Research Article
Shaping the Future: A Research Agenda
for U.K. Libraries
Elizabeth Tilley
Freelance Researcher
Sheffield, United Kingdom
Email: elizabeth.tilley@cantab.net
David Marshall
User Research and Data
Science Team Lead
University Information
Services
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Email: dm622@cam.ac.uk
Received: 12 June 2024 Accepted: 23 Oct. 2024
2024 Tilley and Marshall. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30577
Abstract
Objective – This study
explored current and future trends in librarianship within the U.K. library and
information profession, intending to highlight the most critical for future evidence based research. Research outcomes should
resonate across the wider sector and be an indicative stepping stone to
collaborative research endeavours by members of the
profession at a time when funding is tight, and staff availability is in short
supply.
Methods – A qualitative
Delphi consensus method was chosen for the research, adapted from Paul’s (2008)
modified Delphi card-sorting model. Contributions from conference programs and
31 individual experts from the U.K. library and information profession
contributed to the generation of current themes and trends impacting their library
environments. Data were analyzed by the experts in an incremental manner
following the adapted methodology, and consensus was achieved through the
process.
Results
– The findings of the research indicated that there
were five significant trends and areas of concern which are impacting our
libraries at all levels. These naturally include pressing current concerns such
as the impact of artificial intelligence (AI), critical librarianship, and
censorship/book banning. Library spaces remain a significant issue for the
wider sector.
Conclusion – The adapted
modified Delphi card-sorting method with three distinct sections to the
research proved especially valuable in a study where there were many different
approaches to librarianship. The use of conference data to seed the initial set
of themes has been shown to be unusual and rarely used in this way before. The
process of achieving and reaching consensus illustrated the need for the
profession as a whole to work more closely together. The outcome of the consensus
research should now be taken forward collaboratively by the library profession,
with space and training given to staff across all sectors and grades to engage
in evidence based research for the benefit of all.
Introduction
The “Shaping the
Future” research project outlined in this paper intends to identify sector-wide
critical trends through a process of consensus. These trends will benefit from evidence based research. Members of the profession at
all stages of their career should consider themselves able to participate in
this future research; critically collaborative endeavour and information
sharing will enhance the library and information profession.
A research grant
was awarded by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
(CILIP), Library and Information Research Group (LIRG) to identify the most
important and answerable research questions for U.K. library practice for the
future. This study intended to provide the opportunity to identify, through
consensus methods, those trends the U.K. library profession could agree were
critical going forward. With a return to a “new normal” following the pandemic,
together with the associated changes of this upheaval for the profession and
with increasing divergences between library sectors, as well as significant
funding issues for many, this study prompted closer work between members of the
sectors.
The research
study explored in this paper focused on:
·
With what future developments will
libraries in the United Kingdom need to significantly engage in the next ten
years?
·
Which of these areas are most critical
for us to understand and require in-depth focused research to support this (and
thus benefit from funding)?
Future success
of libraries across the United Kingdom in a post-pandemic world will be
influenced by many factors, and it is clear from practitioners, managers,
leaders, theorists, and influencers that living with change is ongoing. With
funding being a critical issue, there is a need to provide clear direction for
members of the profession on current and future evidence
based research topics. This guidance is essential for both practitioners
and researchers within the field. In addition, individual sectors within the
profession appear to be traveling their own paths. This separation has
significant knock-on effects on professional career accreditation as the
differences between health, public, school, academic, and special interest
libraries grow. These tensions are especially evident when members of the
workforce endeavour to move between sectors. Conference programs, representing
current trends within the profession, are usually sector-led or thematic.
However, even thematic approaches struggle to draw all sectors under their
umbrella description, despite attempts to be fully inclusive.
A
research-practice gap has been evident over the last two decades, and although
developments within librarianship such as the Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice journal are increasing, the differences between
practice and a solid research-focused discipline remain a concern. In recent
years, modifications for the evidence based library
and information practice (EBLIP) model (Koufogiannakis
& Brettle, 2016) suggest that an entire
organization would benefit from adhering to the model’s approach to evidence based research (Thorpe & Howlett, 2020).
The “Shaping the
Future” study provides an opportunity for engaging the library profession as a
whole in exploring future trends together and promoting the possibilities of
future work undertaken through the lens of evidence
based research. Not only could this enable participants to gain a wider
appreciation of the wider sector, thereby providing an additional benefit of “cross-pollination”
from the research but would also illustrate the advantage of undertaking evidence based research across the whole organization.
This study aims
to be forward-thinking on behalf of the library profession in the United
Kingdom. Using a variant of Delphi consensus methodology with a panel of
members from different sectors will provide the opportunity to reach an
agreement on future trends and needs for evidence based
research. The outcomes of the study illustrate the powerful nature of consensus
and give rise to a positive view of the profession’s ability as a whole to work
together collaboratively.
Literature Review
The literature
on future trends in librarianship is extensive, often presented through
strategic overviews (Schlak et al., 2022), or within
specific contexts such as academic libraries (Ashiq, 2021; Corrall
& Jolly, 2020; Feret & Marcinek,
2005) or public libraries (Dallis, 2017). In the United Kingdom, public library
reports often review the current status quo (Sanderson, 2023). Some works focus
on themes such as artificial intelligence (AI) in librarianship (Cox, 2021),
the impact of the post-pandemic library landscape (Appleton, 2022), and data
librarianship (Pistone, 2023). Library leaders and organizations have also contributed
their views with surveys (Meier, 2016) and reports highlighting future themes
for academic and research libraries. Calvert (2020), writing for the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL), focused on the future themes academic
and research libraries should expect to engage with. Dempsey (2012; 2020) is
well-known for their work summarizing current scenarios and strategic
forecasting. These sector-specific responses, while useful, are rarely applied
across other areas of library work.
Studies in the
past that have used consensus methodology to reach agreement on future trends
include Maceviciute and Wilson (2009) and Eldredge et
al. (2009). Both used a consensus methodology (Delphi) to explore the research
needs of the profession. Eldredge et al. focused on a specific sector, the
Medical Library Association, while Maceviciute and
Wilson focused on the needs of Swedish librarianship. The Swedish study
outlined how it was not feasible to expect the wider profession to agree and
chose to explore key trends separately within specific sectors. Both of these
studies, while useful contributors to the validity of the consensus methodology
used, did not consider the profession as a whole.
Future trends
are considered by the U.K.’s professional association, CILIP. The current
action plan (2023) includes a “We Are CILIP” strategy with new developments
planned to focus on three areas: staff skills development, AI, and advocacy for
libraries. This has been a useful reminder that there are key areas that all
Library and Information Science (LIS) workers and their libraries can focus on
together. However, CILIP’s membership model may limit staff involvement as
professionals face time and financial pressures and may prefer to invest their
professional development time in their own sector (Corrall,
2016; NHS, 2015; Tomaszewski & MacDonald, 2009). Koufogiannakis
and Crumley (2006) noted that “it is not clear what happens to [these] agendas
at either the institutional or individual level” (p. 333), and whilst CILIP
represents the profession, not all staff can take advantage of this. This
salutary warning should guide the application of the outcomes from the “Shaping
the Future” study through evidence based research
practices across the profession.
Future trends in
libraries have also been analyzed using several types of data. The current set
of publications across the LIS field and its various sub-fields (Taşkın, 2021) is one such example. While the number of
publications appears to increase over time, citation data are too simplistic
for future trend predictions, especially as it may privilege one sector over
another in terms of representation. Another data type, LIS curriculums, could
be considered as an alternative measure. However, as Tait and Pierson (2022)
noted in their recent assessment of whether AI has been included in the
curriculum in Australian LIS, content frequently lags behind current
professional activity and is less relevant when discussing future trends.
A starting point
for the research was the modified Delphi card sorting method (Paul, 2008), a
variant of the standard Delphi method. The Delphi method is a forecasting
technique used to moderate opinion information as it is collected from experts.
Lund (2020) pointed to the advantages of this method in terms of the iterative
process, together with the distinct levels of consensus possible in comparison,
for example, to focus groups or surveys. Delphi studies are usually
characterized by anonymity and expert input (Eldredge et al., 2009), which is
critical. Variants of the Delphi method have resulted in more qualitative
approaches, focusing on understanding differences of opinion (Bronstein, 2009; Missingham, 2011; Poirier & Robinson, 2014). Lund
(2020) commented on the limitations of using experts both concerning the
potential participant attrition likely and with the definition of who an expert
is and why their ideas or suggestions should be the most popular or best ideas.
In the research study outlined in this paper, the use of conference programs
was a useful mitigation for this limitation.
Initial seed
data for the research focused on the most current information available in the
form of conference programs. Conferences aim to highlight work from early
career or diverse workers, or they may focus on more evidence
based projects and align themselves to the specific needs of their sectors
(Vickers, 2018); they may be organized to reflect the latest state of research
in a specific subject and provide a forum for discussion. Waite and Hume (2017)
described conferences quite simply as the “principal mechanisms for
professional organisations to advance their missions” (p. 127).
From the practitioner's perspective, conference
attendance brings inspiration (Vega & Connell, 2007), theoretical
understanding, and practitioner evidence together without the lag time that a
journal issue or conference proceedings might result in. The call for papers is
typically future-thinking, proactively engaging staff on current and future
issues (Cheung, 2023). Using conference programs gave us critical evidence of
the broad range of practical, theoretical, and strategic interests and concerns
expressed by the profession. Mata et al. (2010) commented that conference
attendance as students “helped us better understand how practice informs our
research and how our research can inform practice” (p. 451). Conference
programs have been analyzed in specific library sectors to ascertain their
impact on professional development (Young et al., 2020) or on the extent to
which conferences influence strategic change (LILAC, 2024). Stewart (2013)
examined the International Association of School Librarians conference to
explore the future of the conference itself.
A further
benefit of using conference programs as noted by Braun and Clarke (2021) suggests
“a coding reliability approach”; i.e., it becomes a process of “identifying
evidence for themes,” or topic summaries. Coding reliability depends on
multiple coders working independently to apply coding to the data, thereby
reducing research subjectivity. Muir (2023) explored this approach in the
context of library science. Using multiple conference programs, all compiled by
many experts across sectors and with differing perspectives is like having
multiple coders working on a project.
Method
The intention
for the project was to attempt consensus across a number of library sectors
using an adapted consensus methodology to determine if there were critical
areas for evidence based research for the future.
The key to the possibility of consensus was ensuring expert representation
across the sectors during the study. Card sort methodologies have been employed
in many previous library research studies, but for this research, the
additional use of a well-known user experience (UX) research methodology, a card
sort methodology, was also employed.
The
modified-Delphi card sorting method enabled moderated collaboration through a
final workshop that involved group card sorting, followed by individual
assessments to achieve consensus. According to Paul’s (2008) model, the seed
participant creates the initial structure from a stack of cards and proposes an
information structure model. Further rounds of participants comment on the
previous model and make modifications or suggest alternatives. The cards and
their related groups and relationships evolve into a model that incorporates
input from all the participants and the final stage of consensus is reached
when there are no more significant changes to the arrangement of cards.
In the “Shaping
the Future” study, the researcher modified Paul’s method. From the outset,
there was concern about whether experts from different areas of the profession
would be able to collaborate effectively and reach an agreement over a final
set of critical themes for LIS. To address this, the method was modified in
several ways:
·
Seed participant data were derived from
library profession conference programs reflecting expert opinions,
·
A second group of experts reviewed the
data concurrently to capture a broader range of views,
·
The final steps of grouping, theming,
and prioritization tasks leading to consensus, were undertaken in a group
(workshop) setting,
To
give sufficient scope for a profession-wide study, the focus was on identifying
no more than 12 trends.
The revised modified-Delphi card sort method employed
for this study is outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Modifications made to Paul’s (2008) model.
Research Process
The process entailed a sequential set of procedures
with each building iteratively on the output of the previous one. The sequence
is described in Figure 1 and outlined below.
Seed Participant: Selection and Identification of an Initial Set of Themes
Research began by identifying the most recent
conferences held in 2023 and those with planned conference themes for 2024
taking place across the library profession. This approach ensured a
comprehensive overview of research and practice priorities across the
profession. Although these data are not commonly used in this way, doing so
aligned well with the researchers’ goal of adopting a wider-sector approach.
Included for consideration were 15 programs ranging
from specialist areas of librarianship (such as business libraries) to thematic
areas (such as information literacy or performance management or critical
approaches to librarianship) and wide-ranging programs (such as CILIP’s annual
conference). Public libraries were represented through Libraries Connected,
with school and health sectors also represented. Overlaps in content were
expected and served as confirmation of trends. For details of the programs, see
Appendix A.
The researchers manually themed individual papers and
topics from the 2023 conference programs and proposed conferences for 2024. The
theme titles developed in the analysis were chosen to reflect the views of
working professionals, even though some conference papers would have been
presented by researchers. The themes identified through coding the conference
papers were intentionally broad, rather than specific, or immediately
researchable questions. Colleagues involved in the research facilitation
reviewed the themes. Modifications were made to the themes that formed the
content for the next research phase.
The researchers created 61 key themes in the first stage
of the process. In addition, each theme was mapped to conference papers or
training events to support the rationale for the theme.
Activity 1: Consult Library
Practitioners Across the Profession on a Themed List
Recognizing the importance of engaging the broader
profession and avoiding sector bias, specific organizations were contacted to
promote the research study. The aim was to recruit 20-30 participants for this
activity.
Activity 1 recruitment for experts resulted in 21
participants, with the following sectors represented:
·
Academic libraries (6)
·
Special interest libraries (3)
·
Public libraries (2)
·
School libraries (4)
·
Rare/special collections libraries (1)
·
Health libraries (5)
Most experts offered their time independently in
response to the promotion of the research, whilst some were contacted following
recommendations, for example, from the LIRG committee. In some instances,
sector organizers such as the School Library Association and Libraries
Connected promoted the study. The stages of career represented varied from
early career professional through to university library directors. Some experts
were solo workers, others worked in much larger work environments. Experts were
predominantly from the academic library sector, partly due to the intrinsic
bias often seen across the sectors with more professional library staff
employed in academic libraries, and partly because this sector may have
volunteered more readily for a research study. The researcher’s background in
academic libraries must also be acknowledged. However, the academic library
representation covered a variety of types of academic institutions including
research libraries and teaching libraries.
Activity 1 aimed to review and evaluate the initial
set of coded themes with experts. Practitioner input was essential to ensure
the key concerns of the wider profession were reflected. The researcher invited
experts to contribute additional top-level themes to ensure the list was
comprehensive. The focus of this stage of the research was on using this expert
opinion to:
·
strengthen, or confirm, themes
·
question the themes but not remove ones
they might consider irrelevant
·
suggest additional themes
Participants
volunteering to support the research were contacted remotely by email, they were
provided with an information sheet that outlined the research project, the
risks involved in participating, an explanation of how the data would be used,
and permission for any recordings were gathered at that stage. A structured
interview method was employed; asynchronous responses were accepted owing to
time constraints, and a desire to widen coverage and validity of the data. In
all instances, an online face-to-face option was available for participants if
they preferred that method. The researcher sent the following tasks to each
participant with the spreadsheet of the 61 themes identified for review:
·
The themed items on the attached
spreadsheet have been collated from amalgamating conference programs from the
library profession in 2023 and looking at calls for papers for 2024. Look
through the themes, and from your perspective and understanding of the
profession consider whether there are critical themes/issues/challenges missing
from the first list. Especially consider those that are critical for future
library practice in your sector/area of expertise and interest.
·
Add any further clarification or
questions you have about the list.
Participants
were given the choice of responding in the body of the email or by annotating
the spreadsheet sent to them. Many respondents, 81%, opted to respond through a
return email with comments contained within the email. All responses were
amalgamated and considered in line with the first set of themes; where they
were distinct themes they were added to the initial themed list or suggestions
were amalgamated with current themes and the document was amended accordingly.
Following
Activity 1, new themes (14) were added to the list, 29 original themes were
amended and just one was amalgamated with a previously created one. These 74
themes formed the basis for the cards used in the second activity. The full
list of themes, including those added at the outset of Activity 2, and related
modifications through the process, is included in Appendix B (B.1 – B.3).
Activity 2: Card Sorting Workshop with Ten Participants
Ten
expert library professionals were invited to a final one-day in-person workshop
for the modified-Delphi card sorting tasks. This final phase of the study aimed
to reach a consensus on 12 themes critical for future evidence
based research. Of the participants, two represented Scotland, with the
rest from England; attempts to draw participants from Wales and Northern
Ireland were not successful. Expertise came from the following sectors:
·
Academic libraries (4)
·
Special interest libraries (1)
·
Health libraries (1)
·
Public libraries (2)
·
School libraries (1)
·
Research libraries (1)
Once
again, academic library representation was strongest, with representation from
subject specialists through research support librarians and those with teaching
expertise. There were two early career professionals, and three from senior
management positions. Some experts were members of CILIP, and others were
members of their specific sector organizations. Although some experts were
interested and practiced in research methods none of them had been involved in
a Delphi study before and so were especially interested in the methodology.
This
element of the research relied on in-person group card-sorting tasks. Conrad
and Tucker (2019) referred to a card-sort activity as one that encourages
articulating “participant thoughts and feelings, making abstract concepts more
tangible for both participant and researcher” (p. 398). This aspect of the
methodology was crucial for ensuring internal validation given the range of the
sectors represented by the participants.
Workshop
tasks outlined in Figure 1 above are expanded in more detail in Table 1. The
focus was on iterative practice, using a traditional card-sorting method for
grouping ideas, together with consensus tasks used to prioritize the themes,
thereby reducing them to 12, as identified from the modified research
parameters.
Table 1
Workshop Tasks
|
TASKS |
DETAIL
OF TASKS |
NEXT
STEPS |
|
Individual
assessment |
The
researcher sends participants the output from Activity 1 one day before the
workshop. |
Participants
were invited to add themes (cards) to the pack at the start of the workshop. |
|
Card
sorting in groups (Consensus/prioritization
Task 1) |
Participants
conducted a grouping/theming task with the cards to allow time for discussion
and group understandings to emerge. |
Participants
were asked to de-prioritize half of the cards. |
|
Card
sorting in groups (Consensus/prioritization
Task 2) |
Groupings
and remaining cards from the two groups were amalgamated by the workshop
facilitators before the task. |
A
second round of de-prioritization resulted in 30-35 cards (themes). |
|
Task
3 |
Voting
– the final 30+ cards voted on by participants individually. |
Voting
results were revealed, and cards were put in rank order. |
|
Final
overview of results |
The
researcher facilitated a final discussion between all participants. |
The
group could decide whether later changes are required. |
Participants
were presented with an amended list of themes resulting from Activity 1 before
the workshop day. They were allowed to add further themes if they were
concerned that a critical aspect was missing. Additional themes were each
individually annotated on a card. A further 10 themes were captured resulting
in a total of 84 themes. Appendix B.3 notes these additions.
Expert
consultation was critical in creating the set of themes explored in the final
workshop. Figure 2 illustrates the stages of the research process when key
themes were identified. Experts added new themes to the list with the
researcher making subsequent modifications to the original seed participant
list. This task contributed to the validation of prior stages and highlighted
the importance of including expert practitioners and ensuring they represented the
U.K. library profession as far as possible.
Figure
2
Contributions
to theme creation.
Card-Sorting Tasks
Participants
were divided into two groups and initiated the process of identifying overlaps
and similarities amongst the themes by sorting the cards, each with one theme
on them, into broader groups. This activity facilitated discussion and sharing
of experiences. The discussion process contributed to a sense of consensus
which was important to the outcomes. Once the broad theming of the cards was
complete, the groups were asked to nominate just half of the cards as priority
themes. Participants were given time at the end of this stage to regroup and
identify any issues, noting some uncertainty about how their different sectors
would be able to agree on a final set of trends. Further tasks helped to
mitigate this issue.
Participants
found it challenging to deprioritize and reduce the pile of cards. However,
approaching the task a second time after a lunch break meant this activity
could be re-visited. Before the second task, the facilitators examined the
card-sorting results from the two independently working groups from the
morning. Where the two groups had created similar broader themes, the cards
were combined. The group's opinions diverged in some instances, and we retained
all of these cards for the second round. Three groups of participants worked on
the second prioritization task. Facilitators ensured that academic library
representation was more evenly spread across the groups. This also had the
advantage of ensuring participants had the opportunity to work with others in
the wider group, allowing for experiences to continue to be shared and
differences of opinion heard widely amongst the group. Participants in the
groups were once again asked to reduce the number of themes (cards) by half.
Table
2 can be viewed in conjunction with Appendix B, which includes the full list of
themes. It outlines the process involved in removing themes through the
prioritization tasks. These data reflect a potential issue of collaborative
working between and across sectors. Immediately before this task, workshop
participants added ten new themes to the pack. The first column suggests a
potential reticence by participants in removing any of those themes in the Prioritization
1 task. By the second prioritization, a level of familiarity and group working
had developed which appeared to change the participants’ approach to the task.
They became more confident in their views. As the ability to collaborate and
work across the profession is critical for successful evidence
based research activity, similar future studies should include several
rounds of prioritization tasks.
Table 2
Stage of Theme Creation
Correlated to the Stage of Removal
|
Stage of theme creation |
Workshop Task: Prioritization 1 removal of themes |
Workshop Task: Prioritization 2 removal of themes |
|
1: Original theme by researcher |
11 |
6 |
|
2a: Modified original theme from Activity 1 expert
consultants |
10 |
6 |
|
2b: New theme identified from Activity 1 expert consultants |
5 |
4 |
|
3: Activity 2 expert consultants |
0 |
6 |
The
items removed at each stage were examined collectively to ascertain further
rationale for their removal. Observations of the card-sorting and
prioritization tasks led to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing
group decisions. The following broad principles and decisions impacted each
group achieving universal agreement.
·
Participants agreed on areas of
significant overlap with another theme.
·
Participants used high level labels to
group several themes; for example, any themes related to a broader label such
as “inclusivity” formed a group. Experts then identified one or two areas
within that broader group as more critical than others.
·
Diverse experts in a group discussed
their differences at length and came to a consensus through discussing the
relative impact of the theme in their place of work or sector.
·
At times the group agreed that the theme
was not sufficiently “futuristic”. It was agreed that it was valid and
important for libraries now and in the future, but libraries have already put
considerable effort and research into the area, for example, accessibility.
·
Some themes were less important for some
sectors or less well understood by participants concerning the wider profession
and were discarded early on.
The outcome of this process of
prioritization resulted in 31 themes represented on individual cards. Table 3
lists these themes split into two columns, those that both groups in the first
prioritization exercise perceived to be priorities, and those which only one or
other groups in the first prioritization exercise decided were priorities. This
is an indication of potential importance for the themes at this stage of the
process.
Table 3
Prioritized Themes Following Activity 2
|
Both groups in Prioritization 1 independently prioritized these themes |
One group in Prioritization 1 independently prioritized these themes |
|
Strategic delivery of service: effectiveness of strategy for service |
Consortia partnerships: staff connecting across the profession |
|
Resources and collections: digital provision and access |
Consortia partnerships: connecting across sectors |
|
Sustainable futures |
Great School Libraries campaign |
|
Researchers and publishing: impact of new ways of publishing |
Systematic reviews |
|
Budgets and resources |
Strategic collaboration |
|
Library staff: fair and effective recruitment practices |
Ambiguous boundaries: service provision |
|
Diversity: theories in practice |
Decolonization: evaluation and impact |
|
Resources and collections: diversity and ethics |
Critical librarianship: exclusion and inclusion of staff |
|
Open access: implications for all |
Critical evaluation in library context |
|
Reading literacy: creating a reading culture |
Searching: effective searching |
|
Evidence based practice: embedding in the profession |
Library staff: leadership challenges |
|
Inclusive libraries |
Teaching librarians (pedagogy and andragogy) |
|
Library staff: workforce of the future - skills required |
Library spaces |
|
Digital literacy |
Censorship/book banning |
|
Professional identity (across the profession) |
|
|
AI: opportunities, challenges |
|
|
Critical librarianship: advocacy, knowledge production |
|
Different sectoral pressures and issues faced by the individual experts in the
workshop had an impact. However, all themes were considered equally in the
remaining workshop tasks. Participants reviewed the results and agreed that,
despite their different sectors, these were the group’s collective priorities
after two rounds of prioritization tasks.
Voting
Card-sorting
and prioritization tasks were followed by a voting mechanism, designed for
participants to distribute their prioritization flexibly and independently.
Introducing
voting at this point aimed to mitigate the potential bias introduced by the
group setting. Specifically:
·
To mitigate the “loudest voices” ruling
the day which had been partly achieved by rotating the composition of the
groups in the previous rounds, but also through the process of the voting–a
blind and individual approach to the last round of prioritization.
·
Ensuring that all sectors present were
represented in the final round. For example, if the public sector expert’s
opinion had been down weighted by an academic librarian during the
conversations in previous collaborative rounds, this was their opportunity to
represent their views.
·
Aiming to enable participants to spread
their prioritization with few constraints.
Each
participant received 50 counters. They distributed the counters across the
cards remaining in the set according to the prioritization weighting they
wished to give each card, with the only restriction being that they could not
assign more than 8 counters to an individual card. The “votes” were hidden from
other participants by placing the counters in sealed opaque containers,
mitigating the potential to be influenced by the votes of others in the group.
Table 4 provides details of the outcome of the voting activity.
Table 4
Outcomes of Voting
|
THEME
|
SCORE
FOLLOWING VOTING |
|
Critical
librarianship: advocacy, knowledge production |
37 |
|
AI:
opportunities and challenges |
35 |
|
Professional
identity (across the profession) |
34 |
|
Censorship/book
banning |
30 |
|
Library
spaces |
27 |
|
Teaching
librarians (pedagogy & andragogy) |
21 |
|
Library
staff: leadership challenges |
20 |
|
Digital
literacy |
17 |
|
Library
staff: workforce skills for the future |
17 |
|
Inclusive
libraries |
16 |
|
Evidence
based practice: embedding in the profession |
16 |
|
Reading
literacy |
15 |
Facilitators ensured that participants knew before the
voting that although this task had been used to help reach a consensus, it was
not the end of the process and that a final discussion about the outcome was
critical to ensure full agreement. The following questions were used to guide
this discussion:
·
What surprises emerged from this task?
·
Which themes would they like to advocate
for if they did not appear in this list?
·
Were there any themes missing from the
set of 31 that they would have liked to see reinstated back in the set?
This
final discussion resulted in an illuminating collaborative conversation about
the general issues all libraries face. Ultimately, three cards discarded before
the voting took place were reinstated. These were: misinformation/disinformation,
diversity (practical activities), and environmental responsibilities. There
were discussions about areas that participants considered fundamental but were
not included in the final set. However, it was agreed that the results had been
arrived at through a robust process. Participants would have benefitted from
more time to understand the themes. However, the workshop ended positively,
reiterating the need to share information and best practices between sectors in
a timelier way.
Discussion
At
the outset, a target of arriving at 12 potential themes through the consensus
processes was considered reasonable. Although 12 themes were identified, it
became clear by the end of the workshop that a sub-group of 5 themes stood out.
A key recommendation from this study is that funding research activity that
will bring the most value to the U.K. library profession is focused on these:
·
Critical librarianship: advocacy,
knowledge production
·
AI: opportunities and challenges
·
Professional identity (across the
profession)
·
Censorship/book banning
·
Library spaces
The
broad strategic themes emerging from this research can be summarized by
considering how they impact the library and information profession. The entire
profession is influenced by political, economic, and societal shifts,
necessitating a constant demonstration of impact and relevance. These
influences were key to the conversations during the card-sorting tasks in the
workshop. Common interests and understanding developed throughout the day as
experts shared their stories about working in the library profession. The
consensus outcomes became less about the sector they were in, and more about a
shared understanding of key important issues for all. Ethical considerations
alongside a professional understanding of the workforce and workplace identity
influenced final decisions.
Some
top themes have a clear role as “disruptors,” such as AI, which present current
and future challenges highlighting the need for “workforce skills development.”
To take one example, a comparison of the conference archives of the LILAC
conferences for 2023 and 2024 illustrated that AI as a topic emerges strongly
in the 2024 conference but is not evident in the 2023 conference. The RLUK Call
for Papers, 2024 also illustrates this rapid change.
Although
“inclusive” as a general theme did not rank higher in the final consensus task,
the “persistence/development of inclusive activity” continues to be important.
Critical librarianship was identified as an important future trend in
librarianship. It is strongly advised that future research explores this topic
in more detail to ensure it is understood across the profession, making future
practices firmly evidence based. Censorship/book-banning pressure was most
acutely felt by school and public library experts in the workshop, in
particular those who are solo librarians. It also resonated with other sectors.
Evidence based practice supporting the wider profession would guide those who
are on the frontline, and also increase wider understanding across the U.K.
library profession.
During Activities 1 and 2, it became clear that librarians are concerned about
how their profession is perceived. “Professional identity” was identified as a
critical issue. Conversations during the workshop highlighted that experts were
concerned about losing their identity and the de-skilling of the profession. It
was noted that discussion amongst workshop members was critical in breaking
down barriers and understanding each other's experiences, beyond a general
awareness of overarching issues and opportunities. Professional identity is
difficult to achieve when perceptions vary; for example, what the profession
thinks of a topic, compared to the public or the government and other funding
bodies. The final consensus discussion included themes such as
“budgets/funding” and illustrated that more could be done to understand and
disseminate best practices between sectors. Regardless of definitions of
“identity,” the profession seems to require constant advocacy.
“Library
spaces” were a recurring theme throughout the study, reflecting the ongoing
challenges that many sectors are experiencing. Experts wanted to defend and
justify “the library as space,” regardless of the role or sector they worked
in. Library space depends on context but there may be many more ways in which
the wider profession can work together and complement physical and digital
spaces for the benefit of society.
The
outcomes are a snapshot of the opinions of a small group of participants across
a selection of sectors, and given the current pace of change, the validity of
research results will lessen as time passes. Some themes that emerged from
conference programs, such as UX and the impact of the pandemic, were quickly
de-prioritized during the workshop. While not seen as critical future trends,
these themes could form the basis for specific sectoral work or future
research. Potential research questions connected to the most highly ranked
themes can now be developed, enabling library practitioners to investigate
these areas further.
The
methodology successfully combined an initial set of themes from the seed
participant with an expert-driven approach to testing these themes and
utilizing a collaborative set of tasks to reach a consensus. The powerful
impact of the root method, Delphi, is the value placed on the expert input in a
research environment where their views and ideas are important. The process of
consensus in building and shaping a story is also evident. Lund (2020) noted
that Delphi methodologies can overcome some of the weaknesses of other research
methods, such as the potential for “conversation dominance/power differential
in focus groups and equal weighting of all ideas in surveys and interviews” (p.
939). This iterative and collaborative process allowed participants to consider
whether their ideas aligned with the larger group and, as a result, potentially
adjust their responses. Conversations between participants meeting face-to-face
in the “Shaping the Future” workshop could have continued for much longer, as
they spent time understanding each other’s backgrounds and challenges.
For
this research project, there was an overriding concern about sectoral
differences impacting the ability to reach a consensus. For example, the final
discussion (after the voting task) led to wide-ranging debates about why themes
such as “budgets/funding” or “reading literacy” did not rank higher in the
final set. Despite differing opinions, the experts agreed not to change the
list of priorities. Some participants expressed interest in undertaking a
similar study using the same method for their sector.
Observations
of workshop participants and subsequent conversations demonstrated some
differences of opinion in the meaning behind some of the themes which were not
solely due to sector differences. Confusion could have been prevented by taking
more time to reflect on their understanding of the themes before the
card-sorting tasks. Alternatively, documented definitions for each theme could
have been captured by participants before any card-sorting activity.
The
workshop process was flexible enough to allow for modifications to the original
plans, with one such change required. Qualitative methods may need adaptation
and subsequent justification; the changes made during the workshop are a good
example. Walking through the process in advance is highly recommended but
adapting to the environment is also essential.
The
seed data—recent library conference themes and topics—used in the Delphi
consensus approach for the research project had not been used before in this
way to elicit views about the future trends in libraries. The use of conference
program data which reflect current issues for libraries resulted in a set of
themes relevant to the profession. Revisiting a similar dataset within five
years would allow library leaders to analyze the responsiveness of the library
profession and confirm or propose new trends for future evidence
based research.
Limitations
of the modified-Delphi card sorting method included assumptions that can
influence the outcomes. Lund (2020) noted that identifying individual expert
opinions may have potentially negative consequences for research outcomes. The
bias noted above concerning the number of academic library professionals
involved in this study is a related limitation. Mitigation through different
group formations for the tasks in the workshop helped address this, but it must
be acknowledged as an area to improve in future studies. Additionally, experts
may have the best, most popular ideas (in our study these are potentially the
ones that were given the highest votes in the final iteration), which may not
be the case in reality. It is also important to acknowledge the current
climate, where “hot” topics like AI emerge and fade rapidly.
A
potential area to explore in future studies could be the ability of
participants to absorb, assimilate, and analyze information within the time
allocated to each task. Activity 1 allowed plenty of time for this process as
participants responded individually and had more time available to reflect and
send a response. Activity 2, the workshop, could have taken place over two days
to allow for a more measured process of card sorting, discussion about
differences between sectors, and assimilation of information.
Despite
the limitations outlined above, the method allowed a group of experts to arrive
at an agreed list of topics and themes critical for LIS experts to explore and
research in the workplace in the future. Using all elements of the methodology,
the study achieved an important level of internal validity, ensuring that the
views of a wide range of experts contributed to the outcomes.
Conclusion
This
research study began with two key questions, intending to discover a limited
set of critical trends for the wider library profession to focus their
attention on. A modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus
amongst experts from different library sectors. Three linked individual tasks
took place over the course of the research. The initial seed participant
activity used conference programs to represent the most current trends within
the profession. The output of this first element of the research was verified
and modified by experts who responded individually. Finally, a group workshop
used card-sorting and voting methods to arrive at a consensus. Five themes
emerged as a distinct group that resonated with participants during the
research. It is recommended that this research output should form the focus for
future research efforts by the wider profession as anticipated at the outset.
These
studies are only useful if the results are acted upon, and if there is an
understanding that they merely show a snapshot in time. Repeating this exercise
is important, and this modified Delphi methodology could be reused. In
addition, regardless of the efforts made in recruiting experts for this study,
it is clear that it is not always possible to fully represent the huge
diversity of work environments in studies of this nature. However,
collaborating closely with the experts involved was an unexpectedly rewarding
feature of the research, with many valuable conversations in the workshop, and
via email with experts. These findings underscore the need for further research
into professional identity examining the related issues of professional
development and career opportunities.
Evidence
based research at an organizational level would help the profession deepen its
understanding. “Shaping the Future” research outcomes represent what library
experts agree are critical for further evidence based
research. Such research would be most effective if engaged at an organizational
level, as proposed through the EBLIP model. This study’s outcomes should be
applied across the library profession to demonstrate further validity.
Individual library sectors will best serve themselves and each other if they
find ways to commit to working together and sharing knowledge in an evidence based research environment.
Acknowledgments
The
authors would like to acknowledge CILIP’s Library & Information Research
Group (LIRG) for the funding, strategic direction, and collaborative support to
enable this study to take place. In addition, we would like to thank the Faculty
of Education and Education Library, University of Cambridge, and Homerton
College, for their facilitation of the research workshop.
Author Contributions
Elizabeth Tilley:
Conceptualization (lead), Data curation (lead), Formal analysis (lead), Funding
acquisition (lead), Methodology (equal), Project administration (lead),
Resources (equal), Writing – original draft (lead), Writing – review and
editing (equal) David Marshall: Conceptualization (supporting), Formal
analysis (supporting), Methodology (equal), Resources (equal), Writing –
original draft (supporting), Writing – review and editing (equal)
References
Appleton, L. (2022). Trendspotting - Looking to the future in a
post-pandemic academic library environment. New Review of Academic Librarianship,
28(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2058174
Ashiq, M., Rehman, S. U., Safdar, M., & Ali, H. (2021). Academic
library leadership in the dawn of the new millennium: A systematic literature
review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102355
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits
all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Bronstein, J., & Aharony, N. (2009). Views
and dreams: A Delphi investigation into library 2.0 applications. Journal of
Web Librarianship, 3(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900902896481
Calvert, S. (2020). Future themes and forecasts for research
libraries and emerging technologies. Association of Research Libraries,
Coalition for Networked Information, and EDUCAUSE. https://doi.org/10.29242/report.emergingtech2020.forecasts
Cheung, M. (2023, October 10). RLUK24 conference call for papers.
RLUK News. https://www.rluk.ac.uk/rluk24-conference-call-for-papers/
CILIP. (2023). We are CILIP. https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/wearecilip
Conrad, L. Y., & Tucker, V. M. (2019). Making it tangible: Hybrid card sorting within
qualitative interviews. Journal of Documentation, 75(2), 397–416.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2018-0091
Corrall, S. (2016). Continuing professional development and workplace learning.
In P. Dale, J. Beard, & M. Holland (Eds.), University libraries and
digital learning environments (pp. 239–258). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549002
Corrall, S., & Jolly, L. (2020). Innovations in learning and teaching in
academic libraries: Alignment, collaboration, and the social turn. New
Review of Academic Librarianship, 25(2–4), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1697099
Cox, A. (2021). The impact of AI, machine learning, automation and
robotics on the information professions: A report for CILIP. CILIP. https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/researchreport
Dallis, D. (2017). Perspectives on library public services from four leaders. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 17(2), 205–2016. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0012
Dempsey, L. (2012). Libraries and the informational future: Some notes. Information
Services & Use, 32(3–4), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0670
Dempsey, L. (2020). Library discovery directions: Foreword. In S.
McLeish (Ed.), Resource discovery for the twenty-first century library: Case
studies and perspectives on the role of IT in user engagement and empowerment.
Facet.
Eldredge, J., Harris, M., & Tomlinson Ascher, M. (2009). Defining
the Medical Library Association research agenda: Methodology and final results
from a consensus process. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA,
97(3), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006
Feret, B., & Marcinek, M. (2005). The future of
the academic library and the academic librarian: A Delphi study reloaded. New
Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614570500268381
Koufogiannakis, D., & Brettle, A. (Eds.). (2016). Being evidence based in
library and information practice. Facet Publishing.
Koufogiannakis, D., & Crumley, E. (2006). Research in librarianship: Issues to
consider. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692109
LILAC. (2024, April). LILAC archives. https://www.lilacconference.com/
Lund, B. D. (2020). Review of the Delphi method in library and
information science research. Journal of Documentation, 76(4),
929–960.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2019-0178
Maceviciute, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). A Delphi investigation into the
research needs in Swedish librarianship. IR: Information Research, 14(4).
https://www.informationr.net/ir/14-4/paper419.html
Mata, H., Latham, T. P., & Ransome, Y. (2010). Benefits of
professional organization membership and participation in national conferences:
Considerations for students and new professionals. Health Promotion Practice,
11(4), 450–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910370427
Meier, J. J. (2016). The future of academic libraries: Conversations
with today’s leaders about tomorrow. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(2),
263–288. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0015
Missingham, R. (2011). Parliamentary library and research services in the 21st
century: A Delphi study. IFLA Journal, 37(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210396783
Muir, R. (2023). From data to insights: Developing a tool to enhance our
decision making using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative evidence. Journal
of the Australian Library and Information Association, 72(2),
150–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2206603
NHS. (2015). Training and development (knowledge and library
services). Health Careers. https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/health-informatics/
roles-health-informatics/knowledge-and-library-services
Paul, C. L. (2008). A modified Delphi approach to a new card sorting
methodology. Journal of User Experience, 4(1), 7–30. https://uxpajournal.org/
a-modified-delphi-approach-to-a-new-card-sorting-methodology/
Pistone, R. (2023). Identifying and navigating the current trends in
business librarianship and data librarianship. Computer and Information
Science, 16(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v16n3p1
Poirier, E., & Robinson, L. (2014). Slow Delphi: An investigation
into information behaviour and the slow movement. Journal of Information
Science, 40(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513506360
Sanderson, B. (2023, July). Policy paper: An independent review of
English public libraries. Department of Culture Media & Sport. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
an-independent-review-of-english-public-libraries-report-and-government-reponse
Schlak, T., Corrall, S., & Bracke, P. (2022). The
social future of academic libraries: New
perspectives on communities, networks, and engagement. Facet.
Stewart, P. L. (2013). Benefits, challenges and proposed future
directions for the International Association of School Librarianship annual
conference. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(5).
https://www.ijern.com/images/May-2013/39.pdf
Tait, E., & Pierson, C. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence and robots in libraries:
Opportunities in LIS curriculum for preparing the librarians of tomorrow. Journal
of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(3),
256–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2081111
Taşkın, Z. (2021). Forecasting the future of library and information science
and its sub-fields. Scientometrics, 126(2),
1527–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03800-2
Thorpe, C., & Howlett, A. (2020). Understanding EBLIP at an organizational
level: An initial maturity model. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 15(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29639
Tomaszewski, R., & MacDonald, K. I. (2009). Identifying
subject-specific conferences as professional development opportunities for the
academic librarian. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6),
583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.08.006
Vega, R. D., & Connell, R. S. (2007). Librarians’ attitudes toward conferences: A study. College
& Research Libraries, 68(6), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.6.503
Vickers, B. (2018, August 20). Postcards from Maryland – Reflections of
an SLA Europe ECCA. Beth Vickers @CityLIS Postgrad 2017-2019. https://bethshers.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/
postcards-from-maryland-reflections-of-a-sla-europe-ecca/
Waite, J. L., & Hume, S. E. (2017). Developing mission-focused outcomes for a
professional conference: The case of the National Conference on Geography
Education. Journal of Geography, 116(3), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2016.1243722
Young,
G., Gilroy, D., & Nicholas, K. (2020). It’s great up north: Maximising the
learning and development opportunities provided by organising and attending a
regional event. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 37(4),
343–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12331
Appendix A
Conference
Programs and Calls for Papers
(CILIP:
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)
|
CILIPS Conference Programme 2023 |
CILIP Scotland |
|
CILIP Conference Programme 2023 |
CILIP annual conference |
|
WHELF: Excluded Voices Programme 2023 |
Wales Higher Education Library Forum |
|
RLUK 2024 Call for Papers |
Research Libraries UK |
|
LILAC 2023 Conference Programme |
International Information Literacy Conference |
|
The EDGE 2023 Conference Main Speakers’ titles |
City of Edinburgh Council Conference |
|
SLA 2023 Events Programme |
School Library Association |
|
LibPMC Programme 2023 |
International Conference on Libraries and Performance
Measurement |
|
CILIP Libraries Rewired Conference Programme 2023 |
One-day event 2023 |
LLS Everyone a Researcher Conference 2023
|
University of Northampton Library and Learning Services
annual conference. https://libguides.northampton.ac.uk/Everyonearesearcher/programme |
|
CILIP Health Library Group Call for Papers 2024 |
Call for papers https://ciliphlg.com/ |
|
BIALL Call for Papers 2024 Conference |
British and Irish Association of Law Librarians Call
for Papers |
|
CALC Conference Programme 2023 |
Critical Approaches
to Libraries Conference https://sites.google.com/view/calcconference/past-conferences/ |
|
ALN Conference Programme 2023 |
Academic Libraries North Conference https://www.academiclibrariesnorth.ac.uk/ |
|
Libraries Connected Innovators Network National
Gathering 2023 |
Public Libraries: Libraries Connected https://www.librariesconnected.org.uk/training-and-events/ |
Appendix B
Themes
for “Shaping the Future” Research Workshop
Appendix
B is divided into four sections:
·
B.1. Themes created by the seed
participant through the process of theming conference programs. These themes
were retained throughout the three steps.
·
B.2a. Themes created by the seed
participant and modified following Activity 1 where experts reviewed the list
·
B.2b. Themes added by experts in
Activity 1
·
B.3. Themes added by experts at the
beginning of Activity 2.
Appendix B.1Themes Created by Seed
Participant Theming Activity and Subsequently Retained in the Same
Format/Name Throughout the Research Process |
|
|
Top Level Themes |
Conference and Feedback Examples
Supporting Theme Creation |
|
Academic skills support: transition |
Transition support – transitioning into HE |
|
|
Improving reading skills for students
at Key stage 3 and 4 |
|
|
The transition from undergraduate vocational
courses into professional life. (could apply to law as much as medicine) |
|
Academic support: frameworks - do
they work? |
Struggles to integrate IL training |
|
|
Predicting
student success with and without Library instruction: improving evidence
based practice with IL |
|
|
Framework of skills for inquiry
learning (FOSIL) |
|
Academic skills support:
institutional support |
Comparing IL frameworks with accreditation
standards for specific subjects |
|
|
Impact of one-shot teaching interventions |
|
|
Public libraries supporting distance learners -
e.g., ways to expand use of Eduroam? |
|
Critical evaluation in library
context |
Using critical evaluation models |
|
|
Longitudinal evaluation research |
|
|
Importance of data – but a holistic view when
multiple stakeholders involved |
|
Researchers and resources |
Scientific collecting – developing more
collaborative approaches |
|
|
Systematic reviews – development to integrate
decolonized searching; grey literature, AI/ChatGPT issues and screening
strategies |
|
|
issues of copyright for SR (supplying
papers to one person that we know will be shared amongst a team - when will
copyright become fit for this purpose?) |
|
Researchers and publishing - impact
of new ways of publishing |
Rights retention – copyright – as relates to open
access papers dissemination (disruptor) |
|
|
moved to a more OA model of content,
but imagine publishers will not let go easily so will there be even more
barriers |
|
|
establishing library-led publishing
capacity that works for your research community |
|
|
how to measure impact of research |
|
|
Funding open access monographs |
|
|
Speedier/less labour-intensive publishing models |
|
|
Welsh language OA publishing |
|
Researchers and workflows |
Strengthening researcher’s profiles |
|
|
Digital experiences – user
researcher |
|
AI opportunities |
AI that benefits libraries |
|
|
Innovation: for example, supporting tech-enhanced
learning |
|
|
driving business value through AI-powered
Knowledge management (reduce mundane work through employing AI) |
|
|
Role in business, research, and especially
financial sector, changing the speed of activity |
|
UX |
Health: connecting with users - needs analysis;
service evaluation, platforms to engage with users, engaging with literacies |
|
|
improving the student experience at
Aberystwyth University libraries: from library surveys to cognitive mapping |
|
|
User research informed UX |
|
|
potential implications of AI for UX |
|
Digital transformation for change |
Digital inclusion |
|
|
Development of equitable knowledge
infrastructures |
|
|
Expanding content types and
services |
|
|
Demonstrating the impact and value of
new activities |
|
|
Data security and data protection |
|
|
Digital communications |
|
|
Digital rights |
|
|
Speed of change requires nimbleness
and agility |
|
|
Digital censorship |
|
Strategic collaboration |
Catalyst for community transformation |
|
Culture of collaboration |
Value and impact community of
practice |
|
Relational librarianship: |
It takes a village (schools’
libraries) |
|
|
Building transformative relationships |
|
Consortia/partnerships: connecting
across sectors |
Health and digital literacy
partnership with NHS and public library |
|
|
Collaborating with public health
services and NHS to increase prevention services in libraries promoting
good health. |
|
|
Library at the heart of the community
– culture change for university libraries |
|
|
collaborate on research projects with
other sectors such as HR |
|
|
Smaller libraries and institutions
connecting to large overarching organizations such as JISC, RLUK, CILIP, BL |
|
|
Collaborative approaches between sectors and
across professional areas; LibraryON; Public
libraries discovery platforms |
|
|
Collaboration in the community –
community and school libraries |
|
|
care systems, prisons, education, health (private
and public) with skills, tools, resources |
|
|
seamless access goals. |
|
Consortia/partnerships: staff
connecting across the profession |
Libraries and archives - critical connections |
|
|
Evaluating communication across
library departments |
|
|
working, partnering, volunteering,
safeguarding the professions, liaising |
|
|
Simpler ways to connect across the
profession especially for smaller more specialist libraries or for example
between libraries and archives |
|
|
Disconnection and siloed areas of the
profession |
|
|
Sharing strategies and techniques and
standards with ALL staff across the profession, for example, preservation
standards should be shared with public libraries - staff working on local
collections |
|
|
Networking for resource sharing |
|
Consortia/partnerships: connecting
internationally |
International collaboration
(IFLA) |
|
|
Improving race equity |
|
|
Leading and managing change to align
with external policy landscape |
|
Strategic delivery of service -
effectiveness of strategy for service |
Role of the library in the delivery
of institutional strategy |
|
|
Create good organization policies |
|
|
|
|
|
What is a "good" library?
The measures are changing |
|
|
changing leadership |
|
Student recruitment/student panels/interns for
projects and longer term |
Career related |
|
|
User experience – for example, themed for a
project for a minority group |
|
|
Student curation |
|
Wellbeing spaces/activities |
the well-being economy |
|
|
Doing things for fun and community and
wellbeing |
|
|
Calm zones |
|
|
Reading for pleasure |
|
|
Using games to teach empathy,
understanding and promote wellbeing (dungeons and dragons) |
|
|
Table-top gaming in public
libraries |
|
|
Sense of belonging |
|
|
Reflective practice |
|
Resources and collections: diversity
and ethics |
Collaborative cataloguing ethics |
|
|
Introducing more books by people of colour |
|
|
World through picture books |
|
|
Diversity in operationalizing reading lists |
|
|
Gender variance – queer theory and Marxism |
|
Diversity: ethical concerns |
Supporting adult literacy and improving
life chances |
|
|
Safe and inclusive public libraries - balance
concerns around controversial material while protecting freedom of speech.
Professional ethics. |
|
|
Successful library EDI Assessment:
impact of participatory data collection approaches |
|
|
Multilingualism in the
library |
|
|
Diversity – LGBT+ especially in
schools |
|
|
Information practices of the homeless |
|
|
Workplace IL readiness for recently graduated
students |
|
|
Raising boys’ achievements |
|
|
Black voices in the library |
|
Accessibility: general |
Neurodivergence awareness for
both library staff and students |
|
|
Improving health literacy with easy
read guides for those with disabilities |
|
|
Digital content – inequitable access
to content |
|
|
Engaging with disability: the deaf community
using archives |
|
|
Public libraries lend and mend hubs - developing
a long-term model for circular economy activities, |
|
|
Renaming/rebranding ‘reading/library’
to ‘storytelling’ |
|
Accessibility: information literacy
related |
In the context of neurodivergence |
|
|
Emotional research experiences of first year
students |
|
|
Audiobooks, inclusion and higher education |
|
|
Referencing styles – barrier for those with
SLDs? |
|
|
Developing transparent and equitable
assignments |
|
|
Supporting students studying from secure
environments, prisons, secure houses, or secure hospitals, as well as
students who were in prisons and released on licence. They do not have access
to online content (OU) |
|
Inclusive libraries |
Inclusive reading list toolkits |
|
|
Use of book groups |
|
|
with specific learning disabilities Institutional
choices e.g., referencing styles |
|
Environmental responsibilities |
Glasgow Women’s Library “Green
Cluster”: gardening, documenting action, inspiring change, and reducing
carbon emissions |
|
|
buying second hand - when, why, so
what? |
|
|
engaging with scientific thinking,
not just slogans |
|
Sustainable futures |
What are the carbon emissions of
library practices? (Covering books in plastic? Printing out plastic
membership cards? Huge barns of computers often not in use? Servers for
institutional repositories? What is environmental cost of an ebook vs. paper copy?) |
|
|
Reduce, reuse, recycle – mantra into
action |
|
|
Libraries in support of sustainable
development goals (SDGs) |
|
Library – the empathy heart of the
institution |
empathetic appreciation |
|
Managing events |
event management |
|
Budgets and resources |
Future funding and resilience |
|
|
Licensing in the “new” economy may
become more pervasive, restrictive, and unaffordable for libraries and
ordinary people |
|
|
how to cost a service - e.g.,
systematic reviews. (we generally either take what we are offered, use a
ballpark 30hrs (Baller et al., 2018), or do a different stab in the dark
method). |
|
|
Impact of budgeting on staffing
constraints |
|
|
Vastly different content procurement
models |
|
Library spaces |
more sustainable buildings and
approach to learning space development? |
|
|
Measuring the impact of the first
year of a library makerspace: the experience of the University of
Limerick |
|
|
How and why library maps must evolve |
|
|
preserve historic space and update
for needs |
|
|
wellbeing spaces? |
|
Measuring and managing performance |
measuring impact to meet different
priorities |
|
|
How data visualisation has delivered
service improvement |
|
|
An analysis of faculty use of library
services |
|
|
Value of small-scale assessment:
looking at a consultation form for complex searches |
|
|
Building the holistic e-resource
acquisition transparency (HEAT) communication tool for academic librarians |
|
|
Turning recommendations of a peer
review panel into an action plan |
|
|
What does a values-based practice
look like? Identifying the characteristics of ethical library
assessment |
|
|
A new life for the READ scale:
calibrating a time and effort measure for patron interactions |
|
|
Keeping LibQUAL+
current as library users’ expectations evolve |
|
|
A whole-service quality evaluation
framework |
|
|
Culture of assessment |
Appendix B.2a
Themes
Created by Seed Participant Activity and Subsequently Modified Following
Expert Consultation in Activity 1 of the Research Process Italicized
comments indicate where modifications were made. |
|
||||
|
Top Level Themes |
Supporting Conference/Feedback
Examples |
|
|||
|
Teaching librarians: pedagogy and andragogy (adults/professionals) |
Social turn in HE: organizational
structures and strategic planning needed to support teaching librarians in
the socially conscious library. (disruptor) |
|
|||
|
|
Difference between pedagogy and andragogy -
mature students, postgraduates, academics, clinical practitioners might need
different approach than undergraduates. |
|
|||
|
|
Teaching online – competencies needed: Student
perceptions to librarian/teacher identity |
|
|||
|
|
Techniques and resources for
delivering training |
|
|||
|
|
using diagnostic tools to support independent
learning |
|
|||
|
|
Open pedagogy |
|
|||
|
|
Playful learning |
|
|||
|
Misinformation/disinformation (Academic skills support) |
what is the point of referencing |
|
|||
|
|
Building critical thinking skills by fostering
inquiry based and dialogic learning in research consultations |
|
|||
|
|
critical thinking culturally specific to the
Western World vs the rest of the world |
|
|||
|
|
tackling mis/disinformation - which
will continue to cause societal division |
|
|||
|
|
Identifying bias and misinformation within online
source evaluation |
|
|||
|
|
Misinformation and disinformation on social
media |
|
|||
|
Skills support: pedagogy and
technology (Academic skills
support) |
creating active online sessions for large groups
of students; Hybrid delivery of workshops; critical appraisal e-learning
packages |
|
|||
|
|
Flexibility to support different
models of teaching and research. |
|
|||
|
|
Immersive learning |
|
|||
|
|
Gamification |
|
|||
|
Digital literacy (Academic skills support) |
Digital literacy |
|
|||
|
Open access - implications
for all |
Rights retention and provision of
in-depth copyright training |
|
|||
|
|
Open research transformation for
change |
|
|||
|
|
Open access monographs |
|
|||
|
|
Open access and deals between
publishers and universities linking subs to OA publishing tokens is
problematic for specialist, smaller libraries, and charities |
|
|||
|
|
disseminating info on OA to all library staff -
incl. library assistants to enable everyone to have a working knowledge of OA
and its development, changes, and implications over time, plus practical
implications re. access for library users |
|
|||
|
AI perceptions and
challenges |
Libraries, large language models, and
ChatGPT |
|
|||
|
|
Implications for collections – how we
collect and how we describe our collections |
|
|||
|
|
School libraries: AI – challenges and
opportunities |
|
|||
|
|
Gender bias in the current writing
around AI |
|
|||
|
|
AI and legal tech trends: ethical
considerations e.g., copyright for images and films; responsible AI use |
|
|||
|
|
Replace the role of the business
information professional - info service providers combining their products
into one platform with the help of AI |
|
|||
|
|
Perception of attractiveness for
budget-cutting services |
|
|||
|
|
Generative AI and data: role of AI - in academic
practice, in being a source of misinformation, in being a valuable tool for
research |
|
|||
|
|
ensuring training is given to library / info
management staff at all levels to enable them to have a working knowledge of
what is possible, be able to continue to update their skills in this area, in
order to be able to beneficially apply these skills for their work and
workplaces |
|
|||
|
Policy/government/society impact on students and professions engaging with them |
Will universities exist as separate
entities? |
|
|||
|
|
School librarians dependent on internal advocacy; no
'rights' |
|
|||
|
|
Value of children and young people’s
library provision: Supporting primary school libraries – embedding research
principles into practice |
|
|||
|
|
Individualised self-driven education |
|
|||
|
|
Civic role of universities and
libraries |
|
|||
|
|
Impact of strikes |
|
|||
|
Policy/government/society impact on the public |
Sanderson Report on Public Libraries:
importance of policy re public libraries
|
|
|||
|
|
LibraryOn |
|
|||
|
|
Political uncertainty within the U.K. |
|
|||
|
|
truth and evidence are increasingly
undermined whilst libraries are underfunded |
|
|||
|
|
From town to gown: breaking barriers
to participation and engaging with the hard to reach to improve social and
economic well-being |
|
|||
|
|
Libraries brief administered by the
Arts Council, but scientific institutions feel unheard |
|
|||
|
Innovation: creative
activities |
how to reduce the effort of making
short films |
|
|||
|
|
Gaming, machine learning; zine maker
space |
|
|||
|
|
skills of staff |
|
|||
|
|
Canva: novice to expert; practical
video/photography skills |
|
|||
|
|
Future of library technology |
|
|||
|
|
Learning through change |
|
|||
|
|
Activism |
|
|||
|
Innovation: measure impact |
How to measure the
effectiveness/impact of all that effort on social media |
|
|||
|
Library staff: fair and effective recruitment practices |
Recruitment in the library sector - Fair
recruitment practices |
|
|||
|
|
Recruitment practices – social class and
equity |
|
|||
|
|
Attracting, retaining, and developing staff |
|
|||
|
|
Workforce recruitment – interviewing
for the ‘need to work as part of a team’ |
|
|||
|
|
Content analysis on teaching librarians job
postings |
|
|||
|
|
What is the evidence base for our
interview practice? What are the most effective questions? What are the most
effective tasks? |
|
|||
|
|
Are EDI strategies enough? Are they
working? |
|
|||
|
|
Are we being paid enough following quals? |
|
|||
|
|
Is the "need to work as part of a team"
actually discriminating against those who find it difficult to develop good
people skills. For example, ASD (autistic spectrum disorder) ... some library
tasks in library do not require need to work as part of team; for example,
book covering, shelving, processing - could these roles be advertised for
separately to ensure true EDI? |
|
|||
|
Library staff: wellbeing practices impact |
Being neurodiverse in the workplace |
|
|||
|
|
Random act of kindness |
|
|||
|
|
Wellbeing for library staff – personal resilience
and impactful leadership |
|
|||
|
|
Fostering psychological safe working
environments |
|
|||
|
|
Imposter syndrome and personal brand |
|
|||
|
Library staff: workforce of the
future. What are the skills required for the future? |
Workforce of the future: planning for
a multi-state workforce study of minoritized academic library
paraprofessionals |
|
|||
|
|
Do not see a new wave of librarians
coming through - what can we do to help this and give opportunities? |
|
|||
|
|
Consider our aging workforce, and how
we diversify it as well. Libraries may be still around, but will librarians? |
|
|||
|
|
Avoiding the cost of knowledge loss |
|
|||
|
|
Culture of calculated risk taking and continuous
innovation |
|
|||
|
|
Our continued work to integrate,
automate and promote autonomy might simultaneously succeed in finally making
us completely invisible |
|
|||
|
|
workflow transformation |
|
|||
|
|
Cost of de-professionalisation
of the profession |
|
|||
|
|
Legal training - including
negotiation, mediation, contract |
|
|||
|
|
Outreach about librarianship pathways
at initial stages |
|
|||
|
Library staff: what is effective professional development? |
How to be a new professional and get
past the barriers |
|
|||
|
|
Creating development space for generalists to
become specialists |
|
|||
|
|
Professional skills and
qualifications - are library qualifications fit for purpose |
|
|||
|
|
Skills development including professional
registration |
|
|||
|
|
Teaching qualifications - impact on junior staff
undertaking AFHEA |
|
|||
|
|
Staff skills: coaching, for example,
how to gain management experience for the next role when management or budget
experience is not in your current role |
|
|||
|
|
Reflective practice |
|
|||
|
|
Critical peer review skills |
|
|||
|
|
Apprenticeships – strategic workforce
development |
|
|||
|
|
Developing and supporting front-line
staff to ‘grow their own business’ |
|
|||
|
|
Starting a new role well |
|
|||
|
|
More education and training for a
flexible workforce. |
|
|||
|
|
Processes for a day in the life |
|
|||
|
Library staff: leadership challenges |
Support emerging leaders |
|
|||
|
|
How to help culture change, and avoid
“cult of personality” leadership |
|
|||
|
|
Leadership for changing times – including diverse
leadership |
|
|||
|
|
Flexible, adaptable leaders |
|
|||
|
|
Need to be politically astute to advocate and
fight for funding |
|
|||
|
Critical librarianship: translating theory into practice |
Social class, capital, and critical
information literacy |
|
|||
|
|
Referencing styles – oppressive? |
|
|||
|
|
What is the point of a reading list? |
|
|||
|
|
libraries and their colonial legacy |
|
|||
|
|
Redefining ‘bias’ |
|
|||
|
|
Information literacy as a concept and
importance |
|
|||
|
|
Gaps between critical librarian scholarship and
library initiatives |
|
|||
|
Resources and collections: digital provision and access |
ebook accessibility |
|
|||
|
|
Licensing of all sorts of resources
is becoming really complex |
|
|||
|
|
Cleaning out the electronic shelves: a look at
the lifecycle of e-books |
|
|||
|
|
Maintaining online learning objects |
|
|||
|
|
Analysis of multiple EBA
programs |
|
|||
|
|
Libraries as hubs for discovery,
exploration, and connection |
|
|||
|
|
Lobbying publishers for great consistency
in interfaces |
|
|||
|
|
Networking to share and distribute
resources |
|
|||
|
Resources and collections: collection
development changes for the future |
resources that we have inherited
(special collections) and are buying now (future special collections) and the
information we collect about them (our metadata) will still be being used -
in new and exciting ways! |
|
|||
|
|
Scientific collecting – developing more
collaborative approaches |
|
|||
|
|
How to secure rare and valuable collections for
the future - knowing it exists or making people aware? |
|
|||
|
|
Book usage metric sharing and use
guardrails: Developing ethical principles and system requirements to protect
reader privacy and automate usage data exchange and aggregation |
|
|||
|
Resources and collections:
publishers’ impact |
Promoting materials for diversity and
inclusion |
|
|||
|
|
Censorship in book collections and book
challenges and how to tackle them |
|
|||
|
|
Stop predatory practices
initiative |
|
|||
|
|
Leveraging scholarly APIs to analyze publication
trends |
|
|||
|
|
Institution data analysis for publisher
negotiations |
|
|||
|
|
Publishing for diversity and inclusion |
|
|||
|
Decolonization - evaluation and impact on changes in user
experience |
Decolonizing bibliographies, referencing, and
citation practices |
|
|||
|
|
Best practices for decolonizing academics library
collections |
|
|||
|
|
Decolonization and diversification creating
inclusive libraries |
|
|||
|
|
Wider implications of the “retain and explain”
methodology for library collections |
|
|||
|
|
Sharing practical approaches with the wider
heritage sector on contested artefacts and collections |
|
|||
|
|
Decolonization of curriculum and collections |
|
|||
|
Diversity: theories in practice |
Critical race theory as a framework |
|
|||
|
|
Finding an authentic approach to an
academic library’s best practice |
|
|||
|
|
approaches to promoting diversity and
inclusivity |
|
|||
|
Diversity: practical (change from steps to activities) |
Using virtual reality to create an immersive
historical experience |
|
|||
|
|
Welcoming Ukrainian families |
|
|||
|
|
Developing authentic youth voice in service
delivery |
|
|||
|
|
Exploring and celebrating the creativity of
reading |
|
|||
|
|
STEM story time |
|
|||
|
|
Graphic novels and comic books: Graphic novels:
secondary and beyond |
|
|||
|
|
Native (U.K.) diversity - celebrating
this. For example, will Welsh and Gaelic be used significantly more than it
is now? |
|
|||
|
|
Anti-racist service to leisure
readers |
|
|||
|
|
information literacy practices of LGBTQ+
students’ self-tracking |
|
|||
|
|
engage students in critical primary source
literacy and information literacy with content that reflects their own
identities and experiences |
|
|||
|
|
Using applied comics for IL instruction |
|
|||
|
|
Promoting diversity through fiction |
|
|||
|
|
Using drawing to support induction and transition
into HE |
|
|||
|
Potential barriers for students moving from one stage to another (replaced
'transition') |
Use of VLE and comparable sites on mobile
devices |
|
|||
|
|
where do students access their academic books? |
|
|||
|
|
Black awarding gap – learning
development |
|
|||
|
|
social inequalities |
|
|||
|
|
Supporting international students through an
intercultural approach |
|
|||
|
|
Safer Internet use |
|
|||
|
Library services and management
systems and suppliers: new ways of working |
System implementations – complex
scenarios often including LMS, reading list system, and discovery layer |
|
|||
|
|
Supporting students on courses
focused on digital readings/texts/reading lists (university decisions to go
digital-first in acquisition policies) |
|
|||
|
|
Open metadata - linked and improved
systems interoperating |
|
|||
|
|
Innovative ways of working with
systems |
|
|||
|
|
Institutional repositories |
|
|||
|
Library services and management
systems and suppliers: usability |
digital infrastructure needs work;
impact of changes on ILL systems |
|
|||
|
|
Remove the institutional barriers
that do exist and future think together...and across many different sectors! |
|
|||
|
|
critical approaches to the tools we
use and pay for. |
|
|||
|
Knowledge management growth |
Managing knowledge at scale |
|
|||
|
|
expanding skills to be able to offer
this, |
|
|||
|
Copyright: keeping up with changes |
Digital data - who owns the data |
|
|||
|
|
Issues of copyright for systematic
reviews |
|
|||
|
|
Intellectual property and who owns
what information |
|
|||
|
Evidence based practice: embedding in the profession |
Best practice in evidencing the
impact of libraries |
|
|||
|
|
How to do library research - skills,
writing, searching |
|
|||
|
|
Using film to share our stories
(public libraries) |
|
|||
|
|
Impact of public libraries on
loneliness in communities |
|
|||
|
|
Values-driven advocacy for libraries |
|
|||
|
|
Supporting positive parenting
practices in public libraries |
|
|||
|
|
Sharing evidence based practice to help understanding across
the sector e.g., RSPB Bees example |
|
|||
|
Empowering school pupils
for the future |
Libraries heart of the curriculum |
|
|||
|
|
Engage students in exhibitions |
|
|||
|
|
Wellbeing support for students and
staff |
|
|||
|
|
Through questioning and inclusion |
|
|||
|
|
Diversity to empower |
|
|||
|
|
English as a second language |
|
|||
|
Library staff: fair and effective recruitment practices |
Recruitment in the library sector - fair
recruitment practices |
|
|||
|
|
Recruitment practices – social class and
equity |
|
|||
|
|
Attracting, retaining, and developing staff |
|
|||
|
|
Workforce recruitment – interviewing
for the “need to work as part of a team” |
|
|||
|
|
Content analysis on teaching librarians job
postings |
|
|||
|
|
What is the evidence base for our
interview practice? What are the most effective questions? What are the most
effective tasks? |
|
|||
|
|
Are EDI strategies enough? Are they
working? |
|
|||
|
|
Are we being paid enough following quals? |
|
|||
|
|
Is the “need to work as part of a team” actually
discriminating against those who find it difficult to develop good people
skills. For example, ASD (autistic spectrum disorder) ... some library tasks
in the library do not require the need to work as part of a team, for
example, book covering, shelving, processing - could these roles be
advertised for separately to ensure true EDI? |
|
|||
Appendix B.2b
Themes
Created by Expert Consultants in Activity 1 and Subsequently Retained in the
Same Format/Name for Activity 2 |
|||||
|
Top Level Themes |
Supporting Conference/Feedback
Examples |
||||
|
Global exchange - students and professionals |
International student support |
||||
|
|
supporting postgraduates |
||||
|
|
Acquiring research skills specific to a country
and an institution is a significant additional workload |
||||
|
|
Home institutions responsibility to ensure that
research students know how to access, approach, and use special collections
and archives |
||||
|
Pandemic impact |
Impact of COVID on attention spans, attendance,
professionalism (a short-term impact, but there is something different about
the student cohorts today than pre-covid) |
||||
|
|
Staff morale and elevation in post-pandemic and
cost-of-living crisis |
||||
|
|
Leadership in a post-pandemic,
blended world |
||||
|
|
Resource discovery and usage post-pandemic |
||||
|
|
The impact of the pandemic on
“library as place” |
||||
|
|
A desire for in-person services |
||||
|
User involvement/input and co-creation activities |
Improving Accessibility, Engagement,
and Usefulness of online information literacy tutorials based on student
feedback |
||||
|
|
Using co-creation to create information literacy
Instruction to better anchor concepts and skills in the day-to-day life of
its audience. |
||||
|
Searching - effective searching across the
profession |
The profession’s key and defining skill to impart
to others |
||||
|
|
Cost-effectiveness of librarians as “searchers” |
||||
|
|
What is the value proposition for librarians as
searchers? |
||||
|
|
AI-informed search |
||||
|
Data security |
impact of cyber attacks |
||||
|
EDI awareness in all spheres - students and
professionals |
Best practice inclusivity |
||||
|
|
Equitable learner support |
||||
|
|
critical appraisal for anti-racism |
||||
|
|
racism in medicine (or any professional sphere) |
||||
|
|
Disability support services |
||||
|
Systematic reviews - new disciplines, more
complex licenses, pressure on library staff |
SRs in new disciplines (traditionally
only conducted in medicine, now is cross/multi/intra disciplinary, and
non-medic librarians do not know how, and methodology cannot be simply
transferred owing to differences in databases) |
||||
|
|
Systematic reviews – development to integrate
decolonized searching; grey literature, AI/ChatGPT issues, and screening
strategies |
||||
|
|
Issues of copyright for SR (supplying
papers to one person we know will be shared amongst a team - when will
copyright become fit for this purpose?) |
||||
|
Large scale reorganizations - impact on smaller
components |
Environmental, social, and corporate
governance (ESG) issues |
||||
|
|
Impact of changing NHS
direction/policy - how to ensure we are fit for purpose |
||||
|
|
Global citizenship |
||||
|
Professional identity (sector-wide) |
Reframe/expand notions of what the
profession is |
||||
|
|
Teaching the profession to advocate
for themselves |
||||
|
|
Managing the volunteer pool |
||||
|
|
Librarians as trusted intermediaries |
||||
|
Diversity: outreach |
Across health libraries |
||||
|
|
Anti-racist Wales Action Plan – a
policy approach to including previously excluded voices |
||||
|
|
Engaging reluctant readers |
||||
|
|
Social outreach engaging in
audio-visual heritage using archives |
||||
|
|
Promoting diversity through fiction |
||||
|
Ambiguous boundaries: service provision |
Technology and service proliferation have created
ambiguity in who does what and why - where does the user go to? |
||||
|
|
Clarifying what a library does is important for
future sustainability - we can do this by demonstrating impact. But are we fighting
each other? |
||||
|
|
Position academic library as central and critical
entity in a university |
||||
|
Marketing library services and resources - skills
and effective representation of value |
Value added of the business information
professional to the business and marketing the role |
||||
|
|
How to market a service that is
sometimes for free and sometimes paid for. |
||||
|
|
How to market and sell a service or
resource |
||||
|
Reading literacy - creating a reading culture |
Benefits to wellbeing and health |
||||
|
|
Motivation issues |
||||
|
|
Reading for a purpose – examples such
as exams, health |
||||
|
|
Empower students to choose to be
readers - fiction, natural world, Black history, being empathetic |
||||
|
Involvement with professional association for
career progression |
Case studies (LILAC & Health) |
||||
Appendix B.3
Themes Created by Experts in Activity 2 and
Retained in the Same Format/Name |
|
||||
|
Top Level Themes |
Supporting Conference/Feedback
Examples |
|
|||
|
Data to demonstrate impact. For example,
isolation, health, inequalities |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Participatory research |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Funding/income generation |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Critical librarianship -
knowledge/production/resources and collections cataloguing |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Critical librarianship - exclusion &
inclusion (staff) (weight of online discussions, language framing,
performativity = alienation of minority groups |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Professional advocacy (more existential than just
marketing) |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Real-world impact of information literacy -
lifelong information literacy |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Great School Libraries Campaign - statutory
school libraries |
n/a |
|
|||
|
School librarians and pastoral roles |
n/a |
|
|||
|
Censorship/book banning - public and schools |
n/a |
|
|||