Evidence Summary
Relationships
Between Librarians and Faculty Still Need Further Investigation
A Review of:
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
Reviewed by:
Giovanna Badia
Liaison Librarian
McGill
University, Schulich Library of Science and
Engineering
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Email: giovanna.badia@mcgill.ca
Received: 3 June 2012 Accepted: 27 July 2012
2012 Badia. This is an
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share
Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes,
and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or
similar license to this one.
Objective – To examine
how the Key Mediating Variable (KMV) model of Morgan and Hunt’s
Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing can be used to look at the
relationships between librarians and faculty as reported in the literature.
Relationship marketing stresses customer retention and long-term customer
relationships, rather than focusing on the product.
To
also identify: 1) the methods reported in the literature to evaluate
relationships between librarians and faculty; 2) the elements reported in the
literature that lead to commitment and trust in librarian-faculty
relationships; and 3) the elements reported in the literature that prevent
commitment and trust in librarian-faculty relationships.
Design – A systematic review.
Setting – A university in the United
States.
Subjects – 304 journal articles on
librarian-faculty relationships were read and analyzed for variables included
in the KMV model of relationship marketing.
Methods – The authors searched 20
databases to find publications in various disciplines. Their search strategy
included, but was not limited, to the following keywords: faculty, librarian*,
relationships, library users, information professionals, liaisons, academic,
university, college*, collaboration, and perceptions. They initially selected
389 references based on the occurrence of search terms in the title or
abstract, as well as the presence of related subject headings. The authors then
read the abstracts and included/excluded references based on the following
criteria:
Inclusion criteria:
Academic libraries or special libraries. English language, any instance of
collaboration or cooperation, subject term or mention of relationship, the
words trust or commitment or antecedents or outcomes from the model included in
the abstract. Exclusion criteria: blogs, books, emails, or any article that
could not meet the subject inclusion criteria (p. 14).
Additional
articles were identified by scanning the bibliographies of the articles
selected at the abstract stage, searching the Directory of Open Access Journals
(DOAJ) and Google Scholar, as well as conducting a cited reference search in
Web of Science and Google Scholar.
Among
the 304 journal articles that the authors selected, read and analyzed, only 13
of these satisfied the last inclusion criteria of the systematic review in that
they contained “a high presence of the KMV model’s antecedents and outcomes”
(p. 15). Many articles concentrated on a service or project that librarians
worked on with faculty and did not discuss the librarian-faculty relationship.
Main Results – 77 out of
the 304 analyzed articles discussed research methodologies. The methods used in
these articles to evaluate relationships between librarians and faculty were:
surveys (53%); literature reviews (26%); interviews (18%); and focus groups
(5%).
The
13 articles containing variables from the KMV model indicated the following
positive antecedents as leading to commitment and trust in librarian-faculty
relationships: communication (7/13 articles); shared values (7/13 articles);
and relationship benefits (7/13 articles). The negative antecedent that
hindered commitment and trust in librarian-faculty relationships was reported
as opportunistic behavior in 4 articles (e.g., librarians seen as having an
ulterior motive when they market their services to faculty). Cooperation (12/13
articles); functional conflict (2/13 articles); and uncertainty, i.e., faculty
uncertain about the teaching ability of librarians (2/13 articles), were found
to be the outcomes of relationships between librarians and faculty.
Conclusion – The authors
found that “a focus on communication, shared values and benefits of the
relationship would build stronger ties and foster commitment and trust with
teaching faculty” (p. 17). Whereas the literature shows that collaborations
between librarians and faculty are important to librarians’ work, very few
studies have actually examined the librarian-faculty relationship. Future
studies should explore in-depth the basics of relationship building between librarians
and faculty.
Commentary
This
study is unique in that it combined the KMV model of relationship marketing and
the research methodology of systematic reviews to answer questions about
librarian-faculty relationships. The authors described relationship marketing
and summarize literature that deems it appropriate for use in libraries. They
used the KMV model to look at the relationships between librarians and faculty
since it provided a previously tested framework for their investigation.
Questions
from Lindsay Glynn’s EBLIP Critical Appraisal Checklist (2006) were used to
help determine the strengths and weaknesses of this study. The strengths of
this study lie in its systematic review of the published literature to identify
studies about librarian-faculty relationships, and the authors’ analysis of
their combined use of the systematic review process and KMV model to answer
their research questions.
A
weakness of this study is the brief description of the search strategy used for
the systematic review. The authors provide some of the terms they used in their
search strategy, but they do not provide their complete strategy and indicate
how the search terms were combined. This makes it difficult to duplicate the
search, thus contradicting the authors’ statement that “systematic reviews …
use a replicable search strategy” (p. 14). Another weakness of the study, which
the authors mention, is their combined use of the systematic review process and
KMV model. Journal articles identified
from the literature search were coded using variables from the KMV model,
thereby excluding from the authors’ analysis the elements from
librarian-faculty relationships that did not fit into this model. The published
literature also does not contain all antecedents and outcomes of
librarian-faculty relationships, since some of these “are expected social norms
of academia and therefore not always written about explicitly” (p. 17).
Notwithstanding
its weaknesses, this study describes characteristics that librarians can adopt
in their relationships, such as communicating regularly with faculty and
concentrating on common values rather than on marketing library services, if
they wish to establish new relations or strengthen existing ones with faculty.
It also provides a lesson to librarians considering the use of a theoretical
model to analyze data from a systematic review, i.e., refrain from using only a
pre-existing model for data analysis since it can potentially exclude findings
that do not fit into the model, thereby biasing the conclusions of the
systematic review.
References
Glynn, L.
(2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Library
Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399. doi:10.1108/07378830610692154