help establish them as school leaders, and members of the school community will gain trust in their services (Dearman & Alber, 2005). Working together collegially reinforces the idea that everyone in the educational community desires to achieve one goal – to improve the achievement of the students (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). Advantages of Collaborating with LMS Faculties that work collaboratively can set clear goals for teaching and learning, observe and record student progress, and develop plans to increase student achievement and establish a learning community (Dearman & Alber, 2005). As the LMS of a learning community works to help all members within the community, she fulfills the needs of students while modeling leadership qualities. The benefits to classroom teachers as they collaborate with the LMS include (a) a better understanding of resources available; (b) more individual help, small group work, and on-task behavior in classroom; (c) an expanded knowledge and knowledge base; (d) increased opportunity for student success; (e) a reenergized teaching through pooling of ideas and efforts; (f) staff relationships that improve the school climate for all; (g) professional growth opportunities; and (h) a reduced student– teacher ratio (Ruffin, 2006, p. 49). The LMS benefits from the collaboration with classroom teachers in the following ways: (a) being recognized as an integral part of the instructional team; (b) fostering a better understanding and use of resources; (c) becoming a more vital part of the learning environment, better meeting individual needs and interests; (d) contributing to student achievement; (e) developing a better understanding of student, staff, and curriculum needs; and (f) improving the integration of library media center, technology, information, and research skills into student learning (Ruffin, 2006, p. 49). Conditions and Challenges Interfering With Effective Collaboration Despite the benefits to all of having the LMS working along side other members within an educational community as colleagues, there are conditions that interfere with efforts to collaborate (Ruffin, 2006). ‘‘The


311

school library media specialist must realize that most teachers will not come to the library media center seeking a partner for collaborative planning’’ (Doll, 2005, p. 21). A school LMS has experience in teaching, a fact often forgotten by many teachers. Also, many teachers are unaware that the LMS practices instructional design and understands educational technology. There are many factors that keep classroom teachers from collaborating with the school LMS. Doll identified isolation and time as two significant ones. Teachers may also view collaboration as a threat to their planning time, and, in most traditional schools with self-contained classrooms, many teachers resist collaboration because they value the time they have to work alone with their students (Doll, 2005). Many teachers work alone in their self-contained classrooms and ‘‘the school library media specialist works alone in the media center – both being forms of professional isolation’’ (Doll, 2005, p. 21). The onus is on the LMS to initiate a professional relationship with these educators.

Research on Professional Development for the LMS One of the most persistent research findings on school improvement is its close relationship with professional development (Hawley & Rollie, 2002). Meaningful professional development is more important than ever due to the mandates of NCLB (Dearman & Alber, 2005). The school LMS plays a vital role in an educational community in staff development as she focuses on the needs of administrators and of the curriculum (Bosco, 2001). ‘‘The library media specialist’s role as a teacher makes him or her a prime candidate to provide training to teachers as well’’ (Harvey, 2006, p. 20). Educators working collaboratively with others, including the school LMS, will aid in the invaluable exchange of information and ideas. ‘‘Frequent interactions with colleagues who are struggling with the same frustrations provide the just-in-time learning that can reinforce new knowledge and skills’’ (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001, p. 43). Convenience Professional learning needs to be convenient for educators for it to be accepted and to be positively implemented. The problems that educators experience with time management and their overloaded schedules often result in their deciding to leave teaching (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). ‘‘Serious approaches to securing and allocating adequate resources for more noninstructional time is the systematic solution to this long-standing

312


predicament’’ (p. 119). Katzenmeyer and Moller further attempted to explain ways to correct this problem by stating, ‘‘The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) recommends that 25% of teachers’ time be devoted to professional growth’’ (p. 119). An attempt to provide more noninstructional time for teachers so that they can keep up with developments in the field will help the school provide a positive professional learning experience for its faculty. Administrative Support ‘‘Teachers and administrators can become forces for change by studying and reviewing student work together to meet the needs of diverse students’’ (Dearman & Alber, 2005, p. 634). Involving school administrators with the planning and delivering of professional learning sessions is crucial in a collaborative environment striving to improve student learning. The National Staff Development Council (n.d.) stated, Skillful leaders establish policies and organizational structures that support ongoing professional learning and continuous improvement. They ensure an equitable distribution of resources to accomplish district goals and continuously improve the school or district’s work through the ongoing evaluation of staff development’s effectiveness in achieving student learning goals. (p. 1)

Administrators ensure that the necessary standards will be covered and that the program benefits the needs of each educator attending as they collaborate with teacher leaders who are willing to offer professional learning sessions to the school staff. In fact, the teacher who is presenting may find it beneficial to collaborate with the school administration. As these programs are planned, it is important to ensure that roles in the presentation are divided in a way that will ensure that the gathering is beneficial to each attendant (The National Staff Development Council, n.d.). Meaningful Professional Learning Providing meaningful professional learning is imperative, but this is not always accomplished. ‘‘Although many schools have regularly scheduled staff development sessions, much of what is done in these sessions is not necessarily meaningful or useful in terms of impacting student achievement’’ (Marzano, 2003, p. 65). Professional learning that is not focused on content or specific subject areas does make it difficult for teachers to apply their newfound knowledge. ‘‘Length and number of staff development activities are positively correlated with change in teacher behavior. Thus, the more staff development provided, the greater the change in teacher behavior’’


313

(Marzano, p. 66). Meaningful and numerous effective staff development opportunities should be provided to meet the needs of educators, and these can be expected to lead to higher student achievement as well as a confident teaching staff that enjoys its work (Hannon, 2003).

METHODOLOGY After completing the preceding review of the literature relating to the evolution of the roles of the school LMS and the barriers that must be overcome to manage a successful 21st-century library media program, a survey of teachers working in three high schools from different districts in southeast Georgia was conducted to compare the perceptions of the roles that classroom teachers identify as important for the school LMS and the roles they believe that their school LMS currently plays in the educational process. The research questions addressed in this study were as follows: 1. How do the perceptions of high school educators on the practices of the role of the school LMS differ from the way that they perceive these roles to be important at their high schools? Ha0: There is no significant relationship between perceptions of the roles played by the high school importance teachers placed on those roles. Ha1: There is a significant relationship between perceptions of the roles played by the high school importance teachers placed on those roles.

the teachers’ LMS and the the teachers’ LMS and the

The independent variable used to measure this was the teachers’ perceptions of the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS. The dependent variable was the teachers’ perceptions of practice of these roles and responsibilities. 2. What are the correlations between high school teachers’ years of experience, subjects taught, level of education, gender, age, and number of times that they have utilized the school LMS services in a school year and the importance they place on the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS? Ha0: There is no significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers (highest level of education, number of years

314


teaching, subject taught, and so forth) and the reported importance they place on the high school LMS. Ha2: There is a significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers and the reported importance they place on the high school LMS. The independent variable used to test these hypotheses was the teachers’ descriptive variables. The dependent variable was the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS. 3. What are the correlations between high school teachers’ years of experience, subject taught, level of education, gender, age, and the number of times that they have utilized the services of the school LMS services in a school year and their opinion of the practice of the high school LMS? Ha0: There is no significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers (highest level of education, number of years teaching, subject taught, and so forth) and their opinion of the practice of the high school LMS. Ha3: There is a significant correlation between descriptive variables of high school teachers and their opinion of the practice of the high school LMS. The independent variable was the teachers’ descriptive variables. The dependent variable was the teachers’ opinion of the practice of the roles and responsibilities of the high school LMS. The survey instrument used allowed each participant to indicate his or her perception of each role that could be played by the school LMS as it is outlined in national standards set forth for the school LMS. Statistical tests were used to examine the validity of the data, and conclusions were then drawn regarding the perceptions of high school educators of the roles of the school LMS. Prior research indicated that teachers generally do not recognize the instructional expertise of the school LMS who exhibit leadership qualities and utilize technology and a school library program that benefits all educational stakeholders (Craver, 1994; McCracken, 2000). This survey was designed to test those earlier conclusions in this population. Using such a design contributed to the rapid turnaround in data collection (Creswell, 2003) and its capacity to collect data on phenomena that cannot be observed (Palmquist, 2001). The survey was cross-sectional, meaning that data was collected at one point in time. As most educators already have


315

experience with services provided by the LMC, they were able to give immediate feedback. Data was collected in this self-administered survey using questions with answers arrayed on a Likert-type scale. McCracken (2000) used a similar method to determine the perceptions of media specialists in the United States regarding their own roles and responsibilities and recommended that classroom teachers be surveyed to find out if their perceptions differed from those of LMS. In his study, ‘‘The statements are designed to determine if librarians perceive the roles described for them in national standards to be important and if they are practicing these roles in their schools’’ (p. 66). Classroom teachers were asked whether the roles and responsibilities described for the LMS in the national standards are important to them and whether or not their school’s LMS was practicing those roles and responsibilities. A total of 161 teachers were asked to complete McCracken’s (2000) survey, and 107 instruments were returned. Participants responded to 47 Likert-type questions ranging from to a very great extent to not at all to determine the perceptions of high school educators on the role of the LMS and the degree to which the roles set forth by the AASL and AECT have been implemented. The mean and standard deviation were computed for each response to the practical and theoretical scale provided in the survey. The four major categories included: (a) roles unique to the 1988 edition of ALA and AECT, instructional consultant; (b) roles unique to the 1998 edition of AASL and AECT, (b1) program administrator, and (b2) instructional partner; (c) roles in both the 1988 (ALA & AECT) and 1998 (AASL & AECT), (c1) teacher, and (c2) information specialist; and (d) use of technology (McCracken, 2000, p. 84). The purpose of the theoretical role scale on the survey was to identify the level of participants’ perceptions of the importance of each of the stated roles of the school LMS. The question ‘‘Is this important to you?’’ was clarified on the survey instrument. The practical role scale on the survey asked participants in the study to identify the degree to which they perceive the stated roles of the school LMS to be of importance. The question ‘‘Do you practice this?’’ was clarified on the survey instrument. A five-level Likert-type scale was used on each of the scales. The responses include 1 – not at all, 2 – to a small extent, 3 – to a moderate extent, 4 – to a great extent, and 5 – to a very great extent. A paired sample t-test was used in this study to compare the theoretical and practical scales in each category to determine if the means between the two categories were statistically significant.

316


The Spearman rank-ordered correlations test was used to measure the degree to which a relationship existed between the perceptions of the actual practice of and the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS. It also allowed the researcher to determine whether teachers view the roles of the school LMS to be important and to determine if the teachers believed that the LMS at their school is practicing the appropriate services in that role to the fullest extent. The consistency of the relationship between the demographic information and the importance of the LMS roles and the practice of the local LMS were measured and helps to draw conclusions as the Spearman correlation test is used to help measure the relationship of the rankings (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005). Using the Spearman rank-ordered correlations test, the researcher was able to determine the most important and least important roles as well as the most practiced and least practiced roles. The backward elimination regression model was used to reduce the chance for error and to help determine if any or all of the variables are helpful (Chatterjee & Hadi, 2006). The researcher distributed McCracken’s (2000) survey to each classroom teacher at each of the three high schools and asked that they complete the survey within two weeks. One week into the survey, the researcher sent an e-mail reminder to all potential participants to complete and return their survey if they had not already done so. The researcher collected the completed surveys two weeks later from a sealed box in each school’s mailroom and met with the principals. Incomplete surveys were not included in the data analysis. The researcher obtained permission to conduct the study from the three principals in the selected schools in the involved school districts. The researcher also received permission from McCracken (2000) to use her survey. The researcher determined the date of a faculty meeting that was selected by each principal to explain the purpose of the study and the contribution it would make to the teaching profession. A script was provided to ensure that each school’s participants receive the correct and equivalent introduction.

Quantitative Data Analysis When the survey instruments were collected, the researcher conducted a descriptive statistics test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Each answer from the survey corresponded to a number on a Likert-type scale as follows: 1 – not at all, 2 – to a small extent, 3 – to a


317

moderate extent, 4 – to a great extent, and 5 – to a very great extent. The researcher evaluated the information using descriptive statistics because this information allowed her to look at an overall mean for the data for each question asked to determine the level of practice and importance of the LMS roles set forth by the national standards. Answers were first organized from the Likert-type scale in a chart and then answers for each of the individual questions were analyzed to determine the areas of strength and weakness regarding the teachers’ perceptions of the importance of and the actual practices of the school LMS. The mean and standard deviation were used to allow the researcher to make interpretations and to make comparisons. A paired sample t-test was also used to determine if there was a significant difference between the means of the theoretical and practical scale responses, and the Spearman rank-ordered correlation test helped the researcher determine the statistical significance of the means that were obtained and to determine (a) if the teachers view the roles of the school LMS as important, (b) if they believed that the LMS at their school is practicing the appropriate services in that role to the fullest extent, and (c) to measure the relationship of the rankings of the roles of the LMS and determine the most important and least important LMS roles and the most practiced and least practiced roles. The backward elimination regression model was used to reduce the chance for error and to help determine if any or all of the variables were helpful (Chatterjee & Hadi, 2006). Results of the Study Descriptive data that were obtained for this study included years of experience as a high school teacher, subject taught, level of education, gender, age, and the approximate number of trips to the LMC last school year to utilize the school LMS services. Preliminary analysis showed 66.5% of the Georgia high school educators agreed to participate in the study. These statistics helped as the researcher attempted to answer research questions 2 and 3, which identified how these variables relate to the practice of and the importance of the roles of the school LMS. Years of experience ranged from 0–5 years to 26 þ years (Mdn ¼ 13 years of experience). Most (71.9%) had at least a master’s degree. There were more females (56.1%) than males (43.9%). The median age was 45.5 years. These educators reported a median of seven trips each year to see the LMS. Table 1 displays the frequency counts for the courses that the educator taught. The most commonly taught courses were English/language arts (16.8%), social studies (15.9%), science (15.0%), and mathematics (15.0%).

318


Table 1.

Frequency Counts For Course that the Teacher Taught (n ¼ 107).

Course Taught

n

%

English/language arts Social studies Science Math CTAE Special education Health/PE Other courses Foreign language

18 17 16 16 12 11 9 4 3

16.8 15.9 15.0 15.0 11.2 10.3 8.4 3.7 2.8

The descriptive statistics for 47 importance ratings were sorted by the highest mean rating. A five-point scale was used for the ratings (1 ¼ Not at all to 5 ¼ To a very great extent). The highest rated items was item 22, ‘‘Manage space, equipment, resources, and supplies for the full range of library media programs and services’’ (M ¼ 4.66), and item 45, ‘‘Organize all library resources for effective and efficient use through such methods as cataloging, classifying, and arranging all elements of the collection’’ (M ¼ 3.65). Table 2 displays the psychometric characteristics for the seven aggregated importance scales. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranged from r ¼ .78 to r ¼ .97 with a median coefficient of r ¼ .82. According to Introduction to SAS (n.d.), a score of 0.7 or higher indicates that the scales are acceptable or reliable. All items on the survey were answered in a similar fashion. This suggested that all seven scale scores possessed adequate levels of internal reliability. Use of technology (M ¼ 4.39) ranked first on the importance scale, followed by information specialist (M ¼ 4.31), program administrator (M ¼ 4.29), teacher (M ¼ 4.13), instructional partner (M ¼ 3.84), followed by the least important, instructional consultant (M ¼ 3.75) (Table 2). The descriptive statistics for 47 practice ratings were sorted by the highest mean rating. These ratings were provided using a five-point scale (1 ¼ Not at all to 5 ¼ To a very great extent). The highest rated items was item 30, ‘‘Demonstrate a commitment to the principles of the library profession regarding intellectual freedom, confidentiality, the rights of users, and other intellectual property concerns’’ (M ¼ 4.02), and item 22, ‘‘Manage space, equipment, resources, and supplies for the full range of library media programs and services’’ (M ¼ 3.95).

319


The psychometric characteristics for the seven aggregated practice scales are summarized in Table 3. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranged in size from r ¼ .87 to r ¼ .98 with a median sized coefficient of r ¼ .91. A level of 0.7 or higher suggests a reliable scale that is acceptable with responses that are similar in fashion (Introduction to SAS, n.d.). This suggested that all seven scale scores possessed adequate levels of internal reliability. Use of technology (M ¼ 3.32) ranked first on the practice scale, followed by program administrator (M ¼ 3.31), information specialist (M ¼ 3.29), teacher (M ¼ 2.95), instructional partner (M ¼ 2.68), followed by the least practiced, instructional consultant (M ¼ 2.66) (Table 3).

Table 2.

Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Importance Rating Scale Scores (n ¼ 107).

Importance Score Alpha Total importance Information specialist importance Program administrator importance Instructional consultant importance Teacher importance Use of technology importance Instructional partner importance

47 10 7 6 7 10 7

Number of Items

M

SD

Low

High

4.16 4.31 4.29 3.75 4.13 4.39 3.84

0.60 0.57 0.59 0.83 0.68 0.48 0.92

2.55 2.70 2.14 1.67 2.29 2.90 1.00

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

.97 .94 .78 .81 .81 .82 .91

Note: Aggregated ratings based on five-point scale: 1 ¼ Not at all to 5 ¼ To a very great extent.

Table 3.

Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Practice Rating Scale Scores (n ¼ 107).

Practice Score Total practice Information specialist practice Program administrator practice Instructional consultant practice Teacher practice Use of technology practice Instructional partner practice

47 10 7 6 7 10 7

Number of Items

M

SD

Low

High

3.08 3.29 3.31 2.66 2.95 3.32 2.68

0.92 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.98 1.11

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

4.91 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

.98 .91 .89 .88 .87 .93 .94

Note: Aggregated ratings based on five-point scale: 1 ¼ Not at all to 5 ¼ To a very great extent.

320


Results of the Study To answer research questions 1, 2, and 3, the means and standard deviations were computed for the responses on the practical scale and for the responses on the theoretical scale. Each survey statement was grouped by the four major categories used in the survey. The four major categories included: (a) roles unique to the 1988 edition of the AASL, instructional consultant; (b) roles unique to the 1998 edition of the AASL and AECT, (b1) program administrator, and (b2) instructional partner; (c) roles in both the 1988 and 1998 editions of the AASL and AECT, (c1) teacher, and (c2) information specialist; and (d) use of technology. The theoretical scale involved the researcher asking the participants to indicate the degree to which they believed each of the listed items on the survey is important to them as a classroom teacher. The practical scale involved the researcher asking the classroom teachers to respond to each statement on the survey to indicate the degree to which they believe that each item is currently being practiced in their school. A Likert-type scale was used for responses on both scales. The possible responses were 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ to a small extent, 3 ¼ to a moderate extent, 4 ¼ to a great extent, and 5 ¼ to a very great extent. Research Question 1 To address this question, difference scores were calculated for the 47 individual ratings and the seven scale scores. The difference score was calculated by subtracting the respondent’s practice rating from their importance rating. The items showing the greatest difference between importance and practice were item 43, ‘‘Offer an ongoing staff development program in the use and integration of information technologies’’ (M ¼ 1.48), and item 47, ‘‘Provide instruction for parents to assist them in sharing, reading, learning, listening, and viewing experiences with children’’ (M ¼ 1.42). In addition, paired sample t-tests were performed comparing each of the respondent’s 47 importance ratings with the equivalent practice rating. For all 47 t-tests, the importance rating was significantly higher than the practice rating at the po.001 level. The scale scores showing the largest difference between importance and practice were teacher difference (M ¼ 1.19) and instructional partner difference (M ¼ 1.16) (Table 4). In addition, paired sample t-tests were performed comparing each of the respondent’s seven importance scale scores with the equivalent practice scale score.

321


Table 4. Prediction of Total Importance Score Based on Selected Variables. Backward Elimination Regression (n ¼ 107). Variable Intercept Highest education

B

SE

b

p

4.52 0.12

0.20 0.06

.18

.001 .06

Note: Final model: F (1, 105) ¼ 3.70, p ¼ .06, R2 ¼ .034, candidate variables ¼ 13.

Research Question 2 Table 4 displays the results of the backward elimination regression model predicting the total importance score based on the 13 candidate independent variables listed. The final one-variable model failed to reach statistical significance (p ¼ .06) and accounted for 3.4% of the variance in the dependent variable. Inspection of the beta weight found the total importance score tended to be higher for educators with lower amounts of education (b ¼ .18, p ¼ .06) (Table 4). Research Question 3 To address this question, the Spearman rank-ordered correlations compared 13 teacher descriptive variables with the seven practice scale scores. Community, agriculture and technical education (CATE) educators had higher practice scores for five of seven scale scores. Teachers with more education had higher practice scores for five of seven scale scores. In addition, male educators had higher practice scores for four of seven scale scores. Table 5 displays the results of the backward elimination regression model predicting the total practice score based on the same 13 candidate independent variables listed. The final four-variable model was significant (p ¼ .002) and accounted for 15.6% of the variance in the dependent variable. Inspection of the beta weight revealed the total practice score to be higher for: (a) English/language arts (b ¼ .17, p ¼ .07); (b) CTAE educators (b ¼ .16, p ¼ .09); (c) educators with more education (b ¼ .24, p ¼ .01); and (d) male educators (b ¼ .22, p ¼ .02).

SUMMARY This quantitative study used a nonexperimental design to reveal the perceptions of Georgia high school educators on the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS. The roles and responsibilities are instructional

322

Table 5.


Prediction of Total Practice Score Based on Selected Variables. Backward Elimination Regression (n ¼ 107).

Variable Intercept Teach English/language artsa Teach CTAEa Highest education Genderb

B

SE

b

p

2.83 0.43 0.47 0.25 0.40

0.37 0.23 0.27 0.10 0.17

.17 .16 .24 .22

.001 .07 .09 .01 .02

Notes: Final model: F (4, 102) ¼ 4.73, p ¼ .002, R2 ¼ .156, candidate variables ¼ 13. a Code: 0 ¼ No 1 ¼ Yes. b Gender: 1 ¼ Male; 2 ¼ Female.

consultant, program administrator, instructional partner, teacher, information specialist, and use of technology. One hundred and seven participants were surveyed to inform stakeholders about their perceptions of these roles and responsibilities. After collecting the descriptive statistics, a paired sample t-test was used to entertain research question 1, and the researcher found that in all 47 situations, the importance score was significantly different, or significantly higher, than the practice score, which indicated that Georgia high school educators find each of the roles of the LMS to be more important than what is actually being practiced. Another paired sample t-test was performed on each of the six categories for the roles of the LMS plus the total score to determine the difference between the importance scale and the practice scale, and this found the importance scale to be significantly higher than the practice score. This indicated that in all situations, there is room for improvement. The high school teachers ranked each of the six categories’ (roles of the LMS) importance higher than they ranked their importance in the operation of their schools. The Spearman rank-ordered correlations test was performed for research question 2, which compared teacher descriptive variables with seven importance scale scores to find that Georgia high school educators had similar views on the importance scale. A backward elimination regression model found that those teachers with more education have a lower importance scale score, and those teachers with less education assigned this function a higher importance scale score. The Spearman rank-ordered correlations test was also used to answer research question 3 as it compared teacher descriptive variables with seven practice scale scores to find that Georgia high school educators again have similar views. CTAE teachers had


323

higher practice scores for five of seven scale scores. Teachers with more education had higher practice scores than those with less education, and male high school educators had higher practice scores than female high school educators. A backward elimination regression model found that language arts teachers, CTAE teachers, and those teachers with a higher level of education all had a higher rating for the total practice of the school LMS. Also, male high school teachers gave a higher practice rating than female high school teachers. The findings of this study parallel those of previous ones. This study found that Georgia high school teachers placed more importance on the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS than they did on the actual practice of these roles. The researcher’s explanation for this finding was supported by existing literature. The literature indicated that many problems interfere with the implementation of the standards in the regular curriculum in these high school classrooms. The literature also showed that a lack of understanding of the roles of the school LMS can cause teachers to hesitate working alongside the school LMS. In addition, isolation, time, and space issues cause teachers to oppose working along with the school LMS. This study also produced data that were inconsistent with earlier findings reported in the literature. DeGroff (1996) found the school LMS roles to be valued by both teachers and administrators. DeGroff (1996) also found in the same study that the school LMS does regularly practice the roles set forth by the AASL and AECT, which is consistent with the findings in this study. Alternate interpretations of these findings may take place as perceptions vary from person to person. Personal experiences in collaborating with the school LMS may cause one to develop their own opinion and may have their own reasons behind their judgment, which may result in a reader finding alternative understandings.

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY This study was designed to clarify why research in the literature indicated that there are mixed views regarding the impact that a school LMS has on a school environment. Previous research assessed the perceptions of the school LMS regarding his or her own roles and responsibilities (DeGroff, 1996; McCracken, 2000; Mosqueda, 1999) or aggregations of classroom teachers’ or administrators’ perceptions on the roles of the LMS, but not the high school teachers’ perceptions individually (DeGroff, 1996; Detwiler, 1990; McCracken, 2000; Mosqueda, 1999). Other studies compared the

324


role of the school LMS to the standards set forth by the professional associations AASL and AECT (McCracken, 2000). Some prior research included teachers’ or principals’ perceptions of the school LMS in one particular role, including that of teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, or program administrator (Cate, 1998; Church, 2007; Straessle, 2000). There were also studies from the perspectives of the school LMS and their perception of the degree to which these roles are important and practiced (McCracken, 2000). Studies were located that revealed that teachers or administrators found the role of the LMS to be valued, that the school LMS practices the roles set forth by the AASL and AECT on a regular basis, and that teachers and the LMS collaborate in a casual manner rather than in a systematic manner (DeGroff, 1996). The researcher found many studies that were similar to this study, but the missing link included the perceptions of high school educators of all roles of the school LMS according to the national standards set forth by the AASL and AECT. This study examined the perceptions of high school state-certified educators regarding the roles and responsibilities of Georgia high school LMSs. Analysis of data indicated that there is no significant relationship between Georgia educator demographics and the extent of practice and importance of the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS. Georgia educators have similar views regarding the practice of and the importance of the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS. The first question provided data that can be interpreted as insignificant. The survey results showed a significant relationship between the importance of the roles of the school LMS and the practice of the roles of the school LMS. A significantly higher rating for the importance scale was evident in all situations, which indicated that in all situations, the Georgia high school teachers placed more importance on the roles and responsibilities the school LMS was theoretically expected to play than they did on the role the LMS played actually played in their school. Further analysis found that in all seven specific roles (teacher, instructional partner, instructional consultant, use of technology, information specialist, program administrator, and total difference), the importance scale was significantly higher than the practice scale. If the educators find the roles of the LMS to be important, they are more likely to to understand the importance of implementing information literacy into the high school curriculum, collaborating with teachers to enhance student achievement, implementing technology into learning and teaching situations, and managing a library media program that supports a full range of services that supports all members within the learning community. However, the Georgia high school teachers did not


325

deem that their LMS’s execution of each role made that role as important in their school, meaning that the individual school LMSs are not fulfilling those roles to the extent that the teachers feel that they should be. The rational explanation for these high school educators’ perceptions relate to problems that interfere with the implementation of the standards in the regular curriculum in these high school classrooms. Doll (2005) maintained that many classroom teachers hesitate to collaborate with the school LMS due to the lack of understanding of the roles that the school LMS can play in integrating information literacy standards into the high school curriculum. Other factors that may come into play and that hinder teachers from working along with the school LMS is isolation, time, and lack of resources or space. Oftentimes, teachers at all levels are accustomed to working along in self-contained classrooms, and the school LMS works alone in the school LMC, and there is some resistance by these teachers to accept sharing ideas and responsibilities with the school LMS. Doll (2005) also discussed the lack of time for collaboration. Because of school procedures and demands to meet yearly AYP and higher test scores, it is oftentimes difficult for a classroom teacher to find time to work alongside the school LMS. Resources such as funding are also lacking in this collaborative effort. Funds to purchase materials or equipment to support lessons that are designed for collaborative lessons for the classroom teacher and the LMS are oftentimes unavailable. The school LMS may have to provide funds for curriculum support to provide training for the teachers. Doll (2005) noted that both the teachers and the school LMS know how to teach, but, oftentimes, the classroom teacher is unsure of what the school LMS has to offer collaboratively. Space is one final resource lacking that could cause the Georgia high school teachers to feel that current practices are not adequate even though they are important. Doll further noted that space needs to be available for both planning time and instruction time, and schools sometimes find that it is not as regular LMC activities take place if an entire class needs to come in. If that space is crowded or unavailable, it will cause the classroom teacher to steer clear of the area and will be discouraged when it comes to collaboration with the school LMS. One final issue that may have caused these Georgia high school educators to find that the practices are not ranked as high as the importance is because ‘‘unfortunately, some teachers and administrators have had very bad experiences with school library media specialists in their past, which makes it harder to establish collaboration in the school’’ (Doll, 2005, p. 14). This can cause both teachers and administrators to opt out of collaborative arrangements.

326


The American Psychological Association (APA) (Kearsley, 2009) related this issue to the social context of the constructivist view of learning, saying that ‘‘learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others’’ (p. 11). As the school LMS works to promote collaborative style teaching, others within the educational community will be able to relate this to their own teaching and perhaps even promote these activities. Learning settings that allow for social learning interactions and that respect diversity ‘‘encourage flexible thinking and social competence’’ (Kearsley, 2009, p. 11). Promoting social interactions should help the teachers feel more comfortable with collaborating if they see the flexibility that it offers as well as the acceptance of such practices. Furthermore, these quality personal relationships will provide stability and trust for the school LMS, which will increase educators’ sense of belonging and promote a positive learning environment. Responses to the second question did not reveal significant correlations between the demographics of the teachers and the importance assigned to LMS activities. Further investigation and analysis found that those Georgia high school teachers with a higher level of education produced a positive correlation. This score was related to the total importance score, meaning that these teachers gave a lower rating for the importance of the roles of the LMS. Teachers with a lower level of education produced a negative correlation, which means that they gave a higher rate of importance of the roles of the school LMS. The rationale for these educators’ demographics having nothing to do with their rating for the school LMS means that some other factors may contribute to the educators’ perceptions. This particular study did not delve into other demographical information that may have contributed to these results. It only found that those educators with higher degrees felt that the roles of the LMS were less importance than their colleagues. This may be a result of the long-standing perception of the roles of the school LMS, which limits the participation of the school LMS in the curricular process (Kearney, 2000). If the primary role of the school LMS continues to be seen as keeper of the books, then the role will never advance in the minds of these teachers if the school LMS does not make a proactive move toward demonstrating the benefits of an integrated library media program. As Kearney (2000) stated, sharing ideas through professional development, extending a hand through personal interactions and through written communication to work along with the teachers, and providing critical information and describing an idea repetitively to reach out to these teachers and to change their perceptions.


327

Data analyzed for the third research question showed that the teachers who teach CTAE classes give higher practice scores, meaning that the school LMS practices the roles, those teachers with a higher level of education produced positive correlations, which also says that the school LMS practices the roles, and male high school teachers produced a negative correlation, which means that the males gave a higher rating than the female high school teachers. Further investigation found that English/language arts teachers, CTAE teachers, and teachers with a higher level of education had a higher rating than the total practice score. This indicates that this group perceives that the school LMS does practice the LMS roles efficiently. Male respondents produced a higher practice rating than female respondents, meaning that males feel that the LMS practices his or her roles more efficiently than the females perceive them to be practiced. This study found the most important and most practiced role relates to the use of technology. Kearney (2000) said that technology is allowing teachers to actively involve students in learning activities, which involves problemsolving and critical thinking skills that will increase information literacy and will help them to become lifelong learners. As educational communities increase the technologies in classrooms to make information and ideas readily available for the 21st-century classroom, a wide variety of formats are made available for classroom activities, and the school LMS must continue to remain aware of the developments by participating in continuing education (AASL & AECT, 1998). Although the literature designated the instructional partner, or instructional consultant, as the most important role of the school LMS (Rosenfeld, 2006), the Georgia high school educators said that the role involved with technology is most important and most practiced. The role of technology may continue to climb the ladder of importance as 21st-century classrooms requires students to implement more technologically advanced assignments to meet Georgia curriculum standards and for teachers to use more advanced technology for presentations (Georgia Department of Education, 2008). Killion (1999) noted, ‘‘Whether technology should be used in schools is no longer the issue in education. Instead, the current emphasis is ensuring that technology is used effectively to create new opportunities for learning and to promote student achievement’’ (p. 1). As technology continues to advance, professional development becomes a key issue for educators as more technology is used to improve the quality of learning (Killion, 1999). This study also found the role that was viewed as least important and that was least practiced to be that of instructional consultant. This role is defined as a consultant to teachers as the LMS provides access to a multitude

328


of resources and teaching methodologies to meet the needs of students (AASL & AECT, 1998). In this role, the school LMS participates in school, district, and departmental curricular projects; helps teachers develop classroom activities; provides expertise in the selection and evaluation of materials for classroom activities; and translates curriculum needs into goals for the school LMC (AASL & AECT). These findings reflect those found in the literature with regard to the isolation of the school LMS. Teachers want to teach their own students, and they traditionally do not work together when creating and evaluating lessons for students (Doll, 2005). The Georgia teachers who teach in the high schools that were examined do not believe that it is the job of the school LMS to help them with lessons or to evaluate student work.

Implications for Social Change Although the focus of this study was on Georgia high schools, the roles and responsibilities of the school LMS in the 21st century should be examined more closely in all secondary schools nationwide. The findings from this study provide critical information for designing steps to promote social change within the high schools examined in state of Georgia. Because the results show that there are no significant correlations relating teacher demographics to the practice of or importance assigned to the roles of the LMS, there must be other factors that influence their perceptions. The Georgia high school teachers did possess similar views regarding the importance of and the practice of the roles of the school LMS. The school LMS may promote change in the perceptions of Georgia high school educators by providing useful data, proactively approaching educators, and by forming stronger partnerships with administrators. One implication for social change that was derived from this study is community awareness of the role of the school LMS in an educational community. The researcher hoped that, as partners within a community are made aware of the roles of the school LMS, they might help to fund and support certain programs within school communities. Another result of the study was increased educator awareness of the roles of a state-certified school LMS and use of the LMS as a valuable resource to compliment the high school curriculum. This study provides teachers with access to necessary literature that described the capabilities of the school LMS as a valuable resource in a school community that also produced insights about these roles and their benefits in the classroom. A final implication of this


329

study was an increased awareness for the need of a school LMS in public school settings. Given hard economic times and tightened school budgets, it is important to address the need for a state-certified school LMS. This study produced an assessment of current teachers’ perceptions of the roles of the school LMS, which represents the first step for a school LMS as LMS’s move to initiate social change within a high school. It should not be assumed by the school LMS that all educators are opposed to the idea of collaborating with the school LMS (Doll, 2005), but it is the LMS’s responsibility to provide information to teachers about services that could be offered and the potential of those services to enhance performance. The next step for the school LMS is to make a proactive move toward providing the services and programs necessary to address the needs of students, teachers, administrators, and all other members of the learning community. To promote the current program offered, the LMS must demonstrate his or her value as a collaborator in encouraging student success in high schools. This can help educators come to appreciate ways that they can utilize the LMS as an ally in the classroom while helping students gain needed information from the LMS to help them succeed in school. Changing high school educators’ perceptions of the school LMS and the way they avail themselves of her services will require both proactive moves by the LMS and help and input from the school principal and other administrators. Principals have the essential role of facilitating and endorsing programs that support student learning. Educating principals about the potential value of the school LMS may be necessary because they may not fully understand the potential to which the LMS is involved in educating students (Doll, 2005). Doll also observed that working with school assistant principals could work as they may carry fewer responsibilities within a school and may be open to new ideas. The school LMS could provide data for these administrators regarding current activities to encourage the administration to make changes within the school to cultivate a collaborative environment.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Changes that could improve the perspectives of the school LMS are indicated by data produced in this research. This research study was limited in its generalization of a sample to a much larger population. Only 107 participants participated in this study, and the study occurred in three rural school districts. One recommendation is to take this study a step further to determine if the roles and responsibilities of the school faculty have changed

330


after implementing up-to-date, 21st-century techniques in the LMC. The researcher also recommends to other researchers that they investigate what students think regarding how student achievement relates to the work of the school LMS. It would be especially interesting to see if students find the library media services or programs to be beneficial to their studies at the high school level. This would also provide useful information for the LMS when it time permits for the LMS to purchase new materials. Future research studies may also focus on including more participants and possible interviewing or observations in classrooms to add strength to the study. One final recommendation by the researcher is to conduct a study that compares the results of pretests and posttests of teachers’ attitudes regarding current library services administered before and after to the implementation of a collaborative model. This study is beneficial in determining the value of collaboration between classroom teachers and the school LMS.

CONCLUSION The researcher concluded that the Georgia high school teachers studied here have similar perceptions regarding the importance of and the practices of the school LMS and that the roles and responsibilities of the LMS are deemed more important than what is actually practiced. There are many things that can be done to put the LMS in the forefront of the learning process, including proactively approaching teachers to find out how to collaborate in a positive way and involving these teachers in professional development activities that offer ideas about how the school LMS can help in meaningful classroom activities to meet state standards for learning and for both the classroom teacher and the LMS to fulfill their duties. If the school LMS does not begin to move toward working alongside teachers and creating a positive relationship with those teachers, the role of the school LMS may never fulfill the national standards set forth for the school LMS, which could cause a negative effect for the school LMS in 21st-century schools. The school LMS holds the key to change in LMS roles and can work proactively with teachers to ensure that their roles are being fulfilled. If things continue to take place in the current pattern, it may mean that teachers will continue to feel that the role of the school LMS is important, yet these roles are not being fulfilled.


331

REFERENCES Abilock, D. (2004). What’s your name? Knowledge Quest, 32(3), 9–10. Alexander, L. B., Smith, R. C., & Carey, J. O. (2003). Education reform and the school library media specialist: Perceptions of principals. Knowledge Quest, 32(2), 10–13. American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Available at http://www.ala.org/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/ guidelines.cfm. Retrieved on 2 May 2011. American Association of School Librarians & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago; London: American Library Association. American Library Association & American Association of School Librarians. (2003). Program standards: School library media specialist preparation. Available at http://www.ala.org/ mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/guidelines.cfm. Retrieved on 2 May 2011. Anderson, C. (2007). Adequate yearly progress (AYP) at your library media center. Library Media Connection, 25(4), 22–24. Anderson, M. A. (1999). Information power: Because student achievement is the bottom line. Multimedia Schools, 6(2), 22–23. Anderson, M. A. (2000). Staff development: Your most important role. Multimedia Schools, 7(1), 24. Anderson, M. A. (2005). Technician or technologist? Library Media Connection, 24(1), 14–19. Baule, S. (1998). Information power prepares library media programs for a new page. The Book Report, 17(3), 14–15. Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. New York: State University of New York Press. Bosco, J. (2001). School library media specialists and school administrators as allies! Multimedia Schools, 8(4), 48–51. Braxton, B. (2008). The teacher-librarian as literacy leader. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 8–12. Bruner, J. S. (1968). Toward a theory of instruction (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. Buzzeo, T. (2006). Collaborating from the center of the school universe. Library Media Connection, 24(4), 18–20. Cate, G.L. (1998). A teacher’s perceptions of the library media specialist as instructional consultant. ATT 9841962. Available at Proquest. Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. (2006). Regression analysis by example (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Church, A.P. (2007). Elementary school principals’ perceptions of the instructional role of the school library media specialist. ATT 3288684. Available at Proquest. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching through reflexive inquiry. In: Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through reflexive inquiry (pp. 1–24). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Craver, K. W. (1986). The changing instructional role of the high school library media specialist, 1950–84: A survey of professional literature, standards, and research studies. School Library Media Quarterly, 14(4), 1–24. Craver, K. W. (1994). School library media centers in the 21st century: Changes and challenges. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

332


Dearman, C., & Alber, S. (2005). The changing face of education: Teachers cope with challenges through collaboration and reflective study. Reading Teacher, 58(7), 634–640. Dees, D. C., Alexander, K., Besara, R., Cambisios, R., Kent, T., & Delgado, J. P. (2007). Today’s school library media specialist leader. Library Media Connection, 25(4), 10–14. DeGroff, L. (1996). Getting to know the school library media specialist (Available at ERIC database). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Detwiler, G. A. (1990). Teacher and librarian perceptions of the elementary library media specialist’s role. ATT 1343462. Available at ProQuest. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The MacMillan Company. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience in education. New York: MacMillan. Doll, C. A. (2005). Collaboration and the school library media specialist. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Dubiel, C. (2008). What’s your role? Library Journal, 133(5), 48. Edwards, L., McConnell, T., & Sprouse, H. (1999). The invisible school librarian’s reappearance. The Book Report, 18(1), 18. Everhart, N. (2007). Leadership: School library media specialists as effective school leaders’. Knowledge Quest, 35(4), 54–57. Fitzgerald, M. A., & Waldrip, A. (2004). Not enough time in the day: Media specialists, program planning, and time management, part I. Library Media Connection, 23(1), 38–40. Fulton, K. P. (2003). Redesigning schools to meet 21st century learning needs. THE Journal, 30(9), 30–35. Georgia Department of Education. (2008). Library media services. Available at http:// www.gadoe.org/sia_as_library.aspx. Retrieved on 25 March 2008. Government of the United States. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: 2002. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Hannigan, J. A. (1982). School media standards. Library Trends, 31(1). Hannon, S. M. (2003). Building a better staff. School Library Journal, 49(2), 4. Hartzell, G. (1997). The invisible school librarian: Why other educators are blind to your value. School Library Journal, 43(11), 24–29. Harvey, C. A. (2005). What should a teacher expect a library media specialist to be? Library Media Connection, 23(5), 23. Harvey, C. A., II. (2006). Impacting school improvement. Library Media Connection, 24(6), 20–21. Hawley, W., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds). (2002). The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Haycock, K. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. The Book Report, 17(1), 26–28. Heard, J. (2007). Technology: A tool for collaboration. Library Media Connection, 25(5), 24. Hickel, D. (2006). A formula for achieving collaboration. Library Media Connection, 25(3), 30–31. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. Howard, J. K., & Eckhardt, S. A. (2005). Why action research? The leadership role of the library media specialist. Library Media Connection, 24(2), 32–34. Hylen, J. (2004). The top ten reasons a library media specialist is a teacher’s best friend. Clearing House, 77(5), 219–221.


333

Introduction to SAS. (n.d.). UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group. Available at http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/Spss/faq/alpha.html. Retrieved on 31 January 2009. Jones, J. L., & Zambone, A. M. (2008). The role of the media specialist: To improve academic achievement and strengthen at-risk youth. Library Media Connection, 26(7), 30–32. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Kearney, C. A. (2000). Curriculum partner: Redefining the role of the library media specialist. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Kearsley, G. (2009). TIP: Theories. Available at http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html. Retrieved on 8 August 2008. Killion, J. (1999). Presentation at technology leadership team institute. Leesburg, VA. Available at http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htm. Retrieved on 11 September 2008. Knapp, L., & Glenn, A. (1996). Restructuring schools with technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2007). Overview: The school library media specialist. Available at http://eduscapes.com/sms/overview/specialist.html. Retrieved on 8 August 2008. Lance, K. C. (2001). Proof of the power: Quality library media programs affect academic achievement. MultiMedia Schools, 8(4), 14–1618, 20. Lau, D. (2002). What does your boss think about you? School Library Journal, 48(9), 52. Levitov, D. (2007). One library media specialist’s journey to understanding advocacy. Knowledge Quest, 36(1), 28–31. Lowe, C. A. (2000). The role of the school library media specialist in the 21st Century. ERIC Clearninghouse on Information Literacy and Technology, 1–7. Available at ERIC database. Marcum, J. (2001). From information center to discovery system: Next step for libraries? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 97. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCracken, A. (2000). School library media specialists’ perceptions of practice and importance of roles described in Information Power. School Library Media Research, 4. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume42001/ mccracken.cfm. Retrieved on 29 November 2007. Michie, J. S., & Holton, B. A. (2005). Fifty years of supporting children’s learning: A history of public school libraries and federal legislation from 1953 to 2000. National Center for Education Statistics, Available at ERIC database. Montiel-Overall, P. (2005). Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and Librarians. School Library Media Research, 8. Available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/ aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume82005/theory.cfm. Retrieved on 8 April 2008. Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In: R. K. Sawyer, V. JohnSteiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman & J. Nakamura (Eds), Creativity and Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Morris, B. J. (2004). The new AASL guidelines and standards will lead the profession. Knowledge Quest, 32(4), 29–31.

334


Mosqueda, B. R. (1999). The perceptions of the role of the library media program and the library media specialist in selected National Blue Ribbon Schools in Florida. ATT 9923715. Available at Proquest. National Staff Development Council. (n.d.) About the standards. Available at http:// www.nsdc.org/standards/leadership.cfm. Retrieved on 11 August 2008. Palmquist, R. A. (2001). Survey methods. Available at http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/Bpalmquis/ courses/survey.html. Retrieved on 4 April 2008. Pratschler, L. (2007). An investigation of preferences for activities performed by media specialists in middle school. ATT 3273799. Available at Proquest. Rosenfeld, E. (2006). Be a learning leader. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 6. Ruffin, B. (2006). T.E.A.M. work: Technologists, educators, and media specialists collaborating’. Library Media Connection, 24(4), 49–52. Russell, S. (2002). Teachers and librarians: Collaborative relationships. Teacher Digest, 29(5), 35. Simpson, C. (1996). The school librarian’s role in the electronic age. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 1–5. Available at ERIC database. Starkman, N. (2007). The new librarians. THE Journal, 34(8), 22–26. Straessle, G.A. (2000). Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and expectations of the instructional consultation role of the library media specialist. ATT 1400457. Available at Proquest. Stripling, B. K. (1999). Learning and libraries in an Information Age: Principles and practice. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind, a desktop reference (Available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/ account/nclbreference/reference.pdf (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Retrieved on 8 April 2008). Washington, D.C.: Electronic Version. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wisely, S. R. (2003). Meeting the needs of students through the library media center. Multimedia Schools, 10(4), 6–7. Young, T. E., Jr. (2005). Better data y better decisions. Library Media Connection, 23(4), 14–19. Young, T. E., Jr. (2007). Library ‘science:’ Make it work!. Library Media Connection, 26(1), 24–26.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jennifer Campbell-Meier is an instructor at the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Alabama. Formerly, she was the coordinator of Library Instruction & Distance Education at North Georgia College & State University. She earned an MLS (1995) from Indiana University and a PhD (2008) in Communication and Information Sciences at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Catherine Closet-Crane is an adjunct faculty at the School of Library and Information Management at Emporia State University. She earned her MArch at the University of New Mexico and her PhD from the School of Library and Information Management at ESU. She practiced architecture in France and taught architectural design at Kansas State University before entering the LIS field. Her research interests are information practices in the life of the user and the library as place from the perspective of environmental design, affect, and behavior. Virginia D. Martin is director of Media and Technology Integration, Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools, Savannah, GA. She has had career-long experience as a school library media specialist, middle school math teacher, and elementary school science and math teacher. Over her career she has won several outstanding teacher awards and is a long-time member of the Georgia Association of Instructional Technology and the Georgia Library Media Association. She received the Doctor of Education degree from Walden University in 2011. Linda R. Most received her PhD in Information Studies from Florida State University in 2009. She currently works as an assistant professor of Library and Information Science at Valdosta State University. Before her doctoral studies, she worked as a reference librarian at the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore, MD, and as the business reference librarian for the Palm Beach County Library System in Florida. Kelli Steverson Ragle is a media specialist at Ware County High School in southeast Georgia. She received her EdD in teacher leadership from Walden University in 2009, MEd in Instructional Technology from Valdosta State University (Valdosta, GA) in 2004, and BSED in early childhood education 335

336

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

from Valdosta State University in 2002. Before her work as a media specialist, she taught fifth grade for four years. Jennifer K. Sweeney is an adjunct faculty with the College of Information Science and Technology at Drexel University and a senior analyst with Smith & Lehmann Consulting, a management consulting firm specializing in public and nonprofit program evaluation. She received her MSLS from Catholic University and her PhD in Library and Information Science from UCLA. Previously, she served as researcher in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis, and reference librarian at American University in Washington, DC. She received the 2010 American Library Association Diversity Research Grant and is currently conducting research on library services to juveniles in detention.

Advances in Library Administration and Organization (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 24 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization) (Advances in Library Administration ... in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 25 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 20 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 23

Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Volume 7 (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Critically Constituting Organization (Advances in Organization Studies)

Management and Organization Paradoxes (Advances in Organization Studies)

Administering Special Education, Volume 7 In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Organization Skills (Career Skills Library)

Careers Skills Library: Organization Skills

Organization Skills (Career Skills Library)

The Civilized Organization: Norbert Elias and the Future of Organization Studies (Advances in Organization Studies)

The Civilized Organization: Norbert Elias and the Future of Organization Studies (Advances in Organization Studies)

Self-organization and Emergence in Life Sciences (Synthese Library, 331)

Chaos Organization and Disaster Management (Public Administration and Public Policy)

Linux Sendmail Administration (Craig Hunt Linux Library)

Administration of the Small Public Library

Multiunit Organization and Multimarket Strategy (Advances in Strategic Management)

Administration of the Small Public Library

Linux Apache Web Server Administration (Linux Library)

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers, Volume 10: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Self-Organization and Social Organization

Industrial Organization, Volume 9 (Advances in Applied Microeconomics)

Crisis in Tax Administration

Philosophy & Organization Theory

Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in action (Benjamins Translation Library)

System Administration Guide: Advanced Administration

SAGE Directions in Organization Studies, Four-Volume Set Edition (SAGE Library in Business and Management)

Opportunities in nonprofit organization careers

New Public Administration in Britain

Advances in Library Administration and Organization (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 24 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization) (Advances in Library Administration ... in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 25 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 20 (Advances in Library Administration and Organization)

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 23

Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Volume 7 (Advances in Library Administration & Organization)

Critically Constituting Organization (Advances in Organization Studies)

Management and Organization Paradoxes (Advances in Organization Studies)

Administering Special Education, Volume 7 In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Organization Skills (Career Skills Library)

Careers Skills Library: Organization Skills

Organization Skills (Career Skills Library)

The Civilized Organization: Norbert Elias and the Future of Organization Studies (Advances in Organization Studies)

The Civilized Organization: Norbert Elias and the Future of Organization Studies (Advances in Organization Studies)

Self-organization and Emergence in Life Sciences (Synthese Library, 331)

Chaos Organization and Disaster Management (Public Administration and Public Policy)

Linux Sendmail Administration (Craig Hunt Linux Library)

Administration of the Small Public Library

Multiunit Organization and Multimarket Strategy (Advances in Strategic Management)

Administration of the Small Public Library

Linux Apache Web Server Administration (Linux Library)

Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers, Volume 10: Educational Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis (Advances in Educational Administration) (Advances in Educational Administration)

Self-Organization and Social Organization

Industrial Organization, Volume 9 (Advances in Applied Microeconomics)

Crisis in Tax Administration

Philosophy & Organization Theory

Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in action (Benjamins Translation Library)

System Administration Guide: Advanced Administration

SAGE Directions in Organization Studies, Four-Volume Set Edition (SAGE Library in Business and Management)

Opportunities in nonprofit organization careers

New Public Administration in Britain

Recommend Documents