Here we look at translating objectives into action. It is the most straightforward and least demanding stage of the process for most libraries. We know from our workshops that once people have a clear idea of what they are trying to achieve it is usually fairly easy to think of a variety of ways to get there. Then, when you have decided on what to do, finding ways of telling whether you have done them (process indicators) is not usually very challenging.

Why activities? Why now?

We have taken up a lot of space in the last few chapters warning you of the dangers of getting sidetracked when you are trying to evaluate your impact by looking at what you do (activities and processes), rather than concentrating on what difference you make. Why are we moving the goalposts now? Activities do matter: you need to think about them and keep them under review. That is why we have written this chapter. However, if you want this stage in the process to support the evaluation of your impact, you need to get the timing and the focus right.

Timing

You should leave any consideration of activities and processes until after you have completed your initial work on objectives and impact indicators. We have seen what happens to impact evaluation when library managers get caught up with questions about service delivery, allocation of resources, allocating staff time and prioritizing among a wide range of activities. Attention slips away from impact with the result that planning once again focuses around provision. For example, the UK public library annual library plans are still replete with specific processes and actions aimed at keeping the services going, enhancing the library infrastructure and activity building. These processes very much reflect the hands-on, operationally focused approach of many library managers. We are not saying that such concerns are not important, just that they need to wait until now, after you clarify what you want to achieve and how you will know you are being successful.

Focus

The danger when considering activities and processes is that you might record everything that you are doing in the general area covered by your objectives. We recommend that you tie activities into the objectives, specifically linking a set of actions to each impact objective.

If you are interested in the impact of your library services, or of library services in general, you may like to start by reflecting on where the impetus towards impact evaluation is coming from and how that impetus can itself distort the picture. These issues are explored below. However, if your concerns are purely practical please go on to Chapter 4.

Why is evidence of impact an issue for libraries (and information services)?

Picture a group of scholars working in the Library of Alexandria in about 50 BC. Now assume that they have been ferried forward in time and deposited in your library today. Will they identify their surroundings as a library? More specifically, will the scholars recognize the printed publications at the heart of your library as equivalent in some way to their scrolls? If so, it seems likely that they will know their surroundings as a library. But what happens if we ship them forward another 30 years and touch them down again? Will your library still be there? Will it be recognizable as a library? Will information technology and the demand for different kinds of interaction between library staff, users and the service have transformed the library beyond recognition?

Even the most sensitive crystal ball is unlikely to offer a clear picture of libraries 30 years hence because of the accelerating rate of change. However, if we can start to gauge the changes in the impact of various services, this will give us an indication of where things are going and help in managing the changes needed to get there.

We don't have to look 30 years ahead to make a case for looking at impact. One common feature of all types of libraries is that there is too much to do and too little time. ‘Traditional’ performance indicators are important for enabling you to tell whether aspects of a service are working efficiently. However, when a new initiative or project is undertaken, this is usually achieved by prising precious time away from other operational activities. If this is the case, it is doubly important to know whether the innovation is working and how. More specifically, are you using this precious time well? How can your innovation be made to work better?

Strand One, unusually, links an aspect of information literacy learning to a specific point in the undergraduate career. The content of this strand focuses on the transition from school to higher education – a perfect time to engage students in their own learning process by giving them a vocabulary and analytic structure through which to address the significant changes in expectations, teaching styles and attitudes to learning that occur at this point. This deeply reflective opportunity is mirrored by the content of Strand Ten, which supports the transition to the workplace and everyday life. Book-ending the curriculum, these strands deal with the transference of information literacy skills, behaviours and attitudes to new cultures, and with ongoing exploration and development of the learner's identity in relation to information contexts.

Sarah took part in the expert consultation carried out as part of the ANCIL research and was chosen because she is a qualified librarian working in the independent school sector. In many ways her experience is atypical, as the demands of the International Baccalaureate, which are very different from those of A-levels, explicitly help students make the transition into higher education. Sarah's approach to information literacy, and the learning culture at Box Hill School, form a sound basis for helping students make the transition to the higher education environment. In particular, her teaching makes explicit the transitional issues that need to be addressed when students move through school and into higher education.

Institutional context

Box Hill School is an independent co-educational, part-boarding school for students aged 11–19 years, and also has an International Study Centre. Twenty-five countries are represented among its 425 students, and many staff have experience of teaching abroad.

The school follows the philosophy of Kurt Hahn, experimental educationalist and founder of Gordonstoun. It helped to initiate Round Square (www.roundsquare.org), a worldwide association of more than 80 schools. Students are committed to participating in the six pillars, or IDEALS: International understanding; Democracy; Environment; Adventure; Leader - ship; and Service.

In 2008 the decision was taken to abandon the traditional English syllabus in favour of the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB). The International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) requires any school it endorses for the Diploma to have a library, and recommends that this library be managed by a qualified teacher-librarian (IBO, 2004).

Strand Three aims to articulate, explore and develop the academic literacies of reading and writing in line with ANCIL's view of information literacy as a continuum ranging from functional skills through to high-level intellectual operations. The content of this strand therefore embraces not only key skills and strategies in academic reading and writing, such as skimming and scanning strategies and recognizing and using appropriate academic idiom, but also higher-order contextual activities such as textual interrogation and critiquing, argument construction, and understanding of a discipline's epistemological structure and values.

Moira has made a significant contribution to information literacy not only in the UK but internationally. She is a member of the SCONUL working group for information literacy, which recently launched an updated version of the ‘Seven Pillars’ model, is an experienced practitioner and has written and presented widely on information literacy. She is also a National Teaching Fellow and took part in the ANCIL expert consultation. Here she describes a staff training and support initiative which illustrates how closely academic literacies and information literacy are interrelated.

Institutional context

This case study describes a project designed to provide opportunities for teaching staff to embed information literacy concepts into the curriculum in Newcastle University, UK, and in Newcastle University in Singapore (NUIS). Developed from an existing methodology to appreciate information literacy within the context of academic literacies, the work builds on and extends several previous and concurrent initiatives.

Newcastle University, a Russell Group University located in the north-east of England, has 21,000 students, of whom 6000 are postgraduates, 4000 are international and a growing number are learning at a distance from the main campus. In common with many other universities, examples of best practice in developing academic literacies can be found alongside much less developed practice (Bent and Stockdale, 2009). Information literacy is recognized at a strategic level in the university: as digital literacy in the strategic plan, within the Graduate Skills framework and more explicitly in the e-portfolio system which will be deployed across the institution in 2012. The e-portfolio will enable students to reflect on their learning and identify areas, including information literacy, in which they need to develop. However, while information literacy is included in the portfolio, the interpretation does focus mainly on skills aspects, as is to be expected.

This book explores a major issue for library and information service managers of all kinds – evaluating the impact of services. When we introduced the first edition of this book we noted that all types of libraries and information services traditionally collect a range of performance information that can tell you as managers something about the efficiency of your services but that a sustained focus on impact was rare, despite the fact that impact evaluation (or as it is sometimes called, outcomes-based evaluation) had recently taken on new importance. What is interesting now is how many library managers are ready to move on to focus on effectiveness of services, or the impact of services on users, including remote users.

Why do we need a second edition of the book? The world of library impact evaluation has changed substantially in the past six years. There are more international and national efforts to engage with the impact of library services on users and, as a result, we now know more about the areas in which libraries of all kinds can make a difference to the lives of their users, as we show in a fully revised and updated Chapter 3.

One thing that hasn't changed much is that library and information service managers still find it hard to get a grip on the slippery concept of service impact and many still struggle when trying to address impact questions in their planning. We are continuing to help here and are increasingly getting involved with evaluation efforts in a variety of countries, with active support from professional bodies in the field. This work has given us the chance to develop, further test and refine our approach to evaluating impact as presented in the first edition of this book. Our analysis of the issues and our approach to evaluating service impact that has helped managers in public, education, health and ‘special’ libraries and information services are still at the core of this book. The approach is designed to help you to understand, construct and deploy impact indicators that relate closely to what you are trying to achieve. The core chapters take you through our rigorously tested process model for impact evaluation, with tools and examples to equip you with all that you need in order to address your own service impact questions.

Strand Two is informed by the belief that change occurs throughout the learning process as a natural, inevitable and sometimes challenging aspect of learning. Building on the transitional issues identified in Strand One, Strand Two positions the concept of ‘learning to learn’ as a lifelong framework for encountering, evaluating and assimilating new information, including evidence that conflicts with or challenges the learner's beliefs and world view.

The concept of the autonomous learner is fundamental to this vision. Rather than endeavouring to teach students how to deal with every kind of information, this strand aims to facilitate their emergence as individuals capable of generating strategies for dealing with new information contexts as required, at every stage in their lives.

Geoff is a well known researcher and practitioner in the information literacy field, and a member of the RIN Working Group on Information Literacy. He has written and published widely in the field as well as conducting doctoral research, and took part in the ANCIL expert consultation.

We are delighted that Geoff 's colleague Jamie Cleland, a senior lecturer in Sport Sociology at Staffordshire University, has co-authored this chapter, making it an outstanding example of interprofessional collaboration.

Institutional context and module development (Geoff)

This chapter will draw upon six years’ work carried out in collaboration with academic colleagues in Sport and Exercise Science at Staffordshire University, especially Dr Jamie Cleland, who also contributes to this chapter. The specific focus is a core first-year module called Research and Professional Development (between 120 and 160 per cohort). Before the module leader and I became involved in this particular module it was notoriously unpopular amongst students, who found it boring, unnecessary and full of material they ‘knew already’ because they had ‘done it all at college’. Yet these students, who, according to their own informal self-assessment, seemed to have arrived at university with a complete set of study skills and with claims that suggested they were at the highest levels of information literacy, produced essays and other assignments that told a very different story.

It is perhaps unsurprising that the narrative from the module leader and his team was one of frustration: students produced essays with poor sentence structure, could not argue effectively, and used inadequate, often internet-based resources found via the first page of a two-keyword Google search.

Strand Nine covers the higher-order intellectual operations around information, and again falls outside more traditional models of information literacy. The strand includes formulating research questions and learning to frame problems. This will include using chosen information sources to articulate and analyse problems in your discipline. It also incorporates assimilating information within the disciplinary framework, weighing the value of new information, and developing new insights and knowledge.

In many disciplines demonstrating these abilities may not be required or assessed until third-year or even postgraduate level, when students conduct an extended piece of work such as a dissertation. In these contexts the transition to conducting independent research may entail a significant step up in expectations and performance, and should be supported accordingly. In other disciplines (particularly arts or humanities subjects), evaluation, synthesis, voice and register are foregrounded almost from the beginning. In all cases, the development of these complex information-handling operations must be scaffolded as an integral part of academic learning.

Emma was the obvious choice to write the ninth case study in this book, given her role in developing ANCIL, but also her experience at Cambridge in leading and delivering the Research Skills Programme. While this case study focuses on Strand Nine, there are several other themes woven into the session that Emma teaches, which develops students’ academic writing and reading and helps them learn about the academic practices of their discipline and how to synthesize and create new knowledge. The element of reflection is particularly strong in this case study.

Institutional context

The Research Skills Programme at Cambridge University Library offers specialist provision in various aspects of information literacy, including information and data management, finding and evaluating literature, academic writing and critical thinking. Its Information Skills strand provides eight sessions, which are aligned with either key academic practices such as literature searching and referencing, or specific phases in the study and research processes, including dissertation research at both undergraduate and Masters level. While each session is free-standing, the programme is designed to fit together in a modular, scaffolded fashion, so that participants can build their information-handling abilities and insight over the course of their subject career.

Where Strand Four deals with the various publication formats in which scholarly information is made available, Strand Five focuses on the gateways, platforms and collection-level resources which endeavour to aggregate these formats. Libraries are key players in making these resources available, including not only library and archival catalogues but also abstract and indexing databases, subject-specific gateways, e-journal collections and datasets. In addition, library websites also act as informal aggregators, linking to other academic resources.

Therefore, in addition to being aware of the different types of information available in the academic landscape, students need to learn to locate, use and, above all, evaluate the containers or gateways through which they access them. Because of their size, it is not always evident that these key ‘finding aids’ themselves have limitations of scope, coverage or chronology, and that critical evaluation must be applied not only to individual scholarly works, but also to whole resources.

Isla has helped pioneer several teaching initiatives in the University of Cambridge library community, including the TeachMeet format and events, a ‘23 Things’ course tailored for medical library staff, and mutual peer observation of teaching. She was the natural choice for Strand Five, as she teaches students where to look for and how to evaluate complex specialist information, not in a programmatic way but using a discursive and reflective approach that develops a deep understanding of the advantages and limitations of the resources and databases themselves as information tools. Isla was also an Arcadia Fellow in 2011, organizing a high-profile symposium and ‘hackday’ on ‘The Internet- Informed Patient’ (www.iip-symposium.info/).

Institutional context

As Reader Services Librarian in the University of Cambridge Medical Library, my role is all about supporting readers in their research, education or clinical care. Readers come from a range of backgrounds and are at various stages in their academic and professional careers. Clinical students naturally form a major group. These students have completed up to three years of pre-clinical studies either in Cambridge or at other universities, but this does not necessarily help them gain awareness of the sources of clinical – as opposed to academic – information that will be valuable for them. Students arriving from other universities face challenges in terms of adapting to a new information environment and, in particular, discovering a different range of subscription resources.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the representatives and members of professional associations (in the UK and overseas) who provided information and advice for this chapter.

Introduction

The distinct career path for a ‘professional’ higher education (HE) administrator is a relatively new development. However, the professional associations in the UK have a long history; the Association of University Administrators (AUA) celebrated its golden jubilee in 2011, SCONUL (the Society of College, National and University Libraries) is over 60 years old and AMOSSHE, The Student Services Organisation, turns 20 in 2012, with its predecessor organization tracing a history back nearly 40 years. Professional associations have a variety of identities including as formalized sector bodies, lobbying groups, informal networks and incorporated organizations and societies. Professional associations are normally funded through membership subscriptions and operate as non-profit organizations. They usually seek to further a particular profession and/or the interests of their own membership. In the context of this chapter we consider professional associations in their roles fostering professional practice, professional identity and professional development, the focus being ‘individual commitment to, and membership of, a professional community’ (Hallas in West, 2011, 3).

The professional association landscape has evolved at an accelerated pace in the last 20 years, with increasing numbers of organizations and a growing prominence across a range of sectors. The Professional Associations Research Network (PARN) has commented:

PARN estimates that there are over 400 professional associations in the UK. It is likely that this is an underestimation, with easily 50 representing career specialisms in UK HE alone. In just this chapter, we reference over 20 professional associations supporting the HE student experience.

The HE landscape has also evolved significantly in the last 20 years. This degree of sector change, incorporating changing policy-drivers impacting on institutional missions, rising service demands and student expectations, new sector entrants and an increasing role for the private sector, means that HE professionals are increasingly reliant on their professional associations to keep abreast of sector developments and to maintain their continuing professional development (CPD) and level of expertise.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank other members of the Change Academy Team, Julie Berry, Grace Hudson, Liz Jolly, Alison Mackenzie, Maxine Melling, Jo Norry, Liz Waller and Sue White, for their creative contributions to the contents of the chapter.

Introduction

The Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (LFHE) supports UK higher education institutions (HEIs) in achieving complex cultural change through their annual Change Academy (CA) programme. This chapter describes the creation of a new collaborative network of academic libraries in the north of England following an intensive cross-institutional planning initiative and presence at the HEA CA Conference and subsequent work in 2010– 11, which launched the COLLABORATE! project and the Northern Collaboration (NC). The process enabled the vision of key individuals to be converted into a tangible entity. The interplay between creative thinking, conceptual activity, teamwork and action is thought to be a constructive way to bring about complex change. I describe the thinking behind the approach, and how this was achieved at a time of volatility (and opportunity) in higher education (HE).

Context

Drivers for change in higher education

The key drivers for radical and fundamental change in the UK HE and HE library sector have been well rehearsed by many recently (Nicholas et al., 2010; Harper and Corrall, 2011; Kidd, 2010). These changes are underpinned by a raft of UK government reforms arising from a constraining financial climate and the perceived need for additional accountability in the HE system; this is coupled with the desire to give more power to the recipients of HE, most particularly students and employers.

Notable government proposals now being implemented are contained in the White Paper on HE reforms (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011), the UK Independent Review into Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, the Browne Report (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2010), and the UK Government Comprehensive Spending Review 2010, which forecast a 40% reduction in core funding to the HE sector for taught provision, a sum of £2.9 billion by 2014–15 (HM Treasury, 2010). In addition a complex system of student-number controls exists aiming to increase flexibility across the HE market (for example HE delivered by commercial organizations).

Introduction

This book explores the changing context of public services, and more specifically higher education, arguing that collaboration is the critical issue for the ongoing transformation and success of libraries, learning environments and learning services. This chapter explores these new demands on the people who work, and who potentially will work, in such services. Its central argument is that leadership development for collaboration, rather than leadership in general, is the single biggest issue and the single greatest lever for success in the future. Leadership and leaders at all levels are required when working across boundaries and when working in an increasingly diverse environment. This chapter explores this challenging issue in a global context, a context that demands increased flexibility when collaborating with diverse professional groups and where the boundaries of territory and service delivery become increasingly permeable. It will explore and provide models to help us consider these skills, attributes and behaviours indicating that certain approaches are transferable, transformational and sustainable across many kinds of libraries and learning environments. It will also discuss the significance of diversity and difference for leadership and suggest ways in which we can develop as individuals and as organizations in order to ensure effective collaboration and boundary crossing.

The leadership context: general observations

Several authors (including several of the contributors to this volume) have proposed that leadership is fundamental to the present and future development of library and information services – across all sectors – and to the future of public services in general. Yet this obsession with leadership, which pervades all aspects of our lives, conveys a disillusionment both with leaders in the current and recent global context and with models of leadership (Sinclair, 2007). There has been a cynicism and scepticism towards political and business leaders as we ask ‘Has leadership failed? Or worse, is it simply absent?’ (Walsh, 1994, 24); this has been exacerbated during the global financial crisis of the 21st century. The literature illustrates how much people and organizations expect from their leaders (see Kouzes and Posner, 2003), yet how often those expectations are not met.