Today we learned from both Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle that the Ithaka Group released their Faculty Study 2009. I’m not going to write about the latest report in any great detail. You should read what these other sources had to say about it, and take a look at all the comments (I left one at the IHE article which had the more provocative title). If you want to know what I have to say about the report, you can take a look at the ACRLog post I wrote about the same report released last year that featured data from 2006. In that post I wrote:
But why are we only considering the role of the academic library as gateway, archive and buyer? I would argue this report needs to add a new dimension for faculty to consider â€“ the academic libraryâ€™s role as learning center and instruction partner.
A comment came from none other than Roger Schonfeld, who authors these Faculty Survey reports. In response to my post he wrote:
Iâ€™ve made a note of your suggestion that we add a question about the learning partner role should we pursue a 2009 faculty survey. Through other research areas and our affiliated organization NITLE, we have an ongoing interest in the support of teaching and learning, and these surveys could do a better job of addressing these interests.
That’s certainly not a promise, but I was encouraged by the comment. So how did Schonfeld and his Ithaka colleagues do in adding some questions for faculty about the library’s instructional role? I have yet to give the report an in depth reading, but I was pleased to see one chart (figure 9 on page 13) that asked faculty to rate the role of the importance of the library for “teaching support”. They write:
Almost three-quarters of humanities faculty indicated teaching support is a very important role of the library, while a notably lower share of social scientists and scientists saw teaching support as very important. Is this role really most strongly valued by humanists and if so why? Alternatively, is there some reason that perceptions vary so significantly? As numerous libraries have invested in building information commons over the past decade, are there alterative or additional teaching roles that would be valued by social scientists and scientists?
As far as I can tell – and correct me if you find otherwise as you read the report – there is nothing else beyond this in the report about the teaching role of the librarians. But when you compare it to the 2006 report, this is a nice step forward. I can only hope that Schonfeld and colleagues will work on developing a more robust section on the teaching and learning role so that we can also learn how faculty respond to our efforts, along with those sections on materials and scholarly publishing.
So how do we respond to the news in the latest Report that in some ways the library and librarians have a diminishing role for faculty across the disciplines? I’ve been sharing my ideas since the last Report on things we can do to put less emphasis on the “gateway, archive and buyer” roles on which these Reports focus. I think we academic librarians would agree that while those roles are all essential to how we support our communities, they are the passive ways in which we do so, and there is so much more we do – in an active way that is ignored by these types of reports – which are unfortunately the ones that get the attention of academic administrators. To get a sense of what I’ve been writing in response take a look at this and this – and heck – share them with an administrator so they know that we academic librarians are thinking about these issues and have lots of ideas for how we can be much more – when it comes to faculty – than just gatekeepers, archivists and buyers. Chime in on what you think we can do – and what you are already doing – to make faculty aware of how we can contribute to student learning and their research success.
Two last items:
1) What’s with IHE and the Chronicle. I thought it rather odd that neither article about the Ithaka Faculty Survey featured comments from an academic librarian. Excepting the IHE article offering a comment from Mary Ellen Davis of ACRL, you would think we have nothing to say about the report. Now maybe both reporters did interview academic librarians and the quotes didn’t make the editor’s cut, but I suspect there is diminishing interest in what we have to say.
2) This blog is one of the only ones I came across that mentions the Ithaka Report, but perhaps others will chime in on it.
5 thoughts on “Latest Ithaka Study On Faculty – A Small Step Forward”
Thanks for this. I wanted to respond to your question about why no academic librarians were quoted in the Chronicle’s coverage of the survey. I am very much interested in what academic librarians think about these issues. The report was embargoed until today. Sharing an embargoed report for outside comment is a risky thing to do if you respect embargoes, which we do. But if you wait until it’s okay to send it out for comment, the story’s already out there. Sometimes it’s best to do a first take giving readers the gist of what’s being released and then revisit it once interested parties have had time to digest it.
The first example that came to mind was something I read in C&RL just today: “A Case Study in Collaboration: Assessing Academic Librarian/Faculty Partnerships” by Deborah B. Gaspar and Karen A. Wetzel – http://crl.acrl.org/content/70/6/578.abstract
Thanks for your clarifying comment Jennifer. I did suspect that a “we must get this out there ASAP” situation might have been a cause for not having time to consult some academic librarians. Glad to hear our voices are valued and I’ll look forward to hearing them in future articles.