Search

Objective – To provide comparative data from Canadian research universities regarding the time spent on scholarly activities by research librarians.Design – Qualitative study employing a bilingual survey consisting of thirty-nine questions. Setting – Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) located at the twenty-seven CARL universities during the spring and fall of 2006.Subjects – CARL university librarians for whom e-mail addresses could be retrieved.Methods – The survey was distributed to 1052 CARL librarians during the spring and fall of 2006 via e-mail. Problems with the clarity of two questions became evident during the receipt of responses. The questions were revised and resubmitted to the same population.Main Results – Five hundred and twenty responses (49.4%) were received, with 441 (84.8%) in English and 15.2% in French. A total of 53 surveys were unusable, leaving 467 (44.4%) cases as the basis for data analysis. Responses to the survey revealed that 51.4% of participants were required or encouraged to undertake scholarship. Ofthese, 35% were expected, in addition to sabbatical and study leaves, to make scholarship an integral and ongoing part of their professional responsibilities. Due to the individualized and subjective nature of the responses, no clear data emerged on the balance between scholarship and other professional activities. The majority of research librarians, on average, spent less than five hours per week on scholarship activities. For the 290 full-time librarians surveyed, the average time spent per week on all activities (professional and scholarly) was 47.4 hours. Almost one third of the full time librarians worked fifty hours or more per week – the equivalent to the time commitment of the average university professor. Participants indicated that in an ideal world they would like to spend 10% less time on assigned duties. Francophone respondents spent 5% more of their time on professional responsibilities and 5% less time on scholarship. Participation rates in scholarship related leaves are low, with less than 25% of those surveyed engaging in these opportunities.Conclusion – Based on the study’s findings, research librarians are not participating in scholarship to any great degree due to the perceived lack of time.

Objective – To provide an understanding of the concept of leadership as perceived and practised by a group of international public library leaders, thereby contributing to the existing body of literature on this topic.Design – Qualitative study employing in depth, face‐to‐face interviews with 3 subjects and 27 e‐mail interviews based on 30 structured questions formulated from a review of the literature.Setting – Nottingham and Rotherham, two cities in the Public libraries in Ireland, Britain, and the east coast of the United States during 2003/04.Subjects – Thirty senior public library leaders.Methods – Thirty top level library leaders, 50% of whom came from outside Ireland, were selected based on the following rationale concerning their institutions: have a history of providing publicly funded public libraries; are under‐researched; and, accessibility for the authors. Irish librarians were chosen based on their national profile, geographic convenience to the researchers, and availability/cooperation. Only libraryl eaders or deputy leaders were considered. Interviews for 27 candidates where scheduled via e‐mail and 3 were arranged through face‐to‐face meetings. Participants were asked 30 structured questions drawn from the current literature on leadership. Responses were recorded electronically and later transcribed for analysis via a grounded theory approach that categorized the data. This method of analysis endeavours to provide theory based on research observations that begin from qualitative data and then go through a process of sifting and categorization, which leads to a hypothesis.Main results – Nine broad categories emerged from the “grounded theory analysis.” The paper deals with only 1 ‐ the central role of the library leader. In response to queries by the authors, 67% (20) agreed that leadership took precedence over all other factors as a determinant for organizational success. Ten (33%) disagreed and were evenly split as to their reasons. Five said it was an important factor, and five felt leadership did not take precedence over other drivers of success. The study reveals that leaders do have an impact in determining organizational culture, with 63% saying the leader determines the culture, and 37% stating the leader only contributes to the culture of an organization. National cultural differences affect this point of view, for example 73% of the Irish public librarians, 60% of the British public librarians, and 40% of the American public librarians stated that it is the leader rather than the staff who determine organizational culture. Another core finding reveals that not all CEO's are leaders and not all librarians are leadership material, which points to the need for more classic leadership training.Conclusion – Based on the study's findings, the authors hypothesize that leadership is a central component in the strategic and operational practices and success of public librarianship. Transformational, rather than “leader centric” methods of leadership encourage growth of organizational change and success.

Objective – To apply the principles of evidence‐based librarianship to the decisionmaking process regarding the cancellation of print serials.Design – Quantitative analysis of local and national data from various sources.Subjects – Data sources included 1249 current unbound print journals, 3465 Medline‐indexed electronic journals, statistics from the Association of Research Libraries and American Association of Health Sciences Libraries, as well as traditional library statistics.Setting – The study was conducted in the Yale University’s Cushing/Whitney Medical Library located in New Haven, Connecticut U.S.A.Methods – Several sources were targeted for data. A three‐month periodical usage study of the current issues of the library’s 1249 actively received print titles was undertaken. Excel‐generated alphabetical listings of titles were used by shelvers to indicate, with a check mark, which issues were shelved during a specified week. The workflow was adjusted to ensure only items under study were counted. Signs asking patrons not to re‐shelve journal issues were posted. Usage data were collected weekly and entered into an Excel spreadsheet where the total use of the journals was tracked. In‐house circulation, photocopy, and gate count statistics were also used. In addition to the survey, SFX statistics for the library’s electronic journals indexed in MEDLINE(3465) were gathered during the same 3 month period covered by the print usage survey. MEDLINE was chosen as the delineating factor to ensure consistent subject coverage with the print journal collection. For perspective and trends, statistics from the Association of Research Libraries and the American Association of Health Sciences Libraries were considered.Main Results – Based on the study’s findings, 53% of the print collection (657 titles) received no use during the study period; 7.1 % (89 titles) were used more than once per month; and 1.28% were used one or more times per week. Further, only 10% (125 titles) of the collection represented 60.7% of the total print collection use. There was also a direct correlation between the drop in patrons coming to the library and the decrease in print periodical use. SFX statistics revealed that of the 3465 MEDLINE indexed titles 14.8% (513 titles) were not accessed at all and 10% of the journals represented 56.8% of all SFX usage. These results were consistent with statistics from the Association of Research Libraries and the American Association of Health Sciences Libraries.Conclusion – Titles that were used the most in print were also used the most electronically. Further, the study revealed that print journals are used only a fraction as often as their electronic counterparts.Indeed, in both the case of print and electronic journals the largest use came from a small number of subscribed titles. Print collection maintenance is more labour intensive and costly than electronic. Consequently, resources spent supporting 53% of the print collection that is not used seriously impacts efficiency. With constraints on acquisitions budgets, funding unused collections does not make sense. Examination of the print serial collection is only part of ensuring effective collections.A s this study has indicated, unused electronic titles are also a drain on resources and further analysis of electronic packages is warranted.