Introduction
Since the first
mention of the phrase in the library literature in 2004 (Dewey), embedded
librarianship has received much attention. An entire double issue of Public Services Quarterly was devoted to
the topic in 2010 and ACRL recently published a book on the topic (Kvenild & Calkins, 2011). Kesselman
and Watstein (2009) published a narrative review of various ways
librarians have been embedded, including course integrated instruction, participation
in research teams, collaborations in scholarly communication initiatives, and
physical location of librarians in academic departments. Additionally, in 2009
the results of an in depth study of embedded librarianship were published as a
result of funding from the Special Libraries Association (Shumaker &
Talley, 2009). To date, this is the largest and most comprehensive look at
embedded librarianship and factors associated with successful programs. Still,
individual libraries may question whether to institute an embedded librarian
program as they envision their futures and consider the evolving roles of
librarians. Decisions about future directions are further complicated by the polysemantic nature of embedded librarianship as evidenced
by the variety of activities and degrees of embeddedness
described in the literature.
Objectives
The purpose of this
review is to examine the development of embedded librarianship, its multiple
meanings, and activities in practice. The review will also report on published
outcomes and future research needs of embedded librarian programs.
Methods
A literature search of
PubMed, CINAHL, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts
(EBSCO), Academic Search Complete, and ERIC (EBSCO) was conducted using search
terms of “embedded librarian,” “embedded librarianship,” embedded AND librarian
and (embedded OR embed OR embed*) AND librarian*. A general search of the Web
using the Google search engine was also conducted with similar terminology. The
latest search was conducted August 23, 2012. Articles were selected for
inclusion in the review if they reported research findings related to embedded
librarianship, if they provided unique case reports about embedded librarian
programs, or if they provided substantive editorial comments on the topic. Due
to the large number of case reports on the topic, this review does not seek to
be comprehensive in its presentation of them, but rather to provide a succinct
awareness of current practices.
Results
History and
Definitions
Historically, embedded
librarianship can be traced back to departmental libraries, where librarians
provided services and collections within the confines of the department itself.
Some of these libraries still exist today, but many have been assimilated into
main campus libraries. This has primarily been due to the expansion of digital
content, competition for space for non-library uses, and economic factors
associated with the costs of maintaining collections (Drewes
& Hoffman, 2010). However, these same factors have served to isolate the
librarian from his customer, causing librarians to explore ways to interact and
integrate with those they serve. More recently, the expression
”embedded librarian” takes root in the phrase embedded journalist, a
concept connected to wartime media coverage in the last several years. In this
situation, journalists become a part of their military unit, providing a
perspective, “a slice of the war” (“Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism,”
2003) from their vantage point. Drewes and Hoffman
(2010) provide a good discussion of the branch library concept and its
connection to modern day embedded librarianship. Brower (2011) also provides a
concise recent history of the concept that offers an overview and
characteristics of such programs.
The topic of embedded
librarianship can be somewhat difficult to define because of the wide range of
approaches and interpretations presented in the literature. Dewey (2004) first
described it as “a more comprehensive integration of one group with another to
the extent that the group seeking to integrate is experiencing and observing,
as nearly as possible, the daily life of the primary group” and states how
“overt purposefulness” is key to this “comprehensive collaboration” (p. 6). Her
paper discusses embedding librarians at a grand scale, weaving librarians
throughout the fabric of academe. Shumaker and Talley (2009) considered
embedded librarians as those “who provide specialized services within their
organizations” (p. 4). By itself this seems too broad; however, they further
describe these librarians by their most common activities. These included
collaborating or contributing to the customer’s work or electronic workspace
and attending meetings and conferences that were connected to the customer’s
discipline. They also determined that librarians who were physically located
with their customer groups and were funded to some degree by their customers
did more of these activities. Shumaker and Talley use language that shapes
embedded librarianship well, including that they “provide complex and
value-added services” (p. 5). They report that these services are focused on
the customer not the library, provided to small groups in their environment, go
beyond discovery and delivery of information, and are built on trusted
relationships in the context of the customer. Kesselman
and Watstein (2009) agree with this, but broaden the concept such
that “collaboration and integration” are important factors to consider. Their
stance includes models that could arguably be considered liaison models though
not necessarily embedded as defined by Dewey or Shumaker and Talley’s more
restrictive descriptions. Likewise, recent usage of the phrase proffers it as
the latest trend, resulting in its use where formerly liaison programs or
course integrated instruction would have been used. In fact, many liaison
librarians already do many of the embedded librarian activities noted by
Shumaker and Talley (2009).
Much like embedded
journalists, many recent reports of embedded librarians note librarians
becoming a literal part of academic colleges or departments, business units, or
medical teams. Recent literature
references various degrees of time spent outside the library ranging from a few
office hours (Covone & Lamm,
2010; Matava, Coffey, & Kushkowski,
2010; Matos, Matsuoka-Motley, & Mayer, 2010), to more than 50 percent of
time spent in the customer’s environment (Bartnik,
2007; Brown & Leith, 2007; Fitzgerald, Anderson,
& Kula, 2010; Freiburger & Kramer, 2009;
Martin, 2010). In the past, similar initiatives have been referred to as mobile
or onsite reference, not embedded librarianship (Lee, Hayden, & MacMillan,
2004; Tao, McCarthy, Krieger, & Webb, 2009).
Other recent case
reports of embedded librarianship refer to embedding librarians into a single
course or research project (Berdish & Seeman, 2010; Chestnut, Wesley, & Zai
III, 2010; Konieczny, 2010; McMillen
& Fabbi, 2010; Muir & Heller-Ross, 2010).
Characteristics of these cases include creating or participating in online subject
guides and discussion forums within the course management system (CMS) housing
the course. Online embedding provides easy access to librarians throughout the
course, whether students are nearby or not. Some embedded librarians assume
substantial teaching responsibilities (Manus, 2009). Other programs utilize the
CMS approach in addition to face-to-face instruction and assistance (Pritchard,
2010). Whether embedded in an online or traditional course, these librarians’
efforts are similar to those of liaison librarians.
Shumaker and Talley
(2009) address these disparate definitions through their research methodology.
In their initial survey, they found few distinctions between embedded and
non-embedded librarians. Many traditional librarians and embedded librarians
were actually participating in similar activities. After discovering this, they
began using the “specialized services within their organization” (p. 4) idea to
distinguish what they considered to be truly embedded.
Common Activities
Identified in the Literature
The Shumaker and
Talley (2009) study identified many activities common to embedded librarians,
some of which are used above to help define the concept. These same activities
are also found in recent case reports and research studies. Table 1 summarizes
common activities with their associated case reports. The majority of case
reports describe the creation and integration of online learning objects of
various types (e.g. tutorials, guides, and links) within the course management
system for specific courses. Some describe office hours or some other
co-location of librarians within a customer group. A few case reports describe
purposeful integration of the librarian into the daily life of the customer to
which Dewey (2004) spoke and are worth further discussion here.
Bartnik (2007) describes her
embedded librarian role in the College of Business and Public Affairs at
Western Kentucky University. Her experience allowed her to locate herself
within the school full time and build close relationships as an ad hoc faculty
member. Among her varied activities, she attended faculty meetings, assisted
with publications, participated in interviews with faculty candidates, and
provided in class and online instruction. She advocates for negotiating for
office space in a high traffic area, remaining on the library’s payroll, and
taking advantage of every meeting of the customer group. Bartnik’s
experience speaks to a grand potential of embedded librarianship to build close
customer relationships given the right circumstances and personalities. In a
later article, Bartnik, along with her colleagues
Farmer, Ireland, Murray and Robinson (2010), speaks of how new administrative
duties took her away from her ideal embedded situation. Though her embeddedness did not end entirely, the overall experience
changed, including the loss of ad hoc faculty member privileges, an overall
decrease in connectivity with faculty, and fewer research consultations.
Freiburger and Kramer (2009)
discuss several librarians at the Arizona Health Sciences Library who spend at least
half their time within their liaison colleges and whose activities span more
traditional liaison work to newer roles such as providing literature searches
to support grant applications and serving as co-principal investigators on
grant applications. Martin (2010) adds spending 80% of her time in the pharmacy
school at the same institution. They refer to their model as “liaison librarian
in context” (p. 140). Librarians at Arizona Health Sciences Library have the
flexibility to customize embedded services based on customer needs.
Fitzgerald et al.
(2010) describe an innovative embedded librarian program where librarians
provide onsite market intelligence service to the non-profit MaRS Discovery District, which assists entrepreneurs in
Canada. These librarians are partially funded by the MaRS
group and spend the majority of their time with the group, but retain all their
University of Toronto connections, privileges, and responsibilities. The types
of services provided range from the licensing of appropriate resources to in
depth market analysis. This program is worth closer inspection for other
reasons aside from the embedded aspect, including how they value their worth
and how university librarians can work within a growing trend of universities
partnering with non-profits to commercialize research. Brown and Leith (2007) describe a somewhat similar situation where
they are embedded in an Australian newsroom environment and support editorial
functions of the media groups. Both of these embedded librarian programs
demonstrate the use of information expertise in partnership with customer
expertise to market a product. In many ways, these programs illustrate
non-traditional librarian roles while still maintaining the identity and duties
of a traditional librarian.
Similarly, Berdish and Seeman (2010)
describe an embedded librarian program focused on providing in depth research
assistance to students in graduate business programs at the University of
Michigan. Specifically, they provide assistance in an action based learning
environment dubbed MAP: multidisciplinary action program. MBA students in this
program are doing extensive research on a real project for a real company.
Librarians in this program provide research help by being assigned to specific
small groups and providing overviews and recommendations about which resources
to use. Each team arms itself with targeted information that can be used as
they travel to work on their projects.
Librarians’
willingness to investigate their customers’ needs and tailor services is common
among these cases. They are not passive bystanders, but rather, proactive
partners filling information gaps. Though service oriented, the librarians are
gaining professional reputations for excellent work and are highly valued partners.
Research Studies
Very few quality research studies using the conceptual
phrase “embedded librarian” exist. The Shumaker and Talley study is an
exception to this; however, it does not report outcomes from individual
embedded librarian interventions. Comprehensive retrieval of research studies
on the topic is more difficult due to the broad definition of embedded
librarianship that pervades the current literature. Some case reports and
studies reference studies that allude to embedded librarians within the full
text of the article but not within the title, the index terms or the abstract,
such as the study by Figa, Bone, and MacPherson
(2009). Additionally, many studies evaluating the effects of embedding
information literacy instruction of any kind within a face-to-face or online
course could be considered relevant, since these activities are common to
embedded librarian initiatives. For the purposes of this review, only studies
that overtly considered the effects of embedded librarian initiatives were included
(Table 2). Using these criteria, only seven quantitative studies were
identified. This review also includes three qualitative studies reporting
useful information, including one case study reporting methods of calculating
value for services. Of the first seven studies, significant heterogeneity was
found. One study was a pretest/posttest study, one was a citation analysis, one
was a comparison of scores on writing assignments, two were analyses of
reference questions, one was a post-implementation survey by an embedded
program, and one was the descriptive Shumaker and Talley (2009) study.
Descriptive Study
The Shumaker and Talley study (2009) used two surveys
and site visits to define embedded librarianship and identify qualities of
successful programs. The first survey was meant to identify those who were
involved with embedded librarian programs within the population of Special
Libraries Association members. There were 961 employed respondents to this
survey. The second survey was longer and sent to 234 embedded librarians
(defined as providing specialized services with their customer group) from the
first survey who indicated willingness to participate. Of those, 130 responded.
Some findings of this study have been mentioned previously, and this review
does not aim to give a comprehensive summary of the study. However, measures of
success were identified and are pertinent to this review. They defined success
in three ways: an increase in the number of librarians offering embedded
services within a program, an increase in the customer’s demand of the
services, and an increase in the number of services provided by the librarians
to the customers. Only 11 participants met these criteria. They then
categorized 22 factors that separated the 11 participants who met all the
criteria and the 16 respondents who met none of them into 4 categories:
marketing and promotion, service evaluation, services provided, and management
support. In general, successful programs publicized themselves in a variety of
ways, measured outcomes in financial terms to justify their services, counted
everything they did, provided complex research services and data analysis, and
had written agreements between library administration and customer
administration. The full report is lengthy, but worth the effort for those
considering embedded programs. Shumaker and Talley draw attention to the
changing nature of librarian service, from production of a list of results to
evaluation and synthesis of relevant information.
Pretest/Posttest Study
Edwards, Kumar, and Ochoa (2010) used a
pretest/posttest questionnaire to measure student self
efficacy and skills gained from embedding several librarian-created
video modules on various research skills, and also gathered additional
qualitative information. Librarians were available online two hours per week in
addition to participating in online discussion forums. This study had a low
return rate on the pre- and posttests, with only 9 of 31 participants
responding in the pretest and 7 of 31 responding in the posttest. Self rated experience, comfort with resources and
confidence in search increased slightly. The posttest also demonstrated more
refined search techniques that were assumed to be the result of learning that
occurred during the course. Feedback gathered from five students’ responses to
a request on a discussion board also indicated students learned research
techniques. In an interview, the course’s faculty member expressed valuing the
collaboration and asked to use the videos in other courses. The findings are
relatively weak, measuring a small sample of students’ perceptions and skills
in one course. However, they do hint at positive effects, if not of embedded
librarians, of online video modules embedded into a course.
Comparison of Writing
Assignment Scores
Bowler and Street (2008) evaluated intermediate level
undergraduate writing assignments in five history and two women’s studies
courses to gauge effectiveness of instruction with varying levels of librarian
embedment. Levels ranged from a single information literacy (IL) session plus
collaboration on the assignment to co-teaching courses with information
literacy either overtly taught by the expert (the librarian) or threaded
throughout the course and taught by both the librarian and subject faculty.
They used rubric-based scores to compare papers written early in the courses to
final papers to measure improvement. Generally, greater levels of librarian
embedment resulted in greater improvement in writing assignments. The largest
gains were seen when 5 librarians worked with problem based teams, noting an
improvement of 21% in their problem based assignment. However, they also note
that the cost of sustaining this level of engagement is prohibitive. Comparison
of two co-teaching methods suggested librarians “obviously and conspicuously”
(p. 443) embedded throughout the term was more effective than seamless
threading of IL instruction. The authors noted a research score increase of 18%
in the section where the librarian purposefully taught IL versus just a 0.5%
increase in the section with IL threaded throughout. Through an exit survey in
one course, they also determined even though students generally felt neutral
about the librarian’s assistance, their self rating
of IL skills improved at the end of the course. The methods of this study were
reasonable in theory; however, the authors fail to report the sample (class)
sizes and the timing of the librarian instructional interventions with relation
to the first and last writing assignments. They also do not include their
grading rubric.
Analysis of Reference
Transactions
Two studies evaluated reference transaction data
related to embedded librarian interventions. Bennett
and Simning (2010) conducted correlation and linear
regression calculations to show a positive relationship between the number of
librarian interactions in an online course (discussion board comments) and the
number of reference transactions in an online-only university setting. Sullo et al. (2012) evaluated 82 reference questions
encountered from 16 nursing and health sciences online courses with an embedded
librarian component gathered in an approximate 16 month period. More than a
third of questions were general research guidance questions, while another 22%
were related to citation management, followed by 20% related to identifying,
locating or using a library resource. As a result of these findings, librarians
planned to embed resources within the course management system so students did
not have to find them on the library’s web page.
Citation Analysis
Clark and Chinburg (2010)
used citation analysis to assess the effects of embedded librarians in two
online sections and one face-to-face section of the same course. The embedded
component of the course consisted of a tutorial (PowerPoint with audio), links
to resources, and participation in discussion forums as appropriate. No
statistically significant differences were found between the online and
face-to-face sections’ bibliographies when evaluated for the types and numbers
of citations. The nature of the course required students to use many more trade
and technical journal or website citations, and the authors suggested this
could have affected the results. They emphasize that at a minimum, the study
illustrates that online and face-to-face instruction produced similar student
bibliographies in this course.
Post-Implementation
Survey
Following the closing of the Library and Information
Science Library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, several
service changes were made, including placing an embedded librarian within the
Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) building several
hours per week (Searing & Greenlee, 2011). One year after the change,
faculty and staff at the library and the GSLIS were surveyed, and 105
responded. With regards to the embedded librarian, respondents indicated
appreciation for their presence within the building but noted not using their
services often. Based on this and other responses, the embedded librarian made
changes to the program.
Qualitative Studies
Hoffman (2011) used a mixed methods approach,
conducting a survey first to build interview questions and then phone
interviewing embedded librarians from five institutions about their experiences
in online courses. The interviews presented contrasting experiences related to
workload. Three librarians reported not being overly busy while two reported
being quite busy. One librarian embedded in up to 35 sections of courses
reported that this number of courses did not take a lot time. This may suggest
limited engagement on either the part of the librarian or the students in the
class, though Hoffman did not speculate about this. Both librarians who
reported significant workload increases also graded assignments. This study
also found that students had a positive response to online embedded librarians.
Hoffman noted the phrase embedded librarian is being used to describe both
embedding in an online course and physical embedding in colleges or
departments.
Kealey (2011) examined student learning in an online
graduate epidemiology and evidence based practice course by using an embedded
quiz in the course management system over three years. The quiz evolved
somewhat over the three years; however, students consistently scored well.
Despite excellent quiz scores, closer inspection of quizzes revealed student
difficulties with Clinical Queries and MeSH in
PubMed. Based on yearly reflections, Kealey revised
her online video lecture and saw learning improvements.
In an effort to measure value to their organization,
Fitzgerald et al. (2010) developed a “valuation formula.” The formula was value
equals time spent (at CAN$200 per hour) divided by cost of the resources
delivered. The cost per hour was selected because it fell between typical
fee-based library services and consulting MBAs charges. Based on this formula,
these librarians calculated that they had provided CAN$4.5 million of resources
and CAN$480,000 of service in 2008. This represented ten times the investment
in databases licensed for the MaRS group.
Overall, there is a lack of formal, systematic processes
to quantify outcomes demonstrating embedded librarian impact. Only two studies
analyzed artifacts of learning and another two studies attempted to directly
measure practical skills through free responses or quizzes. No study evaluated
an embedded librarian who was physically and culturally integrated into an
academic or business unit. Despite this, results suggest that librarians
embedded in online and face-to-face course settings have positive effects on
student learning.
Discussion
This review aimed to examine the development of
embedded librarianship, its multiple meanings and activities in practice, and
report on published outcomes. Librarians have sought to engage their customers
– faculty, staff, students, business units, and the public – in a variety of
ways for years. This review found that embedded librarianship is another
attempt to do just that: engage. Current literature illustrates that the phrase
embedded librarianship is widely applied and could mean anything from having an
online presence in a course to wholly working amid the end user group.
Commonly, embedded librarians are providing learning objects and a presence
within the online course management system. While there are plentiful case
reports describing embedded librarian work, there are few notable published
cases where librarians have truly become part of “the daily life of the primary
group” as Dewey suggests. The notable cases of Bartnik
et al. (2010), Freiburger and Kramer (2009),
Fitzgerald et al. (2010), Brown and Leith (2007), and
Berdish and Seeman (2010)
provide rich examinations of experiences reaching out to library users,
building close relationships, and customizing services. Unfortunately, there
are no high quality studies evaluating the effectiveness or value of embedded
librarian programs like these.
Most research that does exist has sought to evaluate
impact of instructional initiatives, primarily where librarians are embedded in
online or face-to-face courses. These evaluations are similar to those seen in
the liaison or instruction librarian literature. Schilling
and Applegate (2012) note that “without access to individual learners and
artifacts, rigorous research methodologies cannot be implemented” (p. 261).
The very nature of embedded librarianship supports this level of access to both
learners and artifacts. The studies in this review attempted to evaluate
educational impact of embedded librarianship by using artifacts that were
convenient to them and by reflecting on their experiences, yet rigorous methods
were generally not applied.
Embedded librarians who are physically and culturally
integrated within their customers are akin to clinical librarians. Brettle et al. (2010) suggested clinical librarians utilize
the critical incident technique (CIT) to connect their work to important
customer outcomes, which may also be appropriate for programs embedded to a
lesser degree. CIT studies can be conducted by collecting in depth customer
stories about positive and negative incidents or by presenting specific critical
incidents followed by questions about their perceptions and behaviors following
the incidents (Radford, 2006). While the stories and perceptions of customers
may have enough influence on some institutional stakeholders, CIT is primarily
a qualitative methodology. As such, future CIT research on embedded
librarianship could provide a basis for forming hypotheses that could be
systematically and quantitatively studied.
Clearly, future research is needed. As librarianship
evolves from the production of lists of resources to the evaluation and
synthesis of information, as noted by Shumaker and Tally (2009), questions
arise regarding the time investment of individual librarians. Future research
should explore how diverse, customized, embedded programs can realistically be
evaluated using valid methods. Findings from in-progress research regarding
library and librarian value may be beneficial to inform future embedded
librarian research. Remaining relevant to customers is vital to the survival of
librarianship. Embedded librarianship, in its many forms and degrees of embeddedness, may prove to enhance the relevancy of
librarians in the digital world.
Limitations of this review include inclusion of only
studies that overtly used the concept of embedded librarianship to describe
themselves. In doing so, many studies reporting outcomes related to integrating
IL instruction in a variety of ways were not included. For programs focused
solely on embedding instruction online or in the classroom, these studies would
hold great relevance and should be considered. Additionally, the review did not
include any programmatic evaluations of liaison librarian programs, though the
author is not aware of any high quality reports. Because individual embedded
librarian programs can and do vary greatly, the review may not be applicable to
all situations.
Conclusion
A review of literature on the concept of embedded
librarianship revealed multiple usages. Most published accounts discuss
librarians embedding content and ready access to services in the online course
management system. A few notable cases describe the physical and cultural
integration of librarians into the customer environs. No rigorous reports of
outcomes to evaluate impact of embedded librarianship were found. Some reports
suggest that embedding librarians in online or face-to-face courses has positive
impact on student learning. Future research using valid quantitative methods is
needed to explore the impact of large scale, customized, embedded programs.
References
Bartnik, L. (2007).
The embedded academic librarian: The subject specialist moves into the
discipline college. Kentucky Libraries, 71(3), 4-9.
Bartnik, L., Farmer, K., Ireland, A., Murray, L., & Robinson, J. (2010). We will be assimilated: Five experiences in embedded librarianship.
Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 150-164. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498772
Bennett, E., & Simning,
J. (2010). Embedded librarians and reference
traffic: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Library Administration,
50(5/6), 443-457. doi:10.1080/01930826.2010.491437
Berdish, L., & Seeman, C. (2010). A reference-intensive embedded librarian program: Kresge
Business Administration Library's program to support action-based learning at
the Ross School of Business. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 208-224.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497462
Bowler, M., & Street, K. (2008). Investigating the efficacy of embedment: experiments
in information literacy integration. Reference Services Review, 36(4),
438-449. doi:10.1108/00907320810920397
Brettle, A., Maden-Jenkins, M., Anderson, L.,
McNally, R., Pratchett, T., Tancock,
J., Thornton, D. & Webb, A. (2011). Evaluating clinical librarian services: A systematic review.
Health Information & Libraries Journal, 28(1), 3-22.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00925.x
Brower, M. (2011). A recent history of embedded librarianship: Collaboration and
partnership building with academics in learning and research environments. In
C. Kvenild & K. Calkins (Eds.), Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot
instruction (pp. 3-16). Chicago:
Association of College and Research Libraries.
Brown, D., & Leith, D.
(2007). Integration of the research library
service into the editorial process. ASLIB Proceedings, 59(6),
539-549. doi:10.1108/00012530710839614
Chestnut, M. T., Wesley, T., & Zai
III, R. (2009). Adding an extra helping of service when you already
have a full plate: Building an embedded librarian program. Public Services Quarterly 6( 2–3 ),
122-129. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498780
Clark, S., & Chinburg,
S. (2010). Research performance in undergraduates receiving face
to face versus online library instruction: A citation analysis. Journal of
Library Administration, 50(5/6), 530-542. doi:10.1080/01930826.2010.488599
Clyde, J., & Lee, J. (2011). Embedded reference to embedded librarianship: 6 years
at the University of Calgary. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4),
389-402. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.556963
Covone, N., & Lamm, M. (2010). Just be there: Campus, department, classroom . . . and kitchen?
Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 198-207.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498768
Dewey, B. I. (2004). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus
collaborations. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 17(1/2),
5-17. doi:10.1300/J121v17n01_02
Drewes, K., & Hoffman, N. (2010).
Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction. Public Services Quarterly,
6(2-3), 75-82. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.498773
Edwards, M., Kumar, S., & Ochoa, M. (2010). Assessing the value of embedded librarians in an
online graduate educational technology course. Public Services
Quarterly, 6(2), 271-291. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497447
Figa, E., Bone,
T., & MacPherson, J.R. (2009). Faculty-librarian collaboration for library
services in the online classroom: Student evaluation results and recommended
practices for implementation. Journal of Library & Information Services
in Distance Learning, 3(2), 67-102. doi:10.1080/15332900902979119
Filgo, E. H.
(2011). #Hashtag librarian: Embedding myself into a
class via Twitter and blogs. Computers in Libraries, 31(6), 78-80.
Fitzgerald, K., Anderson, L., & Kula, H. (2010). Embedded librarians promote an innovation agenda: University of Toronto
Libraries and the MaRS discovery district. Journal
of Business & Finance Librarianship, 15(3/4), 188-196.
doi:10.1080/08963568.2010.487689
Freiburger, G., &
Kramer, S. (2009). Embedded librarians: One library's model
for decentralized service. Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 97(2), 139-142. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.013
Hoffman, S. (2011). Embedded academic librarian
experiences in online courses: Roles, faculty collaboration, and opinion.
Library Management, 32(6/7), 444-456. doi:10.1108/01435121111158583
Hoffman, S., & Ramin, L.
(2010). Best practices for librarians embedded in online
courses. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 292-305.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497743
Kealey, S. (2011). Continual evolution: The experience
over three semesters of a librarian embedded in an online evidence-based
medicine course for physician assistant students. Medical Reference Services
Quarterly, 30(4), 411-425. doi:10.1080/02763869.2011.609046
Kesselman, M. A., & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating opportunities:Embedded
librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 49(4), 383-400. doi:10.1080/01930820902832538
Konieczny, A. (2010). Experiences as an embedded librarian in online courses.
Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29(1), 47-57. doi:10.1080/02763860903485084
Kvenild, C., & Calkins, K. (Eds.).
(2011). Embedded librarians: Moving beyond one-shot
instruction. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Lee, J., Hayden, K.
A., & MacMillan, D. (2004). “I wouldn't have asked for help if I had to go to the
library": Reference services on site. Issues in Science and Technology
Librarianship 41. Retrieved 12 Oct. 2012 from http://www.istl.org/04-fall/article2.html
Manus, S. J. B. (2009). Librarian in the classroom: An embedded approach to music information
literacy for first-year undergraduates. Notes 66(2), 249-261.doi: 10.1353/not.0.0259
Martin, J. R. (2010). The newly embedded librarian: Pharmacy information
liaison service. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 187-197.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497908
Matava, T., Coffey, D., & Kushkowski, J. (2010). Beyond library walls: Embedding librarians in academic departments.
Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 165-173.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497835
Matos, M. A., Matsuoka-Motley, N., & Mayer, W.
(2010). The embedded librarian online or face-to-face:
American University's experiences. Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3),
130-139. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497907
McMillen, P., & Fabbi, J. (2010). How to be an E3 librarian.
Public Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 174-186.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497454
Muir, G., & Heller-Ross, H. (2010). Is embedded librarianship right for your institution? Public
Services Quarterly, 6(2-3), 92-109. doi:10.1080/15228959.2010.497464
Pritchard, P. A. (2010). The embedded science librarian: Partner in
curriculum design and delivery. Journal of Library Administration, 50(4),
373-396. doi:10.1080/01930821003667054
Pros and cons of embedded journalism (27 Mar. 2003). In NewsHour Extra.
Retrieved 12 Oct. 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html
Radford, M. L. (2006). The Critical
Incident Technique and the qualitative evaluation of the Connecting Libraries
and Schools Project. Library
Trends 55(1): 46-64.
Schilling, K., & Applegate, R. (2012). Best methods for evaluating educational impact: a comparison of the
efficacy of commonly used measures of library instruction. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(4), 258-269. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.4.007
Searing, S. E., & Greenlee, A. M. (2011). Faculty Responses to Library Service Innovations: A Case Study. Journal
of Education for Library & Information Science, 52(4), 279-294.
Shumaker, D., & Talley, M. (2009). Models of embedded librarianship: Final report. In Special
Libraries Association. Retrieved 12 Oct. 2012 from http://www.sla.org/pdfs/EmbeddedLibrarianshipFinalRptRev.pdf
Sullo, E., Harrod, T., Butera,
G., & Gomes, A. (2012). Rethinking
library service to distance education students: Analyzing the embedded
librarian model. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 31(1), 25-33.
doi:10.1080/02763869.2012.641822
Tao, D., McCarthy, P., Krieger, M., , & Webb, A. (2009). The Mobile Reference
Service: A case study of an onsite reference service program at the School of
Public Health. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(1),
34-40. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.00
2012 Schulte. 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.