ducas �������������������������55 Toward a New Enterprise: Capitalizing on the Faculty-Librarian Partnership Ada M. Ducas and Nicole Michaud-Oystryk In spring 2000, the authors undertook a study to explore the interaction between academic librarians and faculty at the University of Manitoba, the impact of librarians’ contributions, and the future roles of librarians. The following five areas were investigated: teaching/instruction, infor­ mation services, information technology, research, and collections. The results clearly show that when faculty interact with librarians, librarians have a very positive and considerable impact on both faculty and stu­ dents. In addition, the faculty responses indicate that they are receptive to collaborating with librarians at a higher level of interaction than cur­ rently experienced. his research project is a quasi follow­up to a study the au­ thors conducted in 1985 and reported in the article, "Fac­ ulty Perceptions of Librarians at the Uni­ versity of Manitoba."l In that study, "li­ brarians were seen as 'professionals' with a 'service' function. Activities such as re­ search, teaching, and management re­ ceived low ratings. The results indicated a low acceptance of librarians as full­ fledged academic colleagues in the Uni­ versity of Manitoba setting."2 Fifteen years later, the authors wished to investigate whether there had been any changes but wanted to go beyond a study of perceptions and observations. There­ fore, a study was designed to explore: • the current role that librarians are playing in collaboration with faculty; • the impact of the librarians' contri­ bution to the academic enterprise; • the future roles of librarians that may enhance the librarian-faculty part­ nership. The librarian-faculty partnership was examined in the following five areas: teaching/instruction, information ser­ vices, information technology, research, and collections. Today, major paradigm shifts in the delivery of information are the driving force behind the changing roles and re­ sponsibilities of academic librarians. The proliferation of information in many dif­ ferent formats, the transition from paper to electronic media, and the advent of technological innovations suggest that li­ brarians are playing-and will continue to play-a critical role in the evaluation, Ada M. Ducas is Head of the Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library at the University of Manitoba; e- mail: ada ducas@umanitoba.ca. Nicole Michaud-Oystryk is Head of the Elizabeth Dafoe Library at the University of Manitoba; e-mail: nicole michaud-oystryk@umanitoba.ca. The authors would like to acknowl- edge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Manitoba for the SSHRC/UM Research Grant, the University of Manitoba Libraries for financial and research support, and Dr. D. Murphy, Statistical Advisory Service, University of Manitoba, for statistical support. 55 mailto:michaud-oystryk@umanitoba.ca mailto:ducas@umanitoba.ca � �� ������� ����������� ������������ 56� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ J��l��l�2003 analysis, and filtering of information. A survey of the recent library literature chal­ lenges librarians to rethink their role and to build relationships with faculty in or­ der to become more active partners in the educational process. In a key article, Sheila D. Creth stressed the need for li­ brarians to redefine and expand their role in the areas of instruction, information and scholarly process, knowledge man­ agement, and organization of networked information resources. She also discussed the importance of librarians as an inte­ gral part of the institution and the user A� �l���l��f��h�� ��m���� l�b���l l������l���mh�ll������l�b�������� ���h�����h���� ��l�� bl�l� ��l������h���� ���h�f�mll�l� b�m�m��m���� �m����� �h� ��lm������l����m���� community they serve.3 In their article, Carla Stoffle, Barbara Allen, and Janet Fore set strategies for meeting the chal­ lenges: "To successfully compete, we must leverage our resources, redirect our priorities, collaborate, take risks, and re­ invent our organizations. Within our in­ stitutions we must move to the beginning of the learning and knowledge creation processes becoming partners with the fac­ ulty."4 Recognizing progress on that front, Doug Cook has stated that the paradigm shifts have "forced librarians to rethink their role in academia" and that as a re­ sult "connections have been created be­ tween the library and the rest of the cam­ pus."s Although numerous publications have discussed the collaboration between li­ brarians and faculty in specific areas of responsibility, the authors identified only a small number of studies published in the past decade that report survey data, and in that sense, relate to this study. Mary Lynn Rice­Lively and J. Drew Racine conducted a case study at a large research library to gather perceptions and observations about the changing role of librarians from the perspective of stu­ dents, library and information sciences faculty, and academic librarians.6 A note­ worthy article by Evan St. Lifer reported on a survey that aimed to determine to what degree librarians' jobs are changing and why.? Other studies include the fol­ lowing: Donald H. Dilmore examined the librarian-faculty interaction at nine small colleges and the relationship between the interaction and faculty perceptions and use of library services; Devin Feldman and Susan Sciammarella surveyed teach­ ing faculty at six community colleges to understand their perceptions of librarians and librarianship; Bee Gallegos and Tho­ mas Wright reported the results of a sur­ vey posted on electronic discussion lists dealing with types of projects librarians and faculty pursued in collaboration; and Anita Cannon surveyed the faculty's gen­ eral attitudes and practices on library re­ search instruction in the humanities and social sciences department at York Uni­ versity. 8-ll The present study conducted at the University of Manitoba aims to supple­ ment this body of literature by examin­ ing and evaluating the current collabora­ tion between faculty and librarians and by outlining a new and expanded role for librarians in partnership with the faculty. Methodology The basis of the study was a survey de­ veloped by the authors and sent to all 1,400 full­time faculty at the University of Manitoba in March 2000. The survey was an attempt at a census, and therefore the results are representative only of those who responded. The questionnaires were coded to facilitate two follow­up mailings to nonrespondents. Faculty members were assured that the replies would be confidential and that the study had been reviewed and approved by the university's Faculty of Arts Ethics Review Committee. The R statistical software was used to compute the results.l2 The results cited in this paper are to be viewed as descriptive in nature. In par­ ticular, chi­square tests are used to com­ pare three different faculty groups (see Profile of Respondents below). In these http:results.l2 ����������������������� ��57 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Teaching/Instruction Inf ormation Services Inf ormation Technology Research Collections FIGURE 1 Interaction with Librarians by Faculty Group Overall Hum & SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci tests, the null hypothesis of interest will always be that the proportion respond­ ing positively to the question at hand is equal across the three groups whereas the alternative hypothesis is that at least two of the groups respond differently. Each of the five sections of the questionnaire has a preliminary question that yields a yes or no response. The remaining follow­ up questions within a section, except for the impact question, allow multiple re­ sponses to the various options. For such questions, comparisons among faculty groups are not independent from option to option. As a result, a Bonferroni­like adjustment to the p­values is applied that depends on the number of choices to a given question. Essentially, this adjust­ ment requires a p­value smaller than the significance level (e.g., 0.05) divided by the number of choices to a multiple­re­ sponse question. For example, if there are six choices, the p­value must be smaller than 0.05/6 before significance is declared. This action produces a conservative cri­ terion for declaring statistical significance among groups. It is important to note that the chi­ square test assumes that the subjects con­ stitute a random sample, which is clearly violated in this study. Hence, any signifi­ cant results declared are to be interpreted as representative only of the responding faculty members at the University of Manitoba. Survey Instrument The survey, an eight­page questionnaire, required respondents to indicate the fol­ lowing: • whether they had interacted with librarians in the five areas of investiga­ tion (if they had not interacted, what were their reasons; if they had, what was the type of interaction); • whether the interaction had an im­ pact on their work or their students' per­ formance (if yes, the type of impact; if not, why not); • other ways librarians could contrib­ ute; • the importance of the librarians' role in the university. For the most part, the questions were close­ended; the researchers provided what they considered to be the most prob­ able choices and invited respondents to check as many as applied. Respondents also were given the opportunity to pro­ vide additional possibilities in an "other" category and to provide general com­ ments at the end. � 58� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ Profile of Respondents The final number of usable responses was 734, or 52 percent of the target popula­ tion surveyed. Faculty were asked to in­ dicate their affiliation with one of twenty faculties/schools. Because the number of respondents from some faculties/schools was small, the units were amalgamated into three broad faculty groups. Twelve respondents did not identify themselves with any faculty or school. Below is the percentage distribution of those who did: • Humanities and Social Sciences, 36 percent (n = 261) • Health Sciences, 42 percent (n = 311) • Pure and Applied Sciences, 20 per­ cent (n = 150) Interaction and Collaboration The first part of the survey was designed to determine the level of interaction and collaboration between faculty and librar­ ians. For each area of investigation, the survey asked faculty to report the type of interaction they had with librarians. If there had been no interaction, they were asked to state their reasons. Figure 1 il­ lustrates the overall responses for each area of investigation and the responses by faculty group. TeachinglInstruction Twenty percent, or 150, of all the respon­ dents answered in the affirmative to the preliminary question: Have you had a li­ brarian teach a component of your course(s) or provide library instruction for your course(s)? Compared with the other two faculty groups, twice as many of the humanities & social sciences respondents indicated that they had asked a librarian to teach a component of their course or provide library instruction (p <.0001). (See table 1.) When asked what type of interaction had occurred, the respondents who an­ swered yes to the preliminary question reported that training for BISON/ NETDOC (BISON is the University of Manitoba's online public catalogue; NETDOC is an in­house aggregation of networked databases) and that database J��l��l� 2003 searching was requested more than twice as often as other types of instruction. These results were not unexpected be­ cause this type of instruction has been most common at the university. Design and evaluation of library assignments were requested by only 11 percent. This is an area where librarians need to be more proactive in marketing their skills. Librarians know that library instruction is most effective when combined with an assignment whereas faculty may not value this type of instruction. Accounting for 37 percent of the results, the humani­ ties & social sciences faculty were most likely to request instruction in research methods (p = .0096). A very high percentage of the faculty responded that no interaction with librar­ ians had occurred (578, or 79%). Almost half these respondents deemed it inappro­ priate to ask a librarian to teach a compo­ nent of their course or to provide library instruction, and 28 percent responded that they were unaware that librarians pro­ vided this service, once again underlining the need for librarians to market their skills. Over one­quarter chose the "other" category. Some of the reasons cited by fac­ ulty included: no teaching responsibilities; only one­ or two­hour sessions taught; stu­ dents expected to know the information in advanced classes; faculty not located on campus. There was a large discrepancy in the results by the faculty group, with 58 per­ cent of the pure & applied sciences group answering that they considered it inappro­ priate for librarians to teach or provide li­ brary instruction, as opposed to 43 percent from the humanities & social sciences and 38 percent from the health sciences (p = .0018). Similarly, although the librarians' background or expertise was not a major factor in the faculty's decision not to re­ quest instruction, the pure & applied sci­ ences faculty were more than twice as likely to consider that librarians had in­ sufficient ability or expertise (p = .0044). Information Services The next area of investigation was infor­ ����������������������� ��59 TABLE 1 Teaching/Instruction Have You Had a Librarian Teach a Component of Your Course(s) or Provide Library Instruction For Your Course(s)? FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Yes 79 (30%) 45 (15%) 21 (14%) 150 20% No 181 (70%) 263 (85%) 127 (86%) 578 79% Total 260 308 148 728 99% YES FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Type of Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Instruction n = 79 n = 45 n = 21 150 20% X2 -value BISON/NETDOC 63% 80% 71% 104 69% .1334 Database searching 57 67 67 91 61 .5180 Research methods 37 11 24 42 28 .0096 Internet training 24 40 14 41 27 .0492 Design/evaluate library assignment 6 16 14 16 11 .1888 Other 19 12 5 21 14 .1690 FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* NO Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Why Not? n = 121 n = 263 n = 127 578 79% X2 -value Not appropriate 43% 38% 58% 257 44% .0018 ** Did not know librarians do this 27 33 23 165 28 .0938 No time 19 20 28 124 22 .1886 Librarians have insufficient expertise 7 6 16 49 8 .0044 ** Librarians not available 0.6 0.8 0.8 4 0.7 1.0000 Other 26 30 22 157 27 .2442 * The total includes individuals who responded but did not identify with a faculty group. ** Statistical significance - critical p-value =.0083 mation services. As expected, responses to the preliminary question, Have you ever requested assistance from librarians in finding information? yielded the high­ est response rate to faculty-librarian in­ teraction. Eighty­eight percent or 642 of the 734 respondents answered that they had requested assistance from librarians (table 2). With a response rate of 83 per­ cent, the pure & applied sciences faculty requested assistance significantly less of­ ten than the humanities & social sciences faculty did at 91 percent (p = .034). Of the total affirmative responses to the preliminary question, using BISON/ NETDOC, seeking information about li­ brary services, conducting a literature search, and tracking down citations re­ ceived similar results, ranging between 44 and 55 percent. Faculty were least likely to ask librarians for help in search­ ing pedagogical materials. It may be that faculty have all the pedagogical materi­ als in their area, do not require them, or already know where to find them. Track­ ing citations received similar response � 60� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ rates from the health sciences and the pure & applied sciences faculties, 50 and 49 percent respectively, as opposed to the humanities & social sciences faculty with a much lower 37 percent rate (p = .0052). This might be attributed to the fact that J��l��l� 2003 in the sciences, access to the most recent research is vital to clinical practice and research activities whereas in the humani­ ties recent literature adds to the body of knowledge but does not necessarily su­ persede earlier publications. The pure & TABLE 2 Information Services Have You Ever Requested Assistance from Librarians in Finding Information? FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Yes 238 (91%) 269 (86%) 124 (83%) 642 88% No 23 (9%) 42 (14%) 26 (17%) 92 12% Total 261 311 150 734 100% YES FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Type of Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Assistance n = 238 n = 269 n = 124 642 88% X2 -value Use BISON/ NETDOC 60% 51% 51% 351 55% .0764 Enquire about library services 55 52 54 344 54 .8438 Conduct literature search 45 54 44 311 48 .0506 Track citations 37 50 49 286 44 .0052 ** Research a topic 41 36 19 224 35 .0000 ** Find a fact 28 21 22 153 24 .1620 Search for pedagogical material 21 15 10 104 16 .0130 Other 16 12 8 80 12 .1092 FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* NO Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Why Not? n = 23 n = 42 n = 26 92 12% X2 -value Did not require assistance 61% 50% 65% 53 58% .4378 Rarely visit library 13 29 15 19 21 .2534 Did not think of it 9 31 12 18 20 .0492 Not appropriate 9 12 12 10 11 1.0000 Reference desk too busy 4 14 12 10 11 .5232 Librarians have insufficient ability 13 0 15 7 8 .0392 Other 4 17 12 11 12 .3796 * The total includes individuals who responded but did not identify with a faculty group. ** Statistical significance - critical p-value = .00625 ����������������������� ��61 TABLE 3 Information Technology Have You Ever Requested a Librarian's Assistance in Dealing with Information Technology? FACULTY GROUPS Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci TOTAL* # % Yes No 102 (39%) 159 (61%) 109 (35%) 202 (65%) 27 (18%) 121 (82%) 243 33% 489 67% Total 261 311 148 732 100% YES FACULTY GROUPS Type of Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci Assistance n = 102 n = 109 n = 27 TOTAL* # % 243 33% X2 -value Assist in retrieving electronic document 54% Instruct in use of software 38 Resolve technical problems 32 Help order material online 28 Assess/recommend software 10 Develop instructional Web sites 0 Develop/manage databases 3 Create Web pages 1 Other 14 45% 45 44 16 8 6 5 3 10 30% 59 44 18 4 0 0 0 11 114 106 95 51 20 7 8 4 31 45% 42 38 20 8 3 3 2 12 .0732 .1442 .1940 .1468 .6318 .0160 .6086 .5252 .7086 NO Why Not? FACULTY GROUPS Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci n = 159 n = 202 n = 121 TOTAL* # % 489 67% X2 -value Did not require assistance 53% 48% 62% 259 53% .0652 Did not know librarians do this 43 45 32 201 41 .0626 Librarians have insufficient ability 13 9 16 59 12 .1282 Librarians not available 2 5 2 16 3 .2378 Have inappropriate equipment 2 4 1 13 3 .2512 Other 13 16 10 65 13 .2420 * The total includes individuals who responded but did not identify with a faculty group. ** Statistical significance - critical p-value = .00555 � 62� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ applied sciences faculty, with a response rate of 19 percent, were least likely to ask for help in researching a topic whereas the health sciences faculty did so at a rate of 36 percent and the humanities & social sciences faculty at a rate of 41 percent (p < .0001). Of the ninety­two faculty members (12% of 734) who answered that they never requested assistance from librar­ ians, 58 percent stated that they did not require assistance, 21 percent rarely vis­ ited the library, and 20 percent responded that they did not think of it. Only 8 per­ cent maintained that librarians did not have sufficient ability or expertise. Information Technology The level of interaction in the area of in­ formation technology was determined by the responses to the preliminary question, Have you ever requested a librarian's as­ sistance in dealing with information tech­ nology? Only 243 respondents (33%) de­ clared that they had (table 3). The pure & applied sciences faculty were less likely to ask for assistance; only 18 percent reported that they had required assistance, com­ pared to 35 percent for the health sciences faculty and 39 percent for the humanities & social sciences faculty (p < .0001). When analyzing the results, the pre­ dominant types of assistance requested were technical in nature whereas the more creative and intellectual activities (i.e., cre­ ating Web pages, developing instructional Web sites, and developing and managing databases) received extremely low re­ sponses. Perhaps many faculty have not yet undertaken this latter set of activities or have other outlets. Librarians have de­ veloped expertise in these areas and could seize this opportunity to collaborate with faculty. Comments addressing additional types of assistance were cited in the "other" category: instruction in using elec­ tronic resources and the Internet; helping with setup for the delivery of computer­ based courses; and downloading data files. Of the 489 respondents (67%) who did not request assistance in dealing with in­ formation technology, the two most fre­ J��l��l� 2003 quently cited reasons were that they did not require assistance or were unaware that librarians provided it. Only 12 per­ cent thought that librarians had insuffi­ cient ability or expertise. Research At the University of Manitoba, librarians have faculty status; thus research is both a right and a responsibility. Accordingly, the investigators were most eager to find out the level and type of research collaboration taking place between faculty and librarians. Not unexpectedly, when asked the prelimi­ nary question, Have you ever collaborated with a librarian on a research project? only 49 (7%) of all respondents stated that they had (table 4). There were no significant dif­ ferences among faculty groups. It was not surprising to learn that the most common type of collaboration was that of performing a literature search, as chosen by 65 percent of those who re­ sponded in the affirmative. However, it was encouraging to observe that the next highest responses were gathering data (26%) and working as a partner on a re­ search project (22%). Very low responses were recorded for cowriting a research proposal, creating or managing a data­ base, analyzing data, and publishing the results. There were no significant differ­ ences among faculty groups for the vari­ ous types of research collaboration. Of the 684 respondents (93%) who did not collaborate with a librarian on a re­ search project, more than half claimed they had not thought of doing so, 23 per­ cent responded that collaborative re­ search is not part of the institutional cul­ ture, and another 20 percent said they had no time to develop collaborative research with a librarian. Despite the high rate of noncollaboration, however, it was grati­ fying to note that only 17 percent thought that librarians had insufficient ability and expertise or that it was inappropriate for a librarian to be part of a research project. The "other" category accounted for 19 percent of the responses. For the most part, these responses may be categorized into three main areas: there was no need ����������������������� ��63 TABLE 4 Research Have You Ever Collaborated with a Librarian on a Research Project? FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Yes 23 (9%) 22 (7%) 4 (3%) 49 7% No 238 (91%) 288 (93%) 146 (97%) 684 93% Total 261 310 150 733 100% YES FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Type of Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Collaboration n = 23 n = 22 n = 4 49 7% X2 -value Perform literature search 52% 77% 75% 32 65% .2312 Gather data 30 23 25 13 26 .8842 Work as partner 26 18 25 11 22 .8736 Cowrite proposal 13 4 0 4 8 .7158 Create/manage database 4 9 0 3 6 .6996 Analyze data 4 4 0 2 4 1.0000 Publish results 4 0 25 2 4 .0834 Other 13 4 0 4 8 .7270 FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* NO Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Why Not? n = 238 n = 288 n = 146 684 93% X2 -value Did not think of it 50% 62% 35% 353 52% .0000 ** Not part of institutional culture 26 23 19 158 23 .3466 No time 22 20 17 138 20 .4760 Librarians have insufficient ability 15 13 30 117 17 .0000 ** Not appropriate 14 15 27 116 17 .0038 ** Other 22 18 15 128 19 .1920 * The total includes individuals who responded but did not identify with a faculty group. ** Statistical significance - critical p-value = .0083 or opportunity for collaboration, the re­ spondents were not involved in research or worked alone, or they wondered how librarians could be involved in collabora­ tive research. Based on these results, it would seem that faculty do not have strong objections to engaging in collabo­ rative research with librarians but are not conditioned to thinking about it. There­ fore, librarians should seize the opportu­ nity to approach the faculty and explore the possibilities of research partnerships. The results by faculty group revealed very distinct differences between the hu­ manities & social sciences and the health sciences faculties as opposed to the pure & applied sciences faculty. The percent­ ages of those who claimed they had not thought of collaborating with a librarian ranged from 35 percent of the pure & ap­ plied sciences faculty to 50 percent of the humanities & social sciences faculty and 62 percent of the health sciences respon­ dents (p < .0001). The pure & applied sci­ � 64� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ ences respondents also expressed a very strong opinion that research with faculty is not suitable for librarians. One third of that group did not think that librarians had sufficient ability or expertise (p < J��l��l� 2003 .0001), and 27 percent considered it inap­ propriate for a librarian to be part of a research project (p < .0038). These percent­ ages are approximately twice those of the other two groups. TABLE S Collections Have You Ever Had Any Interactions with Librarians in Developing Library Collections FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Yes 141 (54%) 72 (23%) 67 (45%) 282 38% No 120 (46%) 237 (67%) 83 (55%) 450 61% Total 261 309 150 732 99% YES FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* Type of Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Interaction n = 141 n = 72 n = 67 282 38% X2 -value Recommend titles for purchase 94% 79% 91% 253 90% .0014 ** Consult for journal cancellations 64 51 55 167 59 .1408 Request collection assessment 55 33 49 136 48 .0090 Am/was department liaison 32 19 33 83 29 .1192 Consult for reading list development 23 14 10 50 18 .0596 Other 8 18 9 30 11 .0650 FACULTY GROUPS TOTAL* NO Hum&SocSci HealthSci P&A Sci # % Why Not? n = 120 n = 237 n = 83 450 61% X2 -value Did not require collection assessment 64% 74% 54% 303 67% .0028 ** Not department liaison 41 30 37 151 34 .0820 Rely on personal resources 32 24 35 126 28 .0874 Use other local resources 12 9 11 47 10 .7656 Library has adequate resources 15 10 4 46 10 .0298 Other 9 8 11 42 9 .8470 * The total includes individuals who responded but did not identify with a faculty group. ** Statistical significance - critical p-value = .0083 ����������������������� ��65 Collections To the preliminary question, Have you ever had any interactions with librarians in developing library collections? 282 re­ spondents (38%) stated that they had done so (table 5). Overall, the health sci­ ences faculty showed a much lower rate of interaction at 23 percent than the hu­ manities & social sciences faculty at 54 percent and the pure & applied sciences faculty at 45 percent (p < .0001). Of the 282 who responded affirma­ tively, an overwhelming 90 percent said they had recommended titles for pur­ chase, 59 percent indicated that they had consulted with librarians regarding jour­ nal cancellations, and 48 percent stated that they had requested collection assess­ ments for course or program proposals. Of the 11 percent who chose to specify "other" types of interaction, some stated that the librarian helped to develop and enhance a collection and its access, col­ laborated with them on funding propos­ als, or reviewed a collection for accredi­ tation purposes. The humanities & social sciences fac­ ulty reported the highest level of interac­ tion with librarians for all the options of­ fered, with the exception of the role as departmental library liaison. The percent­ ages for the health sciences faculty were significantly lower than for the humani­ ties & social sciences and the pure & ap­ plied sciences faculties for "recom­ mended titles" (p = .0014) and borderline significant for "requested a collection as­ sessment" (p = .0090). One likely reason for the lower response from the health sciences faculty is that the medical cur­ riculum has changed from a didactic sys­ tem­based approach to an integrated, case­based problem­solving format and therefore there are no structured courses in the traditional sense. Furthermore, the residency program in hospitals has clini­ cal training without formal courses. For the 450 respondents (61%) who answered no to the preliminary question, the overwhelming reason given was that they had not required a collection assess­ ment for a course or program. One third indicated that they had never acted as the departmental library liaison and 28 per­ cent stated that they relied on personal resources. Nine percent of the respon­ dents gave "other" reasons for not hav­ ing had any contact with a librarian. Many claimed that they were unaware of the possibility or had not thought of ask­ ing. One recurring reason was the per­ ception that no funds were available and so, resigned to this situation, faculty did not request materials for purchase. In the 1990s, the libraries underwent repeated serials cancellations and budget cutbacks, which contributed to low morale and, in turn, mitigated against collaboration. Felix T. Chu corroborated the authors' finding that less money equals less inter­ action: "Decreased budget gives fewer opportunities for informal communica­ tion and polarizes the perceived need for communication."l3 In summary, figure 1 shows that the highest point of interaction between li­ brarians and faculty was in the area of information services (88%). Collections (38%) and information technology (33%) ranked second and third followed by teaching/instruction (20%) and research (7%). When the level of interaction by fac­ ulty group was examined for four of the five investigated areas (the level of re­ sponse was too low to detect potential sig­ nificance in research), the highest inter­ action was reported by the humanities & social sciences faculty, followed by the health sciences and the pure & applied sciences faculties. In the area of teaching/ instruction, the humanities & social sci­ ences faculty had twice the amount of interaction that faculty in the health sci­ ences and the pure & applied sciences did. On matters related to the collections, the humanities & social sciences and pure & applied sciences faculties had twice the interaction of the health sciences faculty. As for information technology, the results showed that interaction for the pure & applied sciences faculty was approxi­ mately 50 percent less than for the other two faculty groups. These data concur with Rebecca Kellogg's statement: "Scien­ � 66� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ J��l��l�2003 FIGURE 2 Librarian's Overall Impact 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Teaching/Instruction Information Services Information Technology Research Collections Very Substantial Substantial Some Impact No Impact Can’t Rate tists will have few interactions with librar­ ians due to the nature of their work. Hu­ manists will have had a much greater number of interactions, since the library essentially is their laboratory."l4 Librarians’ Impact Library literature abounds with anecdotal articles describing the value of librarian- faculty collaboration, but articles sup­ ported by empirical data are few. In the field of medical and special libraries, David N. King and Joanne G. Marshall have independently published research reporting the impact of library informa­ tion services on clinical and corporate decision making.ls-l? There do not appear to be any studies measuring the impact of librarians in the university setting. To measure the impact of librarians' contributions in the five investigated ar­ eas, the authors asked those respondents who interacted with librarians to rate the impact. Combining responses to the "very substantial," "substantial," and "some impact" categories revealed that librar­ ians have a very positive impact: research (96%), information services (94%), infor­ mation technology (91%), collections (89%), and teaching/instruction (77%). However, the authors decided to focus their analysis on the combined responses to the "substantial" and "very substan­ tial" impact categories, that is, on the fac­ ulty who had responded that librarians had a definite impact in the five areas of investigation. (See figure 2.) TeachinglInstruction In the area of teaching/instruction, 60 (or 40%) of the 150 faculty who responded affirmatively to the preliminary question stated that librarians' teaching had a sub­ stantial or a very substantial impact on student performance, 56 (37%) concluded that there was some impact, and only 6 (4%) said there was no impact. Another 29 (19%) responded that they could not rate this function. The low ratings for teaching/instruction compared to the other investigated areas are disappoint­ ing. Perhaps faculty view themselves as teaching core content, this being more critical to the educational process, and perceive librarians as providing instruc­ tion in accessing resources, this being more peripheral to the students' educa­ tion. Other reasons for this low rating may be that faculty are unaware of how librarians can contribute or simply do not ����������������������� ��67 value librarian contribu­ tions. Or, as Larry R. Oberg, Mary Kay Schleiter and Michael Van Houten stated, TABLE 6 Type of Impact # % faculty members believe li­ brarians have "insufficient teaching and research and inadequate educational cre­ dentials."l8 Whereas 42 per­ cent of the humanities & social sciences faculty and 41 percent of the health sci­ ences faculty rated librar­ ians' teaching as having a substantial or very substan­ tial impact and the pure & applied sciences faculty gave it a combined 24 per­ cent rating, the groups are not statistically different at the five percent significance level in terms of percent­ ages giving a substantial or very substantial rating. Faculty who responded that librarians had an impact then were asked: What type of impact did the librarian's teaching have on student performance? Seventy­one percent of the respondents said that as a result of the in­ struction, students had fewer questions about how to find information, fol­ lowed by 60 percent who said that students used a wider range of information sources and 42 percent who answered that students con­ ducted better reviews of the literature (table 6). These faculty responses were gratifying. However, it was disappointing to find out that only 25 percent of the re­ spondents stated that students were bet­ ter able to evaluate information sources. Today, when lifelong learning is necessary for all professions, it is essential that stu­ dents know where to find information, look at a wide range of sources, and, most important, evaluate the information sources they have found. Teaching/instruction Students had fewer questions 82 71 Students used wider range of information 69 60 Better reviews of literature 49 42 Better bibliography 39 34 Students better able to evaluate information 29 25 Other 7 6 Information services Saved time 524 86 Identified appropriate resources 344 57 Expanded knowledge 211 35 Other 43 7 Information technology Solved technical problem 112 50 Made more efficient use of info technology 110 50 Taught use of electronic resources 103 46 Helped integrate new technology 37 17 Other 12 5 Research Provided support 25 53 Provided additional expertise 24 51 Facilitated completion of project 19 40 Brought different perspective 15 32 Other 2 4 Collections Developed better collections 176 70 Improved communication 126 50 Became aware of new resources 90 36 Gained understanding of scope 80 32 Learned collection was inadequate 53 21 Other 18 7 Further analysis of the responses by faculty group suggests that faculty gave a higher rating to functions that could be considered more relevant to their field. The humanities & social sciences faculty reported that "students used a wider range of information resources" at 69 per­ cent as opposed to 58 percent for the health sciences faculty and 21 percent for the pure & applied sciences faculty (p = .0036). Because students in the humani­ ties & social sciences and the health sci­ � 68� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ ences are usually required to access in­ formation sources beyond their textbooks and are required as a general rule to write more papers, it is natural that faculty would see this as a positive impact. Information Services To the question, Did the information ser­ vice have an impact on your work? 45 percent responded that the information service had a substantial or a very sub­ stantial impact, 49 percent stated that it had some impact, and 2 percent said there was no impact. The results by faculty group show that there are statistically sig­ nificant differences among them: the hu­ manities & social sciences and the health sciences faculties both reported ratings of 48 percent whereas the pure & applied sciences faculty revealed a 34 percent rat­ ing (p = .0092). For 86 percent of the faculty who re­ ported that the librarians' services had an impact, saving time was the most fre­ quently cited result of requesting infor­ mation services from librarians. Librar­ ians also helped faculty identify more appropriate resources, at 57 percent (table 6). It was gratifying that 35 percent of the faculty stated that they expanded their knowledge of the subject as a result of interaction with a librarian. All faculty groups reported that the main result of consulting a librarian was that it saved time. The only significant difference between the three groups was for the item "expanded my knowledge of the subject," which received a 42 percent response from the health sciences faculty, 33 percent from the humanities & social sciences faculty, and 24 percent from the pure & applied sciences faculty (p = .0018). Information Technology When faculty were asked if librarians' assistance in dealing with information technology had an impact on their work, a combined 35 percent cited a substantial or a very substantial impact and 56 per­ cent reported some impact. Only seven percent rated the assistance as having no impact. Although differences among the J��l��l� 2003 faculty groups were not statistically sig­ nificant, it is interesting to note that pure & applied sciences was the only group to post a zero percent response for very sub­ stantial impact. The most frequently cited effects of li­ brarian assistance by those respondents who reported that it had an impact were to solve technical problems and to make faculty more efficient in using informa­ tion technology, both at 50 percent, and to teach faculty how to use electronic re­ sources, at 46 percent (table 6). Helping to integrate new technology into research or teaching was less cited at 17 percent, concurring with the results reported ear­ lier in the study showing that the lowest points of interaction between librarians and faculty were in teaching/instruction and research. Research The ratings in the area of research collabo­ ration came as a pleasant surprise. Al­ though the level of interaction for research was low in comparison to other areas (only 49, or 7%, of all respondents claimed to have worked with a librarian on a research project), the results demonstrate that where there is collaboration with librar­ ians, the experience is extremely positive. Fifty­one percent of the forty­nine respon­ dents claimed that the librarian's involve­ ment in research had a substantial or a very substantial impact on the project, 45 per­ cent reported that it had some impact, and only 2 percent, no impact. More than half the respondents who considered that the librarian had an im­ pact reported that the librarian's involve­ ment had provided additional expertise and skills and that the librarian had pro­ vided support for the project. Forty per­ cent believed that the librarian had facili­ tated the completion of a research project, and 32 percent indicated that the librar­ ian had brought a different perspective. Given that there were few respondents in all three groups, there was insufficient statistical power to determine whether the faculty groups differed in proportions of positive responses. ����������������������� ��69 Collections Collection development being a core func­ tion of librarianship, it is disconcerting to observe that only 51 percent of the respon­ dents who interacted with librarians re­ ported that their contact had a very sub­ stantial or a substantial impact. Is this response a reflection on the effectiveness of librarians or the fact that librarians may have had limited control over financial resources at the time? Thirty­eight per­ cent claimed that their interaction had some impact whereas six percent indi­ cated no impact. The humanities & social sciences faculty evaluated their interac­ tion with librarians most favorably, with 58 percent rating their experience as sub­ stantial or very substantial, followed by 46 percent of the health sciences faculty and 40 percent of the pure & applied sci­ ences faculty (p = .0288). Seventy percent of the respondents who reported that their interaction with librarians had an impact claimed that the interaction led to the development of bet­ ter collections (table 6). Fifty percent cited improved communication between de­ partment and library. An almost equal number reported that they had gained a better understanding of the scope of col­ lections management (32%) and had be­ come aware of new resources in the field (36%). Only 21 percent said that they had learned that the collection was inadequate for a proposed course or program. Librarian’s Role A more general set of questions was de­ signed to rate the librarian's role in the university community. All respondents were invited to respond whether they had previously interacted with librarians. When combining the results to the "very important" and "important" op­ tions, the faculty rated the librarian's role in the following descending order of im­ portance: information services (84%), col­ lections (80%), information technology (69%), research (60%), and teaching/in­ struction (50%). The "somewhat impor­ tant" rating yielded the following results: teaching/instruction (31%), research (24%), information technology (17%), in­ formation services (8%), and collections FIGURE 3 Rating of Librarians' Role 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important Can’t Rate Teaching/Instruction Information Services Information Technology Research Collections � � ������� 70� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ (8%). The response rate for "not impor­ tant" ranged from a low one to eight per­ cent in the respective areas. These posi­ tive results suggest that librarians have generally been accepted by the rest of the faculty as academic colleagues with unique competencies. (See figure 3.) Not unexpectedly, information services and collections, the areas most tradition­ ally associated with librarianship, were ranked the highest. However, information technology and research received a com­ paratively high rating considering that these are not areas that faculty usually O��� f� �h�� m���� �l������� �f� �h�� ��l�l� ������fl� �����bl�� fl�l�� ��l��� f��� l�b�������� �h��� ��ll� ��h��m� �h�� f�mll�lbl�b������� ��������h��� identify with librarians and, as the sur­ vey showed, are areas where interaction is low. Teaching/instruction received the lowest rating. This response may be the result of the faculty's perception that teaching by librarians is an intrusion into their domain. Alternatively, faculty may not have a clear understanding of the librarian's teaching role or appreciate that "after graduation, students will not learn from lectures and reserve books. They need to be prepared for this future now by being taught how to gather, evaluate, and utilize sources on their own."l9 When analyzing the "important" and "very important" data by faculty group, the results for teaching/instruction showed no significant differences among the three groups. There are variations in responses to information services, where 87 percent of the humanities & social sci­ ences faculty, 85 percent of the health sci­ ences faculty, and 80 percent of the pure & applied sciences faculty reported that the librarians' role was important or very important (p < .0001), and to information technology where the health sciences fac­ ulty reported a 75 percent rating, the hu­ manities & social sciences faculty a 70 percent rating, and the pure & applied sciences faculty a 56 percent rating (p < .0001). A wider variation exists in the area J��l��l�2003 of research. Humanities & social sciences faculty rated the librarians' research role at 72 percent whereas the health sciences and the pure & applied sciences faculties rated it at 53 and 52 percent, respectively (p < .0001). A similar pattern emerged for collections, where the humanities & so­ cial sciences faculty rated the librarians' collections role at 91 percent and the health sciences and the pure & applied sciences faculties rated it at 74 and 76 per­ cent, respectively (p = .001). No doubt, these responses can be explained by the nature of the disciplines and their differ­ ent needs. Expanded Roles One of the main purposes of this study was to identify possible future roles for librarians that will enhance the faculty- librarian partnership. For each area of investigation, all faculty were asked how librarians could contribute to their en­ deavors. In the area of teaching/instruction, the highest response was for assisting faculty with their information retrieval skills so that they could better teach students (48%). This was followed by 44 percent who wanted librarians to help integrate technology into the curriculum and then by 30 percent who wanted librarians to assist with interactive instruction. Having librarians teach a full course on information literacy was selected by only 17 percent of the faculty. Given that many academic libraries are hiring infor­ mation literacy librarians and that librar­ ians are focusing their attention on devel­ oping information literacy courses, the question remains: Will faculty support these efforts, or will these endeavors be ignored? Librarians should heed Patricia Iannuzzi, who pointed out that in order to succeed, information literacy must be part of the institutional culture. She en­ couraged librarians "to play a role in sug­ gesting appropriate language" for the administration. When information lit­ eracy becomes part of the institutional culture, it will lead to a greater acceptance of the courses that librarians are offering.2o http:offering.2o ����������������������� ��71 In addition, librarians must be more pro­ active in order to establish the importance of their contribution to information lit­ eracy. Marian C. Winner stated that "Li­ brarians must expand their teaching role and must demonstrate to faculty that they have the background and knowledge to be useful partners for faculty and curricu­ lum planning."2l The comments received in the "other" category revealed that faculty wanted li­ brarians to develop a self­directed learn­ ing package, show students how to think outside the Web, teach students how to use the Internet effectively, help students evaluate Internet resources, and assist in developing a reference database. In the area of information services, approximately half the respondents stated that "identification of key Internet sites" would be useful. Perhaps faculty are not as proficient in their use of the Internet and recognize that librarians have skills in this area. Librarians should not only play up their skills at finding Internet sites, but also their ability to evaluate them, thereby saving the faculty member a lot of time and effort. About half the respondents wanted a "complete package of information." Although this service may seem obvious, most libraries would find it difficult to consider offer­ ing it because of a lack of resources. How­ ever, if this service is that important to faculty, libraries should find ways to re­ direct resources by shifting staff from ar­ eas where the workload is declining (e.g., circulation because more material is be­ coming available electronically). This would enhance the librarians' relation­ ship with the faculty without entailing the addition of human resources. "Other" responses included: any service that could expedite locating and retrieving lit­ erature not held by local libraries, the use of databases, and information on new re­ sources as they become available. Jordan M. Scepanski has supported an expanded role for librarians in the area of informa­ tion services by suggesting that they in­ terpret and evaluate the information they find: "The librarian of the future will be a refiner of information, not a passive pro­ vider of it-and, thereby, will become an active and accepted partner in the educa­ tional process."22 The most desired service (43%) in the area of information technology is to "pro­ vide assistance with retrieving an elec­ tronic document." This points to the fact that finding electronic documents can be a very complicated process. Using proxy servers, being familiar with database id­ iosyncrasies, and understanding the com­ plexities of online and linking systems all make accessing electronic documents problematic. Librarians should work to­ ward facilitating the retrieval of electronic documents for their users. A compara­ tively low 20 percent thought that the li­ brarian could help develop institutional Web sites. This recognizes the expertise of librarians and places them outside the traditional library walls. Among the most interesting and inno­ vative of the "other " comments were: develop Internet­based delivery of course and lecture notes, integrate reference soft­ ware with the library system, and teach faculty how to use multimedia software more appropriately. Librarians have been using information technology since the mid­1970s when computerized literature searching was introduced. In the inter­ vening years, they have integrated many technological innovations into library ser­ vice and, as a result, have developed an expertise they can use to help faculty in­ tegrate technology into their teaching and research. Scepanski forecasted that the li­ brarians of the future will use their ex­ pertise to "be the academic unit's expert on database construction and organiza­ tion and on sources of information both on and off campus. �They� will create da­ tabases taken from a variety of sources and tailored to the particular interests and specializations of the department." 23 When asked in what capacity they would consider collaborating with a li­ brarian on a research project, 66 percent of faculty cited the traditional function of performing a literature search. Thirty­ eight percent selected "creating or man­ � ���� 72� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ aging a database" and 37 percent "gath­ ering data." Although "working as a part­ ner on a research project," "analyzing data," and "publishing the results" yielded low percentages in comparison with the other responses, the fact that between 23 and 26 percent saw these roles as valid for librarians is very encourag­ ing. Librarians should see these activities as areas of opportunity for enhanced col­ laboration with faculty. Some of the "other" types of collaboration included retrieving documents, seeking publishing possibilities, editing the text, preparing a major review article or a textbook, draft­ ing literature reviews, and doing meta­ analysis research. Many of the functions that faculty appear to value are ones that Robert Grover and Martha L. Hale would most likely consider to be at a "more pro­ active or assertive level which will sup­ port and augment the work of the re­ searcher."24 In their article, "The Role of the Librarian in Faculty Research", they "have proposed a model for library ser­ vice which interjects the librarian directly into the research process."2s L�b�������� �h�ll�� ���lm���h�� f�mll�l������ �h��� l�b�������� ��� In terms of collection development, faculty were most in favor of librarians "providing access to resources on the Internet" and "developing agreements with other institutions to share re­ sources," both rated at 57 percent. A lower 40 percent indicated that librarians should investigate alternative funding opportunities. Twenty­six percent sug­ gested that librarians be members of fac­ ulty/departmental curriculum commit­ tees and 22 percent that they participate in the development of courses. When analyzing the results by faculty group, there are many functions where there are no significant differences among groups. However, the pure & applied sci­ ences faculty rated the following func­ tions significantly lower (p < .05) than the other two groups: "helping to integrate technology into the curriculum," "assist­ J��l��l�2003 ing with interactive instruction," "teach­ ing a full course on information literacy," "identification of key Internet sites in my field," " teach me how to use software," "develop or manage databases," "resolve technical problems," "cowriting the re­ search proposal," "creating or managing a database," "working as a partner on a research project," "gathering data," "ana­ lyzing data," "publishing the results," "provide access to resources on the Internet," and "participate in the devel­ opment of courses." Conclusion At the opening of this article, the authors referred to their 1985 study on faculty perceptions of librarians at the University of Manitoba. Although, at that time, the results indicated a low acceptance of li­ brarians as full­fledged academic col­ leagues, this recent study demonstrates that in the intervening years there ap­ pears to have been an important shift in faculty attitudes and expectations. In each of the areas investigated, the results clearly show that when faculty interact with librarians, librarians have a very positive and considerable impact on both faculty and students. In addition, the re­ sponses indicate that faculty would be more receptive to collaborating with li­ brarians at a higher level of interaction than currently experienced. This view is reinforced by the finding that relatively few faculty cited insufficient ability or lack of expertise as reasons for not inter­ acting with librarians. Although the results were gratifying, they also showed that a large number of faculty were unaware of librarians' capa­ bilities. A number of comments included at the end of the survey emphasized this point. Some examples include: "Thank you for bringing the role of librarians to my attention. Your survey has caused me to consider how librarians can be part of my teaching and my research." "I was not aware of the full range of services avail­ able from university librarians. I will con­ sider more consultation in the future." "I guess I am not very educated in what li­ ����������������������� ��73 brarians can do." "Joint research pros­ pects are intriguing. Perhaps they don't have high profile because we're not paus­ ing to reflect on the possibilities." And lastly, "I found it very interesting and en­ lightening to complete this survey. I would like to get more information on the services that can be provided and the potential for research collaboration." Librarians should not assume that faculty know what librar­ ians do. Rather, they should make every effort to interact with faculty in order to build good relationships. As a result, the faculty may become more aware of librar­ ians' skills and abilities. As Wade R. Kotter stated: "If good relations are consistently cultivated, many of the problems with col­ laboration will disappear; good friends are less likely to fail at collaboration than total strangers."26 Another concern is the fact that the fac­ ulty in the pure & applied sciences con­ sistently reported less interaction with li­ brarians and that this interaction has less impact. They were most likely to think that librarians had insufficient ability or expertise and, in comparison with the other two groups, they considered librar­ ians' contributions to the academic enter­ prise to be less important. This is no doubt attributable to the nature of the disciplines and to the way research is conducted. Many academic librarians commonly share this belief, and this study confirms the attitudes of pure and applied scien­ tists. Librarians working in the field of the pure and applied sciences should inves­ tigate the faculty's attitudes further and determine whether it would be beneficial to make greater efforts to engage the sci­ entists and how they can best promote their expertise to them. This study has demonstrated that es­ tablished relationships provide a good foundation for ongoing collaboration. The study results show that the faculty re­ spondents at the University of Manitoba highly rate the librarians' role in the uni­ versity and endorse a greater level of in­ teraction. These ratings and the expanded roles that faculty would like librarians to undertake reflect the high expectations most faculty have of librarians and the in­ tegral role they see librarians playing in the educational process. Librarians must now meet the challenge. Notes 1. Gaby Divay, Ada M. Ducas, and Nicole Michaud-Oystryk, "Faculty Perceptions of Li- brarians at the University of Manitoba,' College & Research Libraries 48 (Jan. 1987): 27-35. 2. Ibid., 27. 3. Sheila D. Creth, "A Changing Profession: Central Roles for Academic Librarians,' Ad- vances in Librarianship 19 (1995): 85-98. 4. Carla Stoffle, Barbara Allen, and Janet Fore, "Reinventing Academic Libraries and Librarianship,' College & Research Libraries News 61 (Nov. 2000): 895. 5. Doug Cook, "Creating Connections: A Review of the Literature,' in The Collaborative Im- perative: Librarians and Faculty Working Together in the Information Universe, ed. Dick Raspa and Dane Ward (Chicago: Association of Research Libraries, 2000), 19. 6. Mary Lynn Rice-Lively and J. Drew Racine, "The Role of Academic Librarians in the Era of Information Technology,' Journal of Academic Librarianship 23 (Jan. 1997): 31-41. 7. Evan St. Lifer, "Net Work: New Roles, Same Mission,' Library Journal 121 (Nov. 15, 1996): 26-30. 8. Donald H. Dilmore, "Librarian/Faculty Interaction at Nine New England Colleges,' Col- lege & Research Libraries 57 (May 1996): 274-84. 9. Devin Feldman and Susan Sciammarella, "Both Sides of the Looking Glass: Librarian and Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Librarianship at Six Community Colleges,' College & Re- search Libraries 61 (Nov. 2000): 491-98. 10. Bee Gallegos and Thomas Wright, "Collaborations in the Field: Examples from a Survey,' in The Collaborative Imperative: Librarians and Faculty Working Together in the Information Universe, ed. Dick Raspa and Dane Ward (Chicago: Association of Research Libraries, 2000), 97-113. 11. Anita Cannon, "Faculty Survey on Library Research Instruction,' RQ 33 (summer 1994): 524-41. 12. For information on the R statistical software, see http://www.r-project.org. http:http://www.r-project.org � 74� C�ll���� &�R�����mh�L�b������ J��l��l�2003 13. Felix T. Chu, "Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collection Development,' Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 23 (Jan. 1997): 18. 14. Rebecca Kellogg, "Faculty Members and Academic Librarians: Distinctive Differences,' College & Research Libraries News 48 (Nov. 1987): 604. 15. David N. King, "The Contribution of Hospital Library Information Services to Clinical Care: A Study of Eight Hospitals,' Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 75 (Oct. 1987): 291- 301. 16. Joanne G. Marshall, "The Impact of the Hospital Library on Clinical Decision-Making: The Rochester Study,' Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 80 (Apr. 1992): 169-78. 17. ---, The Impact of the Special Library on Corporate Decision-Making (Washington, D.C.: Special Libraries Association, 1993). 18. Larry R. Oberg, Mary Kay Schleiter, and Michael Van Houten, "Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at Albion College: Status, Role, Contribution, and Contacts,' College & Research Li- braries 50 (Mar. 1989): 223. 19. Barbara B. Moran, "Library/Classroom Partnerships for the 1990s,' College & Research Libraries News 51 (June 1990): 513. 20. Patricia Iannuzzi, "Faculty Development and Information Literacy: Establishing Cam- pus Partnerships,' Faculty Development and Information Literacy 26 (fall/winter 1998): 98. 21. Marian C. Winner, "Librarians as Partners in the Classroom: An Increasing Imperative,' Reference Services Review 26 (spring 1998): 26. 22. Jordan M. Scepanski, "Forecasting, Forestalling, Fashioning: The Future of Academic Li- braries and Librarians,' in Academic Libraries: Their Rationale and Role in American Higher Educa- tion (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1995), 171. 23. Ibid., 172. 24. Robert Grover and Martha L. Hale, "The Role of the Librarian in Faculty Research,' Col- lege & Research Libraries 49 (Jan. 1988): 10. 25. Ibid., 14. 26. Wade R. Kotter, "Bridging the Great Divide: Improving Relations between Librarians and Classroom Faculty,' Journal of Academic Librarianship 25 (July 1999): 295.