Evidence Summary


 


Embedded
Librarianship is Not Well Understood by Librarians at Chinese Universities, but
Represents a Promising Service Model


 


A Review of:


Sun,
H., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., & Zuo, W. (2019). Embedded
librarianship in China: Based on a survey of university libraries. The
Library Quarterly, 89(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/700663


  


Reviewed by:


Judith
Logan

Assistant Head, User Services, John P. Robarts Library

University of Toronto Libraries

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Email: judith.logan@utoronto.ca


 


Received: 24 Feb. 2020                                                              Accepted:  30 Mar. 2020


 


 


 2020 Logan.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.




 


 


DOI: 10.18438/eblip29742


 





 


Abstract


 


Objective –
To determine the extent to which embedded librarianship is understood and
implemented with a focus on service models, best practices, and barriers.


 


Design – Survey
questionnaire with follow up interviews.


 


Setting – Provincial and ministerial university libraries in China.


 


Subjects – Subject or liaison librarians from the 84 institutions with science and
technology “information searching and evaluation centres” called S&TNS (p.
56).


 


Methods – The authors identified potential participants through the eligible
institutions’ library websites or by contacting the library’s managers. Then
they randomly selected three librarians (n
= 252) from each library to be invited to participate. 56 responded from 41
unique institutions. When respondents indicated that their library had embedded
library services, the authors contacted them for follow up interviews.


 


Main results – Results of the
questionnaire revealed that most respondents were unclear about the
concept of embedded librarianship with many mistaking traditional models of
librarianship as embedded. Roughly half (n = 21) of respondents reported embedded librarians at their
institution.


 


Follow
up interviews revealed five models of embeddedness: (1) subject librarianship,
(2) teaching information retrieval or library orientation sessions, (3)
participation in research teams, (4) co-location with academic departments, and
(5) assisting university administration with decision-making. Only half of
these libraries (n = 11) conducted
some form of assessment.


 


Conclusion – Embedded
librarianship is a promising, but not yet widely adopted model in Chinese
university libraries. More should be done to advocate for its implementation or
libraries risk obsolescence. 


 


Commentary


 


This study describes a situation that will be familiar
to many academic librarians in North America. The information landscape has
changed significantly in the past three decades, necessitating a transformation
of traditional library services. In many cases, this transformation has been
slow and often stalled at what Sun et al. (2019) call a “first generation” embedded service: liaison librarians (p.
63). In recent years, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has been
exploring the current state of liaison librarianship through a series of
two-day Liaison Institutes with member libraries. A summary of these Institutes
echoes Sun et al.’s (2019) conclusions: “[Participants] struggled to find value
in aspects of traditional services, but had little appetite for serious
reconsideration of services that may have lost all or most of their value
relative to the time and energy expended to deliver them” (Vine, 2018, p. 422).
Academic libraries may want to be more embedded, but are unsure of what that
might mean and afraid to let go of current practice. Sun et al.’s (2019) work
demonstrates that Chinese libraries face similar struggles.


 


Authors
of online questionnaires should consider using Eysenbach’s
(2004) Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) when
composing their manuscripts to improve the comprehensiveness of their
reporting. While the authors helpfully included their survey instrument in an
appendix, several elements were missing from the CHERRIES survey administration,
response rates, preventing multiple entries from the same individual, and
analysis sections which makes it difficult for readers to appraise the study
critically using a tool such as Glynn’s (2006). Similarly, a tool such as the COnsolidated criteria for REporting
Qualitative research (COREQ) could be used to describe qualitative work such as
follow up interviews (Tong et al., 2007). 
For example, the authors of the present study did not mention how they
analyzed the qualitative data collected during their follow up interviews. 


 


Despite
this, the study is useful as an exploration of embedded library practices in
China. As this topic has been the subject of many recent publications in the
Chinese library literature (Sun et al., 2019, p. 62), it is clear that there is
growing interest in embedded librarianship. Practitioners can use it as an
advocacy tool to promote the model. The authors have included several ideas for
what would be needed to make this a reality including changing reward systems
within libraries.


 


References


 


Eysenbach, G.
(2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The Checklist for Reporting
Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34


 


Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154


 


Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria
for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews
and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6),
349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042


 


Vine,
R. (2018). Realigning liaison with university priorities: Observations from ARL
Liaison Institutes 2015–18. College &
Research Libraries News, 79(8), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.8.420