I read this article a while back, and I reread it in order to make this post. I usually print out articles to read so I can make notes as I read. I wrote a lot of notes on this one. Do note that this article came out way before the 2020 pandemic, although at least anecdotally, I can say that not much has changed since then. I am going to highlight a few quotes and make some notes of things I want to remember about this article and for later reference. Given some of the questions and issues I expressed when I read
that article about workshop attendance recently, well, I will try not to be too pessimistic, but don't hold your breath on it.
Purpose of the article:
"The purpose of this paper is to ask, how can librarians and faculty become genuine partners in student learning and move towards the common goal of getting students to think critically?"(80).
That is what I would call a Magnificent Question.
"In this article, the authors argue that librarians must cease being at the service of faculty. That is, librarian need to declined the aforementioned types of requests, especially they are not in the best interests in students" (81).
An example of an aforementioned faculty request is the often annoying and ill informed request for "the library talk." The authors argue that librarians should say no to requests like these and try to engage the faculty in a more constructive conversation. If you are a librarian, try not to laugh here. I have said the above about saying no to certain requests from faculty a few times. Usually, the result is that my library bosses cringe, and then they say "we can't do that." To which I reply, "why not?" only to get the "because that is not good librarian ethic" or some other variant. Or more often than not librarians fall for one of these old lines:
"But at least I get in front of the students.
I want the professor to know I can be helpful.
It's the students who will suffer if I don't do it.
Even if they get a little out of it, it's worth it.
Students will know that the library is a friendly place" (81).
I used to be comforted by the line of at least the students see me (or us), then I gained experience as I learned that without follow-up or additional services, the students just seeing us is pretty meaningless. As for the students suffering if you do not do it, that was often used by library administrators to guilt librarians into compliance without questioning. But heaven forbid you suggest something different to a stubborn faculty member, and deity help you if they complain to your boss that you won't do the "library talk" (and actually expect the faculty member to put in some effort to teach information literacy to their class).
In a way, as vulgar as it may sound, librarians at times "whore ourselves" out to get some library instruction done. Though to be honest it is worse than that in our profession. The ladies of the night DO negotiate their services and state clearly what they will or not do, and if a client does not like it, no service is provided (but I digress). When I read this article a while back, this thought came to mind, and as I reflect again on it I do not think things have changed that much. Librarian skills and techniques in library instruction have improved, technology has gotten better, and some things have gotten flashier, but we still get the "library talk" faculty. That remains a constant.
"Educating a faculty member who is not aware of and not convinced that a different approach will benefit their students, can strike fear in the heart of even veterans of instruction. Furthermore, responding different than your colleagues could violate a set of accepted norms within a group of librarians at a university, which creates a problematic situation for librarians who are newer to the profession" (82).
I recall earlier in my career a time in my career (before I came to my current workplace) where I suggested to other librarians that faculty needed to be educated. The other librarians pretty much looked at me like I was delusional, like "shut up, don't rock the boat." I have moved on since then, and I still do believe faculty DO need to be educated on how we can partner genuinely for student success. It is hard work, and it is often one faculty member at a time. If fortune favors you, that one faculty member can help you persuade and educate their peers. It is a given faculty members are a bit more open to listening to their colleagues. By the way, as I am reading the article and reflecting a bit, it is like the authors at times were reading my mind and they are saying things that do need to be said.
Also, as the authors state, if we keep doing the bad requests, like the "library tour," it just encourages the faculty to keep making those bad requests. The challenge here is to find advocates for the librarians, say a supportive library administrator or again, a friendly faculty member who does see the value in a collaborative and genuine relationship and can speak to others on your behalf. What I have learned over time is that to make things work you have to build relationships, again, often one faculty member at a time. In previous workplaces, often those relationships began with adjunct faculty who tended to be more receptive to collaborations. While adjuncts are on the low end of the faculty pecking order, they often teach the essential gateway classes, and some of them do have relationships with the tenure line faculty, so there was another entry for building relationships with other faculty. To be honest, relationship building is another those things not taught in library school, or not taught very well at all if it is ever taught. I know I had to learn a lot of it by trial and error.
The authors suggest that a way to change things is to change the conversation. For example, they suggest educating faculty on topics like "research assignments that work." Some of the points the authors reinforced include:
"Students do not understand when you say 'do not use the internet.' Librarians see this time and again in the assignments of students who come in for help. Students think that this means they cannot use databases or the catalog to access the appropriate resources for their paper; while we understand that faculty want their students to use tools beyond Google tm. Faculty need to be clear in the requirements for sources" (84).
To be honest, the "can't use the internet" has decreased dramatically since this article was published. We do not get much of that anymore, though once in a while you get the one old timer professor saying it, but it has become rare. What we do get, especially here, is the "you can't use reference books." For many faculty here, a reference book is not an option. We do teach students here how to use reference books as part of the research process, and if the faculty member does not relent, we just work around it. We get the students to use the reference book to get started on a topic, get some background, some keywords to use for later searching, and some basic citations for further reading, and we advise them not to cite the reference book in the paper. In other words, use a reference work as a tool to support your research, just not as one of your sources in the assignment. Same goes for Wikipedia, which is another thing professors forbid without thinking, but as the authors point out for Wikipedia, students can be more savvy about how to use it than faculty give them credit for.
This next point reminds me of a recent research consult I had with a student.
"Be explicit in your expectations. . . .Librarians may understand why faculty have the requirements they do, but students do not" (85).
And faculty, it is your job to make sure your students understand. It is not on the librarians, or the writing center tutor, so on to have to interpret the assignment for the students. Anyhow, what came to mind from the consult is making sure students know the stages of an assignment, what they need and when. Recently the student came to me with what seemed a vague topic: "I need peer reviewed articles on (insert pop culture topic here)." It initially sounded like that would not be possible as it sounded like just a popular topic. However, when the student came in for consultation, what they needed was some theoretical background and base to apply to said popular topic. Once we talked, I explained to the student the kind of sources needed and how to use them to make progress on the assignment. Some of that is stuff that as a librarian I can and do explain but part of it was also something the faculty member should have explained as part of their expectations: we have a theoretical frame in this class, and you are applying it to X topic, here is how you do it, and if you need materials on it, talk to your librarian. I will add that I was a school teacher as well as professor in a previous time, so doing a bit of extra teaching is fine by me, but I know not every librarian feels comfortable doing that. Granted, sending the student back the professor for clarification is an option, but once in a while when the student says "the professor is not really that helpful," well, I try to do what I can to alleviate the student's needs and concerns. As I think about it, this kind of situation may be one to think about further, but that is another thought for another time.
"We are a teaching university not a research university" (85).
The authors work in a teaching university (so this may not apply to you if you do work in a research university). For the most part, I have worked and taught in teaching colleges as well. As they point out, and I have learned over time, certain new faculty need a serious reminder of that idea that some institutions are primarily for teaching. As the authors state, and we also tell this to faculty here:
"Our collection supports the curriculum of the university, not necessarily the research needs of faculty" (85).
This is something they need to hear and hear it often if you also work and teach in a teaching institution. For research support, you can always teach them about interlibrary loan.
The article also provides some suggestions on better options for research and library assignments that you could suggest to your faculty. The idea is that we show faculty that yes, we do have student learning and pedagogy expertise. Just remember to keep things gentle so no faculty feathers get ruffled.
The authors also advocate for us instruction librarians to write and articulate our teaching philosophy. I admit I did this, but it may be time to revisit the document and revise it and/or update it a bit.
In addition, for a library instruction unit it is necessary to articulate, put it writing, the professional policies, in other words things that the unit may or not do, and get everyone on the same page. Articulate what you are willing to do or not, and be fair and consistent. This is about parameters and having healthy boundaries. If faculty push back, well, they need to learn about boundaries then. Rehearse your philosophy and policies so they become second nature when you need to discuss them.
Citation for the article:
Meulemans, Yvonne Nalani and Allison Carr, "Not At Your Service" Building Genuine Faculty-Librarian Partnerships." Reference Services Review 41.1 (2013): 80-90.
