Innovation and impact of a lbirary engagement team

1. Innovation and Impact of a
Library Engagement Team
Dr. Steve Bull
Library Services
University of Birmingham
3rd June, 2019

2. The University of Birmingham
 Approx. 34,000
students from over
150 countries
 Approx. 8,000 FTE
staff
 Library Collections:
– 2 million items
– 70,000 journals
– 650,000 eBooks

3. Library Academic Engagement
(LAE)
Library Services
Library Academic
Engagement (LAE)
Learning
Enhancement
Research Skills
Library
Engagement
Library Customer
Support (LCS)
Collection
Management &
Development
(CMD)
Cadbury Research
Library: Special
Collections
Teaching & AV
Support:
LRAT / TAMU

4. Library Engagement Team
 Focus on strategic engagement
– NSS
– Dubai
– Annual Reports / Action Plans
– New embedded skills approach
 Collections engagement
– New programmes, wishlists, strategic
purchases etc
– Increase take-up of Resource Lists
 Attendance at Staff-Student and
Education meetings
 intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/library-
engagement

5. Learning Enhancement Team
 For UGs and PGTs
 Holistic support for all aspects such
as finding information, learning skills,
academic writing, referencing and
digital skills
 General programme of workshops
 Bespoke workshops
 1-to-1s
 Online materials -
http://libguides.bham.ac.uk/asg
 intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/asc

6. Research Skills Team
 For PGRs and academic researchers
 General programme of workshops
(RYRP)
 Bespoke workshops
 1-to-1s
 Online materials (eg Canvas courses)
 All aspects of open access, RDM,
research metrics
 intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/library/rese
arch

7. Drivers for change
 External and information landscapes
 Collections  Users
 Closer alignment to teaching /
research strategies
 Increased focus on research
/scholarly comms
 Improving the student experience
 Subject model unsustainable?
Bains, 2013; Doskatsch, 2007; Eldridge, Fraser, Simmonds & Smyth, 2016; Hoodless &
Pinfield, 2018; Jaguszewski & Williams, 2013; Young, Ashmore
& McKeating, 2018

8. Functional Vs Subject Models
Hoodless & Pinfield (2018) identify reasons for change /
status quo amongst library managers
Functional Model Subject Model
Ensuring consistency Connecting with academy
Acquiring new expertise Tailoring service
Improving efficiency
Instigating cultural change
Parent strategy alignment

9. Academic Skills Enhancement
 Raise awareness of new ‘Learning
Enhancement menu’
 Identify areas of need (e.g. gaps,
issues)
– Geography, Earth and Environmental
Sciences
– Biosciences
 Exploit opportunity
– Economics SSC
 Gain feedback of new menu and
propose new content

10. Creating Connections: Student
Engagement
 Staff-Student Committees
– Greater presence, contribution,
efficiency, consistency and synergy
 Life and Environmental Sciences
Student Rep Conference
– Rebalancing key texts between
libraries
– Increasing awareness of Academic
Skills, Study Spaces and Resource
Lists

11. Creating Connections: Student
Engagement (2)
 Study Spaces

12. Creating Connections: Staff
Engagement
 School Education Committees
– Intelligence on curriculum changes
– Report on library developments
 New Programmes approval
 Annual Reports and Action Plans
– ‘Piloted’ with 9 Schools
– Summarises support provided
– 51 actions identified
 New Starters
– E-mail: teaching/research support
– Invite to world café event

13. Collections: Resource Lists
 Advocacy, and assistance in use, of
ResourceLists@Bham
 Liaising with key academics
74% increase
in number of academic owned lists
Doubling
of usage: day 1 of term
90% increase
in usage of the system
132 lists created
in Arts and Law in 18 days
Tripling of lists
In Computer Science in a fortnight

14. Collections
90% increase
in usage of the system
“Resource Lists are fantastic – I’m in
my third year and can’t believe I have
only just discovered them!
3rd year Law undergraduate
“These face to face
sessions are invaluable…
allowing for exploration of
design layout to optimise
student learning…
Academic, Sport, Exercise &
Rehabilitation Sciences
“My students… commented
this would save them time and
encourage them to… read
around the topic more widely
Academic, Local Government Studies

15. Collections: Trials
 Trials month
– Attractive brochure
– Disseminated widely
– Encouraged feedback
– Evidence-based business cases
200% increase
in number of pieces of feedback
Staff feedback: 62
Student feedback: 66
An increase from 0 in 2016-17

16. What do our stakeholders think?
 Awareness of teaching support
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
%inagreement
Perception of staff
Pre-2017 staff
Post-2017 staff

17. What do our stakeholders think?
 Contribution at SSCs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
%inagreement
Perception of staff
Pre-2017 staff
Post-2017 staff

18. What do our stakeholders think?
 Overall Perception of Library Services
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
%inagreement
Perception of staff
Pre-2017 staff
Post-2017 staff

19. Functional Vs Subject Models
 Consistency
– Structure Vs smaller team
 Disentangling engagement from
service delivery
 Wider range of engagement
– Breadth Vs depth
 Academic driven collection
development
 Move towards partnership working
Vs

20. Summary
 The functional model largely works in a positive way at
Birmingham
 The value of a dedicated Engagement Team
demonstrated
– Case studies
– Survey of key stakeholders
 Some reflections on the pros and cons of the functional
Vs subject model debate offered

21. Further Reading…
 Ashcroft, T., Bird, L., Bull, S.,
Harper, P., James, A.M., and
Robertson, C. (2019)
‘Engagement with Impact:
Enhancing the student learning
experience during year one of a
functional library model’. New
Review of Academic
Librarianship, Forthcoming.
Images: University of Birmingham, Pixabay, and Wordle.net

22. References
 Bains, S. (2013). Teaching “Old” librarians new tricks. SCONUL Focus, 58, 8-11. Retrieved
from: https://www.sconul.ac.uk/page/focus-58.
 Doskatsch, I. (2007). From flying solo to playing as a team: Evolution of academic library
services teams at the University of South Australia. Library Management, 28(8/9), 460-473. doi:
10.1108/01435120710837756.
 Eldridge, J., Fraser, K., Simmonds, T., & Smyth, N. (2016). Strategic Engagement: New Models
of Relationship Management for Academic Librarians. New Review of Academic Librarianship,
22(2-3), 160–175. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2016.1193033.
 Hoodless, C., & Pinfield, S. (2018). Subject vs. functional: Should subject librarians be replaced
by functional specialists in academic libraries? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
50(4), 345-360. doi: 10.1177/0961000616653647.
 Jaguszewski, J.M., & Williams, K. (2013). New Roles for New Times: Transforming Liaison
Roles in Research Libraries (Report Prepared for the Association of Research Libraries).
Retrieved from: http://www.arl.org/component/content/article/6/2893.
 Young, H, Ashmore, A., & McKeating, S. (2018). Developing the library partnership - the
Loughborough way. ALISS Quarterly, 13(3), 2-8. Retrieved from:
https://alissnet.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/alissquarterly-vol-13-no-3-april-2018.pdf.

25. The New Main Library