Editorial

Citation

Mitchell, E. (2013), "Editorial", Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr.2013.24041caa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Reference Services Review, Volume 41, Issue 3

With the publication of “Library orientation and instruction – 1973: an annotated review of the literature,” by Hannelore B. Rader, RSR began what has become a continuing commitment to help readers manage the proliferation of publications on the theory and practice of information literacy. Journal usage summary reports from our publisher and specifically, download statistics, consistently affirm that there is value in selected annotated bibliographies, even in the twenty-first century; the annual bibliography on information literacy continues to be a key source for our readers. In this issue we are especially pleased to include “Trends in the literature on library instruction and information literacy, 2001-2010,” in which Anna Marie Johnson, Claudine Sproles, and Robert Detmering provide a thoughtful synthesis based on the latest decade of publications represented in the annual bibliography of information literacy published in RSR.

This issue also features a broad range of articles (something for everyone) on topics ranging from information literacy, to way finding, to staffing, and service delivery. Several manuscripts focus on student needs (Bresnahan, Saar and Stempler.) Other manuscripts focus on specific resources, methods and modes of information literacy and research skills instruction (Emanuel, Leichner, Lange). Other manuscripts consider issues related to staffing (Samson, Shuyler). Manuscripts on copyright (Aulisio) and MOOCs (Wu) round out the issue.

It is appropriate to conclude this editorial with feedback we’ve received in response to a manuscript published in Volume 41 Issue 1 “Not at your service: building genuine faculty-librarian partnerships” written by Ms Yvonne Nalani Meulemans and Ms Allison Carr both of CSU San Marcos. In this manuscript the authors explore how librarians and faculty can become genuine partners in student learning and move towards the common goal of getting students to think critically. They discuss the need for librarians to initiate more collaborative conversations with professors in order to establish true partnerships with them and describe how they did this using what they describe as a strikingly and alarmingly frank approach. Building on this foundation, the authors discuss the need to shift from a service orientation to a partnership in student learning.

James Van Fleet, Research Services Librarian at Bucknell University, reported on a lively conversation among librarians at his institution following the publication of this article. Van Fleet writes that the article “certainly offers a provocative argument, one that is likely to stimulate widespread discussion, if not emulation, of their program.” He continues:

Their argument is built on two faulty premises. The first is that a “service orientation” is characterized by subservience. They offer examples of requests from professors that are problematic […] Every academic librarian has had to deal with the admonishment delivered to students, to “not use the Internet” in research. This is an excellent opportunity to engage with faculty and negotiate a new understanding of what might constitute valid research sources. The collaboration and partnership with faculty advocated by the authors often begin with these kinds of interactions. Meulemans and Carr accuse academic librarians of a “grin-and-bear-it approach” to what they characterize as “professor’s misinformed, unfeasible, and/or frustrating requests.” This sort of subservience would not be a service, and is seldom practiced in academic libraries in this century. There is little danger of librarians becoming “automaton [serving] the needs of faculty.”

Van Fleet then focuses on the authors’ second argument – the implication that if a request is “problematic” according to their criteria, then “the educational outcomes cannot be good.” He writes:

In their own words, a “service approach that fulfills an uninformed request may prove to perpetuate faculty’s ignorance.” This premise is disproved every day in academic libraries by the most basic of reference interviews. We all know that a library patron often asks for what they think they need, or what they believe a librarian can provide. An effective reference interview will quickly determine what they may actually need, and instruct the patron in what libraries and librarians can actually provide. In short, there are no bad questions. In the same way, there are no “problematic” faculty requests, when those requests are seeking help from a librarian. Each is an opportunity to negotiate with faculty for a better understanding, a better outcome.

The response concludes:

A request for librarian assistance, initiated by a faculty member, should always become a first step towards collaboration and partnership. We must invite more faculty to approach with their research and information needs, no matter how problematic or difficult. “Not at your service” is an eye-catching title, and the author’s premise seems radical: saying no to “professor’s problematic requests will allow instruction librarians to finally arrive as full collaborators and partners in the teaching and learning endeavor.” To their credit, the New Faculty Institute program offered at Cal State, San Marcos suggests that librarians there may actually practice a more nuanced approach to changing faculty perceptions. Their status as faculty librarians, in a teaching university, also colors their presentation. Librarians at a research institution may, as they acknowledge, have “different roles.” At its most fundamental level, however, higher education is a service industry, and the library is a service organization. When an “instruction librarian” collaborates and partners with the faculty to provide the best possible learning outcomes, we are modeling the best behaviors of our profession, and providing an essential service.

We thank Mr Van Fleet and his colleagues at Bucknell for letting us eavesdrop on their discussion of this provocative article. We look forward to continuing the conversation with your responses to the Meulemans and Carr article, Van Fleet’s thoughts, or something in this issue that inspires you.

Eleanor Mitchell, Sarah Barbara WatsteinCatalysts for Reflection and Conversation