Collaboration between academics and librarians: A ...

Collaboration between academics and librarians: A literature review and framework for analysis Hue Thi Pham Kerry Tanner Caulfield School of IT Faculty of Information Technology Monash University, Australia

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine recent literature for a review of the concepts of collaboration in library and information science and related disciplines and to develop a conceptual framework for application in academic contexts globally. Design/methodology/approach An investigation of literature exploring the multi-faceted meanings and dimensions of collaboration and subsequent development of a framework for analysis. To exemplify the use of the framework in analysing collaboration between academics and librarians, and to demonstrate the impact of context on collaboration, the paper explores the situation and educational contexts in two national settings—one a developed country (Australia), and the other a developing country (Vietnam). Findings Contextual factors have a substantial impact on the nature of collaboration between academics and librarians. The collaboration framework developed is applied to academic settings in two countries, Vietnam and Australia, and dimensions of collaboration are compared and contrasted in the two countries. Insights and implications are drawn concerning the distinctive features of effective collaboration as well as the achievements and challenges of such collaborative partnerships. Research limitations/implications – This literature based article reports on the first part of a larger research project. Further development and application of the conceptual framework in studying the collaborative relationship between academics and librarians empirically is deemed important. Originality/value This paper provides insights into the current condition and challenges in developing collaboration between academics and librarians. The proposed framework is beneficial to academics, librarians and universities interested in addressing the issues of this partnership in various academic contexts. Keywords Collaboration, Academic libraries, Academics, Librarians, Faculty, Australia, Vietnam Paper type Literature review

1

INTRODUCTION The importance of collaboration between librarians and academics in enhancing the academic success of students and research capacity has been increasingly recognized in universities. Their partnership entails a range of activities such as developing library resources, facilitating resources access and discovery, and embedding information literacy skills and research skills into the tertiary curriculum. Such joint effort enhances the relevance of subject-specific resources and information and learning skills for students, enriching their learning experiences and developing lifelong learning skills (Becker, 2006; Bennett, 2009; Ivey, 2003). At the broader level, collaboration between academics and librarians can facilitate the transition from traditional teaching methods in universities, tackling the challenges posed by dramatic changes in learning paradigm, modes of delivery, diversity of students, and the expansion of resources. No longer do academics have “sole responsibility” for the teaching and learning process (Doskatsch, 2003). Collaboration enables the pooling of expertise and exploitation of available resources and technologies in ways that maximize learning opportunities for students. A particularly important role of collaboration is in restructuring work practices, which is crucial for the innovation of educational environments. In light of this, the model of collaboration in which librarians and academics are expected to work together has been established in many universities. The implementation process is, however, facing various chronic challenges. Academics and librarians are still mostly working separately due to differences in their goals, nature of work, expertise and status (Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004; Shen, 2012). The work of academics focuses on creating and transferring knowledge via teaching and research activities, whilst librarians’ work concentrates more on support and providing services. Such a structural divide is closely related to the issue of self-positioning and institutional culture that implicates the unequal power relationship between these communities (Given & Julien, 2005; Kennan, 2006). The emerging role of librarians working collaboratively with academics designing and teaching students in information and research skills is not well acknowledged. Traditional perceptions, stereotypes of librarians and the low respect for librarians’ knowledge in the disciplines and in education more broadly are still experiential barriers to the initiation of collaborative activities. Many of these challenges have been extensively discussed in the literature on collaboration between librarians and academics in the universities of developed countries like the USA, U.K., Canada and Australia. Most of these publications, however, are critical opinions from the practitioner perspective. There has been a call for more systematic research examining the differences of organizational structures in the relationship between academics and librarians (Christiansen et al., 2004) and factors impacting on their relationship-building in the academic environment (Phelps & Campbell, 2012). As the first part of a doctoral research project, this article examines recent literature for a review of the current state of collaboration between academics and librarians and presents a framework that could be applicable globally for analysing collaboration issues in various academic contexts. To illustrate the use of this framework, the article focuses on collaboration between academics and librarians in the educational contexts of one developing country, Vietnam, and one developed country, Australia, comparing and contrasting the nature of collaboration in each 2

country. Vietnam is the homeland of one author, who lived and worked there as a librarian before commencing study in Australia. In Vietnam, there is a lack of research into the relationship between librarians and academics. Despite the positive improvements in the overall quality of tertiary education in Vietnam, the importance of their working partnership in the educational process has been inadequately acknowledged. The influence of the traditional teaching and learning approach in which the teacher is the single source of knowledge has undervalued the role of the library. Librarians are mainly contacted for lending materials and basic information queries. Although some librarians have attempted to engage with academics in teaching information literacy, the lack of collaboration between academics and librarians has been reported as one of the main obstacles limiting the success of these ventures (Diep, 2011). Empirical studies that specifically examine the relationship between librarians and academics in Vietnam, however, have not been undertaken. The other country selected for this analysis, Australia, was chosen as the developed country with which Vietnam has the closest educational links. Australia has exerted a strong influence on the current development of higher education in Vietnam as well as the quality improvement of its human resources. It is the largest exporter of education to Vietnam and is the most preferred destination among developed countries for overseas education of Vietnamese people (Australian Government, 2013b). For years, Australia has been the largest tertiary scholarship sponsor in Vietnam. Many alumni of Australian universities have become leaders and senior staff in government agencies, research institutions and universities in Vietnam. The bilateral relationship in the education sector has been established from government to the community level. Australians have actively contributed to the development programs in Vietnam. Collaboration in high quality research across disciplines has been a significant application of Australian education (Australian Government, 2013a). The paper is structured in five main sections: (i) methodology used for reviewing the literature; (ii) a framework for analysing the concepts of collaboration that are defined and described in the library and information science field and in related disciplines; (iii) the current achievements as well as the challenges influencing the partnership between librarians and academics in Australian and Vietnamese universities; (iv) application of the framework for analysing those collaborative characteristics in the two countries; and (v) conclusion. Sources of data for the article include relevant literature as well as the authors’ knowledge and experience of the educational contexts of both countries. Further papers are planned to report on primary data collection from universities in Vietnam and Australia. METHODOLOGY The literature review was conducted in five main steps, following the process suggested by Creswell (2008): (i) identify key terms; (ii) locate literature; (iii) critically evaluate and select literature; (iv) organize the literature; and (v) write the review. Identifying key terms: A library online catalogue search using five keywords ‘collaboration’, ‘academics’, ‘librarians’, ‘Australia’ and ‘Vietnam’ identified various sources. In turn, these sources pointed to the other topic related terms in the literature, such as liaison, partnership, 3

relationship, cooperation, coordination, networking, higher education, university, academic library, faculty, faculty- library collaboration, information literacy, collection development, research skills, online learning, lifelong learning, and distance education. Locating literature: Boolean searches combining the primary keywords with the additional topicrelated terms were undertaken in the academic library catalogue and online databases, including Expanded Academic ASAP, Emerald, ERIC, Proquest, ScienceDirect, and Springerlink, as well as specific online journals (in particular, Australian Universities’ Review, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, Journal of Information and Documentation, and Reference Service Review) and Google Scholar. Located materials included the primary source literature reporting original research and secondary source literature such as reviews. Critically evaluating and selecting literature: All the literature found was critically examined and selected based on topic relevance, quality, authority, coverage, objectivity and currency. Organizing the literature: Selected materials were then organized by topics of collaboration including definitions, major achievements and challenges to collaboration between academics and librarians in Vietnam and in Australia. For each source, key ideas and findings were noted. For reference purposes, all citations were either recorded manually or downloaded directly into an EndNote program. A literature map was then constructed to display the research literature hierarchically by main themes and sub-themes with selected citations under each. Writing the review: Based on the literature map and notes from each selected source, a thematic review of the literature was written to examine major factors that influence the relationship between academics and librarians. Initially, to guide this study, a theoretical framework of collaboration concepts across library and information science and related disciplines was developed to explore key dimensions of collaboration. In order to demonstrate the application of the framework in specific contexts, this was followed by a review of significant issues in the higher education systems in Australia and Vietnam and their impacts on academic libraries and on the partnership between academics and librarians. The conceptual collaboration framework was used to analyse influencing factors and to highlight similarities and differences with collaboration between academics and librarians in both countries. CONCEPTS OF COLLABORATION Collaboration is a contemporary phenomenon that has emerged as a long-term solution for sustaining the development of individuals and organizations. This mode of human relationship has been constructed to aggregate the knowledge, power and resources from people across organization boundaries to solve issues that cannot be accommodated individually. It constitutes ‘a value system upon which new solutions can be framed’ (Appley & Winder, 1977) to address critical research problems, constant changes of technology and vibrant development of knowledge and expertise (Hara, Solomon, Seung-Lye, & Sonnenwald, 2003). In spite of the significant roles of collaboration, there has been, however, a lack of consensus and incoherence in defining the meaning of collaboration across the disciplines (Thomson, Perry, & Miller, 2009). The concept was found to be very complex and multidimensional, and might 4

involve processes, structures, power, authority, rules, resources, expertise, awareness, behaviours, norms, commitment, expectations and more (D'Amour, 2005; Kraus, 1980). Ambiguities also occur in the delineation of collaboration and other correlated levels of the relationship: networking, coordination, and cooperation (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2006). It is therefore very important to understand the key themes of the concept in order to develop insights in relation to any specific contexts in which collaboration takes place. In exploring collaboration between academics and librarians, it is important to understand the concept of collaboration from the perspective of each participant group. For this purpose, the literature review identified four broad fields that yielded insight into collaboration in universities: management and organisational behaviour; education and research; knowledge management; and library and information science. A set of definitions and statements describing collaboration were sourced from recent literature in each of these related fields. Appendix A lists these statements, which are categorised by the disciplines of the source documents. Appendix A1 includes statements derived from publications in the fields of management and organisational behaviour/organisational psychology; A2, from education and research; A3, from knowledge management; and A4 from library and information science. Table 1 and the ensuing commentary analyses dimensions of collaboration revealed in these statements, identifying key concepts and similarities and differences in emphasis across these related fields.

5

Table 1: Dimensions of collaboration across related disciplines

Discipline/ Field of interest

Dimension of collaboration

Participants

Management, organisational behaviour/ psychology

Education, research

Knowledge management

Library and information science

Organisational members

Teachers/ academics/ faculty

Organisational members

Librarians, library media specialists

Managers

Students/ learners

Managers

External stakeholders

Administrators

Key external stakeholders

Administrators/ managers

Researchers Other interested parties

Experts inside and outside the organisation

General public/ community Teachers/ academics/ faculty Students

Focus of interaction

A particular domain, issue or problem

Educational reform, improving student learning and teaching practice, enhancing curriculum, developing research skills

The creation, transfer and exploitation/ usage of knowledge

Developing information literacy and research skills; supporting and enhancing learning; engendering enjoyment of reading and cultural pursuits

Context of collaboration

Intraorganisational and extraorganisational contexts

Schools, universities, research agencies and their communities

Intraorganisational and extraorganisational contexts

Libraries and information agencies (especially university, school and public libraries),their parent bodies and wider community

Features of collaboration emphasised

Interdependence, commitment to working together

Interdependence, mutual goals, shared accountability/ responsibility, shared resources, shared credit for outcomes

Effective communication based on trusting, committed relationships

Shared goals, shared thinking, shared creation [of an instructional/ information product]

6

Table 1: Dimensions of collaboration across related disciplines (cont’d)

Discipline/ Field of interest

Dimension of collaboration

Features of collaboration emphasised (cont’d)

Collaborative processes highlighted

Management, organisational behaviour/ psychology

Education, research

Knowledge management

Library and information science

Mutuality and shared norms, common conceptual framework

Co-operative effort, collective action, involving equal participation and complementary domains of expertise; voluntary nature of participation

Building and managing social networks and network relationships inside and outside the organisation

Key professional groups working together to support information-based learning; mutual respect for the competence brought by different professionals

Autonomous/ semi-autonomous control, shared rules and structures

Active participation of teachers and learners in the education process

Combining mental effort to exploit knowledge or create new knowledge

Symbiotic process involving action, effort and commitment of all team members

Values of fairness, caring and concern for others, voluntary participation

Creation of a sense of community between all participants in the learning process

Ongoing collaboration as the basis of knowledge sharing/ transfer

Social skills, trust and effective communication across professional boundaries

Breaking down of the barriers between teaching and learning, between education and research

Working together to achieve shared goals

Shared planning and decision-making, collective action

Cultivating and managing relationships

Creation of rules and structures for operation

Building and managing collections of information resources and facilitating access to online information, customised for particular needs/ requirements

7

Table 1: Dimensions of collaboration across related disciplines (cont’d)

Discipline/ Field of interest

Dimension of collaboration

Collaborative processes highlighted (cont’d)

Management, organisational behaviour/ psychology

Education, research

Knowledge management

Library and information science

Joint/ collaborative planning, decision-making, problem-solving

Interactive exchange of resources in the process of pursuing a common goal

Enhancing communication

Planning, designing, conducting and evaluating learning activities and experiences that incorporate information literacy and research literacy

Communicative action, negotiation

Building a common vision or conceptual framework

Activating or synthesising knowledge

Dialogical processes, reflecting on practice to enhance professional development Perceived outcomes of collaboration

Achievement of mutually beneficial goals/ aspirations

Pursuit and achievement of a common goal

Achieving common goals

Effective learning and development of information literacy and research skills

Emergent outcomes

Increased productivity, maximising use of resources, generation of creative solutions

Innovation, creation of new knowledge

Providing access to information resources that meet user needs

Enhanced teaching, learning, research; professional development

Effective knowledge transfer; exploitation of existing knowledge

Outcomes/ products that blend all participants’ contributions

Strategic benefit: economic gain, value creation, value-adding

Emergent processes and outcomes

Providing ‘synergistic solutions’ to problems

8

Participants in collaborative activities are typically organisational members, managers or important external stakeholders. Knowledge management sources emphasise the notion of expertise of internal and external collaborators. In education and library and information science, participants are commonly teachers or academics, students or learners, researchers, librarians and other information specialists, administrators and other interested parties, including the general public/ wider community. In terms of the focus of interaction of collaboration, the management and organisational literatures emphasise particular domains, issues or problems; knowledge management adds the element of knowledge creation, transfer, exploitation or utilization. Education and research sources focus on improving teaching and learning practice, enhancing the curriculum and developing research skills. These emphases are extended in library and information science, with a primary focus on developing information literacy and research skills, supporting learning, and engendering enjoyment of reading. The contexts of collaboration in management and organisational sources and in knowledge management are both intra-organisational and extra-organisational. Within education, particular focus is on the school or university and its wider environment, and in library and information science, the library/ information agency, its parent body and wider community. Regarding the features of collaboration, there is broad agreement across the disciplines on features of interdependence, mutuality and commitment to working together to achieve common goals, shared effort, shared responsibility and accountability, shared resources and outcomes, voluntary participation, and values such as fairness and caring for others. Management and organisational sources consider the nature of control (autonomous or semi-autonomous) and rules and structures. Complementarity and equality of participation between different domains of expertise, and respect for the competence of different professionals are features identified in education and library and information science sources. Additionally, education sources emphasise active participation of all players in the learning process creating a sense of community and breaking down barriers between teaching and learning. The knowledge management literature highlights the features of effective communication based on trusting, committed relationships, building and managing social networks, and combining mental effort to exploit knowledge or create new knowledge. Library and information science sources emphasise the shared creation of particular instructional/ informational products and services. Collaborative processes identified across the disciplines include communicative actions such as dialogue, enhancing communication across boundaries and negotiation, and shared planning and decision-making processes. Management and organisational sources explore the process of collaborative problem-solving as well as creating rules and structures for operation. In education, developing a common vision or conceptual framework, and reflection on practice to enhance professional development are highlighted. In knowledge management, collaboration is focused on cultivating and managing relationships, and activating and synthesising knowledge, whilst collaboration in library and information science sources pertains to processes of building and managing collections of information resources, facilitating access to online information, and planning, designing, conducting and evaluating learning activities and experiences that incorporate information literacy and research literacy.

9

Considering the perceived outcomes of collaboration, there is broad agreement across the disciplines that collaboration involves the achievement of mutually beneficial goals or aspirations (e.g., enhancing efficiency or generating creative solutions to problems), and that the process of collaboration can result in emergent (unexpected) outcomes or benefits. Each discipline also has its own distinctive view of the beneficial results of collaboration—in education, it is enhanced teaching, learning or research; in knowledge management, it involves strategic benefit such as value creation through innovation/ creation of new knowledge or exploitation of existing knowledge; and in library and information science, development of effective information literacy and research skills and information resources/services that meet user needs. The remainder of this section differentiates collaboration from similar concepts, and then proposes a working definition of collaboration for the purposes of the research into collaboration between academics and librarians. Differentiating levels of collaboration Collaboration is a complex concept that is often used interchangeably with coordination, cooperation, partnership and coalition, although they denote different of layers of meaning and purpose as well as degree of relationship. The distinctions of collaboration, coordination and cooperation have been contested by various authors. The notion of collaboration is commonly perceived as the highest level of the relationship by collaboration theorists; however, some present contrasting views. Following the work of Yue and Beyerlein (2006) and CamarinhaMatos and Afsarmanesh (2006), this paper adopts the notion of a continuum of collaboration, progressing from networking through coordination to cooperation and finally collaboration. Definitions of each of these concepts are given below: Networking: a flexible relationship that involves dialogue and informal communication to share information among members of a network in which goals, rules, structures and roles are loosely defined. Networking can be seen as a ‘precondition’ of other higher working relationships (Montiel-Overall, 2005). Coordination: a short-term relationship in which involved parties coordinate their efforts to work in a more scheduled way and with more specified roles and goals. Participants may need to adjust their activities and time to contribute to their complementary goals (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 2006). Cooperation: usually requires a higher level of commitment than coordination, involving resourcesharing and more clearly defined responsibilities. The interaction occurs among independent parties who work together to achieve mutual agreement “but their work together does not progress beyond this level” (New England Program in Teacher Education Inc., 1973, cited in Hord, 1986). Collaboration: can be clearly distinguished from cooperation and coordination as this process obtains a higher degree of commitment in sharing roles, resources and knowledge from involved entities who work together to achieve a common goal. The relationship structures are formal with clear vision of leadership and long-term outcomes (Gajda, 2004). Collaboration reaches the

10

seamless level as “members belong to one system” and mutual trust is highly developed from frequent communication (Frey, Lohmeier, Lee, & Tollefson, 2006). A preliminary definition of collaboration to guide this research With the aim of better understanding the multifaceted meanings of collaboration to accommodate the most significant concepts that should be investigated in this research, a broad definition of collaboration is given below: Collaboration is an interactive process among internal and external stakeholders who work together to communicate their knowledge, skills, resources and authority in planning, designing, decision making and problem solving process for the achievement of a mutual goal. In the context of collaboration between academics and librarians in the university environment: Collaboration is an educationally innovating process among academics, librarians and other relevant parties who are working together to share knowledge and expertise to support the enhancement of teaching, learning and research experiences for the university community.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN ACADEMICS AND LIBRARIANS IN TWO COUNTRIES In this section, the current condition and challenges in the relationship between academics and librarians in Australia and in Vietnam are reviewed. As mentioned earlier, these countries were selected to illustrate the application of the conceptual collaboration framework to specific national contexts. For each country, an outline is provided of: the important changes in the higher education system and their impacts on the nature of work of academics; the impacts of structural changes, the development of technology and the emergence of information literacy skills on the academic library system and on the changing roles of librarians; and key aspects of the collaboration and related concerns from the professional and leadership perspectives. This outline of educational contexts provides the basis for the following section, which illustrates the application of the framework to specific national settings, contextually analysing issues of collaboration between academics and librarians, and comparing and contrasting the nature of collaboration in each country.

AUSTRALIA The Australian higher education system has experienced remarkable changes from the establishment of massive institutions formed by the mergers of universities and colleges along with the reduction of the Government funding allocated for the sector (Bruce, 2001; Ryan, 2009) and the development of technology in education (De Zilwa, 2010). According to the Australian Government higher education review panel led by Professor Bradley, these strategic directions have provided improvements in various areas of the higher education system and produced significant outcomes such as: increasing participation in higher education; diversifying income 11

sources for universities; gaining a higher contribution by students to their education costs; allocating funding based on performance; and increasing the diversity of the higher education system by providing support to the private sector (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008). As a consequence, the Australian higher education system has moved from an elite and government funded system to a mass sector, and an enormous export industry in higher education driven by market demands to attain its main revenue from tuition fees (Bradley et al., 2008; Ryan, 2009). Along with these macro-level achievements, the transformation has generated prominent challenges to the public universities that have directly affected the performance of academics and other university stakeholders. Universities have been restructuring and have become “more highly regulated than ever before” (Davies, Gottsche, & Bansel, 2006). The shape of the universities and the academic profession has been drawn under the contextual influences of fiscal strains and dynamic change of the environment, i.e., globalization and neoliberalism/economic rationalism; the emergent entrepreneurialism and managerialist model; the massification of student cohorts; the greater level of accountability; and the advanced development of technology (Davies et al., 2006; Ferman, 2011; Ryan, 2009; De Zilwa, 2010). Notwithstanding the rapid responses of the majority of universities with exceptional success of several public universities, these factors have had considerable impact on university governance and structure, academic community, teaching and research (Ryan, 2009), and graduate quality. The changes across the Australian higher education system have created higher burdens on the main roles of education and research that academics have performed so far. The reduction of funding and massification of students have noticeably increased the teaching loads of Australian academics. The intensification of work with higher compliance to the system of performance measurement have caused an imbalance between work and life as many academics have to work late nights or on the weekend (De Zilwa, 2010). Their roles have been expanded over teaching and research to managing paperwork, marketing courses, or designing curriculum (Ferman, 2011) to dealing with communities, professional associations and leadership management (Kenny, Fluck, & Jetson, 2012). Further, academics have to cope with the provision of different emerging modes of course delivery, e.g., evening, off-campus, overseas or multiple campuses that require the higher flexibility, technological skills and global knowledge (Ryan, 2009). Academic efficiency and promotion are to be tracked by research productivity, research funding attainability, satisfaction of taught students or revenue generated from business activities (De Zilwa, 2010). These ever-creasing changes of the system structures and nature of employment have created pressure and job dissatisfaction among the academic community (Davies et al., 2006; Ryan, 2009). However, in spite of the various challenges, the Australian higher education system has been progressing as many academics have been committed to and have worked devotedly for the development of the value of intellectual education (Davies et al., 2006). To enhance student engagement, especially those from under-represented groups, various teaching approaches such as student-centered active learning designs, integration of study skills into the course, or strategic induction and orientation have been implemented (Crosling, Heagney, & Thomas, 2009). As an indispensable component of a university, Australian academic libraries have experienced the same impulse as their institutions during the transformation of the higher education system. The challenges of macro-level changes in the governance, structure, and technology developments have been undertaken as challenges and opportunities to optimize the resources 12

and services to benefit the communities of users (Becker, 2006; Jensen & Guha, 1995; Richard, 2008). Australian university libraries have developed typical strategies to deal with professional and business issues that help them maintain their critical roles in the educational process (Austen, Schmidt, Calvert, & Cullen, 2002). In responding to the changes of teaching and learning methods, optimizing IT applications in the learning process (Austen et al., 2002; George & Luke, 1996), focusing on collaboration between librarians and academics, embedding information literacy into the curriculum, supporting research and international students (Austen et al., 2002; Smith, 2011), developing electronic resources, infrastructure, facilities, designing information/learning commons (Bailin, 2011; Bundy, 2012), and benchmarking and measuring library performance (Austen et al., 2002; Smith, 2011) have been recorded as the major developments of academic libraries in Australia over the last twenty years. In this, academic libraries and librarians have confronted a number of global trends that have substantially influenced and changed their roles and the nature of the library profession. The structural changes have exerted major driving impacts on the organization and management of academic libraries. Following the mergers of the parent institutions, the majority of academic libraries have been set into the context of amalgamated campuses in which there exists a central library and branch libraries that are not only geographically separated but hold different values and missions (Becker, 2006). The widespread distances have also presented physical and fiscal challenges for both institutions and libraries (Bundy, 2012). Similar geographical constraints impact on libraries in supporting the increasingly widespread development of distance education and online teaching. A major priority has been collaborative attempts to support and facilitate faster access to library resources for remote students (Bundy, 2012). The movement to the digital learning environment and the changing needs of students in terms of space for searching and using information have promoted the transformation of library space to a more sophisticated design with specific configuration for study spaces, social spaces and service desks within the learning commons (Bailin, 2011). Another prominent alteration of the library structures that demonstrates their central role in the university community has been the integration of learning services into the library setting (Smith, 2011). This transformation reflects the significance of the interconnection between learning skills and information literacy as well as the interrelated roles between librarians and learning advisors for the development of lifelong learning skills for students (Smith, 2011). The structural model of a group of subject/liaison librarians and learning skills advisors working in partnership with appointed faculty is one of the most popular approaches in many Australian universities (Rodwell & Fairbairn, 2008). Their areas of collaboration are varied: from collection development to strategic planning (Dickson, 2004), policy partnerships, research and scholarship partnership, curriculum and academic development for teaching and learning information literacy that matches the graduate attributes, and capability-building for staff (Bruce, 2001). Among these, the integration of information literacy and research skills development into the educational process are the most notable emerging areas in the current academic–library collaboration in Australia. The collaborative programs have reflected the shift of librarians’ central roles in providing general training on information skills to the shared responsibilities of librarians and academics in integrating and teaching these skills inside the curriculum (Dearden, 2005; Thompson, 2002). 13

Their librarian role has been conceptualized as an agent of change in the academic community for the transformation of teaching and learning methods (Bundy, 1997; Candy, Crebert, & O’Leary, 1994). It has been further extended as a teacher or an educator to reflect the shift of their responsibilities from bibliographical instructor to information literacy teacher (Doskatsch, 2003; Doyle 1994; Lupton, 2002). However, the emerging role of an educator who jointly works with academics in designing and teaching information and research skills has essentially presented a challenge for librarians. There has been an opposition to the teaching roles of librarians, thus raising the need to enhance librarian expertise in teaching (Nimon, 2002; Thompson, 2002). Rodwell and Fairbairn (2008) believe that librarians need to develop their knowledge in a specific discipline together with their professional expertise. They called for research to investigate the expectations of faculty from librarians as well as the specific attributes and skills that a liaison librarian needs to develop. Very few universities report the successful integration of information literacy and research skills into the curriculum at the university-wide level. A successful program requires a high level of commitment from academics, librarians and other study/advice/support units who need to work collaboratively in program design and planning (Nayda, 2009; Thompson, 2002). There has been inadequate promotion among academics of information literacy as one of the established graduates attributes (White & Long, 2001). White and Long also found that some academics have opposed the integration of information literacy into the subject content causing the lack of program awareness and support. Given much of the efforts have been made by librarians in forming the partnership with faculty, Rader (2002) critically concluded in her literature review of information literacy from 1973 to 2002 that “success often eluded them”. Challenges still exist for the profession, such as unrealistic expectations of librarians in terms of teaching capabilities, professional identity, traditional perceptions and stereotypes, and institutional structures such as policies, resource constraints, staff development, managing change and sustaining achievement (Bruce, 2001; Doskatsch, 2002). Feast (2003) raised the importance of management support in overcoming the inhibiting factors that have hindered the success of integrating information literacy skills in teaching and learning strategies such as colleagues’ attitudes, the increase in student/staff ratio, the lack of infrastructure and resource support, poor administrative support and the issue of extra workload. The process of reconceptualising the institutional structures and work arrangements to build up the new university learning and teaching environment that supports the integration of information literacy into the curriculum is very challenging (George & Luke, 1996). There is a call for institutional strategic policies for staff development when the participation of librarians into the course units often demands additional capacity, constrains resources and requires dedicated time (Callan, 2001). A further question for the executive leaders of the involved universities is how to sustain the achievement, commitment, and resources for the long term development of the educational agenda (Callan, 2001; Dickson, 2004). VIETNAM Higher education in Vietnam has made significant advances since the implementation of its innovation program over the last 20 years. The movement from the traditional Soviet model of higher education began when the government officially issued Decree No. 90/CP to reunify and 14

restructure the system in 1993. The outcome was impressive, with exceptional progress in the number of enrolments: from 162,000 enrolled students in 1993 to 1.54 million in 2006 (G. Harman, Hayden, & Pham, 2010). Many universities have expanded their training disciplines with stronger focus on the improvements in curricula, teaching methods and supporting resources. Research activities have been re-organized to become a part of university responsibilities ( World Bank, 2008). In recent years, on-going actions have been projected to achieve higher quality and international standards for higher education in the most recent Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA) by the Government for its vision of 2006–2020. A fully integrated higher education curriculum that supports research and careers for graduates and adheres to international quality standards is indicated as one of the main HERA objectives ( World Bank, 2008). In light of the above, however, many challenges have been recorded and currently recommended for strategic solutions. K. Harman and Nguyen (2010) and other authors have discussed a series of hurdles challenging teaching quality in higher education. The lack of qualified academic staff, passive teaching methods, absence of teaching motivation, inflexibility of curricula, poor sources of learning materials, and low income of most teachers are largely mentioned. The issue of the rigid curriculum framework has also been blamed for the heavy teaching workload of academics (Hayden & Lam, 2010). The teaching framework often comprises two main components, in which the foundation part requires students to study general subject units during the first two years whilst the ensuing professional part covers specific subject units taken for the last two years. Each unit normally involves 45-90 hours of face-to-face tuition. At classes, the traditional teaching mode in which teachers are typically lecturing whilst students are passively listening and memorizing to pass the examination still exists. Graduates are, as a consequence, found lacking in generic skills and practical skills to perform satisfactorily in the workplace ( World Bank, 2008). Academic research activities undertaken by faculty in Vietnam’s higher education institutions are very limited. Hayden and Lam (2010) and K. Harman and Nguyen (2010) found the causes of this originated from the lasting effect of the Soviet education legacy in which teaching was seen as the main role of an academic, whilst doing research should be undertaken by the research institutions. The low involvement rate in research was further reported as due to: low investment in science and technology; inadequate resources and facilities (Hayden & Lam, 2010); a shortage of professional researchers (Hien, 2010); the high teaching volume, low financial support, and lack of research skills training in the majority of faculty (World Bank, 2008); and the barriers of English language to access and publish in international journals. Radical changes are required to improve teaching, learning and research quality. An urge to move from didactic to interactive teaching and problem-based learning modes to enhance students’ participation and creation is proposed in higher education institutions (K. Harman & Nguyen, 2010). Problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, communication and teamwork skills, information literacy and life-long learning skills need to be integrated into the curriculum (K. Harman & Nguyen, 2010; Hayden & Lam, 2010; World Bank, 2008). The World Bank Group authors further highlighted the significance of providing research skills training and support among faculty and research students to achieve higher quality research. However, given the significant literature discussing a variety of issues related to the quality of higher education in Vietnam, with proposals emphasizing the importance of enhancing the 15

learning and research skills for academics and students as well as the relevant resources, the essential roles of academic libraries and librarians in supporting the performance of teaching, learning and research activities have rarely been recognized by scholars of education. Having benefited by the higher education reform, academic libraries gradually began their innovation and modernization from the late 1990s. The system has recently gained adequate attention and investment from the government and foreign donors to basically cope with chronic library development challenges, which have been noticeably reported by various interested authors. These include the poor infrastructure, shortage of funds, lack of expertise, lack of standardization, the closed-stack material organization system, inadequate user services, the poor match between resources and curriculum, out-dated technology and information management systems or unprofessional staffing, etc. (Robinson, 2006; Tran, 1999). A large number of library projects have been implemented in those targeted development areas such as automation, infrastructure, cataloguing standardization, Internet and information systems, capacity-building for librarians, and user-training programs. One of the early successful library development initiatives that can be seen as a breakthrough to change the understanding of the Vietnamese academic library community about the operational model of a Western standard library, was a project suite funded by the international Atlantic Philanthropies organization to build four Learning Resource Centres (LRC) at four regional universities across the country in the early 2000s. The project outcomes have contributed to the development of regional academic library resources as well as catalysing the change of the library approaches to teaching and learning activities at these universities (Robinson, 2006). Further, the LRC project has exerted a visionary influence upon many interested university libraries, which have gained various types of development funds from the Government’s Higher Education Projects, in their library construction and design, IT infrastructure and systems, resource development, library services, training to users and professional development. The second achievement in the development of academic libraries in Vietnam was the issue in 2006 of the Vietnamese translation and adaptation of three main cataloguing standards i.e., Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC) to support libraries in organizing information and operating the automated systems. The project has shown enormous effort of devoted Vietnamese and foreign librarians and library experts to accommodate the differences of Vietnam’s specificities of politics, economics, society, history, geography, language and culture, etc., with Western/ American systems. The success is very significant not only in the conversion process from the traditional Soviet style closed-stack library to an open-access system but also in developing basic competencies for academic librarians in Vietnam to cope with future changes of resources management amidst the proliferation of electronic resources. The third important impact in the development of university libraries in Vietnam is the promotion of the Internet, the development of IT as well as the application of Web technology in in recent years. Starting from a very low level of IT infrastructure in the early 2000s, mostly with the CDS/ISIS software funded by UNESCO and LAN/WAN network, a number of academic libraries now employ library automation software that is capable of running in a digital environment to organize both print and electronic resources or have developed open-source library software to manage digital collections. The current application of Web technology for 16

libraries is basically at Web 1.0 generation (Hoang Son Nguyen, 2011). Web 2.0 was found to be just starting in a few exceptional libraries whilst the concept of Web 3.0 seemed new to most of the libraries (Hoang, 2011). Despite a number of limitations of infrastructure, systems, budget and expertise, the current technology changes have exerted a positive impact on the traditional perception of both librarians as resource managers as well as teachers and students as users who are now able to directly access information. The next innovative role that academic libraries in Vietnam have taken with the introduction of open access libraries and electronic resources is to deliver training programs for library orientation and online catalogue searching to library users. These programs are often compulsory requirements for student users with an aim to deliver basic knowledge and skills to use the new library model that most students have no experience of in their high-school libraries. However, the significance of information literacy and learning skills training for those novice users has gained inadequate attention from the majority of libraries. According to Pham (2008), issues of poor information literacy instructional materials, lack of leadership and administrative support, and the traditional teaching and learning styles have currently hampered the successful implementation of the programs school wide. Capacity-building for library professionals seems a critical area that has gained significant attention from the researchers of library development in Vietnam. The shortage of qualified library staff who are capable of operating the newly developed library systems or providing professional training to junior staff has been found to be a major challenge for most academic libraries, especially in regional areas (Denison & Robinson, 2004; Pham, 2007). One of the original causes of this problem is the chronically out-dated library science education curriculum which mostly provides traditional knowledge and skills for librarians to work in the closed-stack library systems. Based on a thorough study and extensive knowledge of library education in Vietnam, Tran (2001) has proposed a detailed curriculum developed from similar courses taught in Western countries, with considerable revision for local library schools in Vietnam. Her curriculum framework focused on developing essential background knowledge and skills for library graduates to cope with the constant development of IT and to deliver electronic resource services. However, there has been no report on the application of her proposed curriculum. Most recently, Nguyen (2011) attempted to identify the gap between the LIS curriculum and the current practices to develop a model of continuing education for library practitioners. After interviewing ten university library managers and 17 groups of operational staff, she found their learning needs ranged from very basic to advanced level of library service management. She then proposed a continuing education framework in which professional and management skills at different prioritized levels of training are to be provided to suit the learning needs of specific groups of operational staff and library managers. Despite the significant innovation in various areas of education and library development as well as the strategic proposals to improve the research and learning skills for the university communities, academics and librarians in Vietnamese universities are mostly working independently of each other. Collaborative activities have been modestly taken in the areas of materials acquisition, information services and training, materials organization for academic collections, and research projects. The partnership between educators and librarians who can provide essential resources to support teaching and learning activities have been inadequately 17

established (Diep & Nahl, 2011; Pham, 2007). Literature studying this relationship therefore has gained very little attention. Pham (2008) conducted a survey to study the perceptions of academics and librarians in the implementation of information literacy at seven universities in Vietnam and found that the lack of collaboration between academics and librarians was one of the major factors challenging the performance of information literacy programs at these institutions. Findings from more recent research by Diep and Nahl (2011) examining the delivery of information literacy at four newly developed libraries, showed that the level of collaboration between academics and librarians is too low to support the integration of information literacy into the curriculum. The partnerships mostly initiated by librarians were based on personal contacts. Diep also claimed that “building this kind of relationship had just begun and no major steps had been taken to enhance communication” (Diep, 2011, p.203). Possible factors causing such a limited degree of collaboration between academics and librarians in Vietnam have not been addressed in any research. In order to understand the challenges of collaboration, the complex variables which involve “perception, values, expectations, assumptions, behaviours, structures, processes and outcomes” need to be acknowledged (Kraus, 1980). Therefore, examining how these associated values influence the relationship between academics and librarians within the specific context of Vietnamese university education is important for understanding the nature, the structures and the consequences of this partnership. Since the majority of Vietnamese library practitioners are female, their perceptions are likely to be influenced by traditional social factors. In a study about continuing education for library staff, Hong Sinh Nguyen (2008) discovered that the traditional perception of women’s main role as a carer of family and children was dominant, despite the rapid development of the society. To meet the society’s expectation, women accept missing out opportunities for higher learning. In the public perception, the stereotype of a librarian as a bookkeeper shelving in the old wooden stacks has prevailed. Along with the issues of gender inequality, the lower appreciation of women’s work role in the family and the lack of advantages in accessing professional development opportunities offered to females compared to males, impose certain limitations on the development of library career. Working in the academic environment, but not having been granted faculty status, makes library work very challenging and largely dependent on the support of university administrators and faculty. Diep (2011) highlighted the insufficient support from university leaders, administrators and faculty as the most challenging factors limiting librarians’ capacity to undertake a library initiative. They were not able to develop specific information literacy programs to meet the needs of students from different faculties. The issues of low appreciation of their jobs, qualification and competencies among the academic community has made their important role in supporting teaching and learning activities unrecognized (Hong Sinh Nguyen, 2008). However, it should be noted that there is a gap in the perceptions of librarians and academics about each other’s working conditions. The overload of teaching activities has constrained academics from taking on any additional work. There are issues related to the financial impact on faculty if information literacy class time is exceeded, in which case compensation should be sought out (Diep, 2011).

18

The appropriateness of welfare policies and library personnel management are significant related factors that need to be addressed at all levels. The limitations of government funding and expenditure budgets have an overall impact on all the areas of library development ranging from infrastructure and facilities, IT applications and systems, resources and services, and standardization, to human resource development. The very low income and occupation benefits for librarians have long been criticized as reasons for lacking qualified librarians and low motivation for professional development (Huynh, Huynh, & Hoang, 2011). This low pay policy was found as a result of the low professional status of librarians in the public mind (Murray & Welch, 2009). Another impact of organizational policies on the quality of library human resources was library personnel management procedures. Facing more challenges than favorable conditions, academic libraries in Vietnam are in need of improved professional capacity to enable them to reach out to and to form collaborative relationships with academics. Competencies of most librarians regarding the changing nature of the library profession in terms of resources, services, technology, standards, processes and user demands are relatively low (Murray & Welch, 2009). Diep and Nahl (2011) found the limited knowledge of another specific subject also has a negative effect on the capability of librarians to work effectively with faculty in teaching students about information and research skills. Their survey results also highlighted a lack of appreciation by academics of the pedagogical expertise of librarians in the delivery of information literacy programs. Moreover, many librarians were unfamiliar with the concepts of resource-based learning or life-long learning skills (Pham, 2007). Communication skills, teamwork skills, knowledge of a foreign language and IT applications skills were other professional attributes that have been proposed for improvements among Vietnamese librarians (Hong Sinh Nguyen, 2008; Welch & Murray, 2010). APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK TO ANALYSE COLLABORATION BETWEEN ACADEMICS AND LIBRARIANS IN SPECIFIC NATIONAL SETTINGS This section illustrates the application of the framework to specific national settings, comparing and contrasting the nature of collaboration between academics and librarians in each country. This contextual analysis exemplifies particular application of wider issues of collaboration. It alerts librarians to the contextual factors impacting on collaboration, and provides insights for librarians globally. Both Australian and Vietnamese academics and librarians face a variety of opportunities and challenges in working collaboratively. To some extent, their interaction has been influenced by structural, socio-cultural and technological factors that could be either enablers or constraints to their relationship. In this section, Table 2 and the ensuing commentary use the theoretical framework of collaboration to analyse those factors and to identify the similarities and the differences of those features in the context of Australian and Vietnamese universities.

19

Table 2: Dimensions of collaboration between academics and librarians in Australian and Vietnamese universities Dimensions of collaboration

Australian universities

Vietnamese universities

Participants

Academics, librarians, learning skill advisors, study/course advisors, unit coordinators, tutors, administrators, executive leaders

Academics, librarians, faculty administrators, and executive leaders

Focus of interaction

Library resources development

Library resources development

Integrating and teaching information literacy, research skills, and academic skills

Information literacy training

Facilitating resources discovery and access Embedding resources and services for distance education and e-learning

Collection organization for faculty library Participation in research projects

Curriculum design and development Policy partnership Research and scholarship partnership Capacity building for staff Context of collaboration

Universities, faculty, libraries, online and virtual learning environment

Universities, faculty, libraries and online

Features of collaboration emphasised

Shared responsibilities in integrating and teaching information skills between academics and librarians

Lack of mutual effort to initiate the collaborative relationship

Requiring higher level of commitment from academics, librarians, and involved staff Still being influenced by traditional stereotypes about librarianship Shifting role of librarians from bibliographic instructor to information literacy educators to work in partnership with academics Expectations of faculty about librarians’ subject knowledge and

Lack of mutual understanding about the working conditions of the partners Heavily influenced by traditional stereotypes about librarianship Poor recognition of librarians’ role in teaching, learning and research activities Lack of respect to the

20

teaching expertise

competency and subject knowledge of librarians

Table 2: Dimensions of collaboration between academics and librarians in Australian and Vietnamese universities (cont’d) Dimensions of collaboration

Australian universities

Vietnamese universities

Features of collaboration emphasised (cont’d)

Challenges caused by intensification of teaching workload, expanded role, various modes of course delivery, technological change and research productivity that could influence academics’ collaborative efforts

Challenges caused by the heavy teaching workload, the passive teaching methods, rigid curriculum, and low teaching motivation that could inhibit the potential outcomes of the collaborative effort in integration of information literacy into the curriculum

Challenges caused by the institutional structures such as highly regulated mechanisms, lack of management support, time and resource constraints Collaborative processes highlighted

Challenges caused by the institutional structures such as insufficient management support, lack of qualified staff, low income, time and resource constraints

Integrating information literacy, research skills and study skills into the course content

Teaching information literacy skills

Developing library resources for specific subjects

Organizing library collections for faculty

Facilitating faster access to library resources for distance education students

Developing library resources

Partnership in research

Partnership in research and scholarship Developing strategies and policies Perceived outcomes

Enhancing students’ learning experiences

Enhancing information literacy skills for students

Enhancing information literacy skills, Developing library resources academic skills, lifelong learning that meet users’ needs skills for students 21

Innovative tertiary curriculum that reduces the problem of skills shortages for graduates Building relevant collections of library resources for various subjects Providing better access and services to resources for students of distance education and online learning

Table 2: Dimensions of collaboration between academics and librarians in Australian and Vietnamese universities (cont’d) Dimensions of collaboration

Australian universities

Vietnamese universities

Levels of collaboration

Collaboration between academics and librarians has not reached the seamless level in which members express a high level of commitment, effort, trust and mutual respect in working towards a common goal.

Collaboration has not been well established. The level of relationship can be perceived as at the initial level of the collaboration continuum, networking to coordination.

Degree of collaboration varies in different contexts, progressing from networking to coordination, cooperation and collaboration.

Rules and structure are loosely defined

Participants in collaborative relationships in Australian universities are primarily academics or study/course advisors, unit coordinators and librarians working with the support of administrators and executive leaders. In some universities where learning skills units have been merged with the university libraries, learning skills advisors are important partners, who work in teams with librarians and academics. In Vietnam, the partnership mainly involves librarians and academics or faculty administrators. The participation of executive leaders is occasionally mentioned. The focus of interaction is broader in Australian universities. Their collaborative activities range from library resource development, information literacy and research skills development, curriculum design, resource access and delivery, and research partnerships, to staff development. Academics and librarians in Vietnamese universities collaborate basically in resource development and organization, information literacy training and research projects. The context of collaboration in both countries involves university settings, distance education and online.

22

Considering the features of collaboration in Australian and Vietnamese universities with corresponding features of collaboration found across related disciplines (Table 1), the levels of mutuality, commitment, effort, trust and respect and structural constraints are varied. Australian universities attain a higher degree of collaboration although there are still issues concerning expectations of the level of commitment from participants and the subject knowledge and teaching expertise of librarians. In Vietnam, mutual effort to establish the relationship is limited. A notable barrier to the relationship is the lack of respect for the role of librarians and their knowledge in other disciplines. They experience greater influence of the traditional librarianship stereotype than do Australian librarians. Furthermore, innovation of teaching methods and curriculum are essential to facilitate collaboration in teaching information literacy and research skills. However, collaboration between academics and librarians in both countries face similar challenges in terms of heavy teaching workload, inadequate management support and organizational constraints. Collaborative processes in Australian universities place a strong focus on activities and strategies for the incorporation of information literacy and research skills into the curriculum and the embeddedness of librarians and subject specific resources into the course. Collaboration practices in Vietnamese universities are focused mainly on resource development activities such as ordering or requesting materials. Work related to teaching information and literacy skills is still not widespread. The perceived outcomes of collaboration in Australian and Vietnamese universities are comparable with the defined outcomes in the collaboration framework (Table 1). These include the enhancement of information and research skills for students and library resources and services to accomplish the university goals of improving teaching, research and learning quality. Further outcomes in Australian universities are the innovation of curriculum and support for distance and online education. Regarding the levels of collaboration, academics and librarians in Australian universities are facing various challenges that influence the outcome of their relationship. Depending on the situation, the partnership varies across the continuum of collaboration, ranging from the lowest level of networking in which goals, structures and roles are lightly defined to higher levels including coordination, cooperation and collaboration. On the other hand, in Vietnamese universities, there is little effort to build collaborative relationships. The goals, organizational structures, responsibilities have not been clearly defined, thus their partnership involves informal and less structured interactions. CONCLUSION Collaboration is becoming a preferred way of working in complex environments—for instance, establishing collaborations between multi-disciplinary teams of researchers to address pressing global challenges. However, collaboration is a very complex concept, representing a high level of human relationship, and there are significant impediments to effective collaboration. To facilitate in-depth understanding about collaboration between academics and librarians, a conceptual framework of collaboration dimensions across related library and information science disciplines has been constructed. It serves as a useful structure for examining the main 23

characteristics, the focus of the process, and the perspectives of each participant group toward their collaborative relationships. This framework has broad application. Here its utility for analysing collaboration between academics and librarians was demonstrated through comparing and contrasting collaborations within the educational contexts of one developed country (Australia) and one developing country (Vietnam). In the case of Australian universities, the degree of collaboration between academics and librarians is varied across institutional contexts. There has been recognisable emphasis on the innovation of tertiary educational programmes to reduce the problems of skills shortages among graduate students. However, the actual collaboration practices encounter structural challenges and various barriers that need to be addressed. Universities in Vietnam on the other hand, have been challenged for the vision of transforming the teaching and learning approach as well as enhancing overall quality and performance. Issues of insufficient academic qualifications, teacher-centred learning approaches, a rigid curriculum, inadequate learning resources, and poor graduate quality are widespread. There has been a rise in the need to develop information literacy skills and information searching skills for students; however the roles of librarians in working with academics in such an educational process have not been well established. Despite the inevitable gap between the nature of collaboration in Australia and Vietnam, universities in both countries have experienced global impacts of the transformation of the education system and similar contextual factors that challenge academics and librarians moving towards an integrated working partnership. The review and analysis of the literature has shown that each professional group brings its own distinctive culture, expertise, skill-sets, knowledge, attitudes and ways of working. The natural professional distance between different professions is often underpinned by structures and rules that impede collaboration. Collaboration requires trusting, committed relationships, mutual respect for the competence brought by different professional groups, and well-developed social skills to foster effective communication across professional boundaries. Such relationships take time to develop—they do not happen overnight or by management decree. Also, they are achieved more readily where people are already acquainted with each other and interact regularly, for instance on a small university campus where a librarian comes to know most academics. Face-to-face interaction, at least in the early stages of a collaboration, appears to facilitate the development of such relationships. Recognising these points, it is advisable for librarians planning collaborative activities with academics to ‘start small’ and build on minor achievements to establish a pattern of success and reputation for responsiveness, in order to develop the trust and confidence amongst partners that are essential for more ambitious collaborative projects. It is planned in the next phase of the current research project to further develop and apply this preliminary framework empirically in studying the collaborative relationship between academics and librarians, and how contextual influences enable and constrain this relationship in university environments. One anticipated outcome of the research is to provide guidelines for library practitioners in assessing, developing and enhancing their collaborative relationships with academics. Insights, experiences and lessons learnt from the study of this relationship are beneficial to universities interested in addressing the issues of collaboration between librarians and academics in academic contexts globally. 24

REFERENCES Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teacher College Record, 104(3), 421-455. Adamson, B., & Walker, E. (2011). Messy collaboration: Learning from a learning study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 29-36. American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communication and Technology. (1998). Connections to the learning community. Information power: Building partnerships for learning (pp. 123-125). Chicago: American Library Association. Appley, D. G., & Winder, A. E. (1977). An evolving definition of collaboration and some implications for the world of work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(3), 279-291. doi: 10.1177/002188637701300304 Austen, G., Schmidt, J., & Calvert, P.. (2002). Australian university libraries and the new educational environment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1/2), 63-67. Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1992). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. ERIC Digest, [1-5]. Australian Government. (2013a). Australia in the Asian century: Vietnam profile. (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). Retrieved from http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/asiancentury/vietnam.html. Australian Government. (2013b). Education to Vietnam. (Australian Trade Commission). Retrieved from http://www.austrade.gov.au/Export/ExportMarkets/Countries/Vietnam/Industries/Education. Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(4), 342-359. Becker, L. K. W. (2006). Globalisation and changing practices for academic librarians in Australia: A literature review. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 37(2), 82-99. Bennett, O. (2009). Extending liaison collaboration: Partnering with faculty in support of a student learning community. Reference Services Review, 37(2), 131-142. Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31-48. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education (pp. i-271). Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Bruce, C. (2001). Faculty-librarian partnerships in Australian higher education: Critical dimensions. Reference Services Review, 29(2), 106-115. Bundy, A. (2012). Better, more accessible, libraries for all in Australia: Progress and potential. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 25(3), 138-144. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435-455. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003 Callan, P. A. (2001). Practice makes information literacy perfect: Models of educational collaboration at QUT. In J. Frylinck (Ed.),: Partners in Learning and Research: Changing roles for Australian Technology Network Libraries (pp. 1-18): Librarians of the Australian Technology Network.Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2006). Collaborative networks: Value creation in a knowledge society. In K. Wang, G. Kovacs, M. Wozny & M. Fang (Eds.), Knowledge Enterprise: Intelligent Strategies in Product Design, Manufacturing, and Management (Vol. 207, pp. 26-40). Boston: Springer. Christiansen, L., Stombler, M., & Thaxton, L. (2004). A Report on librarian-faculty relations from a sociological perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(2), 116-121. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2004.01.003 25

Corey, L. (2002). The role of the library media specialist in standards-based learning. Knowledge Quest, 31(2), 21-21. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research : Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall Crosling, G., Heagney, M., & Thomas, L. (2009). Improving student retention in higher education: Improving teaching and learning. Australian Universities' Review, 51(2), 9-18. D'Amour, D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(S1), 116-131. Davies, B., Gottsche, M., & Bansel, P. (2006). The rise and fall of the neo-liberal university. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 305-319. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00261.x De Zilwa, D. (2010). Current and emerging challenges. In D. De Zilwa (Ed.), Academic units in a complex, changing world (pp. 151-169). New York: Springer. Dearden, R. (2005). Aligning information literacy with the faculty teaching and learning agenda. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 36(4), 138-152. Denison, T., & Robinson, M. (2004). Breaking ground: Library systems implementation in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Breaking boundaries: Integration and Interoperability, VALA 12th Biennial Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne. Dickson, V. (2004). Collaboration plus! The development of an information literacy and communication program. The Australian library journal, 53(2), 153-160. Diep, K. C. (2011). A conceptual framework for best practices in information literacy instruction based on stakeholders' perceptions: A case study of four Vietnamese academic libraries. (Ph.D. 3475709), University of Hawai'I at M.noa, United States -- Hawaii. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/892022682?accountid=12528 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database. Diep, K. C., & Nahl, D. (2011). Information literacy instruction in four Vietnamese university libraries. The International Information & Library Review, 43(4), 198-206. doi: 10.1016/j.iilr.2011.10.002 Doll, C. A. (2005). Collaboration and school library media specialist. Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Doskatsch, I. (2002). Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL): New body to champion information literacy. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 33(2), 113-116. Doskatsch, I. (2003). Perceptions and perplexities of the faculty-librarian partnership: An Australian perspective. Reference Services Review, 31(2), 111-121. Doyle , C. S. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: A concept for the Information Age. Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Feast, V. (2003). Integration of information literacy skills into business courses. Reference Services Review, 31(1), 81-95. Ferman, T. (2011). Academics' work and the concept of "Profession": An Australian case study. (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation), Queensland University of Technology. Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383-392. doi: 10.1177/1098214006290356 Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69-86. doi: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0101_4 Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1177/109821400402500105 George, R., & Luke, R. (1996). The critical place of Information Literacy in the trend towards flexible delivery in higher education contexts. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 27(3), 204-212. Given, L. M., & Julien, H. (2005). Finding common ground: An analysis of librarians' expressed attitudes towards faculty. The Reference Librarian, 43(89-90), 25-38.

26

Gray, B. (1989). Colalborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Seung-Lye, K., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 54(10), 952965. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00342 Harman, G., Hayden, M., & Pham, T.N.. (2010). Higher education in Vietnam: Reform, challenges and priorities. In G. Harman, M. Hayden & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam (Vol. 29, pp. 1-13): Dordrecht: Springer. Harman, K., & Nguyen, T. N. B. (2010). Reforming teaching and learning in Vietnam’s higher education system. In G. Harman, M. Hayden & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam (Vol. 29, pp. 65-86): Dordrecht: Springer Hayden, M., & Lam, Q.T. (2010). Vietnam’s higher education system. In G. Harman, M. Hayden & T. N. Pham (Eds.), Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam (Vol. 29, pp. 14-29): Dordrecht: Springer. Hien, P. D. (2010). A comparative study of research capabilities of East Asian countries and implications for Vietnam. Higher Education, 60(6), 615-625. Hoang, T. T. H. (2011). The impact of web technology on library and information services in academic libraries: [Tac dong cua cong nghe web den hoat dong thong tin thu vien truong dai hoc]. Journal of Information and Documentation, 3, 2-30. Hord, S. M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership, 43(5), 22-26. Huynh, D. C., Huynh, T. X. P., & Hoang, T. T. T. (2011). Retaining new generation librarians: Challenges in global integration period: [Giu chan nhan luc thong tin thu vien the he moi thach thuc trong thoi hoi nhap]. Retrieved 19 October 2012, from http://tainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/handle/123456789/22067 Ivey, R. (2003). Information literacy: How do librarians and academics work in partnership to deliver effective learning programs? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 34(2), 100113. Jensen, J. D., & Guha, M. (1995). Major issues facing Australian academic libraries in 1993: An overview of library annual reports. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 26(1), 54-59. John-Steiner, V., Weber, R. J., & Minnis, M. (1998). The challenge of studying collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 773-783. Kennan, M. A. (2006). Changing workplace demands: What job ads tell us. Aslib Proceedings, 58(3), 179-196. Kenny, J., Fluck, A., & Jetson, T. (2012). Placing a value on academic work. Australian Universities' Review, 54(2), 50-60. Kraus, W. A. (1980). Collaboration in organizations: Alternatives to hiearchy. New York: Human Sciences Press. Laycock, M. (2005). Collaborating to compete: Achieving effective knowledge sharing in organizations. The Learning Organization, 12(6), 523-538. Lupton, M. (2002). The getting of wisdom: Reflections of a teaching librarian. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 33(2), 75-85. Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Miles, G. (2000). TheFuture.org. Long Range Planning, 33(3), 300-321. doi: 10.1016/s0024-6301(00)00032-7 Montiel-Overall, P. (2005). Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians. School library media research, 8, 36 p.

27

Murray, J., & Welch, B. (2009). Perceptions of LIS development in Vietnam: Educational outcomes and the way forward.Education for Information, 27(2), 103-114. doi: 10.3233/efi2009-0875 Nayda, R. (2009). Information Literacy skill development and life long learning: Exploring nursing students' and academics' understandings. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(2), 27-33. New England Program in Teacher Education Inc. (1973). The first five years' activities under Public Act 761 and Public Act 230 - Review and recommendations: A report. Durham, N.H.: New England Program in Teacher Education. Nguyen, H. S. (2008). A contextual model for planning continuing education programmes for university library practitioners in Vietnam. (Doctoral thesis), Victoria University of Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/821/thesis.pdf?sequence=3 Nguyen, H. S. (2011). Digital libraries from two decades of delopment: Lessons learnt and development directions for Vietnam. Journal of Information and Documentation, 2, 2-20. Nimon, M. (2002). Developing lifelong learners: Controversy and the educative role of the academic librarian. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 33(1), 14-24. Nunamaker, J. F. J., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G. J. d. (2001). From information technology to value creation technology. Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for Managers (pp. 1-28). New York: Prentice-Hall. Pham, X. H. (2007, 26-27 June). Capacity building for librarians during the stage of establishing a modern open access library at Library and Information Network Center (LINC), Hanoi University of Technology (HUT), Vietnam. Paper presented at the Building an information society for all: proceedings of the International Conference on Libraries, Information and Society, ICoLIS 2007, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Pham, X. H. (2008). Challenges facing the implementation of information literacy programs in Vietnamese universities in Vietnam. Paper presented at the IFLA/ALP Indonesian workshop on information literacy (WIL), Bogor, Jakarta, Indonesia. Phelps, S. F., & Campbell, N. (2012). Commitment and trust in librarian–faculty relationships: A systematic review of the literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(1), 13-19. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2011.11.003 Qureshi, S., Briggs, R. O., & Hlupic, V. (2006). Value creation from intellectual capital: Convergence of knowledge management and collaboration in the intellectual bandwidth model. [Article]. Group Decision & Negotiation, 15(3), 197-220. doi: 10.1007/s10726-0069018-x Rader, H. B. (2002). Information literacy 1973-2002: A selected literature review. Library Trends, 51(2), 242-259. Richard, J. (2008). Boarderline. Incite, 29(8), 6-6. Robinson, M. (2006). Learning Resouce Centres in Vietnam: a case study in collaborative development. Paper presented at the CONSAL at the Crossroads: Challenges for greater regional cooperation, Congress of Southeast Asian librarians, CONSAL, XIIIth Conference, Manila. Rodwell, J., & Fairbairn, L. (2008). Dangerous liaisons? Library Management, 29(1/2), 116-124. Ryan, S. E. (2009). Academic business: Tensions between academic values and corporatisation of Australian higher education in graduate schools of business. (Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation), The University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5398 Shannon, M. A. (2001, 13-15 September). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form, and emergent institution. Paper presented at the National Forest Programmes in a European Context. EFI Proceeding 44, Oslo, Norway. Shen, L. (2012). Improving the effectiveness of librarian-faculty collaboration. Collaborative Librarianship, 4(1), 14-22. Smith, L. (2011). Monash University library and learning: A new paradigm for a new age. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 42(3), 246-263. 28

Thompson, G. B. (2002). Information literacy accreditation mandates: What they mean for faculty and librarians. Library Trends, 51(2), 218-261. Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23-56. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum036 Tran, L. A. (1999). Recent library developments in Vietnam. Asian Libraries, 8(1), 17-28. Tran, L. A. (2001). Training in the implementation and use of electronic resources: A proposed curriculum for Vietnam, Part I. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(3), 257-263. Welch, B., & Murray, J. (2010). Libraries and LIS education in Vietnam: A view from the outside. Library Management, 31(7), 521-534. Welch, M., & Sheridan, S. M. (1995). Educational partnership: Serving students at risk. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when we see it. AAHE Bullentin, 46. White, S., & Long, J. (2001). A university wide information literacy policy: Motive, method and meaning: In J. Frylinck (Ed.), Partners in Learning and Research: Changing roles for Australian Technology Network (pp. 122-131): Librarians of the Australian Technology Network. Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162. doi: 10.1177/0021886391272001 World Bank. (2008). Vietnam: Higher education and skills for growth (Human Development Department: East Asia and Pacific Region) (pp. x, 1-195): World Bank.

29

Appendix A: Definitions/ Statements on Collaboration from Related Disciplines

A1: Management, organisational behaviour/psychology Definitions/ Statements on Collaboration Collaboration: [is] ‘a relational system in which: 1) individuals in a group share mutual aspirations and a common conceptual framework; 2) the interactions among individuals are characterized by “justice as fairness”; and 3) these aspirations and conceptualizations are characterized by each individual’s consciousness of his/her motives toward the other; by caring or concern for the other; and by commitment to work with the other over time provided that this commitment is a matter of choice’ (Appley & Winder, 1977, p.281) . ‘…involves a process of joint decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain. Five features are critical to the process: (1) the stake holders are interdependent, (2) solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences, (3) joint ownership of decisions is involved, (4) stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain, and (5) collaboration is an emergent process’ (Gray, 1989, p.11). ‘…occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain’ (Wood & Gray, 1991, p.146). ‘…refers to organizing for joint action among individuals, organizations and processes’ (Shannon, 2002, abs.). ‘participatory processes and collaboration are generating new forms of emergent governance institutions’ (abs.). ‘…refers to certain kinds of cooperative behavior, certain forms of institutions, and certain kinds of communicative action’ (p.11). ‘…is a process in which autonomous or semi-autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions’ (Thomson, Perry, & Miller, 2009, p.25). ‘…is a multidimensional, variable construct composed of five key dimensions, two of which are structural in nature (governance and administration), two of which are social capital dimensions (mutuality and norms), and one of which involves agency (organizational autonomy)’ (p. 25).

A2: Education and research Definitions/ Statements on Collaboration Collaboration:

30

‘…is a pedagogical style that emphasizes cooperative efforts among students, faculty and administrators’ (Whipple, 1987, abs.). … [has] ‘the following characteristics: (1) … both teachers and learners are active participants in the educational process; (2) …bridges the gulf between teachers and students; (3) …creates a sense of community; (4) …means that knowledge is created not transferred; (5) …makes the boundaries between teaching and research less distinct; and (6) …locates knowledge in the community rather than in the individual’ (abs.). ‘…is a style for interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision-making as they work toward a common goal’ .(Friend & Cook, 1990, p.72). ‘…conditions for collaboration include (a) a mutual goal, (b) parity among participants, (c) shared participation, (d) shared accountability, (e) shared resources, and (f) voluntariness. In addition, a set of emergent characteristics seem to enable collaboration at the outset of an activity, and these same characteristics grow in importance throughout successful collaboration (p.72). ‘…is a cooperative endeavour that involves common goals, coordinated effort, and outcomes or products for which the collaborators share responsibility and credit’ (Austin & Baldwin, 1992, p.[1]). ‘…increases productivity, maintains motivation, and stimulates creativity and risk taking. It can maximize the use of limited resources and could enhance the quality of teaching and research. Sometimes complex problems accompany faculty collaboration, however, such as difficulty concerning evaluation and assigning credit for work produced in collaboration’ ([p.1]). ‘…often raises issues of power, influence, professional identity, and integrity’ ([p.3]). [In a true collaboration]: ‘the principals…represent complementary domains of expertise. As collaborators they not only plan, decide and act jointly, they also think together, combining independent conceptual schemes to create original frameworks’ … there is a commitment to shared resources, power and talent: no individual’s point of view dominates, authority for decisions and actions resides in the group, and work products reflect a blending of all participants’ contributions’ (Minnis, John-Steiner, & Weber, 1994, p. C-2, cited in John-Steiner, Weber, & Minnis, 1998, p. 776). ‘… is defined as a dynamic framework for efforts that endorses interdependence and parity during interactive exchange of resources between at least two partners who work together in a decisionmaking process that is influenced by cultural and systemic factors to achieve common goals’ (Welch & Sheridan, 1995, p.11). ‘…as a means to counter isolation, improve teacher practice and student learning, build a common vision for schooling, and foster collective action around school reform’ (Achinstein, 2002, abs.). ‘…is teachers’ collaborative problem-solving in pursuit of common goals. Groups of teachers and/or researchers work together locally, within schools, or peripherally, for example, in meetings separate from immediate practice, to develop new way of teaching’ (Butler, Lauscher, JarvisSelinger, & Beckingham, p.437). Collaborations as a means of ‘reconstructing authentic activity within an existing professional 31

community’ and linking with ‘…teachers’ self-regulated learning and reflection-on-action…’ (p. 453). ‘…involving the teachers and other partners has the potential to bring together the reflective and dialogic processes of professional development (Adamson & Walker, 2011, p.29).

A3: Knowledge management Definitions/ Statements on Collaboration Collaboration: ‘...is the meta-capability by which knowledge will be exploited to drive innovation and reap its economic benefits’ (Miles, Snow, & Miles, 2000). ‘…helps a company to create and transfer knowledge. Knowledge creation and utilisation, in turn, lead to innovation’ (p. 300) ‘…. It is now apparent that effective knowledge management depends heavily on a company's ability to collaborate, both inside and outside the organisation’ (p. 301). ‘ .. is the degree to which people in an organization can combine their mental efforts so as to achieve common goals’ (Nunamaker, Briggs, & Vreede, 2001, p.6). ‘…not only transfers existing knowledge among organizations, but also facilitates the creation of new knowledge and produce[s] synergistic solutions.’ (Hardy, Phillips, & Lawrence, 2003, abs.). [Two important characteristics of collaboration are involvement and embeddedness; involvement concerns the depth of interaction and bi-directional communication flows between partners, whilst embeddedness pertains to the breadth of interaction, degree of representation and multi-directional flows between collaborators] ‘Collaborations that are both involved and embedded are more likely to be associated with knowledge creation effects; those that are only involved are more likely to be associated with strategic effects; those that are only embedded are more likely to be associated with political effects’ (p.341-342). ‘…seems to capture the spirit and represent one of the underpinning tenets of knowledge management, that of working together to achieve common goals and objectives. In knowledgefocused organizations, knowledge sharing is highly dependent on effective ongoing collaboration. Across organizations …collaboration is recognized as a positive, something that not only helps add value, but can also create new value’ (Laycock, 2005, p.527). ‘Collaboration capability is defined as the actor’s capability to build and manage network relationships based on mutual trust, communication and commitment’ (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006, p.40). ‘…is a necessary antecedent of knowledge creation and transfer. The former is always social action, and innovations emerge as a synthesis of complementary knowledge among asymmetric actors’ (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006, p.41).

32

‘… among experts enables knowledge to be activated.’(Qureshi, Briggs, & Hlupic, 2006, p.198). ‘…the purpose of collaboration is to achieve a goal through joint effort, thus, creating value’ (p.213).

A4: Library and information science Definitions/ Statements on Collaboration Collaboration: ‘….is essential as library media specialists work with teachers to plan, conduct and evaluate learning activities that incorporate information literacy. It is critical as they work with teachers and administrators to build and manage collections that include all formats and that support authentic, information-based learning’ (American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, 1998, p. 50). ‘…is a symbiotic process that requires active, genuine effort and commitment by all members of the instructional team’ (American Association of School Librarians and the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, 1998 , p. 50-51) ‘…through shared planning, teaching, collection development and management strategies – provides the model for all the program’s connections to the larger learning community’ (p.123). ‘While individuals are generally assigned to a team project because of their particular professional or technical expertise, some social skills are also necessary to succeed, including: willingness to shape a common mission, outside of the unit-specific mission; interest in sharing jargon and definitions of technical terms; willingness to learn aspects of the other partners’ expertise; and ability to appreciate differences and not criticize or stereotype others’ professions’ (Lippincott, 2000, p. [2]). ‘Through collaboration, SLMSs [school library media specialists] and teachers work as a team to design learning experiences that are meaningful and developmentally appropriate. Together they can select the needed resources and develop the assessments that determine what the students know, learn and understand. When SLMSs are acknowledgeable of content area standards, they are able to integrate information literacy standards in collaboration with teachers’ (Corey, 2002, p.21). There are ‘four behaviours … essential for successful collaborative teaching partnerships: a shared understood goal; mutual respect, tolerance, and trust; competence for the task at hand by each of the partners; and ongoing communication (Ivey, 2003, p.102). ‘…means that the school library media specialist and teachers in the school will work together to plan for, design, teach and evaluate instructional events for students. This involves a long-term commitment and time spent together to develop both instruction and a collaborative relationship among the professionals involved. This type of working relationship between teachers and school library media specialists is truly a revolutionary change from the more traditional role of school librarian as a source of support for the curriculum’ (Doll, 2005, p.4). ‘…a trusting, working relationship between two or more equal participants involved in shared 33

thinking, shared planning and shared creation of integrated instruction. Through a shared vision and shared objectives, student learning opportunities are created that integrate subject content and information literacy by co-planning, co-implementing, and co-evaluating students’ progress throughout the instructional process in order to improve student learning in all areas of the curriculum’ (MontielOverall, 2005, p.[3]).

34