Collaboration and the Academic Library

Internal and External, Local and Regional, National and International

Jeremy Atkinson

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780081020845
• eBook ISBN: 9780081022887
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Collaboration and the Academic Library: Internal and External, Local and Regional, National and International explores the considerable change that has affected universities and academic libraries in recent years. Given this complex and important context, it is clear that the academic library increasingly needs to operate in partnership with its users and other professionals and organizations to be successful in meeting the needs of its clientele. Academic librarians need to work closely with client groups so that services are relevant, and close partnerships with other professionals need to be forged to provide seamless services for users.The book looks at all aspects of collaboration affecting academic libraries, both internally and externally, to help the reader understand future directions for collaborative activities in a complex and difficult working environment.- Considers collaboration issues affecting academic libraries- Covers both internal and external collaboration- Provides readers with direction for collaborative activities- Shows how academic librarians can work with client groups to keep services relevant

Section III

Academic Libraries and Internal Collaboration

Chapter 5

The Tyranny of Distance: Communities of Practice at the University of Notre Dame Australia

Stephen McVey; Sophie Farrar The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, WA, Australia

Abstract

Distance presents a significant challenge for collaboration at the University of Notre Dame Australia, with services delivered in seven libraries across the continent. This chapter details the University Library’s approach to collaboration which draws on a communities of practice model to provide opportunities for the ongoing improvement in work practices by those actually engaged in the work. Practical details and reflections on the evolution of this approach, including successes and complications, will assist readers to determine the suitability of the approach to their own context.

Keywords

Collaboration; University libraries; Australia; Community of practice; Library management.

5.1 Description

5.1.1 Who Are We and Why Does That Matter?

The University of Notre Dame Australia is a small university by Australian standards, enrolling approximately 10,000 full-time equivalent students. Our University describes itself as ‘a distinctive national Catholic university’, which embraces both ‘the modern Australian university tradition and the ancient traditions of Catholic universities’. The University specialises in providing ‘excellenť undergraduate education, with a focus on educating students for entry to the professions. We are spread across the country, including both urban and rural campuses, with the bulk of the students split across our Broome, Fremantle, and Sydney campuses.

5.1.2 What Is the Nature of This University and Does Its Mission Mandate Collaboration?

Central to the University’s mission and practice is the Catholic concept of pastoral care. This concept is based on respect for the dignity and uniqueness of each and every person. For students and staff alike this translates into an emphasis upon encouraging and enabling individuals to develop their own unique gifts and talents, realise their interconnectedness with others, and seek to serve the common good. These values are a solid and compelling mandate to participate actively as members of a community, in itself a call for us to collaborate.

5.1.3 What Is the Purpose of the University Library? How Is Collaboration Part of That Identity?

The Library is guided by the University’s philosophy and strategic direction and develops an operational plan which explains how we will engage with these strategies in ways that are consistent with that philosophy. In framing this operational plan, we have expressed the overall purpose of the Library as follows:

To actively develop and maintain useful and accessible Library services and collections in partnership with University staff and students

In outlining the plan’s objectives we do not explicitly use the word collaborate. However, the terms ‘partnership’, ‘facilitation’ ‘supporť, and ‘community’ do feature and express our intention to collaborate, as well as underscore the importance of collaboration to the Library’s contribution to the University’s mission. It might reasonably be argued that there is nothing unusual about the objectives in the plan for an academic library, but our philosophical underpinning and the implicit mandate for collaboration are important and distinctive aspects of our culture.

5.1.4 How Have We Structured the Library? What Challenges and Opportunities Does This Present?

The University Library consists of seven individual libraries and the national Online Services team. The staff in our individual libraries work within one of two national portfolios but are supervised locally: Library Services, which focuses on front-of-house and collections services; and Research Services, focusing on instructional activities, partnerships with faculty and researchers, and collection development.

Our individual libraries use a single library management system and discovery service and common pool of electronic resources, which are managed nationally within our Online Services portfolio. The structure is relatively flat, with four managers nationally reporting to the University Librarian who, like the Online Services team, is based at our Fremantle Campus. The overall management and direction of the Library sits with the University Librarian, who uses the Library Management Group to work with the portfolio managers to set direction and review performance nationally. Although two of the managers are based in Sydney, there is a consolidation of key Library functions in Fremantle which tends to leave staff in Broome and Sydney feeling a little estranged from the ‘seat of power’.

We realise, however, that the healthy functioning of the Library ‘ecosystem’ demands collaboration across our locations and portfolios. As a result we have had to develop methods to encourage national engagement by our colleagues as we manage, evaluate, and re-engineer our services. It would be fair to note that while this is, and will likely remain, a work in progress, we have a series of core beliefs that will ensure an ongoing commitment to collaboration. We believe that:

• • collective problem solving is the best approach to improving services
• • those who do the work are best placed to design that work
• • people respond well to being trusted to engage with problems
• • everybody can lead

5.1.5 What Was Our Problem?

For a relatively small University, we have a significant number of geographically dispersed libraries. Our staff traditionally worked in small groups and focused on the library they worked in. This not only tended to undermine an awareness of and commitment to the health of the whole library but also tended to result in divergent work practices.

The Library had been run by the Library Management Group, who came together on a monthly basis to determine operations and strategy. While managers represented the interests of their teams, staff felt excluded from the decision-making. This criticism was especially trenchant among the more senior staff, who felt the Library was not benefitting from their experience, knowledge, and skills. These concerns did not seem to be addressed by the distribution of meeting documentation—people wanted to be directly involved in the development of the services they delivered. It had also become clear that while a location-based structure appeared to work in a print-focused paradigm, it was not functioning effectively in a networked paradigm. Furthermore, upon reflection, we realised because there were no structured opportunities for collaboration, sharing of effective work practices was, at best, ad hoc. We concluded that we were not drawing on the skill, knowledge, and enthusiasm of all of our colleagues.

5.1.6 How Did We Seek to Solve the Problem?

The pursuit of structures and mechanisms which would enable us to collaborate nationally led us towards the concept of the community of practice (CoP). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p. 4) defined a CoP as a group of people who ‘share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’. Typically, these interactions are focused on refining and expressing shared practices (Retna & Tee Ng, 2011) through the opportunity to be proximate to expertise (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nuttall, 2010). CoPs have been found to motivate participants to learn, improve their effectiveness at work, and to cohere as a group (Nuttall, 2010; Roberts, 2006; Seaman, 2008; Storberg-Walker, 2008; Wenger et al., 2002).

While originally understood to be self-forming and autonomous, an appreciation of the benefits of CoPs has led to them being deliberately harnessed by organisations to achieve specific organisational outcomes through knowledge sharing (Borzillo & Kaminsa-Labbé, 2011; Cox, 2005; Kazlauskas, 2014; Omidvar & Kislov, 2014; Roberts, 2006). While this is sometimes conceptualised as a process of managing practitioner knowledge (Chetty & Mearns, 2012), our overriding objective was to not to mine knowledge but rather to share it. In this sense, our exploration of CoPs might be better described as knowledge transfer (KT) (Loyarte & Rivera, 2007; Macpherson & Antonacopoulou, 2013; Retna & Tee Ng, 2011; Yamklin & Igel, 2012), which tends to have a more overt focus on the processes whereby the experiences of one business area are able to influence and affect another area (Retna & Tee Ng, 2011). CoPs offered the opportunity to achieve this important goal because of their capacity to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, overcome barriers to KT, and to encourage staff to collaborate across hierarchies and silos (Hemmasi & Csanda, 2009; Iaquinto, Ison, & Faggian, 2011; Pastoors, 2007; Retna & Tee Ng, 2011; Zárraga-Oberty & De Saá-Perez, 2006).

5.1.7 How Was Theory Turned Into Practice?

While there is a significant body of compelling research regarding CoPs, we felt it was important to tap into the desire to collectively reflect, discuss, and improve our practices rather than focus on theory. In short, it did not seem important that staff knew what a CoP was or that they engage with complex arguments about CoP formation. Determining that our focus should be on providing regular, structured opportunities for those engaged in the work to improve their work practices through collaboration, the University Librarian made the decision to establish a series of working groups which would exist as a locus for fostering the development of services within the Library’s portfolios.

5.1.8 Careful Use of Language

In establishing these groups, some clear and conscious decisions were made about the language used to describe them. Most notably, the groups were not called ‘committees’ or ‘teams’ (a term already used within the portfolios), managers were asked to ‘convene’ rather than ‘chair’ the groups and to maintain meeting ‘notes’ rather than ‘minutes’. Our language was intended to emphasise action over process (the term ‘working group’ seemed to capture the imperative to act collaboratively). Group effectiveness would be assessed on increases in staff engagement, motivation, and empowerment, as well as improvements in practice.

5.1.9 Providing Scope and Authority to Act

While research indicates that executive sponsorship is critical to the success of deliberately deployed CoPs (Borzillo, 2009; Corso, Giacobbe & Martini, 2009), these groups also require a distribution of leadership (Retna & Tee Ng, 2011), freedom (Borzillo, Schmitt, & Antino, 2012), and a sense among participants that the CoP reflects their interests rather than a management ...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contributors
• About the Editor
• Acknowledgements
• Section I: Introduction
• Section II: Collaboration, Universities and Their Libraries
• Section III: Academic Libraries and Internal Collaboration
• Section IV: Academic Libraries and External Collaboration
• Section V: Reflections
• Further Reading
• Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Index