The 21st Century Academic Library: Global Patterns of Organization and Discourse 0081018665, 9780081018668

Table of contents :
Front Cover
The 21st Century Academic Library
Copyright Page
Dedication
Contents
About the Author
Preface
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
Organizations and Institutions
Typology of Library Organizations
Types
Theoretical Framework
The Political Environment of Higher Education and Academic Libraries
The Library and the University
Historical Context
Problem Statement
Research Questions
Methodology
Data
Summary of Information on Each Region
South Asia (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh)
Africa
Australia and New Zealand
United Kingdom and Ireland
North America
2 Background
Introduction: Historical Context
Education for Librarianship
The Global Environment of Higher Education and Academic Libraries
South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
Africa
The United Kingdom and Ireland
Australia and New Zealand
3 Academic Library Organization
Introduction
Bureaucracy
Academic Library as “Ideal Type”
The Collection-Based Library
Libraries and Technology
Public Services and Technical Services
Acquisitions
Cataloging
Access Services
Reference and Instruction
Special Collections
Systems
New Programs and Services
Organizational Strategies and Mechanisms of Institutionalization
4 Literature Review
Introduction
Academic Library Organization, Administration, and Planning
Education for Librarianship and Librarianship as a Profession
Academic Library Genres
Global Academic Libraries
Comparative Education and Its Application
Comparative Librarianship
Discourse Analysis
Genre and Register
Social Theory, Social Semiotics, and CDA
Organizational Communication
Discourse Analysis of Written Texts
Library and University Discourse and Texts
Discourse Communities and Speech Communities
Discourses of Librarianship
Institutionalism
5 Data, Results, and Discussion
Introduction
Frequencies
Africa
South Asia
United Kingdom and Ireland
Australia and New Zealand
North America
All Regions
Analysis of Types Using Examples
Example 1: US Library, Type 1
Example 2: Pakistan Library, Type 1
Example 3: Australian Library, Type 2
Example 4: Australian Library, Type 2
Example 5: US Library, Type 3
Example 6: US Library, Type 3
Example 7: United Kingdom Library, Type 4
Example 8: Australian Library, Type 4
Genre and Register Analysis
FTM/GR Discourse Analysis Instrument
Text: Library Organizational Chart
Field
Semantic Domains (General Subject Categories)
Transitivity: Process, Semantic and Grammatical Roles, and Circumstance Process
Semantic and Grammatical Roles
Circumstance
Tenor
Author
Audience
Relative Status, Social Distance, Personalization, Speech Functions, and Standing
Standing (Author’s Knowledge and Authority)
Stance (Attitude, Agency, and Modality)
Mode
Textual Meaning
Spoken/Written
Action/Reflection and Interactivity
Schema
Patterning
Thematic Organization (Macrotheme)
Cohesion (Lexical, Logical)
Cohesion (Lexical)
Semantic Relations
Cohesion (Logical)
Intertextuality
Discourses (Ideology, Voices)
Genre and Register
Text: Academic Library Website
Field
Semantic Domains (General Subject Categories)
Transitivity: Process, Semantic and Grammatical Roles, and Circumstance
Process
Semantic and Grammatical Roles
Circumstance
Tenor
Author
Audience
Relative Status, Social Distance, Personalization, Speech Functions, and Standing
Standing (Author’s Knowledge and Authority)
Stance (Attitude, Agency, Modality)
Mode
Textual Meaning
Spoken/Written
Action/Reflection and Interactivity
Schema
Patterning
Thematic Organization (Macrotheme)
Cohesion (Lexical, Logical)
Cohesion (Lexical)
Semantic Relations
Cohesion (Logical)
Intertextuality
Discourses (Ideology, Voices)
Genre and Register
6 Conclusion
Introduction
Institutionalization and Discourse
Globalization
Scenarios for the Future
Appendix 1: List of Universities
Universities Sorted by Region, Country, and Name
Universities Sorted by Name
Universities Sorted by Organization Type (1–4), Region, and Name
Universities Sorted by Name With Organizational Type
Appendix 2: Discourse Analysis Instrument
FTM/GR Discourse Analysis Instrument
References
Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

The 21st Century Academic Library

CHANDOS INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski (email: [email protected]) Chandos’ new series of books is aimed at the busy information professional. They have been specially commissioned to provide the reader with an authoritative view of current thinking. They are designed to provide easy-toread and (most importantly) practical coverage of topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals. If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please visit www.chandospublishing.com. New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles; if you would like to write a book for Chandos, please contact Dr Glyn Jones on [email protected] or telephone 144 (0) 1865 843000.

Dedication This is for you, LaVon.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents About the Author Preface Acknowledgments

1.

2.

3.

Introduction

xi xiii xv 1

Organizations and Institutions Typology of Library Organizations Theoretical Framework The Political Environment of Higher Education and Academic Libraries The Library and the University Historical Context Problem Statement Research Questions Methodology Data Summary of Information on Each Region

1 6 10

Background

17

Introduction: Historical Context Education for Librarianship The Global Environment of Higher Education and Academic Libraries South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh Africa The United Kingdom and Ireland Australia and New Zealand

17 20 21 22 23 24 25

Academic Library Organization

27

Introduction Bureaucracy Academic Library as “Ideal Type” The Collection-Based Library Libraries and Technology Public Services and Technical Services Acquisitions

27 27 28 29 30 32 32

11 12 13 14 14 14 15 15

vii

viii

4.

5.

Contents

Cataloging Access Services Reference and Instruction Special Collections Systems New Programs and Services Organizational Strategies and Mechanisms of Institutionalization

33 34 34 35 36 36 37

Literature Review

41

Introduction Academic Library Organization, Administration, and Planning Education for Librarianship and Librarianship as a Profession Academic Library Genres Global Academic Libraries Comparative Education and Its Application Comparative Librarianship Discourse Analysis Genre and Register Social Theory, Social Semiotics, and CDA Organizational Communication Discourse Analysis of Written Texts Library and University Discourse and Texts Discourse Communities and Speech Communities Discourses of Librarianship Institutionalism

41 41 45 46 48 50 54 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 62

Data, Results, and Discussion

73

Introduction Frequencies Africa South Asia United Kingdom and Ireland Australia and New Zealand North America All Regions Analysis of Types Using Examples Example 1: US Library, Type 1 Example 2: Pakistan Library, Type 1 Example 3: Australian Library, Type 2 Example 4: Australian Library, Type 2 Example 5: US Library, Type 3 Example 6: US Library, Type 3 Example 7: United Kingdom Library, Type 4 Example 8: Australian Library, Type 4 Genre and Register Analysis FTM/GR Discourse Analysis Instrument

73 75 75 76 77 78 79 79 80 80 82 83 86 90 91 91 93 93 95

Contents

6.

ix

Text: Library Organizational Chart Text: Academic Library Website Thematic Organization (Macrotheme) Cohesion (Lexical, Logical)

98 105 110 110

Conclusion

113

Introduction Institutionalization and Discourse Globalization Scenarios for the Future

113 113 114 115

Appendix 1: List of Universities Appendix 2: Discourse Analysis Instrument References Index

117 139 141 153

This page intentionally left blank

About the Author Dr. Mary K. Bolin is a Professor and Catalog and Metadata Librarian in the Digital Initiatives and Special Collections Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). She is also an instructor in the School of Information at San Jose´ State University. She has worked at UNL since 2004 and was previously a member of the library faculty at the University of Idaho from 1986 to 2004 and the University of Georgia from 1981 to 1986. She earned an MSLS from the University of Kentucky where she studied cataloging with Lois Mai Chan, an MA in English from the University of Idaho, and a PhD from the University of Nebraska.

xi

This page intentionally left blank

Preface The idea for this book grows out of data that I gathered 10 years ago for my dissertation, which was a study of librarian status at US land grant universities. It used the same methods that are used in this book: typology and discourse analysis, and the combination of those methods was fruitful and interesting, yielding a typology of status types and a genre analysis of librarian appointment (e.g., promotion and tenure) documents. That was not data I had seen anywhere else, even though librarian faculty status and its alternatives remain topics that are widely discussed and written about. Gathering that data had also sharpened my interest in academic library organization, the departments and divisions that are most commonly used in academic libraries to organize and carry out their mission. While there is abundant and useful literature on library administration and on the past, present, and future of academic libraries, I had also never found the data I was most interested in: how are academic libraries organized? Are there new patterns emerging, and, if so, how well do they work? In addition, I had been plowing the websites of academic libraries for many years, looking for various kinds of information, and I had become fascinated by them as well. Both organization, as presented in an organizational chart or similar document, and the website, the library’s way of introducing itself, are genres of organizational communication that can be studied using the typological and discourse approach that I had successfully used previously. This book is the result of further plowing, this time including libraries outside the United States, in some of the countries where English is an official language or the language of instruction. My colleague Gail Eckwright and I had started an open access electronic journal at the University of Idaho in 1998. Library Philosophy and Practice (LPP) quickly gained an international scope and continues to publish articles by librarians in countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Nigeria, and others. We have become very familiar with some of the characteristics of library services in those countries and we began to see that strong international presence in many other journals as well, recognizing the names of old LPP friends in the contents of other journals. While the typology and discourse methods were something I wanted to revisit, I had also become fascinated by the comparative education framework, and its companion Institutionalism (which is used in many disciplines,

xiii

xiv

Preface

including sociology and political science, but is also strongly represented in the literature on higher education). The data in this book are analyzed using typology and discourse analysis techniques, set in a framework of comparative education and of “new” institutionalism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), particularly its focus on institutional isomorphism, the tendency of institutions to resemble one another, and discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008), in which “ideas matter.” There are a lot of data in this book, a great deal of literature reviewed, and analysis that attempts to draw inferences from the data. There are many things that are not here, and which are outside the scope of this book. There is no attempt to present a comprehensive or detailed history of higher education or libraries, in the United States or elsewhere. Likewise, while the educational systems of other countries are briefly described as necessary background information, it is not the intention to present anything like a rich and detailed picture of academic libraries or higher education in any of the countries represented in the data. Many other projects could spring from this data and the approaches used here. Those include a much closer look at any of the countries or organizational types represented, as well as using other sources of data such as surveys and interviews, to gather data from universities whose web presence does not allow them to be included here.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Nancy Busch, Dean of Library Services, Kay Walter, Chair of Digital Initiatives and Special Collections, and Judith Wolfe, Chair of Access Service and Interim Chair of Discovery and Resource Management, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for their support of this project in the form of authorization for a sabbatical. My deep gratitude goes to them for this valuable opportunity. (Thanks, Nancy, for being willing to go down the rabbit hole with me and talk about everything in the universe.) Many thanks also to my many library and teaching friends and colleagues for interesting discussions and insights about many topics: thanks to Bob Bolin, Gail Eckwright, Meg Mering, Sue Gardner, Harriet Wintermute, Kay Logan-Peters, Richard Graham, Erica DeFrain, and so many others. Much of the genesis for this book comes from the many international authors who have contributed to Library Philosophy and Practice since Gail Eckwright and I founded in 1998. There have been hundreds of contributions from librarians in many places in the world, but especially Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Uganda. Deep gratitude goes to all of them for helping to create the global network of librarians that now exists. There is not room enough to name them all, but special thanks to Tukur Abba, Moses A. Adeniji, Samuel Olu Adeyoyin, Esharenana E. Adomi, Kwaku Agyen-Gyasi, Naved Ahmad, Daniel O. Akparobore, Blessing Amina Akporhonor, Dariush Alimohammadi, Kanwal Ameen, Isaac Echezonam Anyira, Brendan Eze Asogwa, Bola C. Atulomah, Dr. Rubina Bhatti, Isaac Oluwadare Busayo, Nelson Edewor, Helen Nneka Eke, Daniel Emojorho, Vahideh Zarea Gavgani, Sumeer Gul, Brij Mohan Gupta, Yahya Ibrahim Harande, Akhtar Hussain, Haroon Idrees, Stella E. Igun, Mercy I. Ijirigho, Promise Ifeoma Ilo, Maidul Islam, Md. Maidul Islam, Md. Shiful Islam, Md. Anwarul Islam, Md. Shariful Islam, Abdulwahab Olanrewaju Issa, Basil Enemute Iwhiwhu, B.U. Kannappanavar, Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Helen O. Komolafe-Opadeji, Devendra Kumar, Preeti Mahajan, Bulu Maharana, Rabindra K. Maharana, Dr. Khalid Mahmood, Alexander Maz-Machado, Muhammad Sajid Mirza, Chinwe M.T. Nweze, Obiora Nwosu, Nnenna A. Obidike, Esoswo Francisca Ogbomo, Monday Obaidjevwe Ogbomo, T.A. Ogunmodede, Samuel O. Ogunniyi, Constant Okello-Obura, Christopher Olatokunbo Okiki, Michael Onuchukwu Okoye, Oliver Theophine Onwudinjo, Aondoana Daniel Orlu, Oyemike Victor Ossai-Onah,

xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

Samuel Owusu-Ansah, Obuh Alex Ozoemelem, Shafiq Ur Rehman, Jyotshna Sahoo, Mashid Sajjadi, Adam Gambo Saleh, Bipin Bihari Sethi, Farzana Shafique, Chetan Sharma, K.P. Singh, Dr. Dillip K. Swain, Adeyinka Tella, Dr. S. Thanuskodi, Dr. Mayank Trivedi, Akobundu Dike Ugah, Amanze Onyebochi Unagha, Chimezie Patrick Uzuebgu, Dr. J.K. Vijayakumar, Felicia Yusuf, Mayank Yuvaraj, and Yetunde Abosede Zaid.

Chapter 1

Introduction ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS We all know what “organization” means. It means more than one thing, including the various methods of arranging information and objects in a way that makes sense to us. In this book, “organization” is used to mean several things. Its most prominent meaning is a “corporate body,” as catalogers say, a firm, corporation, club, charity, or any of the many public service entities such as governments, schools, healthcare agencies, and, most certainly libraries. Libraries are an organization in the sense that they are groups of people employed to provide library service to a constituency. They have common missions, goals, and objectives, and they communicate and work together to carry them out. In most cases, they are paid to do so by a governing body such as a university or a municipal government, for example. “Organization” also means the structures that entities such as libraries use to divide labor, develop expertise and specialization, and carry out the library’s mission in the most efficient and effective way. That generally means that the library is divided into departments and units who are responsible for some part of that mission: acquiring library resources, for example, or cataloging them, or helping users find and use them. There is an administrative structure that is generally hierarchical to a greater or lesser extent, with a library director at the top of the hierarchy. Likewise, the word “institution” is well-known to most people and it also has several meanings. It can be used as a synonym for “organization,” as in “institution of higher education,” which means a college or university. It can also be used in the sense of something established, long-standing, a tradition, and part of the fabric of everyday life, e.g., “football is an institution on this campus.” Individuals are sometimes described this way as well, i.e., “Professor Smith has been here 40 years and is an institution at this university,” meaning that Prof. Smith is well-known, admired, and an inextricable part of the university’s community and identity. We will use “institution” in both senses: in its common meaning as a synonym for organization, but, more importantly as part of the phenomenon of “institutionalization,” which is the subject of numerous theories and a great deal of scholarship. The institutionalist lens looks at how practices and entities become institutionalized: become something widely recognized, accepted, and bound up with other The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00001-X Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

2

The 21st Century Academic Library

aspects of society and culture. Education is “an institution,” and many aspects of education are institutionalized. Libraries are institutionalized as well, as are the components of library organization and practice. The theoretical framework of institutionalism plays a crucial role in analyzing the data collected for this book, and it will be discussed in more detail in this chapter and others. This book looks at the organization of academic libraries from four perspectives: G

G

G

G

Who we are: using data from organizational charts and other sources to look at the actual patterns of departmental structure in academic libraries around the world. What we say about who we are: using discourse analysis and genres of organizational communication to analyze the way we present ourselves in our web presence and in information about our organizations. How we got where we are: examining the mechanisms of “institutionalism” to analyze the forces that shape our organizations and foster stasis or change. How we compare: using the framework of comparative education to examine how patterns of organization differ in the countries that are the sources of data.

University libraries are organized in this specialized and hierarchical way, and have recognizable patterns of organization that whose general outlines have been in place for decades. This book examines those patterns, using a variety of techniques and theoretical lenses to discover how academic libraries in selected regions of the globe are organized, and what we can infer and learn from these patterns. Those theoretical frameworks include using data from an international population to create a typology of organizational types and then analyzing those types using discourse analysis (Halliday, 1978; Fairclough, 1989; Hoey, 2001; Hodge & Cress, 1988, 1993; Swales, 1990), theories of structuration (Giddens, 1979, 1984), bureaucracy (Weber, 1968/1922), and institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It also draws on sociological theories by Durkheim (n.d., 1893). Typology, discourse analysis, and institutionalism are all related. Sociolinguistics is the foundation of discourse analysis: language in use in a social context. Typology is used in many disciplines and is an important area of linguistic analysis. Institutionalization is used in disciplines such as sociology and political science, and aspects of society become institutionalized by talking about them: communication, texts, conversations, documents, discourses, and so on. This book uses mixed methods to create a typology of academic libraries in selected countries worldwide. It analyzes the characteristics of the organizational types to gain insight into the challenges of academic libraries in the 21st century and the libraries’ responses to these challenges. In addition to

Introduction Chapter | 1

3

creating a typology of organizations, the book includes an analysis of the discourse of the web presence of the libraries in the population, using both the organizational data (organizational chart or web page listing library departments) and the library website home page. The book is informed by linguistic analysis that includes linguistic universals and typology, as well as techniques and frameworks of discourse analysis, including Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and genre theory. These techniques and approaches are used to uncover the values, discourses, motivations, and conflicts that embody and drive librarianship and particularly academic libraries. The methodological and epistemological frameworks are a combination of constructivist and pragmatic, as proposed by Morgan (2007). Whereas quantitative research uses inductive reasoning, and emphasizes objectivity and generality, and qualitative methods use deductive reasoning with subjectivity and context, a pragmatic framework uses abductive reasoning, intersubjectivity, and transferability (Morgan, 2007, p. 71). Abductive reasoning, “moves back and forth between induction and deduction first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action” (p. 71). While this research is heavily constructivist, seeing education, libraries, and their many institutionalized aspects as social constructs created by social actors, it also favors a pragmatic worldview, in which the answer to most yes/no questions is “both,” “neither,” and “both and neither.” The quantitative data consist of lists of universities and frequencies of organizational types, broken down by regions and aggregated for a total distribution of types. The typology is intended to be transferable, and could be tested on other populations (and refined, changed, or discarded.) The typology data are “intersubjective,” i.e., it is based on empirical data, but is much less of an objective fact than something like the number of students who attend a university. It is intersubjective in the sense that a group of people who are all academic librarians might be expected to understand how observable facts (i.e., information on an organizational chart) were used to create the typology. The qualitative data analyze the nature of those organizational types through the voices and discourses found in organizational charts and library websites, including mechanisms of institutionalization. The discussion and analysis of the discourse found in the data and the literature on discourse analysis that is presented draw heavily on Bolin (2007). Language is a crucial means of social action and of every kind of communication that is used by people in nearly every situation. Discourse is “language in use” or “above the level of the sentence,” texts with a social context and which are actual and natural speech or writing. The analysis of discourse includes “discourses,” i.e., “an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic” (“Discourse”, 2017), and the analysis of language in its social context. Halliday (1978) calls language a “social semiotic,” which means a system of signs for encoding meaning. A text is “realized by” sentences and expresses three aspects of

Introduction Chapter | 1

5

includes Hoey (2001), Fairclough (1995), van Dijk (1995), Lemke (1995), Yates (1989), Yates and Orlikowski (2002), and Orlikowski and Yates (1994). Discourse communities use genres and their registers to communicate. Community members have mastered these genres and registers. An analysis of genre and register includes authorship, authority, attitude, interaction with these texts, intertextuality (the relationship of one text with another), power relationships, and so on. The data for this book come from at least two genres. One is the organizational chart or departmental listing. These kinds of documents are common and can be found in many places for many kinds of organization. The data collected here come from academic library websites and contains information about the organizational structure of the library. The other genre is the academic library website’s home page. The documents are part of a “communicative event” (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972) that has rules and expectations understood by members of a discourse community. In this case the communicative event is the academic library presenting itself and communicating about itself, its employees, programs, and services. The organizational information is an internal document, particularly if it is actually an organizational chart. The home page is a portal, where the library invites users to interact with information and with the library organization. This is a “thick” (Geertz, 1973) description, which explores academic culture from inside a discourse community. Pike (1967) contrasted “emic” and “etic” description, terms that refer to the linguistic terms “phonemic” and “phonetic.” “Etic” is a description from the outside, while “emic” is from the inside. This is an emic description but the analysis presented here is not complete or definitive. Typology is a concept that is used in linguistics. Comrie (1989), Croft (1990), Greenberg (2005), and others compare the world’s languages, define types, and look at frequency, clustering, and correlation. The typology is informed by prototype semantics. Semantic prototypes have been described by Rosch (1973, 1977) and Lakoff (1986), among others. Prototype theory sees categories as having central and peripheral members. Community members may not agree on where the boundaries of a category are, but there is more agreement on the middle, or the best representative, e.g., a robin or a sparrow is a better example of a bird than a penguin. In addition to these linguistic and discursive lenses, this research is framed and informed by the ideas of bureaucracy and institutionalism. Weber (1968/1922) defined the characteristics of bureaucracy: a hierarchical structure, a well-defined division of labor, specialized knowledge and training. These characteristics are what allow bureaucratic organizations to carry out work on a large scale and with efficiency. They are part of what Weber called “rationalization,” the creation of a framework of norms, rules, and procedures for all aspects of society. Actors within society and within bureaucratic organization are limited in their choices and in their freedom to

6

The 21st Century Academic Library

make decisions. Weber (1930) famously referred to this condition as an “iron cage” in which social actors are trapped. Institutionalism draws on the views of Weber and others and numerous “new” institutionalisms have been defined and elaborated on since the 1970s. (DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is the best-known and most influential example.) The research presented in this book uses a discursive institutionalist view, in which “ideas matter” (Schmidt, 2008) and in which institutions are a means of communicating ideas and making changes. These two concepts shed light on the organizational structures of academic libraries, which are highly bureaucratic, but in which ideas do indeed matter, and in which actors strive to carry out their responsibilities informed by values and ideologies. Weber (1968/1922) also used the concept of “ideal type” to create and talk about types and categories of phenomona. By “ideal type,” he meant something like prototypical, the best representative of a category, one closest to the center and not peripheral in the way that a penguin is less “birdy” than a sparrow. The typology presented here reflects the information that libraries presented on their websites. They made the choice to present this information about themselves (or not to do so). Naming and analyzing these types is subjective, and the analysis and observations do not make a judgment about whether a library is serving its patrons effectively. Moreover, a library may present itself in a way that appears predominantly “print-centered,” the most traditional (and still the most widespread) organizational pattern, while at the same time, that library is quite innovative, user-oriented, future-oriented, and so on. The skeletal structure of the organization does not in itself mean that the organization, or everyone in it, is behaving only in the ways that might be reflected in an organizational chart. Rather, these types show the general shape of academic library organizations and give some idea of the direction the profession is going in terms of organization.

Typology of Library Organizations The following are the types of academic library organizations discovered in the data. Each will be elaborated and explain in detail at a later point.

Types 1. Print-centered with e-resources This is the most common type in the population, although it is not equally represented in all regions. This type is “print-centered” because it is the traditional kind of library organization that is based upon the journey of a print book from requesting through shelving and circulating. The departments are based on the functions that were developed to acquire, process, and house print books and other physical materials: collection development, acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, and preservation, as

Introduction Chapter | 1

7

well as reference (to locate and use material of all kinds), special collections (to acquire and process all kinds of rare and special material), and administration. Nearly all libraries now have substantial collections of e-resources, and may be withdrawing much of their print collections or sending them to storage and ordering a sharply reduced amount of print. They undoubtedly have a systems or automation unit or department, and often have activities such as digital projects, data curation, an institutional repository, and so on. Nevertheless, their organizational structure remains little changed from 50 or 100 years ago. 2. E-focused The E-focused organization is different from the print-centered one in degree rather than in kind. It generally has many of the same departments as the print-centered organization, but has moved farther along the continuum, de-emphasizing the role of print but still rather collectionfocused, with a shape that still mimics print workflow. 3. Transitional The transitional organization has less focus on the collection and presents itself organizationally as a partner in the learning process. It has more emphasis on content creation, and the public services/technical services divide is not to be found. It is moving toward a focus on teaching, learning, collaboration, and seamless discovery. 4. Re-focused The re-focused library is ready for the future, including any or all of the scenarios envisioned by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2010) for the year 2030. It presents collections as just one aspect of library programs and services and is a more fully realized version of the transitional organization. These types reflect the discourses and voices of higher education and librarianship. The discourses include the “heteroglossic opposition” (Bakhtin, 1935) of the voice of marketing, recruitment, the student-centered university with the impersonal and bureaucratic voice that imposes rules, limits, and sanctions. The university and the library claim Weber’s (1968/1922) “rational, legal authority” about the use of university and library spaces and resources, but both the university and the library also view students as consumers and customers. (“Voice” and “discourse” are obviously related, but, in general, and in this book, “voice” refers to the group or function and “discourse” to what that voice is saying and what it is talking about.) One problem for universities and libraries is that the mental model of their institutions created by decades of hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations is slow to admit innovations. When something like scholarly communication or data curation is introduced, a crucial question is “what department will it be in?” Sometimes the answer is, “a new department,” i.e., the data curation of scholarly communication department, or a new department that is called something like “digital services.” Otherwise, an

8

The 21st Century Academic Library

existing department must be reconceived, or, more likely the new function is taken into an existing department as an appendage, something Beckert (2010) calls “layering.” Any of these strategies may be successful or unsuccessful, but the question “what department” is probably part of the problem. Library organizations in the population studied for this book show all these situations. There are cases where the entire organization has been reconceived and realigned, others where innovations are in a new department, and still others where existing departments have made room for the new service. While the library website might further the bureaucratic and impersonal nature of interaction with library users, the trend has been toward an interface that is user-oriented and has a friendly, if not personal, attitude. Institutions are an aspect of human society and human institutions have existed for millennia. Religious organizations, schools, corporations, and many other kinds of institutions are a way for individual humans to come together to communicate and to do more and different things than any single person could do. The study of the development of institutions in political science, sociology, and other disciplines is called “institutionalism” and in its current form, “new institutionalism,” or “neo-institutionalism,” it is used by scholars to explain how institutions grow and change, the role the play in society, how human activity becomes “institutionalized,” how institutions are different from one another, and, interestingly, how institutions in a category are often very much alike. This tendency of institutions to resemble one another is called “isomorphism,” or “isomorphic change” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Universities and academic libraries display isomorphism, and the data gathered for this book demonstrates the ways in which academic libraries are alike. The reasons for isomorphism in academic libraries are complex and interrelated. They include standards promulgated by professional associations such as the American Library Association (ALA) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA); the curricula of library and information science (LIS) degree programs, which tend to mirror library organizations in certain ways; the scholarly and professional communication process for librarians, which includes conferences, publications, and less formal communication; and the bureaucratic nature of both libraries and higher education, in which certain organizational patterns become hardened and are difficult to change. Universities are bureaucratic organizations, using the concepts and definitions of Weber (1968/1922). They have the hierarchical and impersonal characteristics that Weber described. Academic libraries typify this kind of bureaucracy. They are historically very hierarchical and fixated on efficiency: mobilizing groups of people to provide services according to strictly defined procedures. This systematization is part of the genius of modern librarianship, but it can also be like Weber’s “iron cage” (1930) that allows no thinking, innovating, creativity, or deviation from the “rules.”

Introduction Chapter | 1

9

Both universities and libraries are under pressure to be less bureaucratic and impersonal and to be “student-centered,” to focus on “user experience,” but to keep the assembly line going, e.g., graduating students quickly while at the same time treating them as individuals. Universities and academic libraries are trying to be collaborative, interdisciplinary, “nimble,” and so on, while still managing curricula, programs, and services on a large scale. Weber’s concept of “rationalization” (the imposition of the structure of capitalism on societies) limits the choices of “actors” (individuals with agency and the ability to make decisions). The futures that have been imagined and warned about, such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 2030 futures (2010) are hard to implement or even envision when libraries and universities are locked into their current efficient-but-bureaucratic structures. One reason for this difficulty is the deeply held images and metaphors, the mental models that we use when thinking about higher education and academic libraries. The discourses of efficiency, service, impartial, and impersonal provision of information, are embedded in library organizations. Likewise, the idea that a library is a warehouse (or even a treasure house) of information strongly implies that it is the (physical) resources, and not the people, that make the library and make it important. In the global environment of higher education, there are multiple interconnecting influences that have created the present situation of academic libraries. Those influences include scholarly communication, students traveling outside their home countries for higher education, developments in information technology, and the maturing of distance and online learning. In addition, the role of print resources has declined sharply, while the use of electronic resources (e-resources) has mushroomed. This book explores trends in organization in academic libraries in selected countries and regions where English is the language used for education, including North America, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, part of Africa, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. It uses a representative number of research libraries in each geographic area and uses data on departmental and functional organization to create a typology of organizational types and to examine emerging trends in library organization. The data collected include a list of the largest and most prominent universities in each region, and the organization of the libraries of each of those universities. The organization includes “functions,” i.e., the programs and services the library provides, as well as departments: the organizational units that provide those functions. For example, library functions included circulation, reference, instruction, cataloging, and acquisitions, among others. Those functions could be provided by any number of departments, e.g., a public services department could provide circulation, reference, and instruction, while a technical services department could provide cataloging and acquisitions. On the other hand a library might have a “collections”

10

The 21st Century Academic Library

department that provided acquisitions and reference, with other departments to provide other programs and services. The data collected show patterns in organization, including old favorites and new models.

Theoretical Framework This book uses an analytical framework that includes comparative education, the sociological study of institutionalism and bureaucracy, and several approaches to linguistic and discourse analysis. Taken together, those things examine the current state of academic library organizations as institutions of 21st century society, and analyzes the discourse of their web presence (library web page and any organizational information found there) to draw inferences. The data are analyzed using a constructivist approach, in which reality is socially constructed. Comparative education “examines education in one country (or group of countries) by using data and insights drawn from the practices and situation in another country, or countries” (“Comparative Education”, 2017). Comparative education (and other comparative approaches) shows similarities to contrastive linguistics and linguistic typology, which compare the features of languages (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, lexis) in order to discover linguistic universals, typologies, and variations in systems across and between languages. Educational systems are a social construct without the fundamental and somewhat more predictable characteristics of linguistic systems (e.g., phonology is limited by the capability of the human body for producing sound), but the analogy is nonetheless useful. Educational systems are influenced by communication and exchange of information, ideas, funding, research, and so on by scholars, practitioners, and governments. This book also uses discourse analysis, specifically the study of genres of organizational communication (Swales, 1990), the idea of “heteroglossia” (Bakhtin, 1935), “discourse communities,” and “discourse formations” (Lemke, 1995) and CDA (Fairclough, 1995; Hodge & Kress, 1988) to analyze the way organizations are divided and the names used for the subdivisions. The idea of intertextuality (Kristeva, 1984), the relationship of a text to other texts, is also important for analyzing the data in this book. Libraries and universities have a hierarchical relationship and libraries borrow words and ideas from other libraries. This leads to intertextual relationships between things like the names of departments and important texts or documents created by the university, by library associations, or by other libraries. Moreover, library and university websites are a genre of organizational communication and discourse. University and academic library web presence has emerged and become somewhat standardized over the past 15 20 years. The characteristics of this genre of communication can be examined to reveal approaches, attitudes, and influences on the organizations that created the websites.

Introduction Chapter | 1

11

In addition, the idea of institutionalism and institutionalization, the way institutions are formed, grow, and change, also informs this book and the analysis of data. Institutionalism is used by political scientists, sociologists, and other scholars to study organizations including government, educational institutions, and so on. One form of institutionalism, “discursive institutionalism” (Schmidt, 2008) looks at the use of ideas and their expression in discourse as a means of building and changing institutions. Institutions demonstrate a tendency toward “isomorphism” or “isomorphic change” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), i.e., they tend to become more like one another and changes tend to be in the same direction or with the same goal. The organizational patterns of universities and of academic libraries demonstrate isomorphism and the data in this book will demonstrate that.

The Political Environment of Higher Education and Academic Libraries Higher education is established and maintained by governments and by private entities. There is pressure for standardization so that the “product” will have a certain uniformity. There is a market aspect (employers need and want students with specific knowledge and skills) and education is a tool of both social control and liberation. Wealthy nations have created certain models of education that are shared worldwide, but new models are emerging from the globalized environment of developing nations with millions of young people and from the potential of the internet for providing truly globalized online education. Higher education funding is driven by many factors, many of them political. Public universities receive less and less of their funding from the government (state, national, and so on), and more from grant funding and other sources. The grants may themselves be from government agencies, but those funds are different in nature from the allocations received from the sponsoring government. Grant funding drives research and can drive curriculum. Universities compete with one another. They compete for students, faculty, funds, and programs. While they may also collaborate, the competition is exacerbated by the struggle to acquire scarce funds. Data from the past decade show that there are about 150 million college and university students worldwide. This includes all countries and not just those sampled for this book (“Data Points”, 2009). This number is predicted to grow to about 260 million by 2025 (Maslen, 2012). Education has been globalized along with other sectors, including business, communication, entertainment, and so on. ARL is a consortium of the largest research libraries in North America. The ARL 2030 Scenarios (ARL, 2010) posit four different scenarios for North American libraries in the coming years: Research Entrepreneurs, Reuse and Recycle, Disciplines in Charge, and Global Followers. They are

12

The 21st Century Academic Library

not scenarios for academic libraries alone, but for higher education and research in general. All have their advantages and disadvantages, and none is presented as inevitable. Despite the impact of information technology and of globalization, neither higher education nor academic libraries have changed radically in the last 30 years. Online education and e-resources have matured and have had a profound impact. Nevertheless, with some variations, the model for delivery remains the semester, the credit hour, the 4-year bachelor’s degree, and for library resources, the scholarly monograph and the journal article. Milestones for students are degrees and for faculty promotion and tenure. Those milestones are earned through traditional means: reading, writing, and lecturing.

The Library and the University Academic libraries have a history that is intertwined with the history of higher education in general. In North America the modern academic library is a product of the emergence in the late 19th century of the idea of a research university and its trappings: the PhD, the periodical literature, scholarly and professional organizations, peer review, and even tenure. Academic libraries are part of the apparatus of the modern university, in which the products of scholarly communication are housed, preserved, organized, and made available, and in which students and faculty are taught to use tools of information retrieval such as the library catalog and the periodical index, once paper or print tools and now online (Shiflett, 1981). Academic libraries have a broad mission in the university: to support research and teaching with collections and services that acquire, process, interpret, and give access to information that is needed by its users. Those users work in dozens of disciplines across the sciences, social sciences, humanities, and professional and applied fields. It is a challenge for academic libraries to be all things to all these people. It has led to a culture of sharing and collaboration shared collections, lending networks, the development and use of information technology, and the creation of enormous shared bibliographic databases such as WorldCat. That culture of sharing and collaboration is also seen in national and international library organizations and their conferences and continuing education activities. Those opportunities to communicate, learn, and share have had a direct influence on the evolution of library programs and services and the organizational structures that are created to deliver them. Likewise, new specialties in librarianship (e.g., data curation) have emerged out of this international conversation on the role and mission of libraries and librarians. Higher education has felt the effects of globalization and one result is that educational practices and conventions are being shared and adopted. Examples include the use of concepts like “semester,” “credit hour,” the

Introduction Chapter | 1

13

names and substance of degrees, and so on. These things make an educational experience more universal and transferable, i.e., if a student travels to another country to get a degree, a set of common educational practices and vocabulary make it easier for the student to use the degree in his or her home country. Libraries have felt the effect of globalization along with their parent institutions. The English-speaking world has shared its cataloging code since at least 1967, when the first edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules was published. In the last 50 years, we have seen advances in information technology that have allowed further exchange among libraries worldwide. That includes the creation of OCLC and its database WorldCat, which has more than 16 thousand members from more than 100 countries and nearly 400 million bibliographic records (OCLC, 2017). Collaboration in librarianship has always led to standardization. For libraries to collaborate, they must use or produce a standard product that is technologically interoperable and compatible with the expectations of all the libraries, librarians, and library patrons who will use it. Collaboration is related to automation (whether using computers or simply machines), which also uses standards. Pioneering librarians such as Melvil Dewey created standards that are still used today, e.g., the 3v 3 5v catalog or index card, whose size was standardized so that it could be filed in a standard catalog drawer. Collaboration, automation, and standardization all have their effect on organization. The common functions and specialties in librarianship have existed for more than 100 years: acquisitions, cataloging, reference, circulation, collection development, and other services have been well-known and much-discussed for decades. Despite new ways of doing all these things the things themselves still exist. Workflows are complex and change is frequent, but libraries still acquire, pay for, catalog, and give physical or electronic access to resources. They still assist users in finding and using information. And they continue to make the case for the continued relevance of and librarians.

Historical Context This book deals generally with the last 150 years of higher education and academic libraries, although the roots of both go back much farther than that. One important factor in education and the production and organization of information is the way all knowledge is outlined, divided, and mapped. Despite the growth of interdisciplinary research and the emergence of new fields and disciplines, knowledge is still generally divided into science, social science, and humanities. University curricula follow this model with little variation. Libraries classify resources in the same way. There are controversies, variations, and anomalies: where do the professional schools, such as law, business, journalism, and even LIS fit? Is history a social science or

14

The 21st Century Academic Library

part of the humanities? Where does linguistics fit most comfortably? Nevertheless the three-part division of knowledge, along with the subdivisions of each part, is both an accepted and well-understood concept as well as a stumbling block and a failure of imagination. Likewise, the functions of librarianship have changed little since the birth of modern librarianship in the late 19th century. Libraries still have the concepts “public services” and “technical services” and their constituents remain remarkably stable: public services is circulation, reference, and instruction, while technical services is acquisitions, cataloging, and serials (or e-resources). Moreover, the question of the values of librarianship, the nature of the library profession, and the proper formation of librarians is also an old one, with the same arguments present in the professional literature now, 50 years ago, and 100 years ago. The arguments about the appropriate status for academic librarians (faculty or staff) are part of this question: what is the programmatic responsibility of librarians, and what is the role of librarians in the academy?

Problem Statement Higher education and academic libraries exist in the global environment of the 21st century. There is pressure from many sources to transform and change, but organizational patterns reflect thinking from the 20th or even the 19th century.

Research Questions 1. What are the organizational patterns of libraries in countries where English is the language of education? 2. What are the discourses of higher education and librarianship that can be found in the organizational pattern and the web presence of academic libraries in these regions? 3. How are the mechanisms of rationalization and institutionalization present in the organizational patterns and discourses?

Methodology Data have been analyzed using quantitative methods (frequencies) as well as qualitative analysis of the language of the organizational type and of the home page of the library website. The quantitative analysis will show a typology of library organizational types and the qualitative analysis will reveal what discourses, values, missions, challenges, etc., are embedded in the language used there, and what mechanisms of institutionalization are seen there.

Introduction Chapter | 1

15

Data Data were gathered from the websites of university libraries in North America, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of Africa, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The data gathered include the functions and the departments in the library, e.g., the access/delivery/circulation function and the department(s) that carry out that function. Names of both functions and departments can vary from library to library and from country to country. The functional categories are: G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

Access/delivery/circulation, which includes housing and maintenance of physical collections, circulation, interlibrary borrowing and lending, and document delivery. Acquisitions, which consists of purchasing, licensing, subscribing, and paying for library material, both electronic and physical. Cataloging, including creation and maintenance of metadata for the library’s collection, including descriptive and subject information, as well as inventory-level information such as the number of parts, volumes, copies, and so on, the library has access to. Reference and Instruction, in which library users can seek help, in person, online, on the telephone, etc., with their information-seeking activities, and in which they receive formal instruction in information-seeking and information literacy. Special collections, which acquires, processes, and maintains rare and special materials as well as archival collections that may include the papers of well-known or historically significant people. Digital initiatives, including creation of sites for digital and digitized research material such as image collections, annotated manuscripts, and so on. Library automation, which consists of the library’s information technology infrastructure, including provision and maintenance of computers for library staff and library users. Functions such as government documents, scholarly communication, and others that may or may not be part of the library’s programs.

Summary of Information on Each Region South Asia (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) Even though these three countries represent more than one billion people and have dozens of higher education institutions, it is hard to find information about the libraries of these institutions and harder still to find organizational information that describes the departments in the library and how they relate to one another. Nevertheless, there is often interesting information about the services offered, and more than 60 South Asian libraries are

16

The 21st Century Academic Library

represented in the data. They frequently include services that have disappeared from North American libraries in the past 30 years: Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI), Current Awareness services, newspaper clippings, and reprographics. All suggest a more print-based environment. While the use of ILSs is widespread, many libraries in South Asia and elsewhere still have a card catalog. Indian libraries often feature a list of print and electronic journals (e-journals) and databases/e-resources on the library home page.

Africa The countries represented in this data include Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and Kenya. This, too, is a populous group of countries that has numerous universities and other higher education institutions. As with South Asia, it was often difficult to find information about individual universities or the libraries associated with them, and also difficult to find organizational information. The 26 African libraries represented in the data present interesting information about the organization of those libraries. Australia and New Zealand These countries have university and library websites that conform to a western “standard” for information and display. Moreover, innovation and refocusing is seen more often in this population than in North America or elsewhere. United Kingdom and Ireland The United Kingdom and Ireland likewise have standard university and library websites and the organization of this group of about 40 libraries shows transition and innovation toward new models. North America While the region is referred to as “North America,” the libraries in this group are in fact all from the United States. It is a population of United States research libraries created by Bolin (2008b) and only the public institutions are included here, to create a more coherent population. Libraries from Canada have not been added because the population of libraries in the United States has already been used for a research project and other data have been gathered about those libraries already, to which this new data could be added. There are 68 libraries in this group and the traditional organizational models predominate, while there are also signs of transition and innovation. The following chapter presents background information on the development of higher education worldwide, and serves to inform the data by creating context for discussion and analysis.

Chapter 2

Background INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL CONTEXT This chapter describes the environment of higher education and academic libraries in the early 21st century, including the historical context and the events and influences that have led to its present condition. Higher education as we know it today is still a product of the 19th century, particularly the mid- to late 19th century, when industrialized countries experienced an information explosion that included the expansion of learned and professional societies, the periodical literature, the contemporary idea of research, and the development of new professions and disciplines, including librarianship. Weber’s concept of bureaucracy and its characteristics can be clearly seen in the development of the office, with its communicative structure, division of labor, and detailed hierarchy of authority and procedure. Librarianship as we know it was born during this era and is nearly an “ideal type” of the bureaucratic organization and approach. Universities likewise are hierarchical and bureaucratic, with presidents and vice presidents, divisions and departments, academics, finance, student services, and auxiliary services such as housing and food service. There are several models of higher education and in the 21st century, and there are probably no “pure” examples of any of those models, but variations worldwide that adhere more to one or the other. In 1811, Wilhelm von Humboldt, a linguistic scholar and educational reformer, founded Humboldt University of Berlin (Humboldt-Universita¨t zu Berlin). In doing so, he helped create a model of higher education that built upon Enlightenment-era principles of academic freedom: Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit, the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn (Backhaus, 2015). Later in the century, after the American Civil War, this model helped create the modern research university in the United States, including institutions such as Johns Hopkins University and others (Thelin, Edwards, Moyen, Berger, & Vita Calkins, 2002). The German, Humboldtian model is the origin of the concept of independent and original research, and of a kind of “ivory tower” mentality, in which scholars do not feel pressure from outside forces to study or research things that are considered “useful” to society, although their research might in fact produce scientific or other kinds of discoveries that are extremely useful and helpful (Backhaus, 2015). This contrasted with the French model of The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00002-1 Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

17

18

The 21st Century Academic Library

higher education that existed at that time and which persisted into the 20th century. The French model was much more centralized and standardized, and individual institutions, faculty, and students had much less freedom of choice and action (“France,” 2004). The United States adopted a Humboldtian model in the late 19th century and it can be seen in the growth of public and private research universities since then, including large private institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Chicago, and so on, but also in public research universities, particularly land grant institutions whose mission is “teaching, research, and public service” (Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, 2017). Universities in the United States became more hierarchical, complex, and bureaucratic in the 19th and 20th centuries, and adopted the familiar structure of divisions: academic affairs, financial affairs, etc., and the colleges that were part of the academic affairs division, e.g., arts and sciences, engineering, agriculture, law, journalism, architecture: both scholarly disciplines and professional schools, with many colleges further subdivided into departments, e.g., English, history, mathematics (Thelin et al., 2002; Cohen, 2012). Those researchers needed and used information and the information had to be organized and made accessible. Pioneers in modern librarianship, including Melvil Dewey, Charles Cutter, and others, were influenced by bureaucratic practice, e.g., filing systems, genres of communication such as the memo, equipment such as catalog and filing cabinets, among others. Librarianship from the start had a division of labor such as Weber describes, with functions such as circulation, reference, cataloging, serials control, and acquisitions present from an early date. Publishers were partners in this new research environment, as were scholarly and professional societies. The publication, acquisition, and cataloging of monographic and periodical literature shaped the profession and practices of librarianship (Wiegand, 1996). In the university setting, the library is always part of the academic affairs division, i.e., the dean or director of the library reports to the academic vice president (the provost). If there are exceptions to this, they are extremely rare. Academic libraries are funded by allocations from the academic affairs division, along with other funding sources. To use the “ideal type” of state university in the United States as an example, the university receives a budget allocation each year from the state legislature, which allocates the funds to the university’s governing body, e.g., a board of regents. From the university level, the division of academic affairs receives its allocation, and from there the library gets its share. That allocation covers salaries and benefits, facilities and maintenance, equipment, supplies, and, of course, collections. State funds are often supplemented by funds from the university foundation, where donors can set up gifts for purchasing collections or other things. There are also funds from the division of research, which often gives a share of grant funds to the library as a kind of overhead cost (Weiner, 2005).

Background Chapter | 2

19

The mission of the library matches the mission of the university. This is a kind of intertextuality, in which library goals may be directly modeled on university goals, and it is also part of the bureaucratic structure of universities: libraries may be a large cog, but they are still a cog in the university machine that helps turn out educated graduates. University missions are often some variation of “teaching, research, and service.” Libraries further that mission by supporting teaching and research with information resources, information technology, and an expert staff who are part of the educational and research process. Moreover, the contemporary academic library often has a direct role in scholarly communication through an institutional repository and data curation, and a direct role in creating content for scholars through digital archives of primary sources. Universities are competitive and the competition for resources and students is fierce. In becoming more market-oriented and student-centered, universities have changed physically, creating a more inviting and comfortable atmosphere. They have created a substantial IT infrastructure, including computer labs, wireless networks, and sometimes the provision of equipment such as laptops. University living spaces have changed radically in the past 30 years, and now attempt to match the lifestyle and standard of living that students are used to (e.g., private bathrooms.) (“Amenities Matter to Some,” 2005). Libraries have changed as well, and after a decade or more of plummeting circulation, door counts, and reference statistics, as users saw that they did not need to come to the library for information (both because of library-provided e-resources and because of open access internet information). The discussion of “library as place” began as the internet and e-resources matured and became default information sources. Academic libraries began rethinking spaces and services and over time moved legacy print collections to storage and aggressively weeded print collection. The space that was created by these moves has been turned into a variety of study and collaboration spaces, often with a “third place” atmosphere, relaxed and inviting (Crump, Carrico, & Freund, 2012). Changes in technology and culture have led users to expect quick (instant) delivery of information and a 24/7 service philosophy. Libraries have always tried to be all things to all people, and many librarians are feeling conflicted about how to serve faculty and students across all disciplines when space and budget are tight. While e-journals are now the default format for the periodical literature (even though they still exist in print), ebooks are not seen as being a completely mature delivery method, with varying formats and interfaces, different restrictions on use, and so on. Researchers in some disciplines cling to print and make the case for a browsable print collection. Libraries are faced with hard choices, including how to collect reliable evidence about information seeking behavior and build programs based on that evidence (de Jager, 2015; Widdicombe, 2003).

20

The 21st Century Academic Library

Aside from their relationship to the university, academic libraries are also influenced by the work of professional organizations such as the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and the American Library Association (ALA), which promulgate standards for library education, library programs and services, cataloging codes, and many more things. The values of librarianship are created, nurtured, and protected by these associations, who have had influence on issues such as faculty status for librarians, open access, copyright, internet neutrality, diversity, free speech, privacy, and other issues that affect librarians or society at large (IFLA, 2017; ALA, 2017). The influences of the profession, the university, the government, library users, and all other stakeholders illustrate the principle of discursive institutionalism: ideas matter (Schmidt, 2008). Libraries continue to be influenced by ideas from education (student-centered programs, time to graduation, distance learning), library and information science (freedom of information, theories of instruction, information architecture and metadata), university administration and governance (accountability and assessment, entrepreneurship, marketing of services, recruitment and retention of students). The organizational patterns and the programs and services of academic libraries are the product of the bureaucratic structure (slow and incremental change, hierarchy and division of labor) and of the institutionalist concepts of isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) (the library resembles other libraries and other university departments) and the power of ideas and communication.

EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP Another important source of ideas and an influence on the library profession is education for librarianship. The “library school” is a product of the post1876 activity that included the establishment of ALA. The first US school of library science was established by Melvil Dewey as an independent organization. It later moved to Columbia University and eventually all library and information science programs were associated with universities and the terminal degree for librarians became the Masters in Library Science (Wiegand, 1996). Since the early days of education for librarianship, there has been discussion about the nature of that education, its quality, success, and goals. The Williamson reports of 1921 and 1923 (Williamson, 1971) studied the programs available at that time and made recommendations for reform. That report and subsequent discussions dwell on the main controversy in library education: theory versus practice, with most programs being criticized for being too much like a trade school and not enough like a professional school, i.e., teaching library practice as a set of procedures and not as something built on a theory and philosophy of librarianship. Libraries and library education have changed significantly in the past 150 years, like every other institution, but many things remain the same. Libraries need library and information science programs to supply them with

Background Chapter | 2

21

new professionals for the field. Library schools need feedback from libraries on the necessary characteristics and skills of those graduates. Libraries claim that they want innovative and independent scholars with advanced critical thinking skills and other similar characteristics. At the same time, they tend to sabotage the goal of hiring such people by focusing on specific skills and experience. That is, a mediocre person with substantial experience in cataloging or reference might rise to the top of a hiring pool, while a person with high intelligence, adaptability, and creativity might be eliminated because he or she lacked the required or preferred knowledge or experience in a specific library function. As White (1983) famously remarked, it appears that libraries would prefer to hire “docile drones with basic skills.” Library school curricula tend to mirror library organizations to an extent. There are still courses in cataloging and metadata, collection development, reference and instruction, special collections and archives, library administration and management, and in newer skills and programs such as data curation, digital humanities, web design, and XML programming. There are courses that focus on library types such as public, academic, school, and special libraries. Functions such as circulation (or access services) are rarely present in library school curricula, although access policies and practices may be discussed in many different courses (ALA, 2015).

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES While it has been stated that this is an “emic” study and a “thick” description that is, one written by someone who is a member of the community being studied, it is also a study that uses data from a number of regions of the world but is written by a community member who has never worked outside the United States. Therefore, the comparative aspect of the study, the contrasting of patterns in the United States, the United Kingdom, Africa, and so on, has a more “etic” (from the outside) perspective as well. The intention is not to be “US-centric,” but it may be an inescapable point of view. The aim of this book is to gather and compare data in a way that has not been done before. Those with more knowledge of other parts of the world can help to interpret and elaborate on this data in the future. This section looks briefly at the environment of higher education and of academic libraries in the regions outside North America that are represented in the population. There is plentiful information available on these topics and it is beyond the scope of this book to be a comprehensive source of historical, political, or economic information about universities and libraries around the world. It is intended as brief but necessary background information for gaining and understanding of the environment of academic libraries and the organizational features that will emerge. information in this section, unless otherwise cited is generally from Ness and Lin (2013) and Maringe

22

The 21st Century Academic Library

and Foskett (2012), Gall (2004), as well as specific information from the university websites of institutions in the population being studied.

South Asia: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh Altbach has written extensively on comparative education and has written in detail about higher education in India (Altbach, 2013). India is the third largest educational market in the world (after the United States and China), and its large, young population has created an urgent demand for higher education. India’s University Grants Commission (UGC) is the central authority for accreditation and other similar matters. It was created in 1956, modeling itself on the UGC in the United Kingdom that has a corresponding role there. That is a very clear example of isomorphism in operation, in which the higher education of India sought to legitimate itself by copying something that was already established, in a country with which it had long been associated (and which, during colonial times, had coercive power over it). The number of universities has grown dramatically since then, with central, state, deemed, and private institutions, as well as several kinds of institutes of technology. A “deemed” university is one deemed by the UGC to have the authority to grant degrees, and other universities must work through deemed institutions in the granting of degrees (Singh, 2004). Altbach (2013) discusses the problem of quality in Indian higher education, and in UNESCO’s synthesis of “top 500” rankings, the number of Indian universities in the top 500 has gone from three in 2004 to one in 2012 (UNESCO, 2014). The main areas of scientific research in India are generally medicine, chemistry, engineering, and physics. There were 7.7 million students who graduated from university programs in 2014 (UNESCO, 2017). Pakistan also had a UGC, which was replaced in 2002 with the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The HEC was created constitutionally with the aim of expanding and improving higher education in Pakistan. Since 2002, 51 new colleges and universities have been established and the number of students, especially in master’s and doctoral programs, has expanded significantly. Universities in Pakistan have become more highly ranked, and the amount of scientific and scholarly research has expanded as well. In this we see a beneficial use of the coercive mechanism of isomorphism, in which a government can help achieve a goal of improving access and quality by transforming the governing body (and in some discursive way declaring cultural independence from the United Kingdom and India) and funding the growth of new institutions. Bangladesh, like India and Pakistan, has a large population and a high demand for university and other tertiary education. In 2012, Pakistan had one university listed in the top 500 worldwide. Its most prominent areas of research are medicine, agriculture, and chemistry (UNESCO, 2014).

Background Chapter | 2

23

Bangladesh has a UGC and about 100 universities, as well as many Madrasah higher education institutions and a system of technical institutes. Like India and Pakistan, its main areas of research are medicine and agriculture (UNESCO, 2014). Bangladesh graduated more than 329 thousand students from higher education programs in 2014 (UNESCO, 2017). Universities in South Asia generally have a two-semester plus summer academic calendar, a familiar fee structure, a 3-year bachelor’s degree, and a similar system of credit points or credit hours to institutions worldwide.

Africa One cannot really speak generally of “Africa,” a continent with 1.2 billion people, 54 countries, covering 11.7 million square miles, where more than 1000 languages are spoken (“Africa,” 2017). Data from Africa for this book includes the Sub-Saharan countries where English is an official language or a language of commerce and education. Included in the data are universities in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Ethiopia. Enrollment in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa has grown substantially, with nearly 5 million students enrolled, 20 times the number that were enrolled in 1970 (UNESCO, 2012). Like the countries of South Asia, Africa has a growing population and a young population. Some countries in Africa have had a significant number of deaths from AIDS, which affects demographics and many other aspects of society and culture. There is a great deal of demand for higher education, and Nigeria alone, for example, has 129 universities, in addition to many polytechnics and other kinds of colleges and institutes. Nevertheless, that is not nearly enough to meet the demand from a country of 184 million people, the largest in Africa. Nigeria has a Ministry of Education that works with the “parastatal” (quasi-governmental) Nigerian Universities Commission (NUC), a body that is similar to the UGCs or HEC in South Asia. Nigeria has about 60,000 new college and university graduates each year (UNESCO, 2017). South Africa has had significant changes since the end of apartheid, before which people of different races were in different schools. Since 1994, there has been a complete restructuring of higher education, and the previous 36 institutions are now 22, with some having been renamed. The country has about 53 million people, with a less youthful population than Nigeria or the countries of South Asia. Approximately 200,000 students graduate from South African universities each year. Kenya has a growing and youthful population of about 47 million. Like many other African countries, it is a former British colony that achieved independence only in 1963, with the University of Nairobi that dates from late colonial times and 47 other institutions from the period after independence.

24

The 21st Century Academic Library

Ghana has been independent from the United Kingdom since 1957 and has about 27 million people. There are about 20 universities, with numerous colleges, institutes, and specialized schools that are affiliated with the large universities. In 2016, more than 67,000 students graduated from a tertiary institution in Ghana (UNESCO, 2017). Zambia has a population of about 15 million and has been seriously affected by deaths from AIDS. Zambia has three larger universities, and several other universities, colleges, and other kinds of institutions. The population of Zimbabwe, approximately 14 million, has also been affected by AIDS. Zimbabwe has been independent since 1980, and therefore has a very short history of postcolonial government and development, including educational development. Zimbabwe has 15 universities, plus polytechnics and other kinds of colleges. Like other developing and postcolonial nations, it has been working on programs to increase education access and participation. The most recent statistics show about 30,000 higher education graduates per year (UNESCO, 2017). Ethiopia has a large population of a little more than 100 million, more than 40% of which is under 15 years old. It is less urbanized than other African nations in the study. There are 64 universities and similar institutions, many established quite recently. Around 200,000 students graduate each year, showing rapid growth in the past two decades (UNESCO, 2017). Universities in Africa appear generally to have a 4-year bachelor’s program, with a semester schedule. An exception to the schedule is South Africa, whose universities sometimes feature month-long teaching blocks throughout the year, that alternate with time for exams, review, and vacation.

The United Kingdom and Ireland The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and has a population of about 63 million. The United Kingdom has certainly been a source of mimetic (and, long ago of coercive) isomorphism in the institutions of government, society, culture, and education in the United States. Its educational institutions have been models for institutions and countries in many other parts of the world, both because of quality and because of the cultural and actual hegemony that are the legacy of colonialism. The most elite institutions (e.g., Oxford and Cambridge) in United Kingdom higher education are literally ancient, and were joined by “red brick,” “plate glass,” and other more accessible and less elite institutions only relatively recently. The United Kingdom also has colleges, polytechnics, and other kinds of specialized or technical schools. It has a UGC upon which other countries have modeled their higher education governing bodies. There are about 50 universities in the United Kingdom and numerous other kinds of institutions. The United Kingdom saw the same post-World War II expansion that was seen in North America and elsewhere, and had earlier

Background Chapter | 2

25

seen an expansion in higher education in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that led to the creation of “red brick” universities such as Reading and Birmingham. A bachelor’s degree from a university in the United Kingdom generally takes 3 years, rather than the four that is normal at North American institutions. This is generally because UK secondary education extends into what North Americans would consider the first year of college. UK universities may use the term “semester,” but they generally retain the 10-week term, Autumn (September through December), Spring (January through March), and Summer (April through June). Degrees include Bachelor, Master, and Doctoral (including the PhD). Students who live anywhere in the European Union (EU) are considered residents who pay lower tuition than “international” students. As in North America, public universities in the United Kingdom receive a portion (about one-quarter) of their funding from the government (the national government in the United Kingdom, generally the state government in the United States and the provincial government in Canada). The rest comes from tuition and fees, endowments, and research grants. More than three quarters of a million students graduate from tertiary institutions in the United Kingdom every year (UNESCO, 2017). The Republic of Ireland, with 5 million people and seven universities (all of which are represented in the data), has a complex and controversial history with the United Kingdom, resulting in independence in 1921, putting Ireland in the position of being a postcolonial nation that is both geographically proximate and culturally entwined with its former colonial ruler. There are certainly similarities in British and Irish culture, society, and education, and the university systems are similar. In addition to its seven universities, Ireland has numerous technical and teacher training colleges and a variety of other institutions. Ireland graduates about 60,000 students a year from higher education programs (UNESCO, 2017). Irish universities have a 4-year bachelor’s degree and a semester structure, with something akin to “credit hours” to measure class workload. The fees for public institutions are predictable and familiar and resemble the fees in other countries.

Australia and New Zealand Australia is a country and a continent, independent from the United Kingdom since 1901, with a population of 23 million. New Zealand has 4.4 million people and achieved independence in 1907. Australia has 43 universities and has seen an increasing demand for higher education and a resulting problem of uneven quality. There are more than 400,000 new graduates each year (UNESCO, 2017). There are eight universities in New Zealand, which had been organized into a single system in 1961, and then gradually reformed into separate institutions. Those universities graduate about 70,000

26

The 21st Century Academic Library

students each year (UNESCO, 2017). Like the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have a 3-year bachelor’s degree, with “degree points” (similar to credit hours) and a fee structure that is globally familiar for public institutions. This brief background information on higher education and its development in the past century and a half serves as a gateway to the consideration of academic libraries and their organizational patterns, discourse, and processes of institutionalization. The next chapter gives further background on these topics, and describes typical organizational functions and structures as they have existed for the last 50 years.

Chapter 3

Academic Library Organization INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the “typical” academic library organization in a way that uses the concepts of prototype theory and Weber’s idea of the “ideal type,” and theories of institutionalism and institutionalization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It describes the way that a generic university library might be organized, starting with the 20th century and moving into the 21st. It considers the core services that readily come to mind for any librarian or even library user, and it considers the innovations that are becoming more common. The information in this chapter is expected to be familiar to readers, and is the “given” or background information needed to understand the analysis of the data that comes later. It can also be considered in terms of the theories that are discussed in the literature review chapter, including librarianship as a discourse community, the discourse formation of librarianship, the mechanisms of institutionalism that lead to convergence or divergence among organizations.

BUREAUCRACY Weber (2015) defined the characteristics of bureaucracy as: G G

G

“a rigid division of labor a chain of command is established in which the capacity to coerce is specified and restricted by regulations a regular and continuous execution of the assigned tasks by people qualified by education and training to perform them.”

Academic libraries are clearly “prototypical” in the linguistic sense, and nearly an “ideal type” in Weber’s sense, of bureaucratic organization. While they may be working hard to counter some of these things, most libraries still have a very rigid division of labor, most certainly a chain of command within a hierarchy, and certainly the “regular and continuous” execution of tasks and processes. Those things in themselves are not negative or antithetical to having quality and innovation. Bureaucracy developed to get things done on a large scale. It is a successful way to hire, train, and supervise people and to have The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00003-3 Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

27

28

The 21st Century Academic Library

uniform and standard results. Within a bureaucratic structure, libraries have built large collections, acquiring, cataloging, and circulating them, and maintaining order in shelving and preservation of material. They have staffed service points, worked with teaching faculty on collection development, provided instruction, and have carried out huge and complex processes to automate their catalogs and other systems. They have collaborated with others on the national scale to accomplish important projects like the creation of shared print storage facilities, the conversion of the data in card catalogs to an online database, and the archiving of the text of e-resources in safe digital repositories. It may not be possible at this point to imagine or create an academic library organization that is not “bureaucratic” to a certain extent. The problem for libraries and other organizations is the “iron cage” that, once built, cannot be escaped without considerable effort. One aspect of that is that these functions and processes can take on a life of their own and become hard to let go of. Librarians may define quality in a program as maintaining the standards set by the status quo, e.g., collecting comprehensively in particular subject areas, regardless of evidence of the use of that material, or adhering to a cataloging standard that focuses on details that are not the elements that lead to discovery. Those processes may take on a kind of normative isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), in which doing certain things a certain way is a sign of belonging, and deserving to belong, to the scholarly community of academic librarians. Examples of the division of labor and chain of command in library functions is described below, including ways that libraries have devised to escape the iron cage or at least moderate its effect. Librarians have a systematizing genius that has been seen since the early days of modern librarianship, and those systems have morphed and adapted throughout the succeeding decades. The tenet of discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008) that “ideas matter” is both a source of stasis and of innovation in library organization, the convergence and divergence described by Beckert (2010) and others. The “ideas” of quality, service, even the idea of a library collection, can and do mean very different things to different people. Moreover, the discourse in libraries is always heteroglossic. There are opposing voices on the ways that we arrange and deliver programs and services and, again, those voices and discourses can help the library stand still, move in a circle, or move forward.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY AS “IDEAL TYPE” The “ideal type” of academic library has departments or functions that can be described as: Access services (including circulation, interlibrary loan (ILL), and stacks maintenance), reference and instruction (including staffing a service point, chat reference, reference by appointment, and general and

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

29

specialized classroom instruction on using library resources), collection development (selection and curation or weeding), acquisitions (ordering, receiving, and paying for material, including licensing of e-resources), cataloging (including contributing to a shared database like OCLC and maintaining a local Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) catalog), systems (the maintenance of the library’s integrated library system (ILS) and of its own information technology and office automation infrastructure), special collections (including reference work, instruction, processing of archival material, acquiring collections, preservation, and digital projects), as well as administration (the office of the director, including planning and human resources activities). Those functions are what make up a “traditional” organization, and the organizational type called “print-centered” in the analysis of data in this book generally has those functions or departments. Twenty years ago, those functions would have been generally standard in any academic library. The information in this chapter is informed by the author’s years of experience in several US academic libraries. In addition, information on acquisitions and collection development is generally from Ke, Gao, and Bronicki (2017), Dempsey and Malpas (2014), and Dresselhaus (2016); on cataloging from Clarke (2015); on reference from Tyckoson (2011); on automation and library systems from Blobaum (2014); on special collections from Evans (2015); access services from Wilson, Frazier, and Harter (2015) and de Jong and Shepard (2012). Information on emerging services includes data curation (Walton, 2010); user experience (Mclaughlin, 2015; Kavanagh, et al. 2016); institutional repositories (Royster, 2007; Bruns et al., 2014); digital projects from Center for Digital Research in the Humanities (2017); and information commons or learning commons (Spencer & Millson-Martula, 2010; Hussong-Christian et al., 2010).

THE COLLECTION-BASED LIBRARY Until recently, the library has been organized around its collection, and that idea was unquestioned. Indeed, the “library” is a building as much as it is an organization. It is a building that holds the library collection, traditionally books and journals, plus other physical media such as video and audio recordings, maps, microforms, and so on. The organization revolves around the creation, use, and maintenance of the collection. Those collection activities have been systematized, bureaucratized, and institutionalized. While nearly every other activity in the organization (except aspects of administration) can be done by both paraprofessionals and librarians, it is a rare academic library that does not require that selection of material be done exclusively by professional librarians. The traditional reservation of that activity for professionals shows the centrality of the collection and the idea, the discourse, of its importance. Many academic librarians believe, and this belief is reinforced by some teaching faculty, that “to be a research library, you must own [a particular title or resource.]”

30

The 21st Century Academic Library

Moreover, earlier in the 20th century, American Library Association (ALA) helped standardize library collections with the publication of Books for College Libraries, a list of 40,000 books that was a “core collection” for academic libraries, based on the collections of Harvard University and the University of Michigan and first published in 1967 (ProQuest, 2017). Using standard tools such as Books for College Libraries shows a mimetic and normative institutionalization of collection development. Academic libraries consulted this list to directly emulate the collections of two large and respected research libraries, and they adhered to the norms of the profession in doing so. In addition to these selection tools, the late 1960s saw the development of library “approval plans,” which arose in reaction to the information explosion and the massive increase in higher education funding that accompanied Cold War expansion of research (Jacoby, 2008). These plans were offered by book vendors, who selected books that matched a library’s subject profile and parameters such as price, audience, and so on, and sent them to the library to add to their collection. Approval plans still exist, and they generally are part of a vendor database from which librarians can select “firm” (nonapproval) orders as well. Approval plans now include ebooks, and there are also packages of ebooks that can be purchased yearly from publishers like Elsevier, and large subscription ebook databases, such as those from Ebsco and ProQuest as well. Along with that, academic libraries are turning to “Demand Driven Acquisitions” (DDA), in which library patrons choose ebooks for purchase by using them: Following a link in the library’s catalog. While the discourse of “curation” is very strong in collection development, selection has never (at least in the past 50 years) been solely done by librarians choosing one book at a time and carefully considering the curricular and research needs of the university as they choose. Indeed, some of the heteroglossia in acquisitions and collection development is between the voices of efficiency and systematization and that of curation and scholarly knowledge of a specific field. Both have the goal of choosing the “best” and most appropriate resources, but the discourse of efficiency is to make choice at the system level (through collection profiling and the expertise of the vendor) vs. the discourse of curation, in which the librarian “knows” the subject, the collection, and the teaching departments, and knows what they need. Collection development is a heavily institutionalized process, with coercive (e.g., budget) pressure, mimetic activity (the use of approval plans and databases that show the collections of other libraries), and normative influence, in which the idea of the duties of librarians toward a library collection (to select, to maintain, to be familiar) are part of the values and discourses of the profession.

LIBRARIES AND TECHNOLOGY Libraries have always embraced technology (e.g., standardized catalog cards and cabinets, available more than a century ago), and the past 40 years have

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

31

seen the increasing use of information technology in libraries. That has meant computerized cataloging, circulation, and acquisitions, followed by large periodical databases, and then by full text e-resources including journals, books, streaming video, and digitized primary source material. Library automation has included both the adoption of digital resources and the transformation of library processes using technology. The first library processes to be automated were circulation and cataloging. Libraries adopted MARC format, which was created at the Library of Congress in the late 1960s, and which was used in the OCLC database, whose membership began to grow in the mid-1970s. While libraries maintained card catalogs through at least the 1980s, the first ILSs emerged from the automation of circulation information and catalog records. The ILS became more sophisticated and added modules for acquisitions and serials control, and matured in the 1990s to become nearly universal today. Electronic resources began to be a factor in the late 1990s, and in the first decade of the 21st century, electronic journals became mature and ubiquitous, followed swiftly by ebooks, and other media such as audio and video. ILSs added a “discovery layer,” that included the online catalog (the MARC database), but added other collections, such as journal databases, image collections, and information harvested from the institutional repository (IR). The journal databases had existed for several decades, but were mediated by librarians until the interface and pricing model made it viable for “end users” to do their own searching. At that point, the databases contained the full text of journal articles, rather than just citations to them. In terms of organization, every library employee now uses information technology every day and in multiple ways, but there is still a “systems department” with the responsibility of maintaining access and infrastructure. While ILSs have remained relative unsophisticated, compared with the swift development of Internet search engines in the past 20 years, libraries are nevertheless eager consumers of information technology. In this we can see voices and discourses and institutionalized processes and ideas. First is the voice of systematization, that can do things quickly and on a grand scale. That discourse of efficiency, convenience, and Tayloristic atomization of processes is deeply embedded in librarianship, and can be seen in the fact that libraries began to purchase printed cards for their catalogs from the Library of Congress in 1904. There was a recognition as early as the turn of the 19th century and before that collections would have some uniformity and that the exchange of standard cataloging data would lead to both efficiency and high quality. The second discourse is that of access, and of providing library users with comprehensive, consistent, and rapid access to known items and to material on a specific subject. Automation, both in the sense of using any kind of machine process, as well as computerization, has long been a dream and a goal for libraries in search of the one seamless solution to information retrieval.

32

The 21st Century Academic Library

PUBLIC SERVICES AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Despite the potential for technology to re-imagine the library’s organization and services, it remains common for libraries to have a traditional printcentered organizational pattern. The most traditional organization uses the terms “public services” (where employees interact directly with users) and “technical services” (where employees do not have direct public contact). To follow the journey of a print book, one starts with selection. The collection development function of the library most often resides in the public services area of “reference,” which will be described at a later point. Public services librarians often have subject specialties, and may be called liaison librarians, subject librarians, or other terms. It is their responsibility to select materials for use by students and faculty in a discipline and by general users as well. They may be the liaison to one or more university teaching departments or colleges, and they are allocated funds to select material in the subjects of interest to those areas. The collection development function includes selection as well as weeding and other kinds of assessment. As discussed earlier, these “firm orders” for individually selected books coexist with approval and DDA orders that are selected by vendors or library patrons.

Acquisitions Material that is selected is handled by the acquisitions function. Acquisitions is part of technical services, and includes accounting, ordering, receipt, and payment. Acquisitions staff interact with library vendors, including publishers and companies who place orders with many different publishers. While most libraries still order print material, e-resources are quickly becoming the default format. This is certainly true of journals, which accounts for the fact that what used to be called the “serials” function is now most often called “e-resources.” Twenty years ago, large research libraries subscribed to thousands of print serial publications and keeping track of them was a major workflow that occupied multiple staff, some of whom had deep and specialized expertise. E-resources require licensing and maintenance of access, which still requires expertise. Many academic libraries have a librarian in charge of technical services. While “technical services” is a long-established and very hardy feature of academic and other library types, there is considerable heteroglossia in the various technical services functions. Acquisitions has some very different discourses from cataloging (discussed below), for example. Acquisitions staff have the obligation to create accurate accounting data, to preserve information about what was ordered, received, and paid for, and there is a sense in which data about orders is “sacred” to acquisitions employees, whereas cataloging staff may find it merely informational. Acquisitions librarians and staff members cultivate relationships with vendors and there is a more commercial air to acquisitions activity than probably

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

33

any other area of the library. Acquisitions is a “business” voice in the library and a source of expertise on where and how money is spent. The relatively new area of e-resources combines some of the expertise of all areas of technical services: knowledge of serials and serials cataloging, the licensing and signing of contracts for databases and packages of resources, and the vendor relationships as well.

Cataloging Once material is received, it is cataloged. The cataloging function was one of the first specialties to emerge in the late 19th century. The age of the card catalog is long gone in most countries, and the laborious routines of card catalog maintenance are gone also. Instead, libraries rely on the enormous OCLC database and receive large batches of MARC records from vendors when they buy something like a package of ebooks or e-journals. While MARC is nearly 50 years old and has been transformational in giving access to library material and in exchanging bibliographic data, it has nearly come to the end of its useful life. The RDA Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging code, implemented in 2013, paves the way for an RDFXML replacement for MARC, a “next-generation” catalog that will use Linked Data rather than bibliographic “records.” The processes of cataloging are highly institutionalized, with strong discourses of quality and standardization. Some of these practices, such as authority control, will be important in the Linked Data environment, and others less so. The voice of cataloging may or may not be “heard” in the library, but it is certainly present. There may be a sense that the classic heteroglossia of public services vs. technical services is sometimes represented by rivalry or resentment, in which public services feels frustration at the perceived slowness of catalogers and their lack of understanding of the immediacy of patron needs, and technical services librarians may be equally frustrated by the feeling that they must create bibliographic data that is all things to all people, and to do it quickly. These are sometimes the voice of service (to users) vs. a kind of technical expertise that is agnostic as to who will use the product. Thirty years ago, it was typical to have “divisions” of technical and public services with an assistant or associate dean of libraries (or director, university librarian, etc.). There were often three technical services departments: acquisitions, cataloging, and serials, each with a librarian who was the department head. Cataloging typically had librarians who did original cataloging and other complex processes. In the decades since then, many libraries have flattened their organizations, and the three departments of the technical services division became one technical services department, with a single department head. There might still be an acquisitions or serials librarian, although those responsibilities might also be performed by an experienced and knowledgeable staff member. There are still generally catalog

34

The 21st Century Academic Library

librarians, now often called catalog and metadata librarians, and most libraries have far fewer of these librarians than they had in the past. Other technical services employees include entry level and more senior staff who do accounting, ordering, receipt, copy cataloging, physical processing, database maintenance, and similar tasks. While every area of the library has a strongly held belief in service to library users, in technical service that may be expressed as a discourse of expertise, standards, and quality. In public services, there may be more focus on speed, convenience, and “common sense.” Despite the differing voices and discourses, public and technical services librarians have a large amount of shared and agreed on background knowledge that includes the idea that all parts of a library’s programs and services are needed, and that each person has a clear idea of the value of his or her contribution.

Access Services Print material is borrowed and loaned, and the traditional department in charge of this activity is the public services department “circulation” or “access services,” which includes checking out material to users, borrowing and lending with other libraries (“ILL”), shelving, and maintenance of the library stacks. Other traditional collection functions include preservation, which may reside in technical services. In the past, it was typical to have a circulation or public services librarian, but it is more typical now for access services to consist entirely or almost entirely of library staff. Access services is on the frontline of library service and may be the initial public face of the library. The discourse of service is very strong in access services, which in the past 20 years has focused much less on due dates and fines and other rules, and much more on being a friendly and helpful library welcome mat. Part of that service discourse is the idea that access services staff may be subjected to the most trying behavior from frustrated patrons. People who deal directly with the public require the assurance that what they are doing is worth it.

Reference and Instruction The reference department is a public services department that generally maintains a service point where librarians, and often library staff as well, are available to assist patrons. The “reference desk” has traditionally had a print collection of reference material, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other specialized works to help with research, whether it is to answer a factual question or begin a larger project. Traditionally, print periodical indexes also resided in the reference collection. The reference department also provides library instruction, a more formal class setting in which a librarian presents information on doing research on a topic or using certain

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

35

resources. The reference department generally consists almost entirely of librarians, with a few staff for various clerical or other functions. While it is increasingly common for reference desks to be staffed by nonlibrarians and even students, the instruction and selection functions are still mostly reserved for librarians. The concept of “reference” is undergoing a significant change, whose outcome is somewhat unknown. The word “reference” has far less meaning now than when it was adopted (with the idea of “referring” patrons to various information sources). The idea of “reference books” still has meaning, but there is little to no need for a collection of print sources to be shelved near a reference service point. Lemke (1999) talks explicitly about the heteroglossia found libraries, identifying the differing voices and discourses of collection development, reference, and instruction. The opposition between reference and instruction (often functions performed by the same people, as is collection development) was between a sort of “give a man a fish/teach a man to fish” difference in approach and philosophy. The reference voice was more inclined to advocate “giving” information to patrons, while the instruction voice advocated teaching people to find information on their own. In reality, these voices are probably not in strong or strident opposition, and are approaches used by the same librarians in different situations.

Special Collections The special collections department is sometimes a microcosm of the entire library. It includes a collection of published works and archival material, and generally a reading room and service point. Acquisitions and cataloging may be done in the department or in cooperation with the library’s technical services departments. Special collections material rarely circulates. Special collections librarians and archivists generally creating “finding aids,” a standard kind of guide, to a collection, e.g., the papers of a prominent person that have been donated to the library. Special collections librarians may include the university archivist and other specialized librarians who do selection, reference, instruction, and the creation of content. Prominent discourses of special collections are the value, rarity, and fragility of the collections, and hence, the need to protect and preserve them. While the special collections area may be hushed or solemn in its presentation, it is also a place of pride and pleasure, where the library’s treasures reside, and where a great deal of specialized expertise and care are required. While special collections adheres to many standards that are shared by other libraries and archives, it is also the place where collections that are not replicated elsewhere are found. It houses unique archival collections, and books and other resources that are “special” to one institution. Some are unique, some are rare, and all are preserved for a reason pertaining to one library or university.

36

The 21st Century Academic Library

Systems Most academic libraries have a systems or automation department, which maintains the library’s ILS (integrated library system, which has modules such as circulation, acquisitions, and the online catalog), as well as staff and public computers and other servers, databases, and so on. Like technical services (of which they are sometimes a part), systems librarians and staff play a crucial role in enabling and maintaining access to computers and databases for other library departments and for library users. Like technical services, they may be a “back room” activity, although systems staff are generally highly paid and have expertise that is harder to acquire. Their voice is one of technology, and perhaps more than most in the library; it is the voice of change: new software, new capabilities, migration to new platforms, all of which some will embrace and some view with dread.

New Programs and Services More recently, libraries have added scholarly communication, data curation, digital projects, and other similar functions to their organizations. They may be aligned with any of a number of departments. Scholarly communication often involves the creation and maintenance of an IR that contains faculty research, dissertations, and so on. Scholarly communication may also involve creation of other content, including open access journals. Data curation may be seen as a special collections, scholarly communication, cataloging, or a reference function, among others. It involves working with university faculty to archive and preserve their research data in a way that may have been mandated by a funding agency. Digital projects is often a special collections function, since it may consist of the creation of archives of primary source data, digitized from the library’s collections, and including material such as letters and diaries, as well as an interface for searching and using the material. These functions show the process of change as it often occurs in academic libraries. These new functions have rapidly become institutionalized in academic libraries, who have responded to a demand in the environment and a desire to meet that new demand. What Beckert (2010) calls “layering” may be at work in many institutions. When an existing department or function cannot adapt to a new demand, the new service is “layered” in around existing functions, leaving them to go on as before. This may be an interim or evolutionary development (i.e., the existing functions may not exist forever), and it may not be because existing departments and librarians are recalcitrant, but only because they are too busy to gain significant new expertise and take on new responsibilities. Another emerging function is “user experience,” which combines the expertise of much of the library: Reference and instruction, systems, web design, technical services, and other areas to look at the library’s programs

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

37

from the point of view of the user and attempt to improve the ways that users navigate the library’s collections and services. This function may be “layered” into an existing organization, but it is really an overarching library value, voice, and discourse: that users should be heard and understood and that the library should respond. The creation of a user experience mechanism should ideally lead to a cohesive and comprehensive approach to understanding and improving user experience.

Organizational Strategies and Mechanisms of Institutionalization While libraries have been extremely hierarchical with a pronounced division of labor, they have used various techniques to overcome the problems of that structure, including the creation of ad hoc and standing committees that are a channel of communication that cuts across departments. Large ad hoc committees or project teams are often used to plan and execute things like migration to a new ILS, a building or remodeling project, large-scale weeding, and so on. Obviously, libraries are not unique in using those strategies. All large organizations, including universities, would be expected to do planning and other activities that cuts across departmental lines. It may be seen in large search committees for administrators, panels that assess or investigate new technology, and so on. These are mechanisms that take account of organizational heteroglossia, to make sure all “voices” are heard. It may also be the case that there are certain loud voices that an organization may need to shout down or outnumber. In using these techniques, organizations may be using the mechanisms of isomorphism to accomplish change or divergence: coercion in setting up a committee or task force using the administrative authority that is needed; mimesis in pointing out instances where this technique has been used successfully, in- or outside the organization; and normative, in citing the values of inclusion, listening, reason, and process. As mentioned in the discussion of “layering,” one difficulty libraries face in escaping the iron cage is that new functions and services often must fit into an existing structure. Data curation, for example, might find a departmental home in various places (systems, special collections, cataloging, and metadata), and has aspects that require technical skill but also working with researchers on plans to archive their data. In creating these new services, libraries can ask “what does this most resemble (among existing services)?” but a better question might be, “how can we rethink the existing organization in light of these new services?” The “refocused” organizations in the population studied for this book seem to have asked the second question. They are generally still hierarchical organizations and undoubtedly have some of the characteristics of bureaucracy, but if they are in a cage, at least it is not the one constructed a century ago. There are valid reasons why libraries cannot or do not re-engineer, re-invent, or re-imagine their entire organizations. The most pressing is the

38

The 21st Century Academic Library

third characteristic of bureaucracy, “a regular and continuous execution of the assigned tasks by people qualified by education and training to perform them.” This characteristic is displayed by academic libraries in at least two ways. The first is the “regular and continuous” element. Library activity revolves around the academic year, the budget cycle, and the cycle of administrative activities such as hiring and performance evaluation, including the promotion and tenure calendar for many academic librarians. Undertaking a complete reinvention of the organization, as desirable as that may be, is time consuming, daunting, and will be met with a great deal of skepticism and resistance. As more academic libraries do refocus their organizations, there will be more examples to draw from and we may see more re-engineering and innovation in the organization of library programs. There will be more examples for mimetic and normative isomorphism (which may themselves in time turn to “iron”). In the meantime, incremental change tends to happen within the existing structure. The second way in which radical change is inhibited is the “people qualified by education and training to perform [the tasks].” The very particular division of labor and the development of narrow and specialized expertise do not create an environment in which employees are “agile,” “nimble,” or “flexible,” except perhaps in developing better ways to do the things they are already doing. Librarians who have been expected to select books every year, work with departmental faculty on building a collection, and “spend out” their allocated funds will not suddenly cease to do the things that have been reinforced and rewarded for decades. Moreover, people who have absorbed and mastered the exacting standards used in cataloging do not suddenly develop a new theory of discovery and access and abandon the processes which they believe make information available for users. This specialization and expertise have an authority and persuasiveness that Weber (1968/1922) calls “sacerdotal,” i.e., “priestly.” The rites and rituals of a profession can be priestly in their character as part of a “calling,” a sacred duty to be performed, a service whose goodness is taken for granted. Schriewer (2011) quotes Weber as saying that the sociology of domination requires obedience from a caste of “priests, warriors, or executives” (p. 136). This is a fascinating quote, with echoes of the deepest cultural and linguistic roots of society and its institutions from South Asia to Western Europe. Dume´zil (1935) developed the theory, elaborated by Benveniste (1969) of the “tripartite” division of Indo-European society (the linguistic and cultural grouping that is the ancestor of languages and cultures in Iran, India, and all of Eastern and Western Europe with a few exceptions). Those “castes” or divisions are priest, warrior, and herdsman (sometimes called “merchant.”) Those divisions can be seen in Greek, Roman, Germanic, Indic, Persian, Slavic, Celtic, and other ancient cultures and Weber refers to their persistence even today. Academics, including librarians, are in the priestly caste: scholars and knowledge workers. What Weber calls “executives” are

Academic Library Organization Chapter | 3

39

the “herdsman” or “merchants” who make up most of society. Benveniste titled his work (in French) “the vocabulary of Indo-European institutions.” By institutions, he did not mean hospitals, colleges, or museums, but the institutionalized culture and customs, e.g., religion, government, kinship, both the way they are structured and the way we talk about them. Another barrier to substantial organizational change is the very individuals who may be dedicated, expert, and hardworking. All humans resist change in some way and to some extent, and every organization has people who can be counted on to resist any proposed change in a noisy and predictable way. While the chain of command may have a means of “coercion,” in most cases we simply work around recalcitrant people or wait them out. They may be problem employees, but it is more likely that they are loyal and knowledgeable people who simply have a vision of library programs that is no longer viable. This description of academic library organizational patterns is intended to provide baseline information for comparison with the data that will be presented and analyzed in Chapter 5. The next chapter is an extensive but nevertheless quite limited review of the literature on the topics, methods, and frameworks treated and employed here.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

Literature Review INTRODUCTION The literature on all aspects of this book is voluminous. There are large number of articles, books, and other literature on academic library organization and administration and on the future of academic libraries and strategies for creating a desirable future. Likewise, the literature of comparative education is rich, broad, and filled with interesting information and insights. Institutionalism is also a vast topic with multiple approaches and literature that is grounded in political science, sociology, and other disciplines. Discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary field with roots in linguistics, sociology, and philosophy and applications to virtually every human activity and to every kind of text or utterance. This literature review is focused and limited to examples of some of the most relevant and interesting literature on academic libraries, organizational structure, institutionalism, comparative education, and discourse analysis (including genres of organizational discourse). Much of it is current literature, in addition to older classics and influential books and articles from the 1990s and earlier.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY ORGANIZATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND PLANNING Allison (2013) describes the emerging environment for libraries, including changing expectations from users, the effect of national information policy initiatives, and the “rise of the librarian,” (p. 39). By that she means a library organization that is not collection-focused. Rather, the focus is on the interaction of librarians and patrons to deliver desired services and resources quickly. Crumpton (2015) explores many crucial areas of academic library human resources, focusing on strategic planning. Saying that “position descriptions are changing” (p. 52), he lists ways which academic libraries are refocusing. This includes “embedding” of liaison librarians in teaching departments, transforming library instruction to a just-in-time model, the emerging prominence of special collections with a focus on digitized research material and he lists new position titles. These include “metadata and digital resources librarian,” “digital access librarian,” “distance learning librarian,” and many others (p. 53.) Crumpton discusses the need for an organizational culture that The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00004-5 Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

41

42

The 21st Century Academic Library

supports a refocused library program, emphasizing the need for assessment and evidence-based practice (p. 38.) White and Molaro (2015) discuss innovation for all library types, stressing the need for a comprehensive approach to innovation: staffing, organization, technology, training, and outreach. This edited volume includes a chapter on staffing by Strahl and Christiansen on “Innovation Wizardry.” They observe that, “We have found that buy-in from and listening to all organizational voices is a crucial component for innovation.” The “voices” can literally be the voices of humans talking with one another but “voice” also implies the discourses and discourse communities who speak in an organizational context. Petraityte´ (2014) takes a new institutionalist look at the role of academic libraries as expressed in their university strategic documents. The author finds that in strategic documents “[a]spects related to library collections and infrastructure are most frequently featured as strengths and weaknesses and funding issues as well as tangible property are listed among the threats.” The institutional discourse surrounding the library is that it is “central,” geographically and otherwise, in the university and is seen as an asset and a strength. Hrycaj and Blessinger (2013) is an edited volume that covers many aspects of organizational culture and ways to achieve a healthy one. Bradigan and Hartel (2013) give an overview, suggesting aspects of a healthy organizational culture that include embracing change, collaboration, and ethics. These values are some of the discourses of academic librarianship and are certainly reflected in library organizations and texts produced by those organizations. Shepstone and Curry (2013) present a very interesting model of organizations, a plot with four corners: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market. Library cultures fall somewhere in the area within these four corners and feel the poles of these cultures pulling on them to one extent or another. Is the library more of a “clan” or is it an organization that responds primarily to the influence of the market? These can be seen both in organizational patterns and in organizational discourse. Roy and Se´guin (2000), who will be discussed further when we get to institutionalism, also look at the idea of a “clan” when they discuss the organizational behavior and communication of accountants. Other chapters in Hrycaj and Blessinger (2013) include Mautino and Lorenzen (2013), who discuss “interdepartmental communication in academic libraries” and describe the elements of a successful communications structure, including both strategy and discourse elements such as the use of jargon. Bordeianu and Lubas (2013) explore interdepartmental communication with a similar point of view. They emphasize the need to “speak the same language” (p. 219; e.g., do catalog librarians and instruction librarians understand each other?) which is an acknowledgment of the heteroglossic opposition that may be present even in an organization with common goals.

Literature Review Chapter | 4

43

Giesecke and Maxey-Harris (2013) look at leadership for organizational diversity, finding that cultural competency and “authentic leadership” (p. 219) are the keys to achieving genuine diversity. Cultural competency includes mastery of the discourses of different groups of people. The authors term “authentic leadership” a process, not a personal trait, and that process includes listening and understanding the voices that are present in society and in an organization. This requires the understanding of heteroglossia but also demands dialogicality and interactivity in the written and spoken texts and discourses that create organizations. Du¨ren (2013) looks at times of distinct change in libraries (such as hiring a new director, moving the library, or reorganizing.) She examines the case of a massive academic library reorganization and finds that success depends, in part, on active listening by leaders. Active listening is a process in which the different voices in an organization reconcile their understanding and point of view. The library in question reorganized to make a “flatter” structure with a less complex hierarchy. The process was dialogical: leaders listened to the voices of librarians and staff from throughout the organization and reconciled those voices partly by being assertive (acknowledging what they had heard without necessarily changing plans based on that input) but also by having a dialog. In library organizations, there are certainly voices and discourses that represent employee groups. In an academic library, the discourse of administration differs from that of the other librarians and the voice of professional librarians is not the same as that of library staff who are not librarians. Those voices can be in dissonance or harmony but they are not the same. Meier (2016) says that “strategic planning is a method of management and change, sometimes driven by the library director and sometimes by library staff. Researchers studied decision making by academic library directors in depth in the 1990s through surveys to determine the directors’ decision styles. These studies showed that library directors were far more idea oriented than action oriented.” That is a significant statement for looking at academic libraries using the lenses of discourse and of discursive institutionalism. The concept that “ideas matter” is the heart of discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008). The findings of the study from the 1990s implies that the ideas of library directors are their contribution to change, while the librarians and staff, who undoubtedly also have ideas, contribute more to the actions that shape and carry out the library’s programs. Meier’s own study, which took place in 2015 and used large North American research libraries as a population, found that library deans and directors generally used a strategic planning process to make organizational and programmatic changes. They expressed ideas such as their close connection to the university’s mission and goals as well as university budget and planning. That close connection constrains and guides what academic libraries do. Reorganization was a frequent theme, on a large scale or on a smaller and more incremental one,

44

The 21st Century Academic Library

and the respondents generally examined open positions before hiring to determine the best use for that position in the future. The deans and directors who participated in this study expressed discourses of constraint and scarcity but also of strategically embracing the future and reimagining library services in light of new goals and directions, technological change, and partnership. The traditional organization and environment of academic libraries have been described discussed by Budd (1999, 2005), Atkins (1991), and others. They describe the academic library organization that was typical in the 20th century and persists in many places today: a hierarchical structure with departments that correspond to functions and activities such as cataloging, circulation, and so on. The mission of an academic library matches the university mission and that may be represented by the library’s size, complexity, or collection focus, but academic libraries have always showed organizational isomorphism and continue to do so. Users can and do use library resources without going to the library but the idea of the “library as place,” has had a resurgence in the last 15 years. Parry (2006) and Secker (2006) describe the 21st century information and learning environment, with a virtual environment that is 24/7, like other aspects of contemporary education. This has led to collaborative efforts like global reference cooperatives for chat reference at any hour of the day. The core functions of libraries have been in place for decades but as new services emerge, they are placed within the traditional organization and eventually may transform the entire organizational structure. The Information Commons is a convergence of services and an acknowledgment that the library is increasingly virtual. Digital projects have emerged in the past two decades as another area of innovation, including digitization of texts and collaboration between librarians and scholars. Management and archiving of research data is another new service that is becoming a routine part of academic library services. The still well-known “Williamson reports” (Williamson 1971), published in 1921 and 1923, were critical of library school programs and proposed reforms. The Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago, which offered the first PhD in library science, was one result of the reforms. The PhD program provided important research and improved the theoretical basis of the field. The Williamson reports were sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation which helped implement other reforms to the profession, including standards for things like collection development. During the middle decades of the 20th century, academic librarians created shared projects such as the Union List of Serials and the National Union Catalog which contributed both shared cataloging information and shared collection development resources. Higher education in general was modernized after World War II and the information explosion that occurred because of the war and again later when money was poured into the sciences in the 1960s had a profound

Literature Review Chapter | 4

45

effect on academic library collections, leading to the rise of “approval plans,” which made academic library collections more standard, with more holdings in common. Veaner (1982, 1994) calls librarianship a “discontinuous” profession, theoretical and with responsibilities that are “programmatic” and therefore must be continuously adapted and reinvented. Veaner uses “discontinuous” to mean that the responsibilities of the library profession cannot be entirely learned in the workplace. Veaner describes the work of librarians as “cerebral and indeterminate” (1994; p. 399) and scorns the idea of applying concepts such as teamwork to an academic workplace. He sees academic librarians primarily as academics and describes their work as a situation, where “everything is assigned and nothing is assigned.” (1994, p. 394). Veaner’s paradigm is antibureaucratic and certainly nothing like an iron cage.

EDUCATION FOR LIBRARIANSHIP AND LIBRARIANSHIP AS A PROFESSION Melvil Dewey and other pioneers of librarianship in the United States created the apparatus for the new profession in the late 19th century. They founded the American Library Association (ALA), started new professional journals, and created standards for practice and technology. (“Melvil Dewey biography” 2017; “Library science” 2017). They also created a standard professional formation, a terminal degree: The master of library science. Bonnice (2006) and Wiegand (2006) explore education for librarianship. Wiegand (2006) sees the new profession as part of the environment of the new model of American universities. Bonnice (2006) discusses a perennial problem: the emphasis by both students and faculty in library and information science (LIS) programs on practice rather than theory. The idea of “training,” as opposed to “education” is explored by Wilson and Hermanson (1998), who discuss Dewey’s apprenticeship approach as opposed to theorybased classroom instruction. Librarianship is a profession, and the organization and division of labor in academic libraries demonstrate this. The responsibilities of professional librarians are distinct from those of nonlibrarian. There are various definitions of a profession, including Johnson’s (1996, p. 81): G G G G G G

Professional association with criteria for membership Prolonged training and a certification process to monitor membership Legal status A code of ethics or standard of behavior A high degree of individual autonomy in the practice of work An extensive body of advanced research and abstract knowledge

Librarians do not have legal status, but they can be seen or argued to have every other criterion listed.

46

The 21st Century Academic Library

Johnson cites “Richard Hall’s five attitudinal characteristics of a professional”: G

G

G

G

G

The use of the professional organization as a major reference; colleagues are the source of ideas and judgments A sense of personal commitments belief in service to the public; an attitude that the profession is indispensable and is beneficial to the public and to the practitioner A belief in self-regulation: only other members of the professional group are capable of judging the professional A sense of calling to the field: the professional feels that he or she must do this and internalizes the profession A desire for autonomy of practice: professional should be independent of those outside the profession (Hall, 1968, p. 93 quoted in Johnson, 1996, pp. 81 82)

These “attitudinal characteristics” can certainly be seen pervasively among librarians. Winter (1988) explores the question from a sociological point of view and places librarianship in the “occupational control” model and more specifically in the “normative control” model in which group norms prevail. Bennett (1987) examines important and influential texts from 20th century librarianship and considers librarians’ use of terms such as “information” and “library science” or “information science.” Watson-Boone (1995) looked at librarians in a research library and assessed their worklife using ethnographic methodology. She found that nonadministrative librarians took pride in their work and found it to have intrinsic value, while those same librarians felt separated from administrators in the library and the university.

ACADEMIC LIBRARY GENRES The academic library website as a genre of organizational communication is well-represented in the literature even if it is rarely viewed in the context of genre analysis. Yong-Mi (2011) looks at library websites using an institutionalist perspective. She describes institutional forces that drive things like website development as “coercive, mimetic, and normative.” Coercive force might be demonstrated by the mandated use of templates by the University for websites created by departments, colleges, and other units. Mimetic force is simply imitation: seeing other websites and adopting the effective characteristics seen there. Normative force comes from the norms and values of the institution and the profession. For libraries, this might mean an emphasis on the availability of help and the availability of library resources. Kehinde and Tella (2012) look specifically at the websites of Nigerian university libraries. The authors did content analysis of 30 Nigerian

Literature Review Chapter | 4

47

university library websites. They found that the libraries rarely used Web 2.0 tools such as blogging, multimedia, RSS feeds, and so on, relying primarily on text and hyperlinks to give information about the library and its services. Khan et al. (2013) surveyed students at universities in Pakistan to determine their preferences regarding the features of library websites. They found that students were experienced users of the internet and had useful suggestions regarding graphics, navigation, and so on. The authors are careful to point out that their respondents were primarily young, male, Master’s students. This meant that results were consistent and interesting but represented only one part of the university population. Kannappanavar et al. (2011) look specifically at the websites of engineering colleges in India. In addition to comprehensive universities, India has “Institutes of Technology,” “Institutes of Management,” and regional colleges of engineering with more specialized curricula. The authors analyzed the websites of these colleges of engineering to discover the availability of e-resources and other services. Salisbury and Griffis (2014) examined the websites of 113 members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), looking for information on the library mission statement. They view the presence of a well-crafted mission statement to be a means of outreach to the educated clientele of the library. This clearly shows the importance of library websites as texts within a communicative genre and indicates that the “ideas matter” of discursive institutionalism can be seen to extend to the website. Mack et al. (2004) asked experienced users to complete tasks on an academic library website and recorded the process and results for analysis. They followed up with structured interviews. The research led to some changes in the library website to make resources more findable and to improve navigation. The interviews provided valuable insight into the research process for these experienced users. This research points again to the idea that there are different “voices” present in any community. Academic library websites present the library to everyone, from new students to professors to community members. Each of these groups interacts differently with the library and the library website. The library must be attuned to these voices and attempt to adapt to all of them. Bishop (2011) looked at the websites of 20 research libraries to evaluate whether and how the library presented information about copyright. This research relates to new roles for the library on campus, including providing expert advice on complex issues such as intellectual property. Wilson (2004) gives advice on using the library website as a portal to online collections and virtual services. Web design has changed a great deal since this book was published, but it contains the ideas and principles that still underlie library websites: serving multiple user groups, the representation of the organization in a virtual mode, and the relative importance and prominence of different kinds of information for users.

48

The 21st Century Academic Library

Konnur et al. (2010) look at five academic library websites in one city in India. Using a checklist to analyze content and evaluate the results, the authors consider currency of information, interactivity, and use of graphics, text, and other elements. Nooshinfard and Soraya (2011) look at the library website as a means of marketing the library, including the choice of information presented and the way the library’s programs and employees are represented by the website. Suiter and Moulaison (2015) explored whether faculty could find information on research metrics (e.g., impact factor) on library websites, finding that many libraries provide such information in the form of a LibGuide or other documentation. Limoni et al. (2012) look specifically at the homepage of academic library websites for ten academic libraries in Asia. They looked at features such as search engine, e-resources, and other elements such as the use of images. Pareek and Gupta (2013) examined 52 websites in the Indian state of Rajasthan. Using the checklist method, the authors took a detailed look at features including navigation and access to e-resources. Cassner et al. (2011) examined academic library websites to determine whether they accommodate people with disabilities, including the use of “alt-text” for graphics and so on.

GLOBAL ACADEMIC LIBRARIES Mahajan (2005) is a general discussion of academic libraries in India, including the impact of information technology and the role of the UGC. Vasanthi (2005) also looks at academic libraries in India, focusing on library instruction and strategic planning. Patel and Kumar (2001) take a comprehensive historical approach to libraries in India, including all library types and library services. Thanuskodi (2009) describes academic libraries in India as part of the general higher education environment. India has the third largest education sector worldwide and academic libraries in India are dealing with the same issues and challenges as libraries in countries. Chauhan and Chand (2007) discuss the provision of e-journals and other e-resources to libraries in India by the UGC and the creation of “INFLIBNET,” the consortium that provides access and training. Khan (2016) surveys the organizational place of collection development in academic libraries in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. He finds that the older centralized universities in the state have a more robust collection development operation than the newer universities. Chauhan and Mahajan (2014) assess the use of e-resources provided by the UGC-Infonet Digital Library Consortium, which are provided free to Infonet members. Woodsworth and Penniman (2013) is an edited volume that includes information on consortia in India (Tripathi, 2013) and on the use of the Bologna process by LIS programs in Europe and elsewhere (Corradini, 2013). The Bologna process is an agreement among European nations about transfer of credits, equivalence of degrees, and so on.

Literature Review Chapter | 4

49

Spink and Singh (2012) have chapters on a wide variety of LIS issues in Asia and Oceania. Topics include LIS education which has expanded significantly in these regions; LIS research topics in India, China, and elsewhere; information literacy; serving multilingual populations; and distance learning. Byrne (2012) explains the roots of Australia’s refocused libraries. With the observation that “[i]ndependent but cooperative leadership perhaps reflects the national character of the 22 million Australians as well as the practicalities of living on an ‘island continent’. Australia’s history has been shaped by the exigencies of distance, transport, and communications from the establishment of the first colonial outpost in Sydney in 1788 to today’s diversified twenty-first century economy.” (p. 51) He also talks about the physical environment of libraries and IT infrastructure, stating that “buildings have changed from the early, occasionally grand, brick and stone construction and now employ concrete, steel, glass and new materials, such as carbon-fiber and polycarbonates. They are heavily wired for power and information and communication technology (ICT) and almost all use wireless communications, responding to the demand for ubiquitous connectivity.” (p. 52) Calvert (2012) describes a similar environment in New Zealand, including a coordinated governmental strategy. Calvert observes that the “New Zealand government has a Digital Strategy [and] . . . outcomes from the strategy include a healthy environment, a high-value economy, and vibrant communities and culture. The Digital Strategy was first launched in 2005 and the second version was published on August 28, 2008. Initially, it was built around three enablers: connection, confidence, and capability.” (p. 243) Speirs (2012) looks specifically at information technology in Nigerian libraries. Nigeria has a huge population and is large geographically. Development has been slow because of poverty and corruption. As in many developing countries, the power supply is unreliable. Speirs states that, “[l]ibraries in Nigeria have traditionally offered only printed books, and print holdings still make up the majority of the resources of Nigerian libraries.” She continues that the use of information technology is still relatively new, but that, “[l]ibraries did not have technology tools at an earlier time, and the effort to implement technology was not seen as necessary by many then. Their collections were small, and they did not see the real need for embracing technology until the information revolution evolved with the realization that virtual information was valuable and could be accessed if one had the proper infrastructure in place.” (p. 251) Speirs includes a list of Nigerian libraries with a self-reported “web presence.” In 2012, the list included (library software or website in brackets) G G G

“Ahmadu Bello University Libraries (Zaria, Nigeria; Virtua) American University of Nigeria Library (Yola, Nigeria; Millennium) Babcock University Library (Ikeja, Nigeria; website)

50 G G G G G G

G

G G

G G

G G

G G G G G

G G

The 21st Century Academic Library

Bayero University Library (Kano, Nigeria; Virtua) Benue State University Library (Makurdi, Nigeria; website) Bowen University Library (Iwo, Nigeria; Koha Independent) Covenant University Library (Canaanland, Nigeria; website) Federal Medical Centre Library (Lagos, Nigeria) Fombina Palace Museum, Adamawa, Lamido Zubairu Education Centre Library (Yola, Nigeria) Information Access International, Limited Digital Library (Surulere, Nigeria; CDS/ISIS) Kwara State Polytechnic Library (Ilorin, Nigeria; website) National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion, NOTAP Library (Abuja, Nigeria; CDS/ISIS) Nigeria, National Library of Nigeria (Abuja, Nigeria) Obafemi Awolowo University, Hezekiah Oluwasanmi Library (Ile-Ife, Nigeria; website; Virtua) Osun State University Library, Osogbo (Osogbo, Nigeria; website) Redeemer’s University Library (Redemption City, Mowe, Nigeria; website; online catalog) Salem University Library (Lokoja, Nigeria; website; Koha Independent) University of Agriculture Library, Makurdi (Makurdi, Nigeria; website) University of Ibadan Library (Ibadan, Nigeria; website; Virtua) University of Jos Library (Jos, Nigeria; website; Virtua) University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nnamdi Azikiwe Library (Nsukka, Nigeria; website) University of Port Harcourt Library (Port Harcourt, Nigeria; Virtua) University of Sukuku Library (Sukuku, Nigeria; p. 263 264)

Speir addresses the serious problem of electric power in Nigeria, and says that “[l]ack of available and affordable electric power is holding back economic development and crippling the country. . . a solution depends on governmental action, but . . . to move ahead now, libraries need to make arrangements for generators and back-up power so that servers can be run on a continual basis.” (p. 265)

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION AND ITS APPLICATION Comparative education is a research framework that uses the comparative method to explore similarities and differences in educational systems and practices, including comparing systems across regions and countries. Drori and Moon (2006) look at higher education globally from both a comparative education and an institutionalist point of view. They used statistics from UNESCO to look at higher education enrollment in different fields from 1965 95. They describe education as having become institutionalized as a right, a common good, a mandatory feature of development, and a

Literature Review Chapter | 4

51

measurement of growth and influence for a nation state. The UNESCO statistics show a general growth in enrollment in the social sciences worldwide, while arts, humanities, agriculture, and law had less growth and therefore a smaller share of overall enrollment. The authors look closely at western and nonwestern nations and find significant differences that they interpret to mean that “in spite of the intensifying centrality of American science, studies fail to con firm that it is the American form of higher education that is being globalized; if anything, ‘American exceptionalism’ is obvious on many dimensions of ter tiary education. Therefore, while many countries turn to the U.S. higher educa tion for training and recognition, fewer emulate American tertiary education in their own countries. So, while American academia is highly attractive in terms of training and publications, few countries expanded their private tertiary education sector to anything like the American one.” (p. 177)

Schriewer (2011) looks a comparative education as a framework and the “discourse formation” of higher education. Schriewer (2011) observes that “Discourse Formation is a term. . . from the history and sociology of the sciences and. . . thus refers to insights into the constructedness of academic knowledge. . . More specifically, this term emphasizes the fact that institutionalized fields of academic study. . . are a historical as much as an intellectual enterprise. These fields. . . bear the imprint of specific institutional settings, changing intellectual trends, and diverse sociopolitical conditions.” (p. xiii) Discourses of education include achievement, diversity, and many other familiar elements. The author explains and critiques the use of comparative education as a framework and method. Comparative method based on “functional equivalency” should start, not with something like education that is easily observed but with something more abstract such as Law. (p. 42). He discusses the adaptation and reinterpretation of models (e.g., of universities) when they are taken in or imposed on a society, culture, or country. That is, the situation that arises when an education model or practice from one country is adopted by another. (p. 23 28) “Educational transfer” is a crucial element of comparative education and Schriewer (2011) advocates for “a framework that acknowledges the agency of both the borrowing and lending countries.” (p. 155 156) Schriewer (2011) invokes Max Weber and Weber’s idea of the sociology of domination which demands obedience from a caste of “priests, warriors, or executives.” (p. 136.) This interesting remark from Weber perhaps puts education in a tug of war between priests (educators) and executives (governments and other stakeholders.) The author also discusses the global institutionalization of education (p. 111) and the “[r]ise of internationalized educational sector.” (p. 126) Mass education has its roots in the desire for liberty but most countries also have a ministry of education that works on massification and

52

The 21st Century Academic Library

institutionalization. There is obviously an economic aspect to institutionalization and massification as well. Spending on education has grown since World War I, with enormous growth since 1945 and another large increase beginning in 1973. (p. 66 69) It is contested whether “globalization implies a clear threat to comparative education,” i.e., the globalization of education does not necessarily lead to complete isomorphism. (p. 97) While there is still variation and local practice in education, the fundamental influence of John Dewey can be seen everywhere. Colonialism remains an influence as well and we are cautioned not to equate a nation state with a culture. A chapter on spatial dimensions of comparative education includes the concept of the cognitive and historical cycle “differentiation, integration, synthesis,” e.g., the Middle Ages represent differentiation, the Renaissance integration, and the Baroque synthesis, while the modern age represented integration and the postmodern synthesis Altbach (2013) discusses international education from a comparative viewpoint, considering “massification” (the creation and implementation of a program of mass education) and globalization as drivers of higher education change. He also discusses the widespread use of English as language of instruction and scholarship. Altbach (2013) states that “India’s higher education achievements since independence in 1947 are impressive.” India has 21 million college and university students, the third-highest number after China and the United States. India has higher education institutions throughout the country, including rural areas, and has been able to give access to students who are disadvantaged. Technology development, including India’s “Institutes of Technology” has been significant and the results can be seen in the migration of Indian computer scientists to Silicon Valley. Nevertheless, Altbach finds that “India’s higher education system suffers from a quality deficit, is poorly organized, overly bureaucratic, lacks direction, and does not yet serve a large-enough proportion of young people demanding access.” (p. 163) He adds that “half the world’s postsecondary institutions are in India” and that “One-hundred-thirty additional institutions hold ‘deemed’ status . . . recognized by governmental authorities to grant degrees. These vary from low-quality private universities to top-quality specialized institutions in a variety of fields, from fundamental research in the sciences to management schools.” (p. 164) Altbach (2013) describes governance of higher education in India, saying that, “Higher education is a shared responsibility of the state and central governments, but most funding comes from India’s 28 states.” He adds that the “central government sponsors 40 universities and 112 other prominent institutions. . . . The central government funds innovation, much of the country’s research, and has some control over standards.” He describes governing and funding bodies such as the UGC and the All India Council for Technical Education. Altbach (2013) finds that these overlapping and

Literature Review Chapter | 4

53

competing bodies can lead to “a lack of coordination, duplication, and complex bureaucratic requirements,” where “undergraduate colleges are prevented from innovating because of their tight administrative controls.” (p. 164 165) Altbach (2013) finds that India lacks world-class quality institutions, even though it is a huge country with many colleges and universities. Not enough money is spent on higher education and the country is rightly known for its bureaucratic approach. He states that the state of Kerala is an interesting exception with more innovation, less income inequality, and so on. It is less industrial, has higher levels of literacy, and an agrarian and tourist economy. There are more women in higher education and a coalition government with cooperation among Hindus and Muslims. Other writers on higher education in India include Bhusan (2009) and Singh (2004). These authors explore themes that are similar to Altbach’s, looking at recent growth, the role of the UGC, the question of quality, and so on. Massification is a phenomenon in Africa as well. Assie-Lumumba (2007) examines the current higher education environment in Africa in terms of its colonial past and “processes of cultural imperialism exercised from former colonial powers and their proxies of international organisations, and African perpetuation of cultural colonisation ‘by choice’ from within.” (p. 16) She finds that Africa lacks the capacity to completely accomplish massification, and that “universities . . . reflect the educational and cultural traditions of the respective colonial powers . . . with the recent but powerful imprint of regional and national dynamics.” (p. 20) Other writers on Africa, including Materu (2007), Nafukho et al. (2014), Fountain and Fountain (2013), Pillay (2010), Ashcroft and Rayner (2011), Wiseman and Wolhuter (2013), Sehoole and Knight (2013), Mhlanga (2013), and Chimanikire (2009) echo these findings and sentiments: the problems of technology and infrastructure and value of indigenous knowledge, and progress and projects that have occurred. Arnove et al. (2012) is an edited volume that looks at the tension between indigenous educational practice and globalization which tends to lead to convergence and marketization. Pritchard (2011) looks at the effect of neoliberalism on higher education, focusing on the United Kingdom and Germany. Neoliberalism is a prevailing political philosophy that stresses marketization and corporatization. Others who explore discourses and practices of marketization, globalization, and global and local education include Cowen (2015), Larsen (2008), Kivinen and Nurmi (2003), Welch (2001), and Reale and Primeri (2015). Authors including Bhandari and Blumenthal (2011), Preisler, Klitga˚rd, and Fabricius (2011), Nerad and Heggelund (2008), and Jacob, Cheng, and Porter (2015) present information on international students and the international university, including issues of language, culture, and the transferability of credits, classes, and degrees.

54

The 21st Century Academic Library

Many scholars, such as Shattock (2006), Schwartzman et al. (2015), and Layne and Lake (2015) explore issues of quality in administration, teaching, innovation, and the role of higher education in large emergent nations such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the “BRICS” countries) and the educational obligation that nations have to their resident.

COMPARATIVE LIBRARIANSHIP Sharma (2012) is an edited volume published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that looks at libraries and information worldwide. Tise and Raju (2012) introduce the volume by saying that, “[t]he fundamental principle is that developed countries are dependent on developing countries even if it is just for their natural resources, human resources, or space. On the other hand, developing countries are dependent on the developed countries for their finances and infrastructure.” (p. 7 8) They also address the information environment in Africa, particularly indigenous information, observing that, “Africa has a strong oral culture. However, this strong oral culture is on the decline given the systematic process, by the colonial governments, to relegate that culture to a status of inferiority and of no value.” (p. 11) Tise and Raju also discuss open access and its role in refocusing libraries, asserting that “opening of access to information is driven by the libraries’ core business of making information available to their user communities.” (p. 12) Woodward and Rowland (2012) describe a familiar process: mainframe computers, office automation, the formation of consortia and networks, the rise of e-resources, particularly journals, and the importance of digitization to give access to treasures such as the Lindisfarne Gospels. They describe the role played by the United Kingdom in the development of computer technology: “The development of the computer as we now know it began during the Second World War, with the Colossus machine developed at the Bletchley Park code breaking centre in central England, whose work probably shortened the war by allowing the Allies to decode German military communications.” (p. 353)

Stilwell (2012) explores the information environment of South Africa which is the largest African economy (p. 293) but connectivity and infrastructure are still problems. Access to information is an issue of fundamental rights: information. (p. 297) Efforts are being made by national and local governments to improve access and infrastructure. (p. 293) Whitworth et al. (2014) look at the effect of action research (AR) on two academic libraries in Norway. These libraries are part of a nationally funded research project studying libraries undergoing significant change. AR allows the study of practice and its place in the work environment. The researchers used “sociograms” that depict relationships to map the library work

Literature Review Chapter | 4

55

environment. They also mapped work responsibilities and physical proximity. These AR techniques had an influence on the organizational change that the two libraries underwent. Law (2009) does an environmental scan of libraries in the early 21st century and finds that librarians have not been prepared to meet the expectations of digital natives, born in 1993 and later. He describes several scenarios for the future of libraries and advocates the use of data, evidence, and assessment. Becker (2006) looks closely at two Australian universities to investigate how librarians can be instrumental in globalization and internationalization of higher education. She finds that the conditions that lead to success include: G

G

G

G G

“Librarians are proactive proponents of international activities: international exchange; international collaboration; international conference attendance; foreign language skills; and training/coursework for international/multicultural perspective The library or university establishes a stable budget for international practice Librarians engage in strategic planning: in the library; in the university; and in international organisations Library leadership is consistent. Time spent on internationalisation tasks leads to the likelihood of success.” (p. 288)

Michalak (2012) describes the reorganization and refocusing of the library at the University of North Carolina, saying that “Transforming an institution with long traditions is difficult. Many features of the academic library have tremendous power to resist change: acres of print collections; aging and inflexible buildings; state and private institutional gov ernance structures that include outdated personnel and financial regulations; multiple conflicting customer profiles; and, not least, librarians’ own percep tions and biases.” (p. 412)

She goes on to define the characteristics of the library after transformation: “outward facing, de siloed, technology diffused, collaborative, and operated by an engaged staff who demonstrate leadership in small and large ways in all sectors of the organization. In systematic reorganization the UNC library staff sought to plant and nurture these characteristics. That these conditions are uniformly present throughout the organization indicates that the staff suc ceeded in transforming the library and, most important, its culture.” (p. 413)

Details of the restructuring include the merging of reference and collection development (the library formerly had selectors/bibliographers in one department and reference and instruction in another) so that reference librarians became departmental liaisons with selection responsibility. An overall

56

The 21st Century Academic Library

change was that the “iron cage” of bureaucracy was softened as departments and functions were desiloed. Librarians and staff were empowered to make decisions and individuals found that they had more influence.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Discourse analysis is used by many fields and has many approaches, methods, and frameworks. This review focuses on linguistic approaches and is generally confined to the analysis of written texts, including both internal documents like organizational charts and external documents like websites. Bolin (2007, 2014) explores these concepts in greater depth and detail. Linguistic approaches to discourse analysis are associated with sociolinguistics and the work of Labov (1973), Hymes (1974), Gumperz and Hymes (1972), Hymes and Gumperz (1986), and others. Sociolinguistics begins with the idea that language is socially situated and uses empirical data embedded in its social context and deriving explanatory power from that context. (Halliday, 1978). Workplace documents have ethnographic meaning embody aspects of workplace culture. Colleges, universities, and departments and units such as libraries are examples of academic workplaces with customs that can be studied using the ethnographic method. Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) underlies the ethnographic method. It seeks to discover the “common sense” view that members of a community have of their social practices. Discourse analysis can use ethnomethodology to interpret communicative events. Saville-Troike (1989) states that, “ethnomethodology is concerned primarily with discovering the underlying processes which speakers of a language use to produce and interpret communicative events, including the unstated assumptions which are shared cultural knowledge and understandings” (1989, p. 130). Gumperz and Hymes (1972) and Saville-Troike (1989) both discuss the “ethnography of communication” which is a sociolinguistic method. It uses the concepts “speech events” and “communicative events” that members of “speech communities” participate in. The community members understand the expectations of these events and the workplace is most certainly a speech community, particularly a specialized workplace such as an academic library. Systemic functional Linguistics (SFL) is closely associated with Halliday (1978) and is a sociolinguistic and ethnographic approach. Halliday (1978) uses Hymes’s (1974) concept “communicative competence.” Communicative competence can be illustrated by the use of a “register” by members of a discourse or speech community. Halliday (1978) discusses register, saying that, “types of linguistic situations differ from one another. . . in three respects: first, what is the action taking place; secondly, who is taking part; and thirdly, what part the language is playing. These three variables,

Literature Review Chapter | 4

57

taken together, determine the range within which meanings are selected and the forms which are used for their expression. In other words, they determine the ‘register’” (p. 31). Register analysis answers the question, “what. . .do we need to know about the social context. . . to make. . .predictions?” (p. 32) Halliday states that we need to know the field, tenor, and mode. Lemke (1995) observes that, “there are very few matters in a complex and diverse society about which there is only one discourse.” (p. 9) These discourses use specific intertexts, networks of texts known to the voices, communities, and ideologies represented in the text. The analysis of meaning in texts can use Halliday’s field, tenor, and mode to demonstrate ideational, interpersonal, and textual meaning (Halliday, 1978; p. 40). Lemke also divides meaning into three types: presentational, orientational, and organizational. Presentational meaning includes “participants, processes, relations, and circumstances,” orientational is the text’s “stance toward . . . addressees and audience,” and organizational meaning is the “construction of relations between elements of the discourse itself.” (p. 41) These correspond to Halliday’s categories to some extent, with presentational corresponding to ideational (field), orientational to interpersonal (tenor), and organizational to textual (mode).

GENRE AND REGISTER Lemke (1995) describes register as the grammatical and semantic feature that identifies the language of different social situations which is analyzed and identified using field, tenor, and mode. Register plus internal structure equals genre. (p. 27) Swales (1990, 2004) looks at genres of discourse and focuses on the socially situated academic environment of research and teaching. He describes four phenomena that influence the use of genres by discourse communities: generification, commodification, technology, and globalization. “Generification” is the increasing prominence of genres of organizational communication, e.g., the elaboration of performance evaluations in universities which are “document-rich, multistage administrative undertakings.” (p. 5) “Commodification,” is like Fairclough’s (1995) description of the “marketization” of universities in which higher education and students are both commodities. Yates and Orlikowski state that, “in structurational terms, genres are social institutions that are produced, reproduced, or modified when human agents draw on genre rules to engage in organizational communication.” (p. 305) Genres change over time, as people interact with genre rules. They maintain, elaborate, or modify existing forms. (p. 306) Orlikowski and Yates (1994) describe genre repertoires. They view communication as action and part of the emergent organization. Genres are a “recursive relationship between action and structure,” resembling Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of habitus.

58

The 21st Century Academic Library

SOCIAL THEORY, SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, AND CDA Lemke (1993) uses the term “discourse formations” to mean semiotic formations (formations consisting of signs) that create meaning that has social significance. He also says that “the linguistic . . . resources specific to a particular discourse formation form a register of the language.” Lemke (1995) uses “discourse formation” to mean the “persistent habits of speaking and acting, characteristic of some social group, through which it constructs its worldview: its beliefs, opinions, and values.” He observes that, “we speak with the voices of our communities, and to the extent that we have individual voices, we fashion these out of the social voices already available to us, appropriating the words of others to speak a word of our own” (p. 30). Lemke also relates this to Bourdieu’s (1977) concept “habitus,” defined as “those aspects of culture that are anchored in the body or daily practices of individuals, groups, societies, and nations” (“Habitus,” 2017). Fairclough (1995) calls discourse “a use of language seen as social practice” (p. 7), which is frequently formulaic and which has social and cultural norms and expectations. Fairclough describes a framework for discourse analysis that includes social structures (languages), social practices (orders of discourse), and social events. (text; p. 24) Bakhtin (1935) is an early contributor to the social study of discourse and his contributions include the important concept “dialogicality” (the degree to which a text is a dialog between participants, points of view, or communities) and heteroglossia (the “voices” in a text). Bakhtin defined heteroglossia as, “social class dialects, languages of special groups, professional jargons (including those of lawyers, doctors, teachers, and novelists), genre language, the languages of generations and age groups, of the authorities, of literacy, and political movements, historical epochs, etc.” (p. 262 263) One essential principle of social semiotics is the term intertextuality which was coined by Kristeva (1984). Kristeva described meaning as something that is “mediated” by texts and their relationship to each other. Fairclough (2003) sees mediation occurring through chains or networks of texts and Lemke (1995) states that, “each community has its own system of intertext, its own set of important or valued texts, its own preferred discourses.” (p. 10) Critical theory, associated with Frankfurt School sociologists such as Habermas (1981), analyzes power relationships in societal institutions. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is discourse analysis using the lens of Critical theory. Prominent scholars include Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2000, 2003), Weiss and Wodak (2003), Wodak and Meyer (2001), van Dijk (1985, 1993, 1995, 1998), and Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999). Hodge and Kress (1988) discuss the dichotomy of solidarity and power that Durkheim (1893/1997) describes. This dichotomy is expressed in language: solidarity through markers of group membership. Hodge and Kress

Literature Review Chapter | 4

59

contrast “monologic codes,” in which only the powerful participate, with “dialogic and pluralist codes” that “signify the existence of various kinds of opposition, resistance, negotiation” (p. 83). Hoey (2001) has written extensively on the analysis of written text and incorporates views from Halliday and Swales. Cohesion and intertextuality are both important in his analysis. He describes “culturally popular patterns of text organization,” i.e., “templates, schemata, scripts” that we recognize. A “colony,” for example, is a text such as a reference book, cookbook, or newspaper whose meaning is not expressed sequentially. Colonies might be read by skimming or a more focused search. A website, seen as a text, is a colony, as is an organizational chart or other format for presenting organizational information.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION The workplace is a fruitful area for discourse analysis and there are many scholars, frameworks, and approaches to the texts produced in a workplace. Silverman (1993) discusses the ethnographic analysis of documents that organizations produce. Watson and Seiler (1992) use a Hallidayan linguistic analysis to place texts in a social context. Tannen (1984) discusses cohesion in spoken and written discourse with a focus on spoken interaction that provides an interesting background for a Hallidayan analysis of cohesion in written documents. Taylor and Van Every (2000) assert that communication creates the organization and that people forming connections cause the organization to emerge. Yates and Van Maanen (2001) look at the role of information technology in the organization and its relationship to communication.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN TEXTS SFL analysis (Halliday 1985) begins with constituent structure, the analysis of grammatical constituents, and labeling them by their class or function. Syntactic and semantic analysis includes subject (grammatical role), actor (representation of a process), and theme (message). Clause structure consists of elements such as subject, predicator (verb), and complement (e.g., direct object or predicate adjective). The analysis of voice, mood, and transitivity are also part of SFL analysis. Transitivity encodes ideational meaning (field): the processes that are occurring. Ideational meaning in a clause consists of process, participants, and circumstances. Process types include material, relational, mental, verbal, behavioral, and existential. Participants have roles such as agent and goal. Circumstances include indications of time and space. Mood and modality encode interpersonal meaning (tenor): participants and their relationship and interaction. These aspects of meaning are encoded through grammatical mood (declarative, interrogative, and

60

The 21st Century Academic Library

imperative) and the modality indicated by the participants’ attitude (certainty, approval, etc.). Bhatia (1993) outlines seven steps in analyzing an unfamiliar genre. The analyst may use some or all the steps. (p. 22) His approach begins with analyzing the social context, seeking advice from the discourse community that uses the genre, tentatively placing the text in a genre and the genre in a context (social, cultural, professional), analyzing the intertextual relationships and the topic, subject, and extra-textual reality which the text is trying to represent, change, or use, and the relationship of the text to that reality (p. 23). After a preliminary definition of the genre, choose one “long, single typical text” (p. 24). Lemke (1998) discusses how language creates relationships between participants. One way is through evaluative meaning Lemke states that we take a stance toward the text, content, and reader/listener. He identifies the following “classes of evaluative attributes” which he discusses in the context of the heteroglossic discourse voices found in social communities. Discourse encodes ideational meaning but also “axiological” meaning; that is, value orientation. Lemke’s seven dimensions of value orientation are: Desirability/ Inclination (Wonderful/Horrible); Warrantability/Probability (Possible/ Doubtful); Normativity/Appropriateness (Necessary/Appropriate); Usuality/ Expectability (Normal/Surprising); Importance/Significance (Important/ SIgnificant); Comprehensibility/Obviousness (Understandable/Mysterious); Humorousness/Seriousness (Hilarious/Ironic/Serious). Fairclough (1989) uses a method influenced by SFL to analyze discourse. His purpose is more pointed to discover and critique power relations. His model of analysis is based on the idea that discourse consists of options chosen from the resources available to discourse communities. (p. 110 111) He presents an instrument for analyzing texts that asks questions about field, tenor, and mode: vocabulary, grammar, and text structures, including experiential, expressive, and relational values of the lexicogrammar of the text, what modes (declarative, imperative, etc.) and modalities are present, what cohesive devices and structural elements are present in the text. Fairclough (2003, p. 191 194) has a checklist of questions to be used in analyzing a text that cover the questions about field, tenor, and mode from the 1989 questionnaire as well as adding questions about social events, practices, actors, genres, discourses, assumptions, and intertextuality. There are many studies that use SFL or an analysis of field, tenor, and mode. The applications reviewed here are primarily those that look at the discourse of the academy, science, research, or librarianship.

LIBRARY AND UNIVERSITY DISCOURSE AND TEXTS Lemke (1999) describes heteroglossic discourse formations found in an academic library. He states, “every library function, from the circulation of

Literature Review Chapter | 4

61

materials to reference assistance and instruction in library use, is affected by the digital revolution.” He describes an academic library’s effort to make major changes to its website (in the days when this genre was not mature) and how this revealed the predominant discourse voices: reference, instruction, and collection development. Lemke describes the characteristics of the discourse formation associated with those voices and the ways in which they are represented in discussion. Leino and Lundmark (2006) explore discourses of librarianship using Fairclough’s CDA and the lens of gender. They find a traditional discourse and discourses of information technology and market economy. The authors examined the literature of public librarianship in Sweden and the description of librarians’ responsibilities. The discourses create heteroglossic oppositions with the traditional discourse seeing the profession as threatened by information technology, while the discourse of information technology seeks to free librarians from mundane tasks in favor of professional responsibilities. The market economy discourse sits in opposition to both the others, seeing librarianship as an “enterprise,” and users as “customers.” Reid (2005) illustrates Lemke’s (1995) “discourse formation” by analyzing texts from Australian universities to, “discern the dialogical relationships between distance education and quality assurance.” He analyzes the discourse formation of online education and of quality using a CDA approach. Reid finds heteroglossic opposition between the desire to adopt new technologies and new practices in online education and universities’ ideas of “quality.” Ostrow (1998) discusses library culture in the electronic age and its approach uncovers heteroglossia in the organization. She explores the effect of computerization on library organization and culture, describing the “occupational culture” (p. 9) of librarians. She discusses the “sense-making apparatus. . .affected by technology.” (p. 10) She uses Giddens’s (1984) structuration theory to study “Minerva College.” Giddens states that an “organization’s culture is an ongoing process continually creating and recreating itself through interaction between members of the organization.” The culture includes “norms, values, heroes, rites and rituals, communication network.” Ostrow (1998) discusses the values of the library vs. institutional values. (p. 119 128)

DISCOURSE COMMUNITIES AND SPEECH COMMUNITIES Genres are used by discourse communities. A discourse community: G G G G

Recruits new members Has a broadly agreed on set of public goals Has mechanisms of intercommunication among members Uses its participatory mechanisms primarily for information and feedback

62 G

G G

The 21st Century Academic Library

Uses and possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims Has acquired some specific lexis Has a threshold level of members with relevant content and discoursal expertise (Swales, 1990, p. 51)

The membership requirement for librarians in the United States is generally a Master’s degree in library and information science. Channels of communication include ALA with its journals, conferences, workshops, and other educational opportunities. ALA also accredits library and information science programs. The genres used for communication include research articles, written standards, and formative professional statements on ethics, censorship and other topics. The genres used by librarians are realized by a “library register” that includes jargon, terms of art, and specific ways of expressing concepts. Professional librarians have many different specialties and areas of expertise but they have in common a set of professional beliefs and values that are communicated to new members.

DISCOURSES OF LIBRARIANSHIP Ideology is a set of beliefs that inform and guide decisions. The ideology that underlies librarianship is common to all library types and settings. That ideology has multiple discourses and the primary one is that of librarians as professionals with a unique mission and expertise. Leckie and Fullerton (1999, p. 3 4) discuss the discourses of pedagogy among librarians. Librarians take on values such as collaboration, service, and expertise with pedagogical discourses that include user needs and efficiency. The “counter discourse” among librarians is enhanced reference service. Lemke (1999) also identified reference and instruction as opposing discourses. The ALA code of ethics (ALA, 2008) encodes universal values of librarianship, including service and open access to information.

INSTITUTIONALISM The institutionalist lens for the data presented here begins with an influential article published by DiMaggio and Powell in 1983. They argue that the rationalization of organizations that is part of bureaucratization (Weber 1968/ 1922) and of Giddens’s (1979) theory of structuration (the tension between freedom and structure for individuals) has led to institutional isomorphism. That is, once a field is “rationalized” and “structured,” (some of the main processes of institutionalization), it also becomes isomorphic. They describe isomorphism as the situation where there are limited number of kinds of organizations and that those organizations have an increasing tendency to resemble one another. They remark that,

Literature Review Chapter | 4

63

The process of institutional definition, or “structuration,” consists of four parts: an increase in . . . interaction among organizations in the field; the emergence of sharply defined interorganizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition; an increase in the information load with which organiza tions in a field must contend; and the development of a mutual awareness among participants . . . that they are involved in a common enterprise . . . Once disparate organizations . . . are structured into an actual field . . ., powerful forces emerge that lead them to become more similar to one another. (p. 148)

They go on to explain three causes of isomorphism: 1) coercive isomorphism that stems from political influence and the problem of legitimacy; 2) mimetic isomorphism resulting from standard responses to uncertainty; and 3) normative isomorphism, associated with professionaliza tion. This typology is an analytic one: the types are not always empirically distinct. (p. 150)

They apply this typology and the resulting isomorphism to a variety of individuals, organizations, and organizational processes. “Coercive” isomorphism does not necessarily imply violent or authoritarian coercion but refers to the political processes (such as those within a university that govern funding, planning, and priorities) that cause organizations to adopt uniform structures. Mimetic isomorphism is the situation where organizations adopt patterns seen in other organizations as a way of emulating leaders in the field or applying remedies and responses that peers have also applied. Normative isomorphism is the tendency of organizations to do certain things in response to professional norms, e.g., to adopt shared standards and to adopt and organizational structure to implement those standards. As DiMaggio and Powell observe, these “types are not always empirically distinct.” Academic libraries experience isomorphism because they are responding to all three mechanisms, e.g., the university wants to increase enrollment and retention (coercive), other units on campus and other academic libraries have done things to aid in that effort, and ALA and other leaders in the profession articulate standards for academic librarianship, including those for working with students and enhancing their educational experience. Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral (2013) weave together threads that are of great relevance to this book. They look at institutional isomorphism in the context of comparative education and particularly, the forces of globalization. They focus on the general focus on macrolevel (above the individual) phenomena by researchers in the institutionalization of global education and urge a closer look at microlevel phenomena (those that involve the actions and experiences of individuals.) They explore the role of ICT and its influence on normative isomorphism in global education. That is, the availability of ICT has given individuals access to education and information about education that has influenced them, and through that influence, has led them to

64

The 21st Century Academic Library

influence macrolevel phenomena. The authors see the institutionalization of ICT the idea that it is something that is beneficial and that should be available to everyone, as a product of its very existence and availability, and this has driven education systems, governments, and nations worldwide to normatively adopt ICT or have it as a goal to do so. Mizruchi and Fein (1999) look at isomorphism and its roots in coercive, mimetic, and normative organizational power and behavior, leading to the “social construction of organizational knowledge.” They critique the scholarly uses of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and find that there has been too much emphasis on mimetic isomorphism, to the exclusion of the other two. Bates (1997) contrasts the role of coercive forces in the adoption of organizational structures and practices with the efficiency motive favored by transaction cost economics (TCE). Bates uses the example of corporations who can “coerce” vendors into adopting practices that are compatible with the corporation’s norms and structures in hope of establishing a long-term relationship. Schmidt (2008) gives a thorough and persuasive account of “discursive institutionalism” which is looking at the processes and mechanisms of institutionalism through the lens of discourse. She uses “discourse” as a “generic term that encompasses not only the substantive content of ideas but also the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed. Discourse is not just ideas or ‘text’ (what is said) but also context (where, when, how, and why it was said). The term refers not only to structure (what is said, or where and how) but also to agency (who said what to whom).” (p. 305) As stated previously, “organization” and “institution” are not being used as synonyms when we talk about institutionalism. An organization as a whole, a part, or aspect of that organization can become institutionalized, driven by one or more of the mechanisms of institutionalization, and able to be analyzed by one of the many institutional lenses. In a university, for example, teaching is not institutionalized to the extent that grading is Zucker (1987) remarks on this saying that, “[i]n institutionalized contexts, organizations are pressured to become increasingly similar, sometimes because of. . .network ties with other organizations that make changing any one element difficult without altering other interconnected elements.” Zucker gives the example of changing from a system of grades to one of written comments, saying that “graduate and professional schools have to agree to make admission decisions based on the written comments, without grades.” (p. 449) Zucker’s discussion of theories of institutionalization includes the definition of an “organizational field” by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), referring to their description of a field as “organizations that . . . constitute a recognized area of institutional life.” Zucker adds that the “structuration of fields also generally includes domination and hierarchy.” (p. 450)

Literature Review Chapter | 4

65

Zucker defines theories of institutionalization using the principles “motif, source, locus, and outcome” (p. 444) within two theoretical approaches. Those approaches are “environment as institution” in which organizations reproduce “social facts” and “organization as institution” in which organization generate “new cultural elements.” (p. 444). Durkheim (n.d.) defines “social facts” as consisting of “manners of acting, thinking, and feeling external to the individual which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him.” He states that they are not organic or “psychical” and “have no existence save in and through the individual consciousness.” Zucker compares these theories using a table that shows the difference between the “reproductive” and “generative” environments. Using academic libraries as an example to understand more about these theories, we might see that in the “environment as institution” model, less innovation and change occur and there is more central control (i.e., more adherence to standards and mimetic adoption of the practices of others.) In the “organization as institution” model, there is more innovation, although there is still “imitation of other organizations.” The first model is less efficient, whereas the second is potentially more efficient, depending on which choices are made and is more stable. (Table 4.1) Zucker cites DiMaggio and Powell (1984), a study of institutionalization in art museums. Zucker states, “In a preliminary report of their research, based on a sample of 111 museums, they found: (a) size, age, and funding of museums reduced the variation among museums in allocation of staff and personnel, and (b) variation was greater in specialist museums (drawing intensively on different revenue sources) than among generalist museums (drawing from a wide range of revenue sources).” (p. 450 451) Zucker finds that institutionalization has an effect on an organization’s approach to innovation. He says that “[i]f an innovation directly affects reputation, then it is more likely to diffuse rapidly, to be retained by the organization, and to increase the likelihood of continued organizational survival.” independent evaluation of the innovation with uncritical acceptance based on its legitimacy is another influence on innovation and that at first, “the adoption can be predicted on a ‘rational’ basis as a needed change . . . but as diffusion continues the explanatory power of the variables decreases significantly.” (Zucker, 1986, 1988; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983) Silverman (1997) discusses “new” and “old” institutionalism and the contribution of ethnomethodology to the study of institutions. He describes the earlier functionalist view of organizations, represented by Durkheim (Coser, 1973) in which an organization is like an organism that grows and reproduces and that organizations survive if they perform a function that is needed. Functionalism has been supplanted by a view that sees organizations as the site of social action. This action is not primarily by individuals but by social actors within an organization who rely on “taken-for-granted”

68

The 21st Century Academic Library

great deal of relevance for higher education and for librarianship. Librarianship is more like museum work than accounting. Librarians do not work in a corporate partnership but are involved with universities and state and federal agencies and collaborators who help protect, adapt, and promulgate standards and practices. Greenwood and Hinings (1996) cite DiMaggio and Powell (1991) and their view of the result of organizations being “tightly coupled to a prevailing archetypal template within a highly-structured field.” They find these organizations become more unstable when confronted by shock or upheaval from external sources. (p. 1028) They go on to hypothesize: “Hypothesis 1: Organizations are structured in terms of archetypes (templates of organizing) which are institutionally derived. Hypothesis 2: Radical change (movement from one archetype to another) is problematic because of the normative embeddedness of an organization within its institutional context. Convergent change is the more normal occurrence. Hypothesis 3: The greater the normative embeddedness of an organization within the institutional context, the more likely that when change occurs it will be revolutionary rather than evolutionary (i.e., the pace of upheaval will be fast, not gradual, and the scale large, not modest).” (p. 1028) This is a provocative and interesting statement and a cautionary tale for librarians who may dislike radical or sudden change. Beckert (2010) looks at mechanisms that lead to divergence. We know that organizations do change and that new models appear despite the mechanisms that lead to isomorphism. Beckert remarks that, “[i]n business the imitation of organizational structures and models of business strategies expressed in institutionalized rules has itself become an institutionalized management technique known as ‘bench marking’ or ‘best practice.’ Based on the systematic observation of competitors and the identification of best practices of industry leaders, companies imitate the rules to which the competitor’s success is attributed. . ..Contrary to powerinduced isomorphism, benchmarking actively seeks possibilities for the imitation of the rules and practices of other companies to improve performance.” (p. 156, emphasis added) This divergence may, in fact, lead to isomorphism if the practices and structures adopted solve problems and lead to success. Beckert also refers to a process called “layering,” in which “[i]nstead of changing the existing institution, a new layer is added to it that works on a different principle. If this layer grows faster than the old one, this will set in motion a gradual process of institutional change.” (p. 154) This process is probably familiar to anyone who has worked in an academic library. If existing employees and departments are not capable of change, they are left alone, while new units, staff, and activities are added and go on around them. Rutherford et al. (1985) describe models for change in higher education. Beginning with work by other scholars on organizational models, they

Literature Review Chapter | 4

69

choose “political” from those typologies (that also include “bureaucratic,” “collegial,” and “controlled anarchy”) and present three alternatives. Just as the four organizational types are complementary and coexisting, the three political models for change can and do also coexist and complement one another. The first model of change is structural and “described the organization of higher terms of four levels: central authority; institution; basic unit (approximating department); individual. Each level is characterised by a distinct set tasks, and two inter related processes of interac tion: the normative focuses on the maintenance of values; the operational mode, which the execution of tasks. The normative mode is further divided into essentially personal values) and extrinsic (i.e., values that are transmitted next level in the hierarchy). Interaction between adjacent levels occurs normative mode through the expression of judgements and in the mode through the allo cation of tasks and resources.” (p. 435).

The social model features “interpersonal formational linkage (i.e., crossing formal organizational bound aries linking people together and then confronting them with new ideas and active openness (i.e., actively seeking for new ideas and information primary group); initiating, guiding, involving and influential leadership contrasting with the style traditionally associated with a strong father figure); ownership (i.e., recognising the need to involve whose understanding, acceptance, time and skills are needed to change); material and psychic rewards.” (p. 436).

In the personal model, individuals value and use “production of valid information particularly with respect to goals and per sonal relationships; free and informed choice in decision making; internal commitment to decisions made and the evaluation of their effects. Appropriate strategies include: strong advocacy of personal positions coupled with an invi tation to others to confront and dispute these; free expression and testing of the validity of inferences and evaluations of the ideas and actions of collea gues; willingness to work with others and share power in the resolution of common problems. Academics . . . are able to reflect on the causal role of their governing values and change them when needed . . .with the consequent increase in personal effectiveness. The outcome . . . is . . . a greater sense of openness and spirit of cooperation.” (p. 437 438).

The authors do not attempt to synthesize these models but point out common themes: G

“Within an institution of higher education there are various groups with legitimate but perhaps conflicting goals and priorities. Each group will view a prospective innovation in a different way, depending on how its own responsibilities and aspirations are likely to be affected

70 G

G

G

The 21st Century Academic Library

Some problems are routine and can be dealt with in a relatively straightforward manner, whereas others appear intractable and require a new and more radical approach to their solution Each group may approach a problem in two quite different ways: the first occurs in the rhetoric of discussion about the analysis of problems and the possibilities for change; the second occurs in the implementation of a chosen solution radical changes must be preceded by a change in values and changes in procedures without a corresponding change in values will remain at a superficial and transient level (i.e., the latter will tend to maintain and protect the status quo rather than expose, confront and solve the serious problems facing the institution)” (p. 439 440).

Giddens (1979) is an influential work on “structuration.” The structure agency dynamic is a crucial issue in sociology and has been discussed by Durkheim and others. Giddens (1979) contribution is a theory of structuration that “proposes three kinds of structure in a social system. The first is signification, where meaning is coded in the practice of language and discourse. The second is legitimation, consisting of the normative perspectives embedded as societal norms and values. Giddens’s final structural element is domination, concerned with how power is applied, particularly in the control of resources.” (Gibbs, 2013).

These kinds of structuration have some correspondence or relation to the mechanisms of isomorphism proposed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). It is fitting to end this review with consideration of Max Weber and his definition of bureaucracy and its characteristics. He states that “officialdom” functions in this way: 1. “The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties. 2. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise which may be placed at the disposal of officials. 3. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed

In public and lawful government, these three elements constitute ‘bureaucratic authority.’ In private economic domination, they constitute bureaucratic ‘management.’” (Weber 1968/1922, p. 650).”

Literature Review Chapter | 4

71

While calling an organization or a process “bureaucratic” is now generally understood to be a criticism, Weber and others have observed that what we now all accept as modern organizational practice, bureaucratic in purely descriptive or more critical terms, is the way we get large groups of people to carry out complex routines and meet ambitious goals. While this literature review has covered a variety of things that may at first seem disparate or difficult to synthesize or integrate, in fact the underpinnings for this book have a common foundation: organizations emerge through communication (Taylor and Van Every, 2000) and they are “institutionalized” in whole and in part through social facts and the discourses of every aspect of society and culture. We accept that there are values we hold in common as librarians and as good citizens, academic and otherwise. There are networks of relationships that include the library and the university and while we may sometimes sit uncomfortably in the iron cage of bureaucracy and rationalization, we know that there are ways to open the door or slide through the bars. The next chapter presents and analyzes the data, using typology, frequencies, and discourse analysis.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

Data, Results, and Discussion INTRODUCTION Data was gathered from the websites of 210 libraries in North America, Africa, South Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. The population was gathered through web searches that easily yielded accurate lists for each country and region, including resources like Wikipedia and sites dedicated to higher education rankings. The data is not distributed across all regions in a completely proportional manner. That is because some universities either do not have a library website or do not have any information about the library organization on their website. More data would have been gathered, particularly from South Asia and Africa, if more data were available from library and university websites. As it is, the data shows a point of saturation and consistency, in which types emerged and were relatively easy to identify in all regions. The data was gathered by searching “[name of institution] library organizational chart” or just “[name of institution] library” if the first search was unsuccessful. Many academic libraries do provide an organizational chart, a list of departments, or other documents or pages that give information about how the library is organized. Interpretation and analysis of the data includes: G

G

G

Creation of a typology of organizational patterns with discussion of each type Discourse analysis of several “long, typical texts” (Bhatia, 1993, p. 24). The analysis explores Field, Tenor, Mode, Genre, and Register (“FTM/GR”) using the instrument developed by Meˆchura (2005). The texts are the organizational charts and websites of representative libraries Evaluation of the degree of isomorphism and divergence that is seen among the population. Four types emerged:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Print centered with e-resources E-focused Transitional Refocused

The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00005-7 Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

73

74

The 21st Century Academic Library

These types are descriptive and not evaluative. While there might be general agreement among academic librarians on the need to refocus our organizations to emphasize programs and services rather than collections, it is not necessarily “better” to be a Type 4 library than a Type 1. The organizational chart itself does not assess whether the library is user oriented, forward looking, responsive, innovative, and so on. Moreover, an organization can be organized in a way that is extremely traditional and still be a place where most or all employees are engaged, creative, and expert. The converse is also true. A “refocused” library may be one that was subjected to the coercive power of a library or university administration when there was not a critical mass of buy-in, acceptance, or enthusiasm for the change. It might be refocused in name only and still be an organization that is not responding well to a changing environment. We can see the mechanisms of isomorphic change at work in the distribution of these types. Certain types are more common in some regions or countries than others. The reasons for this are not explored in this book, although it would not be hard to make some guesses. Some regions may be smaller in area and/or population and might have more central control or influence from a government or a professional organization. That might be expected to lead to more mimetic or normative isomorphism with a bit of coercion in the form of pressure from governing bodies and library associations. Some regions are subject to inadequate infrastructure, unreliable electric power, and widespread government corruption which make it hard to carry on daily activities and make innovation very difficult to accomplish. Nevertheless, the forces of globalization created by the spread of information technology and particularly social media, in addition to international conference and educational experiences, is clearly part of the reason for the convergence seen throughout this population, if not in the organizational charts, then in the library websites. The first type is “print centered with e-resources,” which predominates in some regions. In this type, the departmental structure generally includes departments with names that are something like circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, reference, special collections, and systems. Variations include the public services (circulation, reference, special collections) and technical services (acquisitions and cataloging) umbrellas, alternative names such as “cataloging and metadata,” “access services,” “user services,” and so on. Many libraries have a department or function called “collections” or “collection development” which may be aligned with circulation, acquisitions, or reference. “Reference” generally includes instruction and may include collection development. Many libraries have a list of liaison or subject librarians on their websites and those librarians are most commonly members of the reference department. Many libraries mention e-resources, digital projects, and digital collections which may be in a separate department or may be part of technical services, special collections, or something else. Some libraries have a department or unit called “serials” that deals with periodicals and

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

75

serials, both print and electronic. Many libraries refer to “preservation” in their organizational information and may have a person, unit, or department that deals with the repair, conservation, and binding of physical material. These libraries are designated “print centered” not because they do not provide e-resources. The provision of library resources in electronic form may be called universal in absolute terms, although there are no doubt a few academic libraries who have no e-resources. The organization of these printcentered libraries, however, mirrors the journey of a print book, from request to order to receipt, to cataloging, and to shelving and circulating. The print book is still by far the most pervasive model and metaphor for library services and most libraries are still organized as if print books were the most crucial aspect of collections and services. Linguistic prototype theory informed the creation of these categories. Lakoff (1986, p. 12) offers a number aspects of prototype theory and the one that is most useful to this research is “membership gradience” which is “the idea that at least some categories have degrees of membership and no clear boundaries.” Therefore, the types are a continuum or gradient and Types 1 and 2 (print centered with e-resources and e-focused) could be combined into a single type: Traditional but moving toward a model that is not centered around the print collection. Type 2, e-focused, show this focus in the evolution of the names of departments and functions, and an organization that is more based on access, discovery, and information literacy, rather than the management of print material. If Type 1 is dangerously close to the “warehouse” that was the standard a generation or two ago, then Type 2 is still collection focused, but with digital libraries and e-resources as the default form of the collection. Type 3, “transitional,” has moved further along that continuum and is becoming a library that is not collection focused but rather organized around the idea of seamless information seeking, discovery, and the creation and use of content regardless of its form or source. This type may retain some traditional departmental or functional names but has also introduced new ways of presenting itself, emphasizing learning, collaboration, and content creation. Types 3 and 4 could also be collapsed into one category, representing the journey and its destination. Type 4 is “refocused,” meaning that the library is not organized around print books or around any kind of resources but is now focused on the library as part of the teaching and learning process, the creation of content, and scholarly communication (Fig. 5.1; Table 5.1).

FREQUENCIES Africa The African libraries in this population generally cluster at the more traditional end of the spectrum, although about 25% of those sampled were

80

The 21st Century Academic Library

FIGURE 5.6 Distribution of types in total population.

ANALYSIS OF TYPES USING EXAMPLES To look more closely at the typology, several examples have been selected for each type. The criteria for selecting examples draws from Bhatia’s (1993, p. 24) advice on the analysis of written texts, to choose “one, long typical” example. Therefore, the examples are libraries that presented an actual organizational chart, one with a fair amount of detail, and libraries that are “medium large,” i.e., sizable, but at neither end of the spectrum of complexity. After the analysis of the organizational chart, there is an accompanying analysis of the library home page (Fig. 5.7).

Example 1: US Library, Type 1 The first example is from an academic library at a large US research university. Organizational chart (with names and other identifying details removed): This chart shows the characteristics of Type 1 organizations very clearly. Under the leadership of the library dean, the divisions include public services, technical services, and collection development along with an administrative division and a separate graduate library. Public services includes access services, reference and research services, and “information literacy department,” i.e., instruction. Technical Services includes acquisitions, cataloging, and systems, and collection development includes the subject librarians (who may or may not do reference and instruction as well), gifts, preservation, and special collections. This library undoubtedly has a

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

81

FIGURE 5.7 Type 1 organizational chart.

substantial number of e-resources but they are not mentioned in the organizational chart. “Interactive media” may refer to various things, including streaming audio and video and other digital collections. There is no evidence of digital projects, scholarly communication, or data curation, although it is highly unlikely that this library does not do those things. An organizational chart is a genre of organizational communication that speaks loudly with the voice of human resources (HR), e.g., personnel matters such as hiring, training, and evaluation. It presents the hierarchical structure of the organization in graphic way that is easy to understand and which sends the message of who is on the top, in the middle, and who is at the bottom. Moreover, it shows the bureaucratic division of labor and although there are ways to do this, organizational charts are not very good at showing more complex relationships between people and functions, “dotted lines” notwithstanding. The discourses presented here include those of accountability, responsibility as well as collaboration and teamwork, albeit from the point of view of specialization and expertise (Fig. 5.8). The home page of this library speaks with a very different voice from the unemotional and bureaucratic language of an organizational chart: This portion of the home page shows a far more e-focused library with information on e-resources and links to pages tailored for each user group. While the traditional library organization is on view here (“Circulation,”

82

The 21st Century Academic Library

FIGURE 5.8 Type 1 website.

“Online Reference Resources,” etc.), it is clear that this library is part of scholarly communication, distance education, and a vital part of teaching and research. It is not surprising that these two genres present different voices and discourses. They have two very different purposes and two different audiences. They have been chosen as data sources to show the contrast in the internal and external faces of the library. They show the interaction of the execution of “regular and continuous fulfilment” (Weber 1968/1922, p. 650) of routines and services with the goal of these routines. The goal is to welcome users into the physical or virtual library and provide resources for them, including teaching them how to use the resources (Fig. 5.9).

Example 2: Pakistan Library, Type 1 This library in South Asia is also Type 1 “Print centered with e-resources.” The organizational chart is straightforward, showing traditional departments and services: Acquisitions, circulation, periodicals, and so on, in addition to “computerization,” which might mean digital or IT services of any kind (Fig. 5.10). The home page of this same library shows the isomorphism of many university and academic library websites. The tabbed search, the university menu at the top and the sidebars with news, and a menu of library services are familiar elements of this genre and the visual interest created by the

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

83

FIGURE 5.9 Type 1 organizational chart.

photo adds to the discourse of welcoming library users and offering service and help. This page is spare compared to some, but is a complete and unremarkable example of an academic library home page (Fig. 5.11).

Example 3: Australian Library, Type 2 Type 2 is “e-focused” and moves along the continuum that is divorcing the library’s identity from its collection and certainly from its print collection.

84

The 21st Century Academic Library

FIGURE 5.10 Type 1 website.

This organization appears simple with two main divisions: “Education and Research Services” and “Library Resources.” These names cloak the ancient public and technical services divisions but do so with names that are more descriptive and attractive. The traditional departments, plus some new ones, are present, with new names and some interesting realignments: Access services includes both the physical collection and digitization services. (Interlibrary loan frequently digitizes articles that have been requested from print sources.) “Information Services” includes reference, instruction, and probably selection, in three broad subject categories. The “Library Resources” division includes the traditional technical services (acquisitions and cataloging) under the umbrella of “Scholarly Information Management.” Acquisitions is included in “Collection Development and Evaluation” as well as “Finance & Vendor Relationships,” while cataloging is rebranded as “Metadata & Discovery Services.” IT (Systems), “eResearch,” and “Communications” are also part of “Library Resources.” The discourses and alignments seen here are interesting. While it could be the case that public services and technical services and their departments have simply been renamed, it is also asserted by scholars of institutionalism such as Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral (2013) that there is an interplay between micro and macrolevel institutional divergence and convergence. This means that there are differences and tensions between the desires and actions of individuals and societies, cultures, and organizations. Renaming may have been the first step in transition, leaving individuals to catch up mentally with the new organizational model at their own pace, or it might have been a step taken after many individuals in the library had begun to form a new idea about the organization and delivery of programs and services (Fig. 5.12). The website of this Type 2 library is an excellent example of the genre, delivering a great deal of information in an economical way, with a compact and graphic design that is welcoming and positive (Fig. 5.13).

FIGURE 5.11 Type 2 organizational chart.

86

The 21st Century Academic Library

FIGURE 5.12 Type 2 website.

Example 4: Australian Library, Type 2 The second example of a Type 2 library also has a fairly simple organization, flattened and with an array of departments that has both traditional and less traditional aspects. Leaving aside “Projects and Law,” which may have local significance only; there are Collections, Research, Acquisitions and Access, Discovery, and Systems. A few decades ago, those might have been called Access Services, Reference, Acquisitions, Cataloging, and Systems. While the change may seem unimportant or without any particular effect, the way we talk about things changes the way we think about them and vice versa. Moreover, the names of departments do not change for any reason at all. The reason may be ill-conceived, cynical, or ineffectual, but assuming the goodwill of social actors in most organizations, the change is generally meant to signal a new direction, to be more accurate, and often to be aspirational as well (Fig. 5.14). The library home page again shows the simple, welcoming, compact, and efficient presentation of information that is characteristic of this genre. Mimetic and coercive isomorphism are probably always at work in the design of web pages for institutions such as universities and academic libraries. The components of academic library web pages represent best practices (seen on other websites) and an attempt to use the (coercive) required templates from the university in the most creative and communicative way possible (Fig. 5.15).

FIGURE 5.13 Type 2 organizational chart.

FIGURE 5.14 Type 2 website.

FIGURE 5.15 Type 3 organizational chart.

90

The 21st Century Academic Library

Example 5: US Library, Type 3 Type 3 is “Transitional,” a library whose organization has moved a step farther away from the traditional and print-based model. This chart shows some interesting complexity and points to a direction seen in Type 2 libraries that will be fully realized (for the present) in Type 4. The largest divisions, each headed by an associate dean, are “Collection Strategy and Management” and “Research and User Engagement.” The idea of managing and strategizing about the collection, rather than “developing” it, implies that the physical collection, at least, may not grow, or may grow less, or may shrink. The “acquisitions” is not mentioned anywhere on this chart, although it undoubtedly exists. Metadata, discovery, preservation, and special collections are all under this “strategy and management umbrella.” “Research and User Engagement” includes the reference and instruction functions as well as access services. There are also upper-level administrators (associate directors rather than associate deans) who are in charge of technology and digital initiatives and of other subdivisions of the two main areas. Technology and digital initiatives includes scholarly communication, whereas “emerging technology” is associated with reference and instruction. Those may be transitional aspects of this transitional type. It may be an example of Beckert’s (2010) phenomenon of “layering,” or it may be the result of more extensive rethinking and realignment (or both.; Fig. 5.16). The home page of this library is attractive and follows the genre expectations closely, while still featuring things that make the library and the

FIGURE 5.16 Type 3 website.

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

91

university unique or special. The photo of the “George Washington Spy Letter,” illustrates the growing prominence of both special collections and digital initiatives (Fig. 5.17).

Example 6: US Library, Type 3 This example is from a large US research library. This Type 3 organizational chart is one of nearly one dozen that detail the organization and all its units. The top layer is the emerging model of “Information Services” and “User Services” with a few things standing separately, such as the medical sciences library, special collections, marketing and communications, and administrative functions. That leaves the two core programs which, although they correspond rather neatly to “Technical [Information] Services” and “Public [User Services]” are clearly transitioning to the model that is not collection focused but concentrates on people and information (Fig. 5.18). The library’s home page is extremely spare and concentrates on access to different kinds of information while offering other services (study space, research help) at the top of the page. The library literally offers a welcome at the bottom of the page (with the discourse of marketing clearly visible: The library is an “indispensable hub”) and offers solidarity with a mission of the university as well, with the exhortation to “lead by example” (Fig. 5.19).

Example 7: United Kingdom Library, Type 4 This Type 4 library shows the current, refocused form of library organization. This model is certainly not the end of the line but merely a step in the evolution of libraries and other informational and educational institutions which will continue to move, grow, and change. This library has three main divisions: Customer Experience, Content Strategy, and Academic Engagement. It appears that “Customer Experience” includes access services and is connected through a dotted line relationship to licensing and metadata activities (which are an important aspect of user experience). “Content Strategy” includes all activities that might have been called “technical services” as well as digital curation, multimedia support, and other kinds of content creation and management. “Academic Engagement” is a direct and intertextual reference to the academic activities of the university and the efforts made to recruit, support, and retain students. This refocused organization emphasizes the values of success (for users as library patrons and as students) and clearly views any physical collection to be taken for granted but not explicitly mentioned as a way to define library services (Fig. 5.20). The library home page is clean and inviting and advertises its discovery layer (Primo) as a way to search all library resources, and a way to support “learning, teaching, and research” (Fig. 5.21).

FIGURE 5.17 Type 3 organizational chart.

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

93

FIGURE 5.18 Type 3 website.

Example 8: Australian Library, Type 4 This refocused library organization is a spare and simple one, with emphasis on “Research Support” and “Library Resources.” Those may be new ways to say “public services” and “technical services,” but they are more meaningful and more specific. Research support includes scholarly communication, and the administrative unit is called “Workforce & Infrastructure” with a subunit for “Quality and Planning.” “Quality” implies “assessment,” which is often a part of the planning cycle for both universities and academic libraries (Fig. 5.22). The library home page is very simple and emphasizes searching for resources but also specialized services for different user groups.

GENRE AND REGISTER ANALYSIS Examples of organizational charts and academic library home pages from each of the four types and all the regions and countries listed in Appendix 1 were analyzed with the FTM/GR instrument. All available examples were examined to a certain degree with certain examples selected for closer analysis. Not all features and characteristics in this very useful instrument are equally applicable or salient for all types of texts and the analysis below reflects that fact with the more salient features discussed many times and other features having little to no discussion.

FIGURE 5.19 Type 4 organizational chart.

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

95

FIGURE 5.20 Type 4 website.

The genre and register analysis of these texts will use a “long, single, typical text” (Bhatia, 1993, p. 24) to look at each organizational type. The texts will be an organizational chart and the home page of the library website for each of the examples. The analysis uses an instrument adapted from Mˇechura (2005). This instrument has been used successfully by Bolin (2007, 2014).

FTM/GR Discourse Analysis Instrument (Adapted from Mˇechura [2005]) Field: What is the text about? Ideational meaning (experiential and logical); semantic domains; transitivity (process, semantic and grammatical roles, circumstance). Tenor: Who are the participants? Interpersonal meaning. Author, audience, relative status (speech functions), social distance, personalization, standing, stance (attitude, agency, modality). Mode: What makes the text a text? Textual meaning. Spoken/written, action/reflection, interactivity, schema, patterning, thematic organization, cohesion (lexical, logical), intertextuality, discourses (ideology, voices) Genre and Register: What genres are represented by the texts? (Registers are language varieties that underlie genres). What registers are used in the text? (Field, tenor, and mode are the variables that determine register)

FIGURE 5.21 Type 4 organizational chart.

FIGURE 5.22 Type 4 website.

98

The 21st Century Academic Library

Text: Library Organizational Chart Field (What is the text about? Ideational meaning) The text shows how library employees are assigned to carry out the library’s programs and services. The semantic domains are higher education, library and information science, and HR (employee categories and titles). The semantic and grammatical roles are implicit: The subject/agent is the library itself, the predicate/process is “does,” and the object/undergoer is the activities described: Reference, instruction, discovery, access, and so on. The process and circumstance are conventional occurrences in organizations: Organizational charts might be prepared as part of planning, accreditation, large or small-scale organizational changes, and so on. Organizational charts exist to display to anyone interested how the organization is structured to fulfill its mission. Ideational meaning includes social setting. These texts are used in the academic workplace. They are used as a way for a library to visualize its organizational structure and are a part of a network of other organizational practices, including hiring, accreditation, and so on. Organizational charts are “about” the organization and its division of labor and chain of command. Experiential meaning is the aspect of field that encodes the experience of the world of the participants. Academic library organizational charts reflect experiential meanings that include higher education, libraries, employment, administration and supervision, collaboration, and specialization. The concepts or ideas that recur include library collections, teaching and instruction, discovery, automation and digital services, and the kinds and classes of employees who are responsible. These concepts are all part of the discourse formations of librarianship which Lemke (1998) defines as “single nouns and phrases, shorthand to be interpreted by intertextual reference to the full clauses and typical textual contexts.” In addition to the discourse formations of academic librarianship, there is also language from higher education (“dean”) and HR (e.g., staff ranks and titles). Classification as an aspect of ideational meaning is present in organizational charts in the careful distinctions between “division, department, unit, team” (which varies from library to library) and the designation of employees through titles like dean, associate dean, manager, assistant, etc. The “logical” aspect of ideational meaning refer to assumptions present in a text, including propositional assumptions about what is, can, or will be. Organizational charts present the assumption that the responsibilities assigned are being carried out and that they cover the range of services assigned to the library. Semantic Domains (General Subject Categories) The semantic domains of academic library organizational charts are librarianship, education, work, and organizational mission and goals.

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

99

Transitivity: Process, Semantic and Grammatical Roles, and Circumstance Process “Process” refers to the action or state encoded by the verbal constituent of a clause. Material processes are those of “doing” and they are found in an organizational chart: Organizing, teaching, collection building, and all the other responsibilities of librarians and library staff. Semantic and Grammatical Roles In a material process such as “doing” (functions such as reference, instruction, cataloging, etc.), the doer is the agent and the object of the action is the goal or beneficiary. Organizational charts imply agency on the part of those filling the roles depicted there and assume that the goal is the result of that agency. Circumstance Circumstance represents time and place. Organizational charts reflect the structure of one entity that exists in a specific. Most charts note the date they were created and therefore reflect the organization as it existed at that moment. Tenor (Who are the participants?) The participants are the creators of the information who are employees of the library. An organizational chart is generally created by the dean or director’s office as a way of displaying the organizational structure and the relationship of departments and employees to one another. The author is anonymous, but can be seen to be the organization itself. The audience for the text is both members of the organization and outsiders. Those outsiders might be researchers or others seeking information or gathering data about the library as well as candidates for employment and others in the university. The text is impersonal. It is not written in complete sentences but is a graphical representation of the organizational hierarchy and structure. It contains the names of departments, e.g., “Cataloging and Metadata” and the titles of employees, e.g., “Dean of Library Services” and may also contain the name of the person who has that title. Its attitude is a neutral one. The text purveys organizational information without an evaluative or other intention. It states facts about the organization and the values and attitudes it portrays are implicit: It shows who is in authority and it declares what activities the library engages in. The modality is epistemic: It declares what is, although there may be an underlying deontic modality (declaring what should or must be) as well.

100

The 21st Century Academic Library

Tenor encodes interpersonal meaning. The participants in a written text are the author and the readers. In the case of a written genre such as organizational charts, neither of those things is completely simple.

Author An organizational chart is the product of the organization that it depicts. It does not have a personal author and could have been prepared by one or more people and those people are likely to be part of the university organization. Organizational charts undergo relatively frequent updating. Audience The audience is the organization itself but can also be other university administrators, accrediting bodies, researchers from outside the university, and so on. Relative Status, Social Distance, Personalization, Speech Functions, and Standing In a spoken conversation, the attitudes and status of participants can be observed in things like turn-taking and the use of titles or other forms of address but there are also features of written texts that reflect this aspect of meaning. An organizational chart is a formal genre and maintains a certain distance between author and reader. The writing is impersonal and generally does not contain complete sentences or pronouns. Speech functions include questions, demands, statements, and offers. Organizational charts are declarative and consist of statements. Standing (Author’s Knowledge and Authority) Organizational charts are official documents that represent the authority of the institution that created them. Stance (Attitude, Agency, and Modality) A text’s “stance” is its degree of dialogicality. Attitude reflects lexis (vocabulary). Mˇechura (2005) describes a continuum of explicitness with “assert” as the most explicit. While organizational charts reflect some “assumption” (the least explicit), they primarily assert. Organizational charts are generally low in dialogicality. They are not open to difference, because their purpose is to assert and describe. The modality of these texts is reflected in the presence of some of Lemke’s (1998) “classes of evaluative attributes.” The texts are high in “warrantability” (“possible” vs. “doubtful”), normativity (necessary and appropriate elements), usuality (the contents not surprising), importance (significance

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

101

to the organization), and comprehensibility (they are understandable and not deliberately mysterious.). The texts express agency through material processes with a relatively high degree of agency expressed. Organizational charts are about what the library does and who does it. In terms of modality, there is a high degree of knowledge exchange (epistemic modality what is) as well as some deontic modality (activity exchange what must or should be.).

Mode (What makes the text a text?) The text is held together by its graphic content. The shapes and lines that connect people and departments to the organization. It is written text that follows a well-known genre and pattern. There are templates and programs that will create organizational charts according to various familiar schema. Attempts to create nonhierarchical representations of organizations can use these schema but they are a conscious adaptation and even flouting of the rules of the genre. Lexical cohesion is created by repetition (of words such as “department,” “head,” “chair,” “supervisor,” “librarian”) and logical cohesion by the arrangement of text in the graphic schema. There is a fair amount of intertextuality in any organizational representation. The titles on an organizational chart represent a corresponding job description for that title/ employee and there may be a chain of organizational charts, beginning with the university and proceeding to every division and department. In the library, there may be a separate chart for each department in addition to the one for the entire library. Even in text as terse and succinct as an organizational chart, there are discourses and “voices” present and sometimes voices that are in heteroglossic opposition. The discourse of service is strongly present, seen in the complex departmental structure and division of labor that ensures that library users will have information and help in using it. The voice of academia is also present, especially if titles such as “dean” and “Professor” are used. Also, the university’s programs are explicitly and intertextually present in charts that include liaison librarians and their responsibilities: The university’s departments and programs. As is often the case in academic libraries, there is the heteroglossic opposition of the voice of HR with the more scholarly and independent voice of librarianship. An organizational chart is an HR document and it reduces something that is often subtle and improvisational to a box with a department name and other boxes with employee titles. Textual Meaning Textual meaning is created by a predictable structure, depicting a hierarchy with one or more levels beneath the library dean or director and a consistent vocabulary within any chart.

102

The 21st Century Academic Library

Spoken/Written These are written texts that often include a date of revision and may include information on how the chart was approved. Action/Reflection and Interactivity Action/reflection is an axis that measure spontaneity. Obviously, this is a genre of organizational communication that is a product of reflection and is not spontaneous. Interactivity may be associated with spoken discourse but written texts can also be interactive (online chat or discussion, for example). Organizational charts are quite low in interactivity and serve almost exclusively as an information source. Schema Organizational charts have a schema that is built into software programs that allow for their construction with variations in shapes, layout, and so on. Patterning Organizational charts are “colonies” (Hoey, 2001), texts that are constructed from other texts and not necessarily read in a particular order. They have a “general specific” pattern (Hoey, 2001, p. 122) in which the library organization becomes more specific as the chart adds more detail. Thematic Organization (Macrotheme) This is the theme of the entire text which, obviously, is the organizational structure of an academic library. Cohesion (Lexical, Logical) Cohesion (Lexical) Cohesion is created through lexical repetition and collocation of words in lexical phrases that are familiar to members of the discourse community as well as some synonymy and hyponymy (the general specific relationship, e.g., “department/unit.”) The discourse formations of librarianship represent the “syntagmatic” aspect of language (Saussure, 1959), where words are associated by their use in syntactic construction, e.g., “[Function] Services.” Semantic Relations Semantic relations include synonymy and antonymy as well as the less wellknown hyponymy and meronymy. Synonymy and antonymy are seen in these texts in the use of words like “department,” “unit,” and “team” (synonyms) and antonyms like “public services” and “technical services.” Hyponymy is seen in the hierarchical use of “division,” “department,” etc.,

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

103

and meronymy, the part whole relationship, is present in constructions like “team” and “members.” Semantic relations are “paradigmatic” (Saussure, 1959) in which different words can be put into the same paradigm, e.g., “ Services” could be “Reference,” “Access,” and so on.

Cohesion (Logical) Organizational charts create logical cohesion primarily through the graphic format the lays out the organization as an image. That structure is a form of “signaling” (Hoey, 2001) which lets the reader know what is coming next and connects that to what came before. Organizational charts have a parallel construction in which everything that is a department is called a department (as distinct from a division, unit, or team) and everyone who is an assistant or associate is carefully labeled as such. Intertextuality Organizational charts have intertextual relationships and are part of an intertext (Lemke, 1995) which is the network of texts that a discourse community uses and recognizes. Academic library organizational charts draw on the texts and discourses of librarianship in naming and separating the departments and functions and, like all organizational charts, they have a directly intertextual relationship with position descriptions, evaluations, strategic plans, budgets, annual reports, and other documents that refer directly to individuals, departments, and functions listed on the organizational chart. Discourses (Ideology, Voices) The concepts of “discourses,” “ideology,” and “voices” are clearly closely related and overlapping. The ideology of librarianship, the set of beliefs that guide librarians, are present in these charts as are several discourses that express that ideology and voices that express those discourses. The ideology of librarianship can be expressed as service, open access to information, intellectual freedom, neutrality, and excellence. The discourses of reference and instruction (providing learning and assistance), discovery (seamless and consistent access to resources), and innovation (the addition of new services) are expressed by the voices of the library administration and all the other units listed in an organizational chart. Genre and Register What genres are represented by the texts? (Registers are language varieties that underlie genres). What registers are used in the text? (Field, tenor, and mode are the variables that determine register). The organizational chart can be recognized as a genre of organizational communication that is used by organizations of a certain complexity in all

104

The 21st Century Academic Library

fields, including education, business, and government. The register is that of HR, academic librarianship, and higher education in general. We expect it to be terse, formal, and descriptive. Swales (1990, p. 61) defines genre as “a class of communicative events, the members of which share some communicative purpose.” Members of discourse communities who use organizational charts understand their “communicative purpose” which is to visually represent the structure of the organization. Swales also discusses metaphors of genre, and the metaphor of genre as “institution” (p. 66) is applicable here. The organizational chart represents the processes of structuration, rationalization, and institutionalization in which participants understand and use institutionalized phenomena like the idea of organizational structure as a means of planning, assessing, communicating, and ultimately changing as well. Institutionalized genres are “embedded within. . .institutional process[es]” (Swales, 1990, p. 66.). The salient characteristics of the register and genre of organizational charts include the predictable schema, the use of a graphic representation of the organization, and the depiction of hierarchy and division of labor. The language is terse, formal, official, and features few complete sentences. One salient grammatical feature is nominalization in which a process is represented as a noun (Swales, 1990). Examples include “circulation” which is a nominal form of a verb (“circulate.”) Nominalization is widely used in formal documents to condense information. The modality of the texts is primarily epistemic (what is) but clearly there is also deontic (what should or must be) modality as well. When an academic library presents itself in this genre, it is presumably saying, “This is what we are, and this is what we have decided we should be.” This has the evaluative attribute of warrantability, a high degree of certainty about the truth of what is being stated. As is common in official texts, lexical repetition and synonymy are the most common and salient cohesive devices. That includes the repetition of words like “division,” “department,” “unit,” and “team,” or “director,” “head,” “chair,” “manager,” which also show synonymy. The languages of librarianship and of HR are mingled here with impersonal and hierarchical language encoding the ways that the library carries out its mission. As a communicative event, these texts express the collective thoughts of the library, show consensus about mission and division of labor, and are at once philosophical and procedural. The organizational chart is a stable genre, part of a set or chain, including job description, performance evaluation, accreditation or self-study documents, the curriculum vitae of individuals who are represented, and the corresponding library website which presents the organization in a very different way. The genre chain includes an intertextual relationship with other documents, e.g., the title of a position on an organizational chart matches the title used in an evaluation, a job description, and so on. Since academic library organizations show strong mimetic and

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

105

normative isomorphism, there is an intertextual relationship among the organizational charts and similar documents from other libraries as well.

Text: Academic Library Website Field (What is the text about? Ideational meaning) The text is about an academic library and it presents information on the library’s programs and services. Libraries began creating web pages in the early 1990s, when the internet was novel and the idea of web presence was as well. During the past two decades, web design became mature and best practices for websites were developed. The current standard academic library website presents the idea of searching for library resources first. Academic library websites have grown less cluttered and generally first present a search box that invites users to search for resources in the library’s catalog or discovery system. That indicates that the upfront, first, and central attribute of the library is the provision of information resources. Close by the search box are graphics and links that allow a user to get personal help through chat, email, or by calling a phone number that is supplied. Therefore, the other prominent ideational meaning of the library website is that “we are here to help you.” The website stands in for the library buildings, collections, and employees and provides information about all of them. More than that, it provides access to collections and to librarians. Beyond the search box, there is more varied and detailed information, including links to other pages that list e-resources, images collections, the institutional repository, and so on. The website provides more text than an organizational chart, some of it in paragraphs that describe procedures, schedules, rules, and so on. The author of all text on the website is the library itself. It is an official genre of organizational communication and its content is not spontaneous or accidental. This analysis is primarily confined to the library home page, and for the most part to the portion “above the fold,” where the most significant information is. Other pages in academic library websites include “Contacts” with names, phone numbers, and emails of people such as the library dean, the coordinator of instruction, and others who might provide service or answers; “About” which gives more information about the library organization, employees, and sometimes its history; “What’s new,” often a news or blog feed; “Services” which tells in more detail about programs and services such as instruction and interlibrary loan; “Libraries and hours” which gives information about library building(s) and when they are open. In terms of process and roles, the agent/subject is the library, the process/ predicate is the communication of information and the provision of services, and that information and service is the undergoer/object.

106

The 21st Century Academic Library

The social setting, an aspect of ideational meaning, of these texts is the library’s use of its website to introduce itself and its services to users and to interact with them on the internet. The experiential meanings of academic library organizational charts include discovery, information literacy, education, e-resources, and the virtual and in-person services of the library. As with organizational charts, the discourse formations of librarianship (Lemke, 1998) are present here, although libraries try (not necessarily successfully) not to use jargon on their websites. Classification, which is part of ideational meaning, is seen in these websites in its separation of services, different kinds of resources, and information on coming to the library, using it remotely, and contacting various people and departments for help. The propositional assumptions that are part of “logical” side of ideational meaning include assumptions about what users want, how they search for things, which things are most immediate or important, and how information should be displayed and connected.

Semantic Domains (General Subject Categories) The semantic domains of academic library websites are library services, education, information literacy, and information in general. Transitivity: Process, Semantic and Grammatical Roles, and Circumstance Process Like organizational charts, library websites are about the material processes (“doing”), including providing access to the libraries resources, programs, and services. Semantic and Grammatical Roles The Agent/Doer of the material processes depicted in a library website is the library itself and all its employees. The goal or beneficiary is the provision of resources and services. Circumstance The time and place of a website are more diffuse and uncertain that those of a document like an organizational chart. A website exists in all times and all places, although an academic library website is associated with one place and does, in fact, refer frequently to dates and times of the day.

Tenor (Who are the participants?).

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

107

The participants in this text are the library (as an organization, representing the corporate voice of its staff) and most centrally the students and faculty of the university who are the primary users of the library. That means that whether a user is a freshman student in Business or a Professor of Chemistry or a person in any other field with any other information needs, information literacy, and information-seeking behavior, the library through its website is trying to communicate with all these people. There is both deontic (what should be) and epistemic (what is) modality because the library wants users to search in a way that is the most efficient and yields the best results for the user. If a user wants to go to Google before coming to the library website, many librarians feel that person “should” come to the library first or exclusively. Users are advised of library rules, including loan periods, using study rooms, areas for collaboration, and areas for quiet study. The website is impersonal, in that it does not represent the face or voice of one person but it is a friendly impersonality that pleads with users to realize that there are welcoming and helpful people waiting for them. The texts are high in epistemic modality as well and libraries have a continuous struggle with their desire to present all necessary information at once and in one place. As with the organizational chart, the participants in a website are the site’s author and its readers. The roles and identities of those authors and readers are even more complicated than those involved with organizational charts because websites are far more complex and contain more and different kinds of texts and far more authors.

Author The author of an academic library website is the library itself. While an organizational chart is more likely to have been prepared by a single, anonymous person on behalf of the organization, a library website is created by many different people who have varied knowledge about and responsibility for aspects of the library’s services. There are probably also people responsible for designing, coding, and updating the site itself. Audience The audience is anyone with interest in the library, its collections, services, or employees. It can be accessed at any time and from anywhere, and the home page has links to many other sites and pages. Relative Status, Social Distance, Personalization, Speech Functions, and Standing The library website is “serious” but far less formal than an organizational chart. Its speech functions include declarative statements but also offers and questions. It invites users to see what is new, ask for help, access resources,

108

The 21st Century Academic Library

and contact library employees. There is distance between author and reader, as with any written text, but the library website makes some effort to personify the library, with offers such as “Find your librarian!”

Standing (Author’s Knowledge and Authority) Academic library websites are authoritative and represent the official point of view, responsibility, and expertise of the library. Stance (Attitude, Agency, Modality) The degree of dialogicality (embodied in the “stance” of a text) is much higher in a library website than in an organizational chart. It has far more information and is more open to difference. It offers various ways of interacting with the library, resources on an array of topics, and resources in a variety of physical and digital formats. The attitude embodied in the vocabulary includes both assumption and assertion (Mˇechura, 2005), with assertion being the most common. (The vocabulary of library websites is explicit, to allow library users to interact without any in-person mediation.) The modality of these texts is also revealed by “evaluative attributes (Lemke, 1998). Like organizational charts, they are high in warrantability (i.e., the information there is intended and assumed to be accurate) and normativity. The websites must have necessary and appropriate elements to adhere to university requirements and they show a mimetic and normative isomorphism by imitating the standards set by other academic libraries. Academic library websites differ from one another but do have a high degree of usuality, importance (as a means of communication and interaction), and comprehensibility (at least in intent.) Like organizational charts, the websites use material processes (doing) to express agency. The library website is about what the library does and can do and wants to do. Epistemic modality (knowledge exchange what is) is the most common modality but there is deontic modality as well (activity exchange what should be) in the presentation of information about workshops, LibGuides, service desks, “Ask Us” services, and so on. These assume that it is good for users to interact with the library and learn from available expertise. Mode (What makes the text a text?). Websites are written in HTML: Hypertext markup language. That implies that they are linked to other sites and findable via their web address. All HTML pages do not resemble one another. There is a vast variety of techniques for creating a certain appearance and for navigation of a website. What makes these texts a text is that they are a group of HTML pages purposely linked together to form a site. They are written texts but also make use of

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

109

images, audio, and video. They have some interactivity, in that users interact by searching for resources, contacting library employees, perhaps saving and exporting citations, and in many cases, adding subject tags to the catalog or discovery tool, whether to improve discoverability for everyone, or to create a personal grouping of resources. Cohesion is created by repetition of words associated with the library and university, through hyperlinked pages, and through aids to navigation such as menus, banners, site maps, bread crumbs, and search boxes. Moreover, there is visual cohesion created by using the same fonts, colors, and images on all pages in the site. Academic library websites are highly intertextual. They often follow a schema that is dictated by the university and that changes continuously so that pages must be updated. They generally contain links to the university’s home page and may include the university’s navigation bar at the top of the page. The discourses are those of “student centered” or “user centered” library and university service. They include the idea of being available anywhere and anytime and offering the option of face-to-face service.

Textual Meaning The structure of the library website creates textual meaning. While this analysis treats only the home page, the hypertext structure of websites is probably their most salient feature. Spoken/Written Websites are written texts, but they increasingly include images, audio, and video along with written texts. Likewise, there are standards for accessibility, particularly for people with visual disabilities, that provide alternatives to written text. Action/Reflection and Interactivity The degree of spontaneity measured by the action/reflection axis is higher in a website than in an organizational chart. Websites change more quickly and more frequently and the content of discovery tools and other aspects of collections and access to them change daily. Websites are highly interactive, with ways of searching and navigating provided on each page, as well as channels of communication, and ways to request material be added to the collection or borrowed from another library. Schema Websites follow many different schema but there are recognizable patterns that are followed by both universities and academic libraries. The library is often an explicit link on the university home page and appears under

110

The 21st Century Academic Library

“academics,” a primary division of university websites. The home page of an academic library generally features a search box, large and prominent as the first thing that a user encounters.

Patterning Even more than organizational charts, websites are “colonies” (Hoey, 2001) that are constructed from other texts and not read in a prescribed order. Like organizational charts, the use a “general specific” pattern (Hoey, 2001, p. 122) which starts with a simple search box and becomes more detailed and specific if a user desires.

Thematic Organization (Macrotheme) The macrotheme of the library website is the programs, services, and collections of the library.

Cohesion (Lexical, Logical) Cohesion (Lexical) Repetition creates lexical cohesion on library websites, including many words and phrases familiar to librarians and library users. There is also synonymy (in the categories of resources, for example: Periodical, journal, magazine) and hyponymy (the general/specific relationship is seen pervasively in library classification and the arrangement of resources on shelves and in browse searches.) As with organizational charts, the syntagmatic association (Saussure, 1959) of words with each other is seen in constructions like, “Access Services,” “Information Services,” and other collocations of functions with a word like “services.” Semantic Relations Synonymy and hyponymy were mentioned above, but other semantic relations include antonymy (e.g., the distinction between “print” and “online”) which shows Saussure’s (1959) concept “paradigmatic” relations. This is seen in the use of “electronic” or “e” with types of resources, e.g., electronic book, journal, resource. Cohesion (Logical) Logical cohesion is found in the consistent template used by the web pages from a single institution in which there is generally the same information at the top and the bottom of each page which helps with navigation and orientation. This helps with “signaling” (Hoey, 2001) which helps users move back and forth between pages.

Data, Results, and Discussion Chapter | 5

111

Intertextuality Hypertext is clearly very intertextual. Not only are websites literally linked together by portions of text on each page, the information on the pages is expected to conform and agree with information on other pages (e.g., about what branch libraries exist, what borrowing rules are, what relationship to the university is necessary for using the library). Websites are a crucial part of the library’s intertext (Lemke, 1995), the network of texts that is used and recognized by any discourse community. The websites use the language, mental models, and texts of library services in presenting the home page and the pages that link to it. Discourses (Ideology, Voices) The ideology of librarianship is plain to see on the library’s home page. It presents the same ideology as the organizational charts, i.e., service, open access to information, intellectual freedom, neutrality, and excellence. The discourses and voices from the organizational charts are also the same as those seen in the websites: Reference and instruction (learning and assistance), discovery (access to resources), and innovation (new services). Genre and Register What genres are represented by the texts? (Registers are language varieties that underlie genres). What registers are used in the text? (Field, tenor, and mode are the variables that determine register). The genre “academic library website” is “a class of communicative events, the members of which share some communicative purpose.” (Swales, 1990, p. 61). Both librarians and library users recognize the library website and its purpose. Among the metaphors of genre, the idea of genre as “institution” (Swales, 1990, p. 66) is useful here as it was in the discussion of organizational charts. The website is an institutionalized phenomenon and it represents other institutionalized entities and processes (library services). Like the organizational chart, the library website is an institutionalized genre “embedded within . . . institutional process[es]” (Swales, 1990, p. 66.) The register and genre of academic library websites have salient characteristics that include the highly intertextual hypertext structure, the mixture of written text with other media such as video, the serious but welcoming and friendly tone that invites users into the library, the intertextual relationship with the library website and the coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism that cause these websites to resemble the university site and the websites of other academic libraries. Websites feature mostly epistemic modality, providing a great deal of information on what the library is and what it has but also some deontic modality embodied in the idea that users “should” use the library and use it in the ways librarians intend.

112

The 21st Century Academic Library

Aside from hypertext and the templates generally used by universities for all their pages, the most important cohesive devices are repetition and semantic relations such as synonymy. This genre as a communicative event presents the library to its public and serves as a kind of front door or welcome mat. It is a stable genre but less stable than the organizational chart because the standards and capabilities of web design change constantly and websites change to keep up with those developments. The next chapter is the final one and is a conclusion that sums up the data and what can be drawn from it.

Chapter 6

Conclusion INTRODUCTION The data presented here show the global presence of academic libraries and their presentation of themselves on the web. The presentation shows the values and discourses of librarianship, including service, learning, access to information, and quality. While the data show that most academic libraries in the population retain a traditional organizational pattern, that is not really a measure of innovation, experimentation, or high-quality service. Even the “refocused” libraries undoubtedly struggle with the iron cage of bureaucracy in their new organizational form. Today’s innovation is tomorrow’s rigid anachronism. The typology shows an entrenched model of organization that may still exist because it still works well. It may work well in the sense that there is a serviceable workflow that accomplishes routine tasks and a communication structure that allows for cross-pollination, problem-solving, and the addition of new services. On the other hand, the traditional departmental organization of academic libraries is showing its age and is slowly being replaced with a refocused organization that is not collection-centered, and that focuses on learning, collaboration, and content creation.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND DISCOURSE The mechanisms of institutionalization can be seen in this organizational evolution. While some libraries may imitate what others do because this mimetic impulse reduces risk for them, and while most libraries respond to some “coercion” (due to budget restraints, for example), and certainly to normative pressures, there is also evidence that “ideas matter.” Librarians have plentiful channels for communicating ideas. The discourse of two genres of organizational communication sheds light on these matters as well. The organizational chart is nearly the ultimate genre of communication in a bureaucracy. It encodes hierarchy and structure and enshrines the division of labor. The academic library website, on the other hand, displays the values and discourses of librarianship, which are altruistic, idealistic, and value learning and the abundance of information. The 21st Century Academic Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101866-8.00006-9 Copyright © 2018 Mary K. Bolin. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

113

114

The 21st Century Academic Library

There is some irony in the idea that an organization on its own is “generative,” while the environment that is a network of organizations is “reproductive” (Zucker, 1987). Libraries have always sought to balance the global and local. “Local practice” is an ancient and persistent aspect of library workflows and it is generative: tailored for the users of one library. Since the early 20th century and before, however, there has also been increasing pressure to follow standards, and to automate procedures without deviating, customizing, or editing. Language and discourse are at the heart of the discussion of the present and future of academic libraries. In the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) vision for the year 2030 (ARL, 2010), the alternatives have little to do with departmental structure, collections, or buildings. They are primarily about relationships, and relationships imply communication and discourse. There has been constant discussion for the last 20 years about the library as a place vs the virtual environment. “What is a library?” may be nearly as annoying and useless a discussion as “what is art?” Words can and do have more than one meaning, and metaphor and other figurative speech are deeply embedded in all human language. A library is a building or a room where books and other material are housed, generally with some sort of principle of organization. Yes, a library is a place. A library is also an organization and the people who work there are the library. A library is also the network of resources and services that are accessed via the portal that is the library website. The home page is the front door of that library.

GLOBALIZATION The forces of globalization show us the same tension between local needs and customs, and global pressures and opportunities. Developing nations are eager to participate in the global educational environment, but are also concerned about the respectful recognition and preservation of indigenous knowledge. This is the same alternation of reproduction and generativity that we see in the institutionalization of a single organization or of the environment in which that organization exists. A marked feature of globalization and of the neoliberal model of politics and economics is marketization or corporatization. Universities worldwide have certainly been permeated by the philosophy of the market. It may be antithetical to the concept of a university as a place of free inquiry and pure teaching and learning, but there is probably no turning back from it. Moreover, there are advantages for students to competition among universities. Being student-centered or user-centered leads us to be open to change, to look outward at the needs of others, and ultimately perhaps to both collaborate and innovate.

Conclusion Chapter | 6

115

SCENARIOS FOR THE FUTURE The ARL 2030 Scenarios (ARL, 2010) now envision a future that is little more than 10 years away. We can probably see elements of all the scenarios in the things that have happened since 2010: G

G

G

G

Research Entrepreneurs: We can see this entrepreneurial approach in many campuses, in the sciences and elsewhere, including “maker spaces,” public private partnerships, and patenting of research products. Libraries are involved in creating digital archives of primary research material, which includes substantial grant funding. Reuse and Recycle: This scenario is tailor-made for academic libraries. As data curation becomes institutionalized, libraries are the source of significant amounts of research data that can be reused and reanalyzed. Disciplines in Charge: This may be the scenario that is least evident at this point. The disciplines each play a role in the university and the research community, but are not “in charge” any more than they have been in the past. Global Followers: As the issue of unearned and unexamined privilege becomes an increasingly prominent social issue, the idea of being a “follower” may grow less outlandish to researchers in the US, which may still have the post-World War II view of itself as the biggest and best in every arena. There are millions of students and large numbers of faculty and researchers in China, India, Europe, Africa, and everywhere around the globe. The question may be one of “following,” or it may be more a matter of seeing the world as one global and interlocking entity.

DiMaggio and Powell, (1983) are cited by author after author, as scholars explore the way organizations and processes are institutionalized. We are fond of saying, “let’s not reinvent the wheel,” and there is common sense in that. A colleague remarked several years ago that since the library was hiring someone to fill a position that they had already held at another academic library, it was like “bringing a toaster home from the store and plugging it in.” The mechanisms of institutional isomorphism, which apply to far more than the actual organizational structure of a university, a library, or a corporation, may turn into an iron cage, but that is only a metaphor, albeit a very powerful one. Maybe we do not need a wheel or a toaster, but something else altogether. The door of the cage is open, and we can walk right out.

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix 1

List of Universities UNIVERSITIES SORTED BY REGION, COUNTRY, AND NAME Name

Country

Region

Jimma University Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Kenyatta University University of Nairobi Covenant University University of Agriculture Abeokuta University of Ibadan University of Ilorin University of Lagos University of Nigeria Cape Peninsula University of Technology Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University North West University Rhodes University University of Cape Town University of Fort Hare University of Kwazulu Natal University of Limpopo University of Pretoria University of the Free State University of the Western Cape University of Witwatersrand University of Zambia University of Zimbabwe Charles Darwin University (CDU) Federation University (FEDUNI) James Cook University (JCU)

Ethiopia Ghana

Africa Africa

Kenya

Africa

Kenya Kenya Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe Australia Australia Australia

Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ (Continued )

117

118

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Monash University (MONASH) Queensland University of Technology (QUT) RMIT University (RMIT) University of Queensland (UQ) University of Southern Queensland (USQ) Victoria University (VU) Auckland University of Technology Lincoln University Massey University University of Auckland University of Canterbury University of Otago University of Waikato Victoria University of Wellington Dublin City University National University of Ireland, Galway National University of Ireland, Maynooth Trinity College, Dublin University College Cork University College Dublin University of Limerick Auburn University Clemson University Colorado State University Florida State University Georgia Institute of Technology Indiana University Bloomington Iowa State University Kansas State University Kent State University Louisiana State University Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University New Mexico State University North Carolina State University Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University Purdue University Rutgers University South Dakota State University Southern Illinois University Carbondale Stony Brook University, SUNY Temple University

Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America (Continued )

Appendix 1

119

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Texas A&M University Texas Tech University University at Albany, SUNY University at Buffalo, SUNY University of Alabama University of Alaska University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of Cincinnati University of Colorado University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Houston University of Idaho University of Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Louisville University of Maryland University of Miami University of Montana University of Nebraska Lincoln University of Nevada University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico University of Oklahoma University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina University of South Dakota University of Tennessee University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Wyoming Utah State University Virginia Tech Washington State University West Virginia University Bangladesh University Daffodil International University

United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Bangladesh Bangladesh

North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America South Asia South Asia (Continued )

120

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

East West University Shahjalal University of Science and Technology University of Dhaka Aligarh Muslim University Amrita University Assam University Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani Central University for Tibetan Studies Central University of Karnataka Central University of Kashmir Central University of Punjab Central University of Rajasthan Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute Dr. Hari Singh Gour University English and Foreign Languages University Gandhigram Rural Institute Goa University Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Graphic Era University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Hamdard University Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Institute for Advanced Studies in Education International Institute for Population Sciences Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara University Jamia Milia Islamia Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University Kalasalingam University KIIT University King George’s Medical University KL University Krishna Academy of Medical Sciences Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education LNM Institute of Information Technology Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana National Dairy Research Institute National University of Educational Planning and Administration North Eastern Hill University Panjab University PEC University of Technology Pondicherry University Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences Tezpur University

Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

India India India India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia (Continued )

Appendix 1

121

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Thapar University University of Hyderabad Allama Iqbal Open University Federal Urdu University Government College University, Lahore International Islamic University Islamia College Islamia International University Lahore College for Women University Shah Abdul Latif University University of Balochistan University of Karachi University of Peshawar University of the Punjab Coventry University De Montfort University Edge Hill University Leeds Beckett University Loughborough University Oxford Brookes University Southampton Solent University University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge University of Derby University of Dundee University of Essex University of Exeter University of Kent University of Lancaster University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Nottingham University of Plymouth University of Reading University of Sheffield University of Surrey University of Sussex University of West London University of Aberdeen University of the West of Scotland Bangor University University of South Wales University of Wales Trinity Saint David

India India Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England England Scotland Scotland Wales Wales Wales

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

122

Appendix 1

UNIVERSITIES SORTED BY NAME Name

Country

Region

Aligarh Muslim University Allama Iqbal Open University Amrita University Assam University Auburn University Auckland University of Technology Bangladesh University Bangor University Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani Cape Peninsula University of Technology Central University for Tibetan Studies Central University of Karnataka Central University of Kashmir Central University of Punjab Central University of Rajasthan Charles Darwin University (CDU) Clemson University Colorado State University Covenant University Coventry University Daffodil International University De Montfort University Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute Dr. Hari Singh Gour University Dublin City University East West University Edge Hill University English and Foreign Languages University Federal Urdu University Federation University (FEDUNI) Florida State University Gandhigram Rural Institute Georgia Institute of Technology Goa University Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Government College University, Lahore Graphic Era University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Hamdard University Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indiana University Bloomington Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Institute for Advanced Studies in Education International Institute for Population Sciences

India Pakistan India India United States New Zealand Bangladesh Wales India South Africa India India India India India Australia United States United States Nigeria England Bangladesh England India India Ireland Bangladesh England India Pakistan Australia United States India United States India India Pakistan India India India India India United States India India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia North America Australia NZ South Asia United Kingdom South Asia Africa South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia Australia NZ North America North America Africa United Kingdom South Asia United Kingdom South Asia South Asia Ireland South Asia United Kingdom South Asia South Asia Australia NZ North America South Asia North America South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia North America South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia (Continued )

Appendix 1

123

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

International Islamic University Iowa State University Islamia College Islamia International University Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara University James Cook University (JCU) Jamia Milia Islamia Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University Jimma University Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Kalasalingam University Kansas State University Kent State University Kenyatta University KIIT University King George’s Medical University KL University Krishna Academy of Medical Sciences Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology Lahore College for Women University Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education Leeds Beckett University Lincoln University LNM Institute of Information Technology Loughborough University Louisiana State University Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana Massey University Michigan State University Mississippi State University Monash University (MONASH) Montana State University National Dairy Research Institute National University of Educational Planning and Administration National University of Ireland, Galway National University of Ireland, Maynooth Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University New Mexico State University North Carolina State University North Eastern Hill University North West University Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University

Pakistan United States Pakistan Pakistan India Australia India India Ethiopia Kenya

South Asia North America South Asia South Asia South Asia Australia NZ South Asia South Asia Africa Africa

India United States United States Kenya India India India India Ghana

South Asia North America North America Africa South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia Africa

Pakistan India England New Zealand India England United States India New Zealand United States United States Australia United States India India

South Asia South Asia United Kingdom Australia NZ South Asia United Kingdom North America South Asia Australia NZ North America North America Australia NZ North America South Asia South Asia

Ireland Ireland South Africa United States United States India South Africa United States United States United States

Ireland Ireland Africa North America North America South Asia Africa North America North America North America (Continued )

124

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Oxford Brookes University Panjab University PEC University of Technology Pennsylvania State University Pondicherry University Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences Purdue University Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Rhodes University RMIT University (RMIT) Rutgers University Shah Abdul Latif University Shahjalal University of Science and Technology South Dakota State University Southampton Solent University Southern Illinois University Carbondale Stony Brook University, SUNY Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Tezpur University Thapar University Trinity College, Dublin University at Albany, SUNY University at Buffalo, SUNY University College Cork University College Dublin University of Aberdeen University of Agriculture Abeokuta University of Alabama University of Alaska University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of Auckland University of Balochistan University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge University of Canterbury University of Cape Town University of Cincinnati University of Colorado University of Delaware University of Derby University of Dhaka University of Dundee

England India India United States India India United States Australia South Africa Australia United States Pakistan Bangladesh United States England United States United States United States United States United States India India Ireland United States United States Ireland Ireland Scotland Nigeria United States United States United States United States New Zealand Pakistan England England England England New Zealand South Africa United States United States United States England Bangladesh England

United Kingdom South Asia South Asia North America South Asia South Asia North America Australia NZ Africa Australia NZ North America South Asia South Asia North America United Kingdom North America North America North America North America North America South Asia South Asia Ireland North America North America Ireland Ireland United Kingdom Africa North America North America North America North America Australia NZ South Asia United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Australia NZ Africa North America North America North America United Kingdom South Asia United Kingdom (Continued )

Appendix 1

125

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

University of Essex University of Exeter University of Florida University of Fort Hare University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Houston University of Hyderabad University of Ibadan University of Idaho University of Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago University of Ilorin University of Kansas University of Karachi University of Kent University of Kentucky University of Kwazulu Natal University of Lagos University of Lancaster University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Limerick University of Limpopo University of Louisville University of Maryland University of Miami University of Montana University of Nairobi University of Nebraska Lincoln University of Nevada University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico University of Nigeria University of Nottingham University of Oklahoma University of Oregon University of Otago University of Peshawar University of Pittsburgh University of Plymouth University of Pretoria University of Queensland (UQ) University of Reading University of Rhode Island University of Sheffield University of South Carolina

England England United States South Africa United States United States United States India Nigeria United States United States United States Nigeria United States Pakistan England United States South Africa Nigeria England England England Ireland South Africa United States United States United States United States Kenya United States United States United States United States Nigeria England United States United States New Zealand Pakistan United States England South Africa Australia England United States England United States

United Kingdom United Kingdom North America Africa North America North America North America South Asia Africa North America North America North America Africa North America South Asia United Kingdom North America Africa Africa United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Africa North America North America North America North America Africa North America North America North America North America Africa United Kingdom North America North America Australia NZ South Asia North America United Kingdom Africa Australia NZ United Kingdom North America United Kingdom North America (Continued )

126

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

University of South Dakota University of South Wales University of Southern Queensland (USQ) University of Surrey University of Sussex University of Tennessee University of the Free State University of the Punjab University of the West of Scotland University of the Western Cape University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Waikato University of Wales Trinity Saint David University of West London University of Witwatersrand University of Wyoming University of Zimbabwe University of Zambia Utah State University Victoria University (VU) Victoria University of Wellington Virginia Tech Washington State University West Virginia University

United States Wales Australia England England United States South Africa Pakistan Scotland South Africa United States United States United States New Zealand Wales England South Africa United States Zimbabwe Zambia United States Australia New Zealand United States United States United States

North America United Kingdom Australia NZ United Kingdom United Kingdom North America Africa South Asia United Kingdom Africa North America North America North America Australia NZ United Kingdom United Kingdom Africa North America Africa Africa North America Australia NZ Australia NZ North America North America North America

UNIVERSITIES SORTED BY ORGANIZATION TYPE (1 4), REGION, AND NAME Name

Country

Region

Organization

Cape Peninsula University of Technology Covenant University Jimma University Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Kenyatta University University of Agriculture Abeokuta University of Fort Hare University of Lagos University of Limpopo University of Nigeria University of Pretoria

South Africa

Africa

1

Nigeria Ethiopia Kenya

Africa Africa Africa

1 1 1

Kenya Nigeria South Africa Nigeria South Africa Nigeria South Africa

Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Continued )

Appendix 1

127

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

University of Zimbabwe University of Zambia Aligarh Muslim University Amrita University Assam University Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani Central University for Tibetan Studies Central University of Karnataka Central University of Kashmir Central University of Punjab Central University of Rajasthan Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute Dr. Hari Singh Gour University English and Foreign Languages University Gandhigram Rural Institute Goa University Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Graphic Era University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Hamdard University Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Institute for Advanced Studies in Education International Institute for Population Sciences Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara University Jamia Milia Islamia Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University Kalasalingam University KIIT University King George’s Medical University KL University

Zimbabwe Zambia India India India India

Africa Africa South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1 1 1

India

South Asia

1

India India India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1 1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India India India India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1 (Continued )

128

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

Krishna Academy of Medical Sciences Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education LNM Institute of Information Technology Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana National Dairy Research Institute National University of Educational Planning and Administration Panjab University PEC University of Technology Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences Thapar University University of Hyderabad Allama Iqbal Open University Federal Urdu University Government College University, Lahore International Islamic University Islamia College Islamia International University Lahore College for Women University Shah Abdul Latif University University of Balochistan University of Karachi University of Peshawar University of the Punjab Bangladesh University Daffodil International University East West University Shahjalal University of Science and Technology University of Dhaka Auburn University Clemson University Colorado State University Florida State University Kent State University Louisiana State University Mississippi State University New Mexico State University North Carolina State University

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India India India India India Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1

Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Bangladesh United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

South Asia North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (Continued )

Appendix 1

129

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

South Dakota State University University at Albany, SUNY University of Alabama University of Arkansas University of Delaware University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Louisville University of Montana University of Nebraska Lincoln University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico University of Oklahoma University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina University of South Dakota University of Vermont Utah State University Washington State University West Virginia University Dublin City University University of Aberdeen Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University North West University Rhodes University University of Cape Town University of Ibadan University of Ilorin University of Kwazulu Natal University of Nairobi University of the Western Cape North Eastern Hill University Pondicherry University Tezpur University Iowa State University Michigan State University Rutgers University Southern Illinois University Carbondale University at Buffalo, SUNY University of Alaska University of Cincinnati University of Houston

United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Ireland Scotland Ghana

North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Ireland United Kingdom Africa

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

South Africa

Africa

2

South Africa South Africa South Africa Nigeria Nigeria South Africa Kenya South Africa India India India United States United States United States United States

Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa South Asia South Asia South Asia North America North America North America North America

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

United States United States United States United States

North America North America North America North America

2 2 2 2 (Continued )

130

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

University of Idaho University of Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago University of Kentucky University of Pittsburgh University of Tennessee University of Wyoming University of Canterbury Federation University (FEDUNI) Massey University RMIT University (RMIT) National University of Ireland, Galway Trinity College, Dublin University College Cork University College Dublin University of Limerick Bangor University Coventry University Southampton Solent University University of Birmingham University of Derby University of Essex University of Kent University of Reading University of the West of Scotland University of Wales Trinity Saint David University of the Free State Georgia Institute of Technology Indiana University Bloomington Montana State University Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University Stony Brook University, SUNY Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University University of Arizona University of Colorado University of Florida University of Maryland University of Miami University of Nevada

United States United States United States United States United States United States United States New Zealand Australia New Zealand Australia Ireland

North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Ireland

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Wales England England England England England England England Scotland Wales

Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

South Africa United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

Africa North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (Continued )

Appendix 1

131

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

University of Oregon University of Utah University of Virginia Virginia Tech University of Auckland Auckland University of Technology University of Otago Victoria University of Wellington University of Waikato National University of Ireland, Maynooth De Montfort University Edge Hill University Leeds Beckett University Loughborough University Oxford Brookes University University of Bath University of Cambridge University of Dundee University of Exeter University of Leeds University of Leicester University of South Wales University of West London University of Witwatersrand Kansas State University Purdue University University of Kansas Charles Darwin University (CDU) James Cook University (JCU) Lincoln University Monash University (MONASH) Queensland University of Technology (QUT) University of Queensland (UQ) University of Southern Queensland (USQ) Victoria University (VU) University of Bristol University of Lancaster University of Nottingham University of Plymouth University of Sheffield University of Surrey University of Sussex

United States United States United States United States New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand Ireland

North America North America North America North America Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Ireland

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

England England England England England England England England England England England Wales England South Africa United States United States United States Australia Australia New Zealand Australia Australia

United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Africa North America North America North America Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ Australia NZ

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Australia Australia

Australia NZ Australia NZ

4 4

Australia England England England England England England England

Australia NZ United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

132

Appendix 1

UNIVERSITIES SORTED BY NAME WITH ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE Name

Country

Region

Organization

Aligarh Muslim University Allama Iqbal Open University Amrita University Assam University Auburn University Auckland University of Technology Bangladesh University Bangor University Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani Cape Peninsula University of Technology Central University for Tibetan Studies Central University of Karnataka Central University of Kashmir Central University of Punjab Central University of Rajasthan Charles Darwin University (CDU) Clemson University Colorado State University Covenant University Coventry University Daffodil International University De Montfort University Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute Dr. Hari Singh Gour University Dublin City University East West University Edge Hill University English and Foreign Languages University Federal Urdu University Federation University (FEDUNI) Florida State University Gandhigram Rural Institute Georgia Institute of Technology Goa University Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Government College University, Lahore Graphic Era University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

India Pakistan India India United States New Zealand Bangladesh Wales India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia North America Australia NZ South Asia United Kingdom South Asia

1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1

South Africa

Africa

1

India

South Asia

1

India India India India Australia United States United States Nigeria England Bangladesh England India

South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia Australia NZ North America North America Africa United Kingdom South Asia United Kingdom South Asia

1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1

India Ireland Bangladesh England India

South Asia Ireland South Asia United Kingdom South Asia

1 1 1 3 1

Pakistan Australia United States India United States India India

South Asia Australia NZ North America South Asia North America South Asia South Asia

1 2 1 1 3 1 1

Pakistan

South Asia

1

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1 (Continued )

Appendix 1

133

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

Hamdard University Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Indian Agricultural Research Institute Indiana University Bloomington Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Institute for Advanced Studies in Education International Institute for Population Sciences International Islamic University Iowa State University Islamia College Islamia International University Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara University James Cook University (JCU) Jamia Milia Islamia Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University Jimma University Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Kalasalingam University Kansas State University Kent State University Kenyatta University KIIT University King George’s Medical University KL University Krishna Academy of Medical Sciences Kwame Nkruma University of Science and Technology Lahore College for Women University Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education Leeds Beckett University Lincoln University LNM Institute of Information Technology Loughborough University Louisiana State University

India India

South Asia South Asia

1 1

India

South Asia

1

United States India

North America South Asia

3 1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

Pakistan United States Pakistan Pakistan India

South Asia North America South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 2 1 1 1

Australia India India

Australia NZ South Asia South Asia

4 1 1

Ethiopia Kenya

Africa Africa

1 1

India United States United States Kenya India India India India

South Asia North America North America Africa South Asia South Asia South Asia South Asia

1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ghana

Africa

2

Pakistan

South Asia

1

India

South Asia

1

England New Zealand India

United Kingdom Australia NZ South Asia

3 4 1

England United States

United Kingdom North America

3 1 (Continued )

134

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana Massey University Michigan State University Mississippi State University Monash University (MONASH) Montana State University National Dairy Research Institute National University of Educational Planning and Administration National University of Ireland, Galway National University of Ireland, Maynooth Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University New Mexico State University North Carolina State University North Eastern Hill University North West University Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Oregon State University Oxford Brookes University Panjab University PEC University of Technology Pennsylvania State University Pondicherry University Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences Purdue University Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Rhodes University RMIT University (RMIT) Rutgers University Shah Abdul Latif University Shahjalal University of Science and Technology South Dakota State University Southampton Solent University Southern Illinois University Carbondale Stony Brook University, SUNY Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Tezpur University

India

South Asia

1

New Zealand United States United States Australia United States India India

Australia NZ North America North America Australia NZ North America South Asia South Asia

2 2 1 4 3 1 1

Ireland

Ireland

2

Ireland

Ireland

3

South Africa

Africa

2

United States United States India South Africa United States United States United States England India India United States India India United States Australia

North America North America South Asia Africa North America North America North America United Kingdom South Asia South Asia North America South Asia South Asia North America Australia NZ

1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 4 4

South Africa Australia United States Pakistan Bangladesh

Africa Australia NZ North America South Asia South Asia

2 2 2 1 1

United States England United States

North America United Kingdom North America

1 2 2

United States United States United States United States India

North America North America North America North America South Asia

3 3 3 3 2 (Continued )

Appendix 1

135

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

Thapar University Trinity College, Dublin University at Albany, SUNY University at Buffalo, SUNY University College Cork University College Dublin University of Aberdeen University of Agriculture Abeokuta University of Alabama University of Alaska University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of Auckland University of Balochistan University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge University of Canterbury University of Cape Town University of Cincinnati University of Colorado University of Delaware University of Derby University of Dhaka University of Dundee University of Essex University of Exeter University of Florida University of Fort Hare University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Houston University of Hyderabad University of Ibadan University of Idaho University of Illinois University of Illinois at Chicago University of Ilorin University of Kansas University of Karachi University of Kent University of Kentucky University of Kwazulu Natal University of Lagos University of Lancaster University of Leeds

India Ireland United States United States Ireland Ireland Scotland Nigeria United States United States United States United States New Zealand Pakistan England England England England New Zealand South Africa United States United States United States England Bangladesh England England England United States South Africa United States United States United States India Nigeria United States United States United States Nigeria United States Pakistan England United States South Africa Nigeria England England

South Asia Ireland North America North America Ireland Ireland United Kingdom Africa North America North America North America North America Australia NZ South Asia United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Australia NZ Africa North America North America North America United Kingdom South Asia United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom North America Africa North America North America North America South Asia Africa North America North America North America Africa North America South Asia United Kingdom North America Africa Africa United Kingdom United Kingdom

1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 (Continued )

136

Appendix 1

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

University of Leicester University of Limerick University of Limpopo University of Louisville University of Maryland University of Miami University of Montana University of Nairobi University of Nebraska Lincoln University of Nevada University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico University of Nigeria University of Nottingham University of Oklahoma University of Oregon University of Otago University of Peshawar University of Pittsburgh University of Plymouth University of Pretoria University of Queensland (UQ) University of Reading University of Rhode Island University of Sheffield University of South Carolina University of South Dakota University of South Wales University of Southern Queensland (USQ) University of Surrey University of Sussex University of Tennessee University of the Free State University of the Punjab University of the West of Scotland University of the Western Cape University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Waikato University of Wales Trinity Saint David University of West London University of Witwatersrand University of Wyoming University of Zimbabwe

England Ireland South Africa United States United States United States United States Kenya United States United States United States United States Nigeria England United States United States New Zealand Pakistan United States England South Africa Australia England United States England United States United States Wales Australia

United Kingdom Ireland Africa North America North America North America North America Africa North America North America North America North America Africa United Kingdom North America North America Australia NZ South Asia North America United Kingdom Africa Australia NZ United Kingdom North America United Kingdom North America North America United Kingdom Australia NZ

3 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 1 2 4 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 3 4

England England United States South Africa Pakistan Scotland South Africa United States United States United States New Zealand Wales

United Kingdom United Kingdom North America Africa South Asia United Kingdom Africa North America North America North America Australia NZ United Kingdom

4 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 2

England South Africa United States Zimbabwe

United Kingdom Africa North America Africa

3 4 2 1 (Continued )

Appendix 1

137

(Continued) Name

Country

Region

Organization

University of Zambia Utah State University Victoria University (VU) Victoria University of Wellington Virginia Tech Washington State University West Virginia University

Zambia United States Australia New Zealand United States United States United States

Africa North America Australia NZ Australia NZ North America North America North America

1 1 4 3 3 1 1

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix 2

Discourse Analysis Instrument FTM/GR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT [Adapted from Mˇechura (2005)] Field: What is the text about? Ideational meaning (experiential and logical); semantic domains; transitivity (process, semantic and grammatical roles, circumstance) Tenor: Who are the participants? Interpersonal meaning. Author, audience, relative status (speech functions), social distance, personalization, standing, stance (attitude, agency, modality) Mode: What makes the text a text? Textual meaning. Spoken/written, action/reflection, interactivity, schema, patterning, thematic organization, cohesion (lexical, logical), intertextuality, discourses (ideology, voices) Genre and Register: What genres are represented by the texts? (Registers are language varieties that underlie genres). What registers are used in the text? (Field, Tenor, and Mode are the variables that determine register).

139

This page intentionally left blank

References Africa. (2017, February 14). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wiki pedia.org/w/index.php?title Africa&oldid 765416558. Allison, D. A. K. (2013). The patron driven library: A practical guide for managing collections and services in the digital age. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Amenities Matter to Some (2005). Amenities matter to some but not all prospective students. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 19(11), 4 5. American Library Association. (2017). ALA standards and guidelines. Retrieved from http:// www.ala.org/tools/guidelines/standardsguidelines. American Library Association. Office for Accreditation. (2015). Standards, process, policies, and procedures (AP3). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/standards. American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom. (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html. Arnove, R. F., Torres, C. A., & Franz, S. (Eds.), (2012). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Ashcroft, K., & Rayner, P. (2011). Higher education in development: Lessons from sub Saharan Africa. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Assie Lumumba, T. (2007). Higher education in Africa: Crises, reforms and transformation. Dakar, SN: CODESRIA. Association of Public & Land Grant Universities. (2017). What is a land grant university? Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/about us/history of aplu/what is a land grant university/ Association of Research Libraries (2010). The ARL 2030 scenarios: A user’s guide for research libraries. Chicago, IL: ARL. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publica tions/arl 2030 scenarios users guide.pdf. Atkins, S. E. (1991). The academic library in the American university. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Backhaus, J. G. (2015). The university according to Humboldt: History, policy, and future possi bilities. Cham: Springer. Bakhtin, M. (1935/1981). Discourse and the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagina tion. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bates, K. (1997). The role of coercive forces in organization design adoption. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 849 851. Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl. edu/stable/259245. Becker, L. K. W. (2006). Globalisation and internationalisation: Models and patterns of change for Australian academic librarians. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 37(4), 282 298.

141

142

References

Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institu tional change. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 150 166 . Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org. library.unl.edu/stable/25746221. Bennett, G. E. (1987). Conventions of subordination: An interpretive analysis of texts that define the professional identity of academic librarians (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Benveniste, E´. (1969). Le vocabulaire des institutions indo europe´ennes. Paris: Les E´ditions de Minuit. Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (Eds.), (2011). International students and global mobility in higher education: National trends and new directions New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bhatia, V. J. (1993). Analysing genre. London: Longman. Bhushan, S. (2009). Restructuring higher education in India. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Bishop, J. (2011). Copyright across the cohort: A qualitative evaluation of the dissemination of intellectual property information on ARL websites. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1583&context libphilprac. Blobaum, P. M. (2014). Parents of invention: The development of library automation systems in the late 20th century. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(1), 63 64. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536 5050.102.1.014. Bolin, M. K. (2007). A typology and discourse analysis of the status and appointments of librarians at land grant universities (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Nebraska). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article 1018&context cehsdiss. Bolin, M. K. (2008). Librarian status at US Research universities: Extending the typology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), 416 424. Bolin, M. K. (2014). The language of academic librarianship: The discourse of promotion and tenure. In J. Golden, & D. E. Williams (Eds.), Advances in library administration and orga nization: Vol. 32 (pp. 213 264). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bonnice, L. J. (2006). 1st congress: Theory and practice: A white paper. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/hrdrbucket/1stcongressonpro/1stcon gresstheory.htm. Bordeianu, S., & Lubas, R. (2013). Interaction between departments: Strategies for improving interdepartmental collaboration through communication. In P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradigan, P. S., & Hartel, L. (2013). Organizational culture and leadership: Exploring percep tions and relationships. In P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in aca demic libraries: The early 21st century. Oxford, UK: Chandos PublishingIn P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Bruns, T. A., Knight Davis, S., Corrigan, E. K., & Brantley, S. (2014). It takes a library: Growing a robust institutional repository in two years. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3/4), 244 262. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.904207. Budd, J. (1999). Increases in faculty publishing activity: An analysis of ARL and ACRL Institutions. College & Research Libraries, 60(4), 308. Budd, J. (2005). The changing academic library: Operations, cultures, environments. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.

References

143

Budd, J. M. (1998). The academic library: Its context, its purpose, and its operation. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Byrne, A. (2012). Australia: Early adopters down under: Technology in Australian libraries. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspec tive. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Calvert, P. (2012). New Zealand: Innovation in a small country. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Cassner, M., Maxey Harris, C., & Anaya, T. (2011). Differently able: A review of academic library websites for people with disabilities. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 30, 33 51. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.548722. Center for Digital Research in the Humanities. (2017). Creating the CDRH. Retrieved from http://cdrh.unl.edu/about/creatingcdrh. Chauhan, S., & Chand, P. (2007). UGC Infonet: E Journals consortium and Indian academics: The right initiative at the right time. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1112&context libphilprac. Chauhan, S. K., & Mahajan, P. (2014). Use of UGC Infonet E resources by social science aca demics in Indian universities: An evaluation study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40 (3/4), 359 366. Chimanikire, D. P. (2009). ). Youth and higher education in Africa: The cases of Cameroon, South Africa, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe. Senegal: CODESRIA. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical dis course analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Clarke, R. I. (2015). Breaking records: The history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(3/4), 286 302. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.960988. Cohen, M. D. (2012). A nation divided: Studies in the Civil War Era: Reconstructing the cam pus: Higher education and the American Civil War. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Comparative Education. (2017). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative education. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Corradini, E. (2013). International collaboration for a master’s degree program in library and information science. In A. Woodsworth, & W. D. Penniman (Eds.), Mergers and alliances: The wider view. Advances in librarianship: Vol. 36. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Coser, L. A. (1973). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context (2nd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cowen, R. (2015). Education in the United Kingdom; Education in the European Union pre 2003 member states; Education in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific; Education in Eastern Europe and Eurasia; Education in North America. Comparative Education, 51(3), 464 467. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crump, M. J., Carrico, S., & Freund, L. (2012). Meeting the needs of student users in academic libraries: Reaching across the great divide. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Crumpton, M. A. (2015). Strategic human resource planning for academic libraries. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Data Points. (2009, September 18). Data points: More college students around the world. Chronicle of higher education. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparative education.

144

References

de Jager, K. (2015). Place matters: Undergraduate perceptions of the value of the library. Performance Measurement & Metrics, 16(3), 289 302. Available from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/PMM 08 2015 0021. de Jong, M., & Shepard, R. (2012). The document express model: Proposals for improving inter library loan and document delivery services. Journal of Access Services, 9(4), 187 199. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2012.713226. Dempsey, L., Malpas, C., & Lavoie, B. (2014). Collection directions: The evolution of library collections and collecting. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 14(3), 393 423. DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920 1940. In P. J. DiMaggio, & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147 160 . Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/2095101 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1984). Institutional isomorphism and structural conformity. Paper presented at a Special Session on New Developments in Institutional Theory, American Sociological Association Annual Meeting. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.), (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Discourse. (2017, February 23). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en. wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title Discourse&oldid 92987823. Dresselhaus, A. (2016). Literature of acquisitions in review, 2012 13. Library Resources & Technical Services, 60(3), 169 181. Drori, G. S., & Moon, H. (2006). The changing nature of tertiary education: Neo institutional perspectives on cross national trends in disciplinary enrollment, 1965 1995. In D. Baker, & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The Impact of comparative education research on institutional the ory. Amsterdam: JAI Press Inc. Dume´zil, G. (1935). Flamen Brahman. Paris: P. Geuthner. Du¨ren, P. (2013). Leadership in academic and public libraries: A time of change. Burlington: Chandos Publishing. Durkheim, E´. (1893/1997). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E´. (n.d.). What is a social fact? Retrieved from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/under graduate/introsoc/durkheim10.html. Evans, M. R. (2015). Modern special collections: Embracing the future while taking care of the past. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(2), 116 128. Available from http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1040926. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2000). Language in the new capitalism. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/ host/Inc/Incarchive.htmFCA 15egd.doc. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Fountain, D., & Fountain, J. M. (2013). Planning and resource strategy for higher education: A guide for Universities in Africa. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning. France (2004). 43: Education. (11th ed.). Worldmark encyclopedia of the nations, (Vol. 5, pp. 173 195). Detroit: Gale Group.

References

145

Gall, T. L. (Ed.), (2004). Worldmark encyclopedia of the nations (11th ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Geertz, C. (1973). Description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books. Gibbs, B. J. (2013). Structuration theory. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www. britannica.com/topic/structuration theory. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradictions in social analysis. London: Macmillan. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giesecke, J., & Maxey Harris, C. (2013). Cultural competencies in authentic leadership. In P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century (pp. 111 124). Oxford, UK: Chandos PublishingIn P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century (pp. 111 124). Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Greenberg, J. H. (2005). Language universals. Berlin: DeGruyter. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022 1054. Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/259163. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of com munication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. London: Beacon Press. Habitus. (2017, February 23). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wiki pedia.org/w/index.php?title Habitus&oldid 89899062. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. London: Polity. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. London: Routledge. Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Hrycaj, P. L., & Blessinger, K. (Eds.), (2013). Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Hussong Christian, U., Rempel, H. G., & Deitering, A. (2010). The library as learning commons: Rethink, reuse, recycle. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 17(2/3), 273 286. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2010.481951. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, D. H., & Gumperz, J. (Eds.), (1986). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication Oxford, UK: Blackwell. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2017). IFLA standards: In support of quality library and information services worldwide. Retrieved from http://www. ifla.org/standards. Iqbal, J., Ali, A., & Khan, R. A. (2016). ICT applications and user satisfaction in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh: A survey. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 3839&context libphilprac.

146

References

Jacob, W. J., Cheng, S. Y., & Porter, M. K. (Eds.), (2015). Indigenous education: Language, cul ture and identity Dordrecht: Springer. Jacoby, B. E. (2008). Status of approval plans in college libraries. College and Research Libraries, 69(3), 227 241. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/69/3/227.full.pdf. Johnson, P. (1996). Managing changing roles: Professional and paraprofessional staff in libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 22(2 3), 79 99. Kannappanavar, B. U., Jayaprakash, M., & Bachalapur, M. M. (2011). Content analysis of engi neering college library websites. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1747&context libphilprac. Kavanagh Webb, K., Rhodes, T., Cook, E., Andresen, C., & Russell, R. (2016). Our experience with user experience: Exploring staffing configurations to conduct UX in an academic Library. Journal of Library Administration, 56(7), 757 776. Available from http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1109892. Ke, I., Gao, W., & Bronicki, J. (2017). Does title by title selection make a difference? A usage analysis on print monograph purchasing. Collection Management, 42(1), 34 47. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2016.1249040. Kehinde, A. A., & Tella, A. (2012). Assessment of Nigerian University library web sites/web pages. New Review of Information Networking, 17(2), 69 92. Available from http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13614576.2012.724282. Khan, A., Ahmed, A., Mahmood, S., & Bin Naeem, S. (2013). A study of the usability and design components of academic libraries websites in Pakistan. Library Philosophy and Practice, Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 2381& context libphilprac. Khan, A. M. (2016). A study on collection development and its organizational pattern of univer sity libraries in Uttar Pradesh (India). Collection Building, 35(1), 1 11. Kivinen, O., & Nurmi, J. (2003). Unifying higher education for different kinds of Europeans. Higher education and work: A comparison of ten countries. Comparative Education, 39(1), 83 103. Konnur, P. V., Rajani, S., & Madhusudhan, M. (2010). Academic library websites in Bangalore City, India: An evaluative study. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1419&context libphilprac. Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. New York: Columbia University Press. Labov, W. (1973). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, G. (1986). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Larsen, M. A. (2008). North American insecurities, fears and anxieties: Educational implications. Comparative Education, 44(3), 265 278. Layne, P. C., & Lake, P. (Eds.), (2015). Global innovation of teaching and learning in higher education: Transgressing boundaries Cham: Springer. Leckie, G. J., & Fullerton, A. (1999). The roles of academic librarians in fostering a pedagogy for information literacy. In Racing toward tomorrow: Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, April 8 11, 1999 (pp. 191 201). Chicago, IL: ACRL. Leino, T., & Lundmark, E. (2006). Arbetet handlar faktiskt om mer a¨n att bara sta¨mpla ut bo¨cker och vara trevlig: Arbetsuppgifter pa˚ svenska folkbibliotek 1990 2000 ur ett kritiskt diskursa nalytiskt perspektiv (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Ho¨gskolan I Bora˚s). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2320/1743.

References

147

Lemke, J. L. (1993). Discourse, dynamics, and social change. Language as Cultural Dynamic, 6 (1 2), 243 275, (Special issue of Cultural Dynamics, M.A.K. Halliday, Issue Editor). Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language, 5(1), 33 56. Lemke, J. L. (1999). Discourse and organizational dynamics: Website communication and insti tutional change. Discourse Society, 10(1), 21 47. Library Science. (2017, March 5). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https:// en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title Library science&oldid 768681844. Limoni, S. T., Ghiasi, M., & Razavi, A. A. (2012). Home pages of ten leading global Asian aca demic library websites. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcom mons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 2104&context libphilprac. Maringe, F., & Foskett, N. (2012). Globalization and internationalization in higher education. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Maslen, G. (2012, February 19). Worldwide student numbers forecast to double by 2025. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php? story 20120216105739999. Materu, P. (2007). Higher education quality assurance in Sub Saharan Africa: Status, chal lenges, opportunities and promising practices. Washington, DC: World Bank. Mautino, M., & Lorenzen, M. (2013). Interdepartmental communication in academic libraries. In P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: the early 21st century. Oxford, UK: Chandos, pp. 203 218. Mclaughlin, J. E. (2015). Focus on user experience: Moving from a library centric point of view. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 20(1/2), 33 60. Available from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10875301.2015.1064845. Mˇechura, M. B. (2005). A practical guide for functional text analysis: Analyzing English texts for field, mode, tenor and communicative effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.lexico nista.com/functionaltextanalysis.pdf. Melvil Dewey Biography. (2017). OCLC educational resources. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/biography/ Mhlanga, E. (2013). Quality assurance in higher education in Southern Africa: Challenges and opportunities. New York: Peter Lang. Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 653 683. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667051. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48 76. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462. Nafukho, F. M., Muyia, H. M. A., & Irby, B. J. (Eds.), (2014). Governance and transformations of universities in Africa: A global perspective Charlotte, NC: IAP. Nerad, M., & Heggelund, M. (Eds.), (2008). Toward a global PhD? Forces and forms in doc toral education worldwide Seattle, WA: Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education, University of Washington. Ness, D., & Lin, C. (Eds.), (2013). International education: An encyclopedia of contemporary issues and systems Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Nystrand, M. (1982). What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written dis course. New York: Academic.

148

References

OCLC, Inc. (2017). Inside WorldCat. Retrieved from https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/inside worldcat.html. Okiy, R. B. (2010). Globalization and ICT in academic libraries in Nigeria: The way forward. Library Philosophy and Practice, . Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article 1519&context libphilprac. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145 179. Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/ 258610. Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: Examining the structuring of communi cative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541 574. Ostrow, R. L. (1998). Library culture in the electronic age: A case study of organizational change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey). Pareek, S., & Gupta, D. K. (2013). Academic library websites in Rajasthan: Analysis of content. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article 2208&context libphilprac. Parry, F. (2006). Developing the new learning environment: The changing role of the academic librarian. Electronic Library, 24(2), 279 280. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd ed.). The Hague: Mouton. Pillay, P. (2010). Higher education financing in East and Southern Africa. Dar es Salaam: Centre for Higher Education Transformation. Preisler, B., Klitga˚rd, I., & Fabricius, A. H. (2011). Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Pritchard, R. M. O. (2011). Neoliberal developments in higher education: The United Kingdom and Germany. Oxford, UK: Peter Lang. Proquest. (2017). Learn more about RCL: History. Retrieved from http://proquest.rclweb.net/ learn more/index.html. Reale, E., & Primeri, E. (2015). The transformation of university institutional and organizational boundaries. Higher education research in the 21st century series: Vol. 8. Rotterdam: Sense. Reid, I. C. (2005). Quality assurance, open and distance learning, and Australian universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1), 1 12. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/222/305. Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorizationIn N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology (Vol. 1London: Academic Press. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328 350. Roy, C., & Se´guin, F. (2000). The institutionalization of efficiency oriented approaches for pub lic service improvement. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(4), 449 468. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380563. Royster, P. (2007). UNL Digital Commons: An introduction. Retrieved from http://digitalcom mons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1047&context ir information. Rutherford, D., Fleming, W., & Mathias, H. (1985). Strategies for change in higher education: Three political models. Higher Education, 14(4), 433 445. Retrieved from http://0 www. jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/3446900. Salisbury, P., & Griffis, M. R. (2014). Academic library mission statements, web sites, and com municating purpose. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6), 592 596. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.012. Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen.

References

149

Saville Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. Schmidt, V. E. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and dis course. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303 326. Available from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342. Schriewer, J. (2011). Komparatistische Bibliothek: Discourse formation in comparative educa tion (4). Frankfurt, DE: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Schwartzman, S., Pinheiro, R., & Pillay, P. (Eds.), (2015). Higher education in the BRICS coun tries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society Dordrecht: Springer. Secker, J. (2006). Developing the new learning environment: The changing role of the academic librarian. Electronic Library & Information Systems, 40(2), 194 196. Sehoole, C., & Knight, J. (Eds.), (2013). Internationalisation of African higher education: Towards achieving the MDGs Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Sharma, R. (2012). Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Shattock, M. (2006). Managing good governance in higher education. Berkshire, UK: Open University. Shepstone, C., & Curry, L. (2013). Building on our strengths: Working towards a preferred workplace culture. In P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century (pp. 21 38). Oxford, UK: Chandos PublishingIn P. L. Hrycaj, & K. Blessinger (Eds.), Workplace culture in academic libraries: The early 21st century (pp. 21 38). Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Shiflett, O. L. (1981). Origins of American academic librarianship. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Silverman, D. (1997). Studying organizational interaction: Ethnomethodology’s contribution to the “new institutionalism”. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 19(2), 178 195. Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/25611212. Singh, A. (2004). Fifty years of higher education in India: The role of the University Grants Commission. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Speirs, M. A. (2012). Nigeria: The development of Information and Communication Technologies in Nigerian Libraries. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective (pp. 253 268). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Spencer, J. S., & Millson Martula, C. (2010). Library transformations: From Information Commons to Learning Commons. College and Undergraduate Libraries, 17(2/3), 127 129. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2010.496689. Spink, A., & Singh, D. (2012). Library and information science trends and research: Asia Oceania. Library and information science: Vol. 2. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Stilwell, C. (2012). South Africa: “Take the vision to the people”: The development and trans formation of libraries and information services in South Africa. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective (pp. 293 322). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Strahl, S., & Christiansen, E. J. (2015). Innovation wizardry. In L. L. White, & A. Molaro (Eds.), The library innovation toolkit: Ideas, strategies, and programs (pp. 39 46). Chicago, IL: ALA EditionsIn L. L. White, & A. Molaro (Eds.), The library innovation toolkit: Ideas, strat egies, and programs (pp. 39 46). Chicago, IL: ALA Editions. Suiter, A. M., & Moulaison, H. L. (2015). Supporting scholars: An analysis of academic library web sites’ documentation on metrics and impact. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 814 820.

150

References

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge applied linguistics series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and application. Cambridge applied linguis tics series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. (Ed.), (1984). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Advances in discourse processes: Vol. 12 Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Thanuskodi, S. (2009). The environment of higher education libraries in India. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article 1269&context libphilprac. Thanuskodi, S. (2016). Awareness and use of e resources among social scientists of Alagappa University and its affiliated colleges. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 3887&context libphilprac. Thelin, J. R., Edwards, J. R., Moyen, E., Berger, J. B., & Vita Calkins, M. (2002). Higher educa tion in the United StatesIn (2nd ed.J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://0 go.galegroup.com.library. unl.edu/ps/i.do?p GVRL&sw w&u linc74325&v 2.1&it r&id GALE%7CCX340 3200290&asid 9bb7d57699485acf78c8b72be0af66ee. Tise, E. R., & Raju, R. (2012). Let’s peal [sic] the onion together: Exploration of the outer limits of international librarianship. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective (pp. 7 16). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in organizational structure: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880 1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22 39. Tripathi, M. (2013). Consortia initiatives in higher education libraries in India: A reconnaissance of the national landscape. In A. Woodsworth, & W. D. Penniman (Eds.), Mergers and alli ances: The wider view. Advances in librarianship: Vol. 36. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Tyckoson, D. A. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: A historical perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), 259 278. Available from http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.556936. UNESCO (2012). New patterns in student mobility in the southern Africa development commu nity. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UIS Information Bulletin. no. 7. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/new patterns in student mobility in the southern africa development community 2012 en.pdf. UNESCO (2014). Higher education in Asia: Expanding out, expanding up: The rise of graduate education and university research. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/higher education in asia expanding out expanding up 2014 en.pdf. UNESCO (2017). Tertiary graduates by level of education. Montreal: UNESCO Office for Statistics. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/. Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Semantic discourse analysisIn T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of dis course analysis (Vol. 2, pp. 103 136). London: Academic Press. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249 283. Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243 289. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. London: Sage.

References

151

Vasanthi, M. C. (2005). The changing environment of academic libraries: End user education and planning strategies for libraries in India. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1055&context libphilprac. Veaner, A. B. (1982). Continuity or discontinuity: A persistent personnel issue in academic librarianship. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 1, 1 20. Veaner, A. B. (1994). Paradigm lost, paradigm regained? A persistent personnel issue in aca demic librarianship, II. College & Research Libraries, 55(5), 389 402. Walton, G. (2010). Data curation and the academic library. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 1 3. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614531003640427. Watson Boone, R. (1995). A qualitative study of how librarians at a public Research I university envision their work and work lives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison). Weber, M. (1930). In T. Parsons (Ed.), The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Unwin. Weber, M. (1922/1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weber, M. (2015). In T. Waters, & D. Waters (Eds.), Weber’s rationalism and modern society: New translations on politics, bureaucracy, and social stratification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Weiner, S. G. (2005). The history of academic libraries in the United States: A review of the lit erature. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1057&context libphilprac. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.), (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinar ity New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Welch, A. R. (2001). Globalisation, post modernity and the state: Comparative education facing the third millennium. Comparative Education, 37(4), 475 492. White, H. S. (1983). Defining basic competencies. American Libraries, 14(8), 519 526. White, L. L., & Molaro, A. (2015). The library innovation toolkit: Ideas, strategies, and pro grams. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions. Whitworth, A., Torras I Calvo, M. C., Moss, B., Kifle, N. A., & Bla˚sternes, T. (2014). Changing libraries: Facilitating self reflection and action research on organizational change in aca demic libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(2), 251 274. Widdicombe, R. P. (2003). Evolution of a revolution: The movement to 24/7 web based librar ies. Science & Technology Libraries, 24(1/2), 187 194. Available from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1300/J122v24n01 12. Wiegand, W. A. (1996). Irrepressible reformer: A biography of Melvil Dewey. Chicago, IL: ALA Editions of the American Library Association. Wiegand, W. A. (2006). 1st congress: Core curriculum: A white paper. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/hrdrbucket/1stcongressonpro/1stcon gresscorecurriculum.htm. Williamson, C. C. (1971). The Williamson reports of 1921 and 1923, including Training for library work (1921) and Training for library service (1923). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Wilson, A. P. (2004). Library web sites: Creating online collections and services. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Wilson, D., Frazier, C., & Harter, D. (2015). Circulation policies in major academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 798 803. Available from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.019.

152

References

Winter, M. F. (1988). The culture and control of expertise: Toward a sociological understanding of librarianship. Contributions in librarianship and information science: No. 61. New York: Greenwood Press. Wiseman, A. W., & Chase Mayoral, A. (2013). Shifting the discourse on neo institutional theory in comparative and international education. In A. W. Wiseman, & A. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of comparative and international education (pp. 99 126). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Wiseman, A. W., & Wolhuter, C. C. (2013). The development of higher education in Africa: Prospects and challenges. London: Emerald. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.), (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis London: Sage. Woodsworth, A., & Penniman, W. D. (Eds.), (2013). Mergers and alliances: The wider view. Advances in librarianship: Vol. 36 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Woodward, H., & Rowland, F. (2012). United Kingdom: The history of library automation in the United Kingdom. In R. Sharma (Ed.), Libraries in the early 21st century, volume 1: An international perspective (pp. 361 374). Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication: The rise of system in American management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communi cative norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 13 35. Yates, J., & Van Maanen, J. (2001). Information technology and organizational transformation: History, rhetoric, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yong Mi, K. (2011). Factors affecting university library website design. Information Technology & Libraries, 30(3), 99 107. Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443 464 . Retrieved from http://0 www.jstor.org.library.unl.edu/stable/2083256. Zucker, L. G. (1986). Networks for evaluation: Reputation in economic life. Working paper pre sented at the COSI Seminar, Yale University. Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from? Organizations as actors in social systems. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, 20(3), 23 49.

Index Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” and “t” refer to figures and tables, respectively.

A Abductive reasoning, 3 “Academic Engagement”, 91 Academic freedom, 17 18 Academic libraries. See also Education; Refocused library; Transitional library education for librarianship, 20 21 genres, 46 48 global environment, 21 26 higher education and, 17 website, 105 110 Academic library organization, 1 16, 27, 41 45. See also Organizations academic library as “ideal type”, 28 29 bureaucracy, 27 28 collection based library, 29 30 context of situation, 4f data, 15 historical context, 13 14 information on region, 15 16 libraries and technology, 30 31 library and university, 12 13 methodology, 14 political environment of higher education and academic libraries, 11 12 problem statement, 14 public services and technical services, 32 39 research questions, 14 theoretical framework, 10 11 typology of library organizations, 6 10 Academic library websites, 47, 113 action/reflection and interactivity, 109 audience, 107 author, 107 cohesion

lexical, 110 logical, 110 discourses, 111 field, 105 106 genre and register, 111 112 intertextuality, 111 mode, 108 109 patterning, 110 personalization, 107 108 relative status, 107 108 schema, 109 110 semantic domains, 106 semantic relations, 110 social distance, 107 108 speech functions, 107 108 spoken/written, 109 stance, 108 standing, 108 tenor, 106 107 textual meaning, 109 thematic organization, 110 transitivity, 106 Access circulation, 15 Access services, 28 29, 83 84 Acquisitions, 15, 28 29, 83 84 Action research (AR), 54 55 Action/reflection academic library website, 109 library organizational chart, 102 Active listening, 43 Administration, 41 45 Africa academic library, 16 data from, 75 76 distribution of types, 76f frequencies, 76t

153

154

Index

Agency academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 101 ALA. See American Library Association (ALA) American Library Association (ALA), 8, 20, 30, 45 Antonymy, 102 103 AR. See Action research (AR) Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 9, 11 12 ARL 2030 Scenarios, 115 Attitude academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 101 Audience academic library website, 107 library organizational chart, 100 Australia, 25 26 academic library, 16 Australian library, type 2, 83 89 organizational chart, 85f, 87f website, 86f, 88f Australian library, type 4, 93 organizational chart, 96f website, 97f data from, 78 distribution of types, 78f frequencies, 78t “Authentic leadership” process, 42 43 Author, 100 academic library website, 107 Knowledge and Authority academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 library organizational chart, 100 Automation, 13, 31

B Bangladesh academic libraries, 15 16 higher education and academic libraries, 22 23 Bench marking, 68 Best practice, 68 Bibliographic databases, 12 Bologna process, 48 Books for College Libraries, 30 Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), 54 Bureaucracy, 5 6, 17, 27 28, 37 38, 77 78

C Cataloging, 15, 83 84 CDA. See Critical discourse analysis (CDA) Circulation, 28 31, 34, 36 Circumstance process, 99 academic library website, 106 library organizational chart, 99 Coercive force, 46, 64 Coercive isomorphism, 63, 86 Cohesion, 109 lexical academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 logical academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 103 Collaboration, 13 Collection development, 30, 32, 74 75 “Collection Strategy and Management”, 90 Collection based library, 29 30 “Collections”. See Collection development “Commodification”, 57 Communicative competence, 56 57 Comparative education, 10, 50 54 Comparative librarianship, 54 56 Computer technology development, 54 “Content Strategy”, 91 Context, 4, 4f Critical discourse analysis (CDA), 2 3, 58 59 Critical theory, 58 Cultural competency, 42 43 “Customer Experience”, 91

D Data, 15, 73 academic library website, 105 110 analysis of types using examples, 80 93 curation, 28 29, 36 37 frequencies, 75 79 FTM/GR discourse analysis instrument, 95 97 genre and register analysis, 93 112 interpretation and analysis, 73 library organizational chart, 98 105 “Reference”, 74 75 “refocused library”, 75 DDA. See Demand Driven Acquisitions (DDA) “Dean of Library Services”, 99 “Deemed” university, 22

Index Degree of dialogicality, 108 Delivery circulation, 15 Demand Driven Acquisitions (DDA), 30 Digital initiatives, 15 Digital projects, 28 29, 36 Disciplines in charge, 115 “Discontinuous” profession, 45 Discourse analysis, 2, 10, 41, 56 57, 73 FTM/GR discourse analysis instrument, 139 techniques, 4 of written texts, 59 60 Discourse(s), 3 4, 7, 114 academic library website, 111 communities, 61 62 formation, 51, 58 of librarianship, 62, 113 library organizational chart, 103 Discursive institutionalism, 11, 20, 28, 64

E ebook databases, 30 Education, 1 2. See also Academic libraries; Institutions comparative education and its application, 50 54 educational systems, 10 educational transfer, 51 global institutionalization, 51 52 for librarianship, 20 21, 45 46 E focused library, 73, 75 Australian library, type 2, 83 89 organizational chart, 85f, 87f website, 86f, 88f E focused organization, 7 E journals. See Electronic journals (E journals) Electronic journals (E journals), 15 16, 19, 30 31 Electronic resources (E resources), 11, 19, 30 33 “Emic” study, 5, 21 English, 9 “Environment as institution”, 65 E resources. See Electronic resources (E resources) Ethiopia, higher education and academic libraries, 24 “Ethnography of communication”, 56 Ethnomethodology, 65 66 “Etic” study, 5, 21 European Union (EU), 25 Experiential meaning, 98

155

F Field, 95, 139 academic library website, 105 106 library organizational chart, 98 Field, Tenor, Mode, Genre, and Register (FTM/GR), 73, 139 discourse analysis instrument, 95 97 “Five attitudinal characteristics of professional”, 46 French model, 17 18 Frequencies, 79t Africa, 75 76 Australia, 78 distribution of types in total population, 80f Ireland, 77 78 New Zealand, 78 North America, 79 South Asia, 76 77 United Kingdom, 77 78 FTM/GR. See Field, Tenor, Mode, Genre, and Register (FTM/GR)

G “Generification”, 57 Genre(s), 57, 93 112, 139 academic library, 46 48 website, 111 112 library organizational chart, 103 105 Ghana, higher education and academic libraries, 24 Global academic libraries, 48 50 Global environment of higher education and academic libraries, 21 26 Global followers, 115 Globalization, 114 Grammatical roles academic library website, 106 library organizational chart, 99

H “Habitus”, 58 HEC. See Higher Education Commission (HEC) Heteroglossia, 58 Higher education and academic libraries, 17 education for librarianship, 20 21 global environment, 21 26 Africa, 23 24 Australia and New Zealand, 25 26

156

Index

Higher education (Continued) South Asia, 22 23 United Kingdom and Ireland, 24 25 political environment, 11 12 Higher Education Commission (HEC), 22 Human resources (HR), 81 Humboldtian model, 17 18 Hyponymy, 102 103, 110

I ICT. See Information and communication technology (ICT) “Ideal type”, 6 of academic library, 27 29 of bureaucratic approach, 17 “Ideas matter”, 43 44 Ideational meaning, 59 60, 98 Ideology, 62, 103 academic library website, 111 library organizational chart, 103 IFLA. See International Federation of Library Associations and Agencies (IFLA) ILL. See Interlibrary loan (ILL) ILS. See Integrated library system (ILS) India academic libraries, 15 16 higher education and, 22 23 Information and communication technology (ICT), 49 Information Commons, 44 “Information services”. See Technical services “Innovation Wizardry”, 42 Institutional isomorphism, 115 Institutional repository (IR), 28 31, 36 Institutionalism, 1 2, 5 6, 11, 27, 62 71 strategic responses to institutional processes, 67t theoretical divergence, 66t Institutionalization, 1 2, 11, 26 27, 65 mechanisms, 37 39, 113 theories, 64 Institutions, 1 16. See also Education context of situation, 4f data, 15 historical context, 13 14 information on region, 15 16 Africa, 16 Australia and New Zealand, 16 North America, 16 South Asia, 15 16 United Kingdom and Ireland, 16 library and university, 12 13

methodology, 14 political environment of higher education and academic libraries, 11 12 problem statement, 14 research questions, 14 theoretical framework, 10 11 typology of library organizations, 6 10 Instruction, 15 department, 34 35 Integrated library system (ILS), 28 31, 36 “Interactive media”, 80 81 Interactivity academic library website, 109 library organizational chart, 102 Interlibrary loan (ILL), 28 29, 34 International Federation of Library Associations and Agencies (IFLA), 8, 20 Internet, 19 Interpretation of data, 73 Intersubjectivity, 3 Intertextuality, 10, 19 academic library website, 111 library organizational chart, 103 IR. See Institutional repository (IR) Ireland academic library, 16 higher education and, 24 25 data from, 77 78 distribution of types, 77f frequencies, 77t Isomorphism, 8, 11, 20, 22 causes, 63 isomorphic change, 8, 11 “Ivory tower” mentality, 17 18

K Kenya, higher education and academic libraries, 23

L Language, 3 4, 114 “Layering”, 37, 68 Lehrfreiheit, 17 18 Lexical cohesion, 101 academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 Liaison librarians, 32 Librarians, 28, 55 Librarianship, 27 comparative, 54 56 discourses, 62, 113

Index education for, 20 21 as profession, 45 46 Library and information science (LIS), 8 Library organizational chart. See also Organizational chart action/reflection and interactivity, 102 audience, 100 author, 100 cohesion lexical, 102 logical, 103 discourses, 103 field, 98 genre and register, 103 105 intertextuality, 103 mode, 101 patterning, 102 personalization, 100 relative status, 100 schema, 102 semantic domains, 98 semantic relations, 102 103 social distance, 100 speech functions, 100 spoken/written, 102 stance, 100 101 standing, 100 tenor, 99 100 textual meaning, 101 thematic organization, 102 transitivity, 99 Library/libraries, 1, 9, 20 21, 29, 60 61, 91, 113 114. See also Academic libraries automation, 15, 30 31 education, 20 21 home page, 91, 93 resources, 83 84, 93 school, 20 and technology, 30 31 types, 21 typology of library organizations, 6 10 university and, 12 13 Linguistic prototype theory, 75 Linguistic systems, 10 LIS. See Library and information science (LIS) Literature review academic library genres, 46 48 academic library organization, administration, and planning, 41 45 comparative education and its application, 50 54 comparative librarianship, 54 56

157

discourse analysis, 56 57 of written texts, 59 60 discourse communities and speech communities, 61 62 discourses of librarianship, 62 education for librarianship and librarianship as profession, 45 46 genre and register, 57 global academic libraries, 48 50 institutionalism, 62 71, 66t library and university discourse and texts, 60 61 organizational communication, 59 social theory, social semiotics, and CDA, 58 59 Logical cohesion academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 103

M Macrotheme, 102 academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 MARC format, 30 31 “Massification”, 52 53 Material processes, 99 Media, 30 31 Melvil Dewey, 13, 20 “Membership gradience”, 75 Meronymy, 102 103 Microlevel phenomena, 63 64 Mimetic activity, 30 force, 46 isomorphism, 63, 86 Modality academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 101 Mode, 95, 139 academic library website, 108 109 library organizational chart, 101

N “Neo institutionalism”, 8 Neoliberal model, 114 Neoliberalism, 53 New Zealand, 25 26 academic library, 16 data from, 78 distribution of types, 78f frequencies, 78t

158

Index

Nigerian Universities Commission (NUC), 23 Nominalization, 104 Normative force, 46 Normative isomorphism, 63 North America academic library, 16 data from, 79 distribution of types, 79f frequencies, 79t NUC. See Nigerian Universities Commission (NUC)

O “Officialdom” functions, 70 71 Online education, 11 Organizational chart, 80 81, 91, 113 Australian library type 2, 85f, 87f type 4, 96f library, 98 105 Pakistan library, type 1, 83f United Kingdom library, type 4, 94f US library type 1, 81f type 3, 89f, 92f Organizations, 1 16, 64. See also Academic library organization context of situation, 4f culture, 61 data, 15 historical context, 13 14 information on region, 15 16 library and university, 12 13 methodology, 14 organizational communication, 59 organizational meaning, 57 organizational strategies, 37 39 political environment of higher education and academic libraries, 11 12 problem statement, 14 research questions, 14 theoretical framework, 10 11 typology of library organizations, 6 10 Orientational meaning, 57

P Pakistan academic libraries, 15 16 higher education and academic libraries, 22 23 library, type 1, 82 83

organizational chart, 83f website, 84f Patterning academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 Personal model, 69 Personalization academic library website, 107 108 library organizational chart, 100 “Phonemic”, 5 “Phonetic”, 5 Planning, 41 45 Political environment of higher education and academic libraries, 11 12 Presentational meaning, 57 Preservation of material, 27 28, 34 Print centered with e resources, 6 7, 73 75 Pakistan library type 1, 82 83 organizational chart, 83f website, 84f US Library, type 1, 80 82 organizational chart, 81f website, 82f “Print centered” organization, 28 29 “Process”, 99, 106 “Projects and Law”, 86 Prototype theory, 5 Public services, 32 39, 80 81, 91 access services, 34 acquisitions, 32 33 cataloging, 33 34 entities, 1 new programs and services, 36 37 organizational strategies and institutionalization mechanisms, 37 39 reference and instruction, 34 35 special collections, 35 systems, 36

Q Qualitative analysis, 14 “Quality”, 93 Quantitative data, 3 Quantitative methods, 14 Quantitative research, 3

R “Rationalization”, 5 6, 9 RDA cataloging code, 33 “Red brick” universities, 24 25

Index Reference, 15, 74 75 department, 34 35 Refocused library, 7, 73 75, 113. See also Academic library organization; Transitional library Australian library, type 4, 93 organizational chart, 96f website, 97f United Kingdom library, type 4, 91 92 organizational chart, 94f website, 95f Register, 57, 95 97, 103 105, 139 academic library website, 111 112 analysis, 93 112 library organizational chart, 103 105 Relative status academic library website, 107 108 library organizational chart, 100 Renaming, 83 84 “Research and User Engagement”, 90 Research entrepreneurs, 115 “Research support”, 93 Reuse and recycle, 115

S “Sacerdotal”, 38 39 Schema academic library website, 109 110 library organizational chart, 102 Scholarly communication, 36 Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI), 15 16 Semantic analysis, 59 60 domains academic library website, 106 library organizational chart, 98 prototypes, 5 relations academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 103 roles academic library website, 106 library organizational chart, 99 “Serials” function, 32 34, 74 75 SFL. See Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) Social distance academic library website, 107 108 library organizational chart, 100 Social model, 69

159

Social semiotics, 3 4, 58 59 Social theory, 58 59 Sociograms, 54 55 Sociolinguistics, 2, 56 South Africa, higher education and academic libraries, 23 South Asia academic library, 15 16 data from, 76 77 distribution of types, 76f frequencies, 77t Special collections department, 15, 35 Speech communities, 61 62 Speech functions academic library website, 107 108 library organizational chart, 100 Spoken/written academic library website, 109 library organizational chart, 102 Stance academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 101 Standardization, 13 Standing, 100 academic library website, 108 library organizational chart, 100 Strategic planning, 43 44 Structuration theory, 70 Synonymy, 102 103, 110 Syntactic analysis, 59 60 Systemic functional linguistics (SFL), 4, 56 57, 59 60 Systems department, academic library, 36

T Tayloristic atomization, 31 TCE. See Transaction cost economics (TCE) Technical services, 20, 32 39, 80 81, 83 84, 91 access services, 34 acquisitions, 32 33 cataloging, 33 34 new programs and services, 36 37 organizational strategies and institutionalization mechanisms, 37 39 reference and instruction, 34 35 special collections, 35 systems, 36 Technology, libraries and, 30 31

160

Index

Tenor, 95, 139 academic library website, 106 107 library organizational chart, 99 100 Texts, 60 61, 98 110 Textual meaning, 101 academic library website, 109 library organizational chart, 101 Thematic organization, 102 academic library website, 110 library organizational chart, 102 Theoretical divergence, 66t Traditional departmental organization, 113 Transaction cost economics (TCE), 64 Transitional library, 73, 75. See also Academic libraries; Refocused library US Library, type 3, 90 91 organizational chart, 89f, 92f website, 90f, 93f Transitional organization, 7 Transitivity academic library website, 106 library organizational chart, 99 Type 1 library. See Print centered with e resources Type 2 library. See E focused library Type 3 library. See Transitional library Type 4 library. See Refocused library Typology, 2, 5 library organizations, 6 10

U UGC. See University Grants Commission (UGC) United Kingdom academic library, 16 data from, 77 78 distribution of types, 77f frequencies, 77t higher education and academic libraries, 24 25 United Kingdom library, type 4, 91 92 organizational chart, 94f website, 95f

United States US library, type 1, 80 82 organizational chart, 81f website, 82f US library, type 3, 90 91 organizational chart, 89f, 92f website, 90f, 93f Universities, 8, 19 discourse, 60 61 library and, 12 13 sorting by name, 122 126 with organizational type, 132 137 sorting by organization type region, and name, 126 131 sorting by region, country, and name, 117 121 University Grants Commission (UGC), 22 User experience, 28 29, 36 37 “User Services”. See Public services

V Value orientation dimensions, 60 “Voices”, 7, 42, 101, 103 academic library website, 111 library organizational chart, 103

W Weber’s “iron cage”, 8 Weber’s concept of bureaucracy, 17 Website, academic library, 105 110 “Williamson reports”, 44 45 “Workforce & Infrastructure”, 93 WorldCat databases, 12 13 Written texts, discourse analysis of, 59 60

Z Zambia, higher education and academic libraries, 24 Zimbabwe, higher education and academic libraries, 24