










































Models of Librarian and Teaching Faculty Relationships


262  ATLA 2023 PROCEEDINGS

Models of Librarian and Teaching 
Faculty Relationships
Vincent Williams, User Services Librarian, Virginia Theological Seminary

ABSTRACT Librarians’ relationships with teaching faculty are a critical com-
ponent of library success in connecting users to resources and providing 
engaging services. However, many librarians report challenges relating to 
teaching faculty. Librarians should proactively manage their relationships 
with teaching faculty as both sides share the goal of enhancing student 
learning and research. When collaborations are successful, the users/stu-
dents benefit most. Librarians should start their outreach by ensuring fac-
ulty are aware of collections and services. Then, they can work on better 
identifying teaching faculty needs and interests. The hard, and ongoing, 
work of building these relations comes as librarians develop their commu-
nication skills, understand teaching faculty as library patrons, strategize 
the next steps in the relationship, foster mutual trust, and leverage their 
complementary expertise. Librarians that have good working relationships 
with teaching faculty at their institutions are better able to contribute to 
their library’s mission and enrich student learning and research.

Academic librarians and teaching faculty share the common goal of 
enriching student learning. The nature of librarians’ relationships 
with teaching faculty can help or hinder this goal in a variety of ways. 
This paper seeks to chart out the nature of this relationship as well 
as map best practices for fostering a healthy relationship. To do so, I 
will describe the relationship both from the point of view of librar-
ians and from teaching faculty to articulate the often quite different 
ways both sides perceive this relationship. Then, I will discuss atti-
tudes and practices from the library and information science litera-
ture that promise to enhance relationships between teaching faculty 
and librarians for the mutual benefit of both, as well as for students. 
Most of the library and information science literature on these re-
lationships take the form of case study reports on collaborations or 
partnerships. While some best practices can be gleaned from these 
examples, comparatively little focus is given to the nature of the re-



LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS  263

lationship itself (Phelps and Campbell 2012, 15). It will be important, 
then, to focus this essay on the literature dealing directly with the 
history, nature, and best practices for successful librarian-teaching 
faculty relationships.

In recent decades, the nature of academic librarianship has shift-
ed to a more service-centered approach rather than a strictly col-
lecting and access approach. Subject, reference, or liaison librarians 
(hereafter liaison librarians, for simplicity), who are a key connec-
tion point between the library and the teaching and research of a 
higher education institution, have moved from primarily focusing on 
collection development to engaging students and researchers with 
library services (Filgo and Towers 2021, 3–4; Cooper and Schonfeld 
2017, 2–3). Where services are prioritized, the relationships between 
academic librarians and their constituents began to take on greater 
importance. This shift corresponds to recent suggestions that librar-
ies and librarians should focus more on contributing to the creation 
of scholarship and research (e.g., Lewis 2019). To contrast with this 
new understanding of academic librarianship, “a collections focus 
was dedicated to the end-point of scholarship: the books, journals, 
and other documents that fill the shelves of the library” (Filgo and 
Towers 2021, 5). Relationship-building and collaboration with teach-
ing faculty naturally arises from this shift in library goals. Although 
libraries have undertaken significant changes in recent decades, this 
does not guarantee that faculty themselves are up-to-date on how 
the library operates or what librarians can offer (Creaser 2014, 205).

Altogether, this led to the development of the liaison librarian (or 
its functions) as a changing role within the academic library. Liaison 
librarians likely have the goal of serving and enriching the learning 
and research within their institution, and to do this effectively, rela-
tionships must be built with teaching faculty. Teaching faculty are 
often the most effective mediators between librarians and students 
due to the role they play in students’ education (Schlak 2016, 415). 
Even apart from a desire to collaborate with faculty for its own sake, 
this student-centric goal of liaisons can form the ultimate “why” for 
building these types of relationships (411). The Association of Re-
search Libraries, in a 2009 publication, offered a similarly relation-
ship-centric perspective on liaison work: “new kinds of relationship 
building, particularly with faculty, are central to effective liaison 
functions” (Hahn 2009, 1). But whose loss is it if teaching faculty and 
librarian relationships fail? The answer to this question highlights, 



264  ATLA 2023 PROCEEDINGS

for many librarians, the reason for the relationship in the first place: 
it is primarily the students’ loss when these relationships are inef-
fective (Schlak 2016, 416). When relationships thrive, all parties in-
volved benefit in substantial ways. This has been demonstrated in 
the numerous case studies within the library and information sci-
ence literature reporting on the outcomes of librarian-teaching fac-
ulty partnerships and collaborations. (For an illustrative example, 
see Tucci, 2011.)

However, historically and in their contemporary configuration, 
academic librarians and teaching faculty remain highly separated. 
There are organizational reasons for this, such as the fact that librar-
ians mostly work in the library building whereas teaching faculty 
are spread throughout an institution’s campus. Librarians usually 
follow a comparatively rigid and inflexible working schedule as well 
(Christiansen et al. 2004, 118). There is also the matter of the relative 
social prestige of the two professions, with teaching faculty work con-
sidered more highly valuable than “service” centered library work 
(119). Some of this mismatch is certainly due to the lack of awareness 
of what librarians do and how they contribute to higher education, 
but it remains nonetheless a potential obstacle for effective relation-
ships between the two groups. 

The next sections will investigate how each side views the rela-
tionship and its dynamics, starting with the librarian side. One so-
ciological study discovered that they, along with teaching faculty, 
perceive a large separation consistent with the research above. Only 
librarians, however, view this gap as problematic and detrimental 
to student learning (Christiansen et al. 2004, 118). Because librarians 
often have the goal of serving students, poor relations with teach-
ing faculty are seen as obstructing that goal. In a study of popular 
librarian-focused listservs, Given and Julien discovered that many 
postings contain a highly pessimistic view of faculty personalities. 
When librarians talk to one another in this way, they are more likely 
to share these views. “The vast majority of postings were quite nega-
tive in their assessment of faculty members’ attitudes” (Given and 
Julien 2005, 33). Many librarians feel they are treated unfairly or 
viewed unequally by teaching faculty. This dynamic has led some 
librarians to strategize about ways they can gain esteem by assert-
ing themselves as equals in the academic environment. Meuleman 
and Carr, for example, advocate for liaison librarians to stop using 
the language of “service” and instead frame their work as “partner-



LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS  265

ships” to enhance student learning (Meulemans and Carr 2013, 80). 
They’ve identified a handful of anxieties present on the librarian 
side based in perceptions of teaching faculty views of the value of 
academic librarians. To address these anxieties, they’ve counseled 
librarians to set out their teaching philosophy and policies and to be 
clear with teaching faculty on the goals of any partnerships (82–83). 
This advice, however, is clearly illustrative of the large gap that li-
brarians perceive between their own self-understandings and the 
perceptions they have of the faculty. Because many faculty do not 
see librarians as experts in a research field, however, this strategy 
of librarian self-assertion has the potential to backfire if performed 
without heeding this wider dynamic of academic culture. 

From the faculty side of the equation, they do not perceive the 
separation in the same way. To many teaching faculty, the gap is not 
understood as particularly problematic when compared with their 
goals of research or teaching. “They do not identify any negative 
consequences as arising from this disconnection” with librarians 
(Christiansen et al. 2004, 118). While there are hundreds of published 
articles on how librarians can successfully navigate their relation-
ships with teaching faculty, there is no comparable literature from 
the other side, written mainly by teaching faculty on the relationship. 
To gain perspective on teaching faculty’s views, some library and in-
formation science researchers have undertaken studies that involve 
interviews or analyzing the case study literature to glean insight to 
variables that teaching faculty view as contributing to successful 
collaborations. Overall, one recent research report downplayed the 
librarians’ problematic perceptions by uncovering that faculty are, 
in fact, generally satisfied with their libraries and librarians (Fagan, 
2020). Where the gap surely exists, however, is in faculty awareness 
of what libraries and librarians can offer, as well as the unique skills 
of librarians. Focusing one’s outreach efforts to faculty on marketing 
for awareness may pay outsized dividends. 

In one study using a survey methodology, nearly one-third of 
teaching faculty admit to never collaborating with a librarian to 
any extent. Of these, most respondents indicated that they did not 
know or were not aware how librarians could help their research 
or teaching mission (Perez-Stable et al. 2020, 62). Corroborating this 
reasoning, another interview-based study discovered that faculty 
want librarians “to align their services in ways that make them eas-
ily understood by faculty” (Schlak 2016, 415). While some of these 



266  ATLA 2023 PROCEEDINGS

collaboration differences are likely due to various institutions’ aca-
demic cultures, these similar findings suggest that librarians should 
learn how to better market their skills and services to a clientele that 
is often simply oblivious to how librarians can contribute. Perhaps 
this is due to librarians themselves not identifying the true needs 
of teaching faculty, and instead, attempting to utilize library jargon 
or traditional librarian-centered work in their collaborations. One 
quantitative study in the literature found that the single most impor-
tant aspect to librarian-teaching faculty partnerships was whether 
the librarian had correctly both identified and understood the needs 
of teaching faculty. Amante et al. write, “The most important variable 
was needs identification and understanding… The identification and 
understanding of needs has a determining impact on the willingness 
of faculty to collaborate” (Amante et al. 2013, 100). This suggests, al-
luding to some of the best practices, that librarians should develop 
relational intelligence skills at all stages of their collaborations with 
faculty by acutely understanding what it is that teaching faculty 
need. It is critical to be honest with oneself about what faculty needs 
truly are, irrespective of what individual librarians want them to 
be. Librarians should be aware of planned courses, the overall cur-
riculum, new faculty, recent publications, and faculty research plans 
at their institutions. While general best practices apply, it is always 
most effective to tailor library services to the actual needs of one’s 
patrons within their unique setting. 

Since “relationship building is the cornerstone to all liaison work,” 
librarians should develop a pragmatic approach considering the 
above dynamics and perceptions of teaching faculty relations (Filgo 
and Towers 2021, 28). In the Association of Research Libraries report 
on the future of liaison work, it is noted that “liaison librarians need 
well-developed, high-trust relationships to create strategic opportu-
nities” as a way to enhance and participate in student learning and 
faculty research (Hahn 2009, 2). Librarians should take seriously 
the skills necessary for any healthy relationships and they should 
draw on their complementary expertise to serve student and facul-
ty learning and research. Relationship skills include empathy and 
understanding of the other party, so this might involve undertaking 
analysis of curriculum or teaching faculty research interests in a way 
that is not simply ad hoc. Better relating to teaching faculty and their 
mission starts with a deep understanding of what it is that faculty are 
doing and working on. Librarians can employ a variety of methods 



LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS  267

to aid in this understanding, like developing spreadsheets for cur-
riculum and faculty interests, or by simply asking teaching faculty 
about their research interests (13) in informal settings. 

Some researchers have encouraged the exploration of relation-
al skills developed in the world of business or philanthropy. Bales 
argues that the approach to relationships in philanthropic studies 
is easily translatable to librarians because it involves considering 
each constituent individually while slowly and sustainably advanc-
ing that relation for its mutual benefits (Bales 2015, 550). Bales, for 
instance, employs a spreadsheet where the status and next steps for 
each relationship is closely tracked. While this could appear over 
the top, other researchers have had success employing relationship-
building methods from the world of business and sales, which they 
deem “relationship marketing” (cf. Norris, 2019). The key variable 
for these scholars is the cultivation of trust in the relationship, such 
that both parties are aware of the intentions and goals of the other 
and have proved mutually helpful over time (Phelps and Campbell 
2012, 16). The importance of trust shows up often in the literature. 
Therefore, focusing on it can be a useful counter to the pessimistic 
attitudes on the part of librarians discussed above. In the arena of 
trust, collaboration projects should, ideally, be of equal interest to 
both sides of the relationship so that perceptions of ulterior motives 
are less likely (Díaz and Mandernach 2017, 277). 

If just starting or attempting to forge relationships with newer 
faculty members, librarians may simply plan an informal coffee or 
lunch meeting with individual faculty members to get to know them 
better. Kuchi has argued, along these lines, that it is crucial for librar-
ians to meet faculty (and other patrons more broadly) in their own 
environments rather than simply relying on interaction when they 
come into the library (Kuchi 2022, 663). Librarians should regularly 
seek out contact with faculty in the environments where the faculty 
reside, perhaps at groups, programs, or events outside of the library. 
An added benefit to this style of institutional participation is that li-
brarians can become “insiders” to these groups and participate at 
that privileged level. This can help shape faculty perceptions and 
expectations of librarians, as more than simply cloistered service 
or support staff, but as active participants in the educational life of 
their institutions. Put in more basic terms, the mere fact of librarian 
visibility elsewhere on campus can help change patron perceptions.



268  ATLA 2023 PROCEEDINGS

Leveraging their complementary expertise and skills is another 
way that librarians can contribute to successful teaching faculty-
librarian relationships. Problems are more likely to arise when li-
brarians view the relationship through a strictly competitive lens, 
as if they were competing with faculty for students’ attention or 
contending with faculty who think librarians are not true subject 
experts. Both fields of competition are, in my view, losing battles. 
Instead, librarians should draw on their extensive knowledge of the 
research process, information literacy, and knowledge of resources 
as a demonstration of their value to the academic mission. Teaching 
faculty are unlikely to consider librarians as equal peers in their field 
of study, but they are much more likely to acknowledge how librar-
ians can better help students with certain aspects of the learning pro-
cess (Cooper and Schonfeld 2017, 8). Approaching the relationships 
from a non-competitive point of view is better suited to develop the 
relational trust that collaborations thrive upon (Given and Julien, 
2005, 36). In this way, the existing difference between teaching fac-
ulty and librarians identified above can be reframed positively. Li-
brarians have a complementary expertise to offer academia, and do 
not need to worry as much about whether they or faculty are better 
suited to teach students or share subject expertise. By focusing on the 
mutual goal of improving student and faculty scholarship, librarians 
can collaborate with faculty on grounds they will perceive as help-
ful and jointly beneficial (Perez-Stable et al. 2020, 66). Some faculty 
have even reported a genuine improvement in relations when their 
expectations of librarians are gently challenged through comple-
mentary expertise (Díaz and Mandernach, 2017, 277). The trust that 
librarians hope to gain from teaching faculty might come more sus-
tainably through this leveraging of mutually reinforcing expertise. 

One final trend of recent research in academic librarian behav-
ior comes through the concept of deference. McCartin et al. (2022) 
studied deference behavior among librarians in relating to faculty. 
They discovered that librarians are often unnecessarily deferential 
to faculty in ways that harm students and the faculty they are trying 
to serve. Light pushback on faculty ideas is indeed one way to foster 
additional trust and reframe faculty perceptions of what librarians 
can offer. For example, librarians should feel comfortable suggesting 
alternative lesson plans for information literacy sessions in the class-
room or going beyond the syllabus in helping students with research 
assignments for which they are uniquely suited. This demonstrates 



LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS  269

the value of what librarians offer, provides a chance for librarians to 
do more than mere service or support, and encourages faculty to le-
verage the complementary expertise of librarians in educating their 
shared students. Some librarians have had success in this model by 
assisting teaching faculty with understanding bibliometrics to im-
prove the research output of their institution (Vinyard and Colvin 
2018). Another similarly unmet need identified in the research is for 
librarians to help faculty to stay up to date on their field’s scholar-
ship by reporting new publications, trends, or highlighting influen-
tial scholarly conversations that may have been overlooked (Arendt 
2012, 173). There are a multitude of other possibilities, but they all 
involve utilizing the strengths that librarians have honed through 
training and experience so that they position themselves to offer a 
unique service to the academic mission.

REFERENCES

Amante, Maria João, Ana Isabel Extremeño, and António Firmino 
da Costa. 2013. “Modelling Variables that Contribute to Faculty 
Willingness to Collaborate with Librarians: The Case of the 
University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), Portugal.” Journal of 
Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (2): 91–102. 

Arendt, Julie, and Megan Lotts. 2012. “What Liaisons say About 
Themselves and What Faculty say about their Liaisons: a US 
survey.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12 (2): 155–177.

Bales, John G. 2015. “Making all the Right Moves for Liaison 
Engagement: A Strategy for Relating to Faculty.” College & 
Research Libraries News 76 (10): 550–556. 

Christiansen, Lars, Mindy Stombler, and Lyn Thaxton. 2004. “A 
Report on Librarian-Faculty Relations from a Sociological 
Perspective.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30 (2): 
116–121. 

Cooper, Danielle, and Roger G. Schonfeld. 2017. Rethinking Liaison 
Programs for the Humanities. Ithaka S+R. https://sr.ithaka.org/
publications/rethinking-liaison-programs-for-the-humanities/

Creaser, Claire, and Valerie Spezi. 2014. “Improving Perceptions of 
Value to Teaching and Research Staff: the Next Challenge for 
Academic Libraries.” Journal of Librarianship and Information 
Science 46 (3): 191–206.

Díaz, José O., and Meris A. Mandernach. 2017. “Relationship 
Building One Step at a Time: Case studies of Successful Faculty-

https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/rethinking-liaison-programs-for-the-humanities/
https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/rethinking-liaison-programs-for-the-humanities/


270  ATLA 2023 PROCEEDINGS

Librarian Partnerships. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17 
(2): 273–282. 

Fagan, Jody C., Hillary Ostermiller, Elizabeth Price, and Lara Sapp. 
2022. “Faculty Perceptions of Academic Librarians: Experts, 
Connectors, and Resource Stewards.” New Review of Academic 
Librarianship 28 (1): 79-116.

Filgo, Ellen Hampton, and Sha Towers. 2021. Liaison Engagement 
Success: A Practical Guide for Librarians. Lanham, MD: 
Rowman & Littlefield. 

Given, Lisa M., and Heidi Julien. 2005. “Finding Common Ground: 
An Analysis of Librarians’ Expressed Attitudes Towards 
Faculty.” The Reference Librarian 89-90: 25–38. 

Hahn, Karla. 2009. “Introduction: Positioning Liaison Librarians 
for the 21st Century.” Research Library Issues 265 (August): 1–2. 
https://publications.arl.org/rli265/2

Lewis, David W. 2019. “Reimagining the Academic Library: What 
to Do Next.” El Profesional de La Informacion, 28 (1): 1–29.

Kuchi, Triveni. 2022. “The Strategic Value of the Liaison Librarian’s 
Personal Approach to Client Engagement.” Portal: Libraries 
and the Academy 22 (3): 651–679.

McCartin, Lyda Fontes, and Raquel Wright-Mair. 2022. “It’s Not 
Personal, It’s Professional: Causes of Academic Librarian 
Deference Behavior.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 
48, no. 1 (January).

McCartin, Lyda Fontes, and Raquel Wright-Mair. 2022. 
“Manifestations of Deference Behavior in Teaching-Focused 
Academic Librarians.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 
48, no. 6 (November).

Meulemans, Yvonne Nalani, and Allison Carr. 2013. “Not at your 
Service: Building Genuine Faculty-Librarian Partnerships.” 
Reference Services Review 41 (1): 80–90. 

Norris, Tiffany. 2019. “Selling the Library Without Sacrificing 
Your Values: Guiding Principles for Liaison Librarians.” 
International Information and Library Review 51 (1): 63–69.

Perez-Stable, Maria A., Judith M. Arnold, LuMarie F. Guth, and 
Patricia Fravel Vander Meer. 2020. “From Service Role to 
Partnership: Faculty Voices on Collaboration with Librarians.” 
Portal: Libraries and the Academy 20 (1): 49–72. 

Phelps, Sue F., and Nicole Campbell. 2012. “Commitment and Trust 
in Librarian-Faculty Relationships: A Systematic Review of 
the Literature.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 38 (1): 
13–19. 

Schlak, Tim. 2016. “Social Capital as Operative in Liaison 
Librarianship: Librarian Participants’ Experiences of Faculty 

https://publications.arl.org/rli265/2


LISTEN AND LEARN SESSIONS  271

Engagement as Academic Library Liaisons.” The Journal of 
Academic Librarianship 42 (4): 411–422. 

Tucci, Valerie K. 2011. “Faculty/Librarian Collaboration: Catalyst 
for Student Learning and Librarian Growth.” Science & 
Technology Libraries 30 (3): 292–305. 

Vinyard, Marc, and Jamie Beth Colvin. 2018. “How Research 
Becomes Impact: Librarians Helping Faculty Use Scholarly 
Metrics to Select Journals.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 
25 (2): 187–204. 


