香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣地區大學教師與館員協作文化之研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所博士學位論文. 指導教授：陳昭珍博士. A Study on Faculty-librarian Collaborative Culture in the Universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan 香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣地區大學教師與館員協作文化之研究. 研究生：于第撰. 民國 106 年 1 月.

(2) Abstract Over the past few decades, due to various challenges and changes, such as the rapid development of information technology, cost reduction, manpower constraints, rigid evaluation, and increased competition, numerous faculty and administrative staff members in higher education institutions have come to recognize the problems and stresses involved in the transformation of teaching methods, and the tasks of enhancing student learning outcomes and improving institutional performances. As a result, collaboration has gradually become a beneficial approach for employees in numerous universities to coping with these challenges and problems. This study considers that ―collaborative culture‖ is the basis for faculty members and librarians to work together in a higher education institution, and the key to the long-term collaborative relationships and successful collaborative projects. However, few studies have mentioned the importance of collaborative culture in collaborations between faculty members and librarians, and few studies on the topic of faculty–librarian collaborative culture have been conducted by librarians or scholars in Taiwan or other regions in Southeast Asia. In light of this, five research purposes are proposed in this study. They are: (1) to discover the elements that can be utilized to construct the concept of faculty-librarian collaborative culture; (2) to explore the value levels of faculty-librarian collaborative culture in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan; (3) to understand the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan; (4) to investigate the relationships among the background characteristics of faculty members and librarians, the levels of faculty-librarian collaborative culture, and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan; and (5) to compare the distinctions in faculty– ii.

(3) librarian collaborative culture and the current development of faculty–librarian collaboration among different national cultural backgrounds, i.e., Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan in Asia. For this study, two survey questionnaires entitled ―Faculty-librarian Collaboration Survey-- Librarian‖ and ―Faculty-librarian Collaboration Survey-- Faculty‖ were designed and developed by the researcher to collect data. Due to the survey questionnaires should be distributed to different countries and areas in Southeast Asia region including Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan, each survey questionnaire has two language versions, Chinese and English. Basically, the questionnaire comprises three parts. The first part is demographic and background information, which includes seven question items designed to understand the personal characteristics of the respondents. The second part is Faculty-librarian Collaborative Culture Questionnaire (FLCCQ) with 38 question items. The third part is composed of five question items to explore the perceptions and/or experiences of faculty members and librarians regarding current development of faculty-librarian collaboration, including the reasons for developing collaborations, the methods for developing collaborative relationships, the models for implementing collaborative projects, success factors and difficulties for conducting collaborative projects between librarians and faculty members. Finally, an open-ended question is designed at the end of the third part to ask the respondents to talk about their personal experience in faculty-librarian collaborative projects. An online survey tool, Survey Monkey, was used to collect data via internet in this study. In order to get as many replies as possible, the researcher actively asked scholars, professors, publishers and librarians in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan for helping distribute the questionnaires from December 2015 to May 2016. 612 respondents answered the online questionnaire in total. However, 132 responses were highly incomplete. That resulted 480 valid responses in an overall valid response rate of 78.43% for this study. iii.

(4) The quantitative analysis of the final questionnaire was conducted using the SPSS 23.0 by several statistical analysis methods, such as descriptive analysis, t-test, ANOVA, factor analysis, principal component analysis, varimax rotation technique, Scheffe‘s test and regression analysis, etc. This study explored seven key elements that can represent the content and concept of faculty-librarian collaborative culture and developed a Likert scale-based ―Faculty-librarian Collaborative Culture Questionnaire (FLCCQ)‖ to measure the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians. The seven elements are: (1) Organizational Collaborative Environment, (2) Mutual Benefit and Responsibility in Collaboration, (3) Collaborative Commitment, (4) Collaborative Leadership, (5) Mutual Understanding and Communication, (6) Mutual Respect and Trust, and (7) Collaborative Relationship and Interaction. In addition, this study found that the responding faculty members and librarians among different regions of Southeast Asia such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan exhibited statistically significant differences in the levels of value regarding faculty-librarian collaborative culture and demonstrated the distinctions of their perceptions and/or experiences toward the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration. In general, the concept of faculty-librarian collaborative culture has probably accepted by the faculty members and/or librarians in Thailand and Taiwan slightly more than those who are in Singapore and Hong Kong. Moreover, the current faculty-librarian collaborations seem to have a better development in Thailand and Taiwan than in Singapore and Hong Kong. Finally, there are a number of implications and suggestions proposed by the researcher in accordance with the results of this study for the future development of faculty-librarian collaborations in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan. On the iv.

(5) other hand, the researcher believes that mutual respect, mutual trust, and effective communication and interaction between faculty members and librarians are the basis for developing. faculty-librarian. collaborative. relationships.. In. addition,. successful. faculty-librarian collaborations rely on a powerful sense of mission from librarians and a strong desire from faculty members. Furthermore, mutual benefit is the best incentives to encourage faculty members and librarians to collaborate with each other. Finally, organizational collaborative environment, such as leaders‘ support and institutional commitment (e.g. administrative formal policies and incentive rewards) needs to be improved most in order to create a faculty-librarian collaborative culture in the higher education institutions of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan. Keywords: collaboration, collaborative culture, librarian, faculty, universities, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan. v.

(6) 摘要過去幾十年來，高等教育機構陎臨了許多的挑戰與改變，如科技快速的發展、經費的縮減、人力的吃緊、嚴苛的評鑑制度及日益漸增的競爭等；另外也陎對了不少教學方法、學習成果及機構績效的轉型等問題與壓力。鑑此，為了解決這些挑戰與問題，許多圖書資訊學界的專家學者一再呼籲，大學教師與館員間建立協作關係與實施協作專案的重要性。建立協作關係與實施協作專案固然重要，但研究者認為能夠成功建立協作關係與推動協作專案的基本關鍵要素應該是「協作文化」。然而，過去卻很少有研究談到「協作文化」對大學教師與館員實施協作的重要，同時也極少看到有亞洲地區的研究學者或館員談論「協作文化」方陎主題的文獻。鑑此，此項研究臚列五項主要研究目的進行探究：(一)找出建構大學教師與館員協作文化內涵的要素；(二)探究香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣等東南亞地區大學教師與館員協作文化的重視程度；(三)瞭解香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣等地區大學教師與館員間協作的發展現況；(四)探討香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣大學教師與館員的背景特性、與其之間協作文化程度、還有其之間協作發展情況的關係；以及(五)比較不同國家文化背景如香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣等東南亞地區大學教師與館員協作文化的程度與其之間協作發展情況之差異。為了蒐集資料，研究者自行設計並開發了二份調查問卷，一份名為「大學教師和館員協作調查—教師問卷」是給教師填覆的；另一份名為「大學教師和館員協作調查—館員問卷」則是給館員填覆的。但由於此項研究之調查對象含括了香港、新加坡、泰國及臺灣等幾個亞洲地區的大學教師與館員，因此每份問卷各有中文及英文二個版本。基本上，此問卷包括三大部分：第一部分是填答者的基本背景資料，共七題；第二部分是「大 vi.

(7) 學教師和館員協作文化問卷」，係採李克特式五點量表來測量大學教師與館員的協作文化程度，共 38 題；第三部分則以調查香港、新加坡、泰國及臺灣等地區大學教師與館員協作之發展情況為主，包括瞭解發展大學教師與館員協作的原因、建立協作關係的方法、實施協作專案的模式、以及執行協作專案之成功因素與困難之處等；另在問卷第三部分的最後還有一個開放性問題，主要希望大學教師與館員能針對個人過去的協作經驗加以描述說明。研究者利用 SurveyMonkey 線上問卷平台製作網路問卷，為了蒐集到更多的回覆，研究者透過香港、新加坡、泰國及臺灣等地的學者、教授、出版商及館員等，幫忙邀請當地的大學教師及館員回覆此網路問卷。於 2015 年 12 月到 2016 年 5 月期間，共收到 612 份回覆問卷，其中有效問卷共 480 份，有效問卷的回收率約為 78.43%。問卷彙整完畢後，利用 SPSS 第 23 版本統計軟體加以整理分析。採用之統計分析方法包括：因素分析及成分分析法萃取出構成大學教師和館員協作文化問卷的七個構陎，百分比及平均數以了解受訪者對大學教師和館員協作文化的評價，以及對整體大學教師和館員協作發展的看法及其經驗；t 檢定、ANOVA 檢定、平均數及雪費事後檢定法以驗證不同背景特性的受訪大學教師與館員對大學教師和館員協作文化的評價，以及對整體大學教師和館員協作發展的看法及其經驗之差異性；另由迴歸分析檢驗香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣大學教師與館員的背景特性、與其之間協作文化程度、還有其之間協作發展情況的關係，最後彙整大學教師及館員針對開放性問題之回覆，以了解受訪者們的意見與建議。本研究結果探究出，有七個基本要素可以代表大學教師和館員協作文化的內涵，並開發設計了一份以這七個基本要素內涵為主且可測量大學教師與館員協作文化認知程度的「大學教師和館員協作文化問卷」。所謂七個基本要素包括：(一)組織的協作環境； (二)協作中的相互利益與責任；(三)協作的承諾；(四)協作的領導力；(五)相互瞭解與溝通；(六)相互尊重與信任；及(七)協作的關係與互動。 vii.

(8) 除此之外，此研究也發現，在香港、新加坡、泰國和臺灣等東南亞不同國家或地區的受訪大學教師與館員，其對大學教師與館員協作文化的認知程度，以及對大學教師與館員協作發展現況的經驗或看法，確實有達到統計上的顯著性差異。整體而言，大學教師和館員協作文化的概念在泰國及臺灣被大學教師與館員接受的程度略高於新加坡及香港；大學教師和館員的協作發展情況似乎也是泰國及臺灣比較新加坡及香港來得略為積極。最後，研究者依據研究結果，為未來香港、新加坡、泰國及台灣大學教師和館員的協作發展提出了幾項啟示和建議。除此之外，研究者認為大學教師與館員間相互尊重、相互信任，以及有效的溝通與互動是成功發展二者協作關係的基礎；還有，一個協作能否成功的實踐，決定於館員是否有強大力量的使命感，以及教師是否有強烈動機與意願；另外，相互有利應該是激發大學教師與館員彼此共同協作的最大動力；最後，「組織的協作環境」(諸如領導者的支持、學校的鼓勵政策與措施等)，勢必需要加以改善，期能幫助香港、新加坡、泰國及台灣的高等教育機構，建立一個具有大學教師和館員的協作文化。關鍵字：協作、協作文化、館員、教師、大學、新加坡、香港、泰國、臺灣. viii.

(9) Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and motivation ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Problem statements ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Research purposes ....................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Research questions ...................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Definition of terms ...................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................12 2.1 Faculty-librarian collaboration ...................................................................................12 2.2 Collaborative culture ..................................................................................................26 2.3 Collaborative culture theory .......................................................................................28 2.4 Relationship of organizational culture, national culture and collaborative culture ....34 2.5 Current development of faculty-librarian collaborations in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan .............................................................................. 37 2.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................40 Chapter 3. Methodology ...........................................................................................................42 3.1 Research questions .....................................................................................................42 3.2 Research framework ...................................................................................................43 3.3 Research design ..........................................................................................................56 3.4 Limitations of the study..............................................................................................73 Chapter 4. Results and Discussion ...........................................................................................74 4.1 Background characteristics of the respondents ..........................................................74 4.2 Constructs of faculty-librarian collaborative culture .................................................80 4.3 Values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among the respondents ..................86 ix.

(10) 4.4 Current development of faculty-librarian collaborations ...........................................91 4.5 The influence of the respondents‘ background characteristics on the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture ........................................................................97 4.6 The influence of the respondents‘ background characteristics on the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration ........................................................ 117 4.7 Relationship between the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration ........................................... 162 4.8 Comments and suggestions of the respondents ........................................................ 179 Chapter 5. Conclusions and Suggestions ............................................................................... 184 5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 184 5.2 Implications and suggestions ............................................................................. 202 5.3 Recommendations and suggestions for future research ..................................... 213 Appendix 1. Interview Scripts ................................................................................................ 215 Appendix 2. Expert Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 250 Appendix 3. 大學教師和館員協作-館員問卷 ..................................................................... 260 Appendix 4. 大學教師和館員協作-教師問卷 ..................................................................... 264 Appendix 5. Faculty-library Collaboration Survey-Librarian................................................ 268 Appendix 6. Faculty-library Collaboration Survey-Faculty .................................................. 274 Appendix 7. Components of FLCCQ ..................................................................................... 280 Appendix 8. Scripts of Comments and Suggestions of the Responding Faculty Members and Librarians ........................................................................................................... 283 References .............................................................................................................................. 290. x.

(11) List of Tables Table 1. Success factors of collaborations for nonprofit organizations and government agencies ......................................................................................................................20 Table 2. Cause and benefit factors of faculty-librarian collaboration ......................................24 Table 3. Names and annotations of the 24 factors to construct the faculty-librarian collaborative culture ...................................................................................................47 Table 4. Matching analysis between Schein‘s three levels of culture and factors of constructing the faculty-librarian collaborative culture .............................................52 Table 5. Grouping analysis between dimensions and factors for constructing faculty-librarian collaborative culture ........................................................................53 Table 6. Pre-test results of Critical Ratio .................................................................................63 Table 7. Pre-test results of principal component analysis for the FLCCQ with 47 items ........68 Table 8. Final testing results of principal component analysis for the FLCCQ with 38 items 70 Table 9. Distribution of respondents‘ background characteristics ...........................................75 Table 10. Constructs of the FLCCQ .........................................................................................83 Table 11. Comparison of the value levels of faculty-librarian collaboration culture in seven dimensions ................................................................................................................88 Table 12. Analysis of the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration ...................94 Table 13-1. t-test of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture between faculty members and librarians ......................................................97 Table 13-2. Comparison of the differences in each item of faculty-librarian collaborative culture between faculty members and librarians ......................................................98 Table 14. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan ..............................104. xi.

(12) Table 15. t-test of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture between public and private universities .....................................................105 Table 16. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities .............................................................................................................106 Table 17. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among different student sizes of university................................................107 Table 18. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among different staff sizes of university library ........................................109 Table 19. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds .............110 Table 20. ANOVA of the differences in seven dimensions of faculty-librarian collaborative culture among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ...........................................................................................................111 Table 21. Summary of findings regarding background characteristics of the respondents who have a higher level of value in faculty-librarian collaborative culture .................. 114 Table 22. Summary of findings regarding background characteristics of the respondents who have a lower level of value in faculty-librarian collaborative culture .................... 116 Table 23. t-test of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration between faculty members and librarians ................................................................ 118 Table 24. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan .................... 119 Table 25. t-test of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration between public and private universities ................................................................. 120. xii.

(13) Table 26. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities ............................................................................................................. 121 Table 27. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaborations among different student sizes of university……………………….123 Table 28. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among different staff sizes of university library .............................. 124 Table 29. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ... 125 Table 30. ANOVA of the differences in the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds........................................................................................ 125 Table 31. t-test of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship between faculty members and librarians ............................................ 128 Table 32. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan . 129 Table 33. t-test of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship between public and private universities ............................................. 130 Table 34. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities ............................................................................ 130 Table 35. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among different student sizes of university .................. 131 Table 36. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among different staff sizes of university library ........... 132. xiii.

(14) Table 37. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ........................................................................................................... 133 Table 38. ANOVA of the differences in the methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ......................................................................... 134 Table 39. t-test of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaborations between faculty members and librarians ................................................................ 135 Table 40. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan .................... 137 Table 41. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities ............................................................................................................. 138 Table 42. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among different student sizes of university...................................... 139 Table 43. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among different staff sizes of university library .............................. 140 Table 44. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ... 142 Table 45. ANOVA of the differences in the models for developing faculty-librarian collaboration among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds........................................................................................ 143 Table 46. t-test of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects between faculty members and librarians ............................ 145 Table 47. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan ....... 145 xiv.

(15) Table 48. t-test of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects between public and private universities .............................. 147 Table 49. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities ............................................................................ 147 Table 50. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among different student sizes of university ........................ 148 Table 51. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among different staff sizes of university library ................. 149 Table 52. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ........................................................................................................... 150 Table 53. ANOVA of the differences in success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ......................................................................... 151 Table 54. t-test or the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects between faculty members and librarians .................................................. 154 Table 55. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan ....... 154 Table 56. t-test of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects between public and private universities.................................................... 155 Table 57. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and technology-oriented universities ............................................................................ 155 Table 58. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among different student sizes of university ........................ 156 xv.

(16) Table 59. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among different staff sizes of university library ................. 157 Table 60. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ........................................................................................................... 158 Table 61. ANOVA of the differences in difficulties for developing faculty-librarian collaborative projects among librarians working with faculty members with different disciplinary backgrounds ......................................................................... 158 Table 62. Regression analysis of the relationship between the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians, and their perceptions/experiences of reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration .......................................... 164 Table 63. Regression analysis of the relationship between the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians, and their experiences/perceptions of methods for building faculty-librarian collaborative relationship.......................... 167 Table 64. Regression analysis of the relationship between the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians, and their experiences/perceptions of collaborative models adopted by faculty members and librarians ......................... 171 Table 65. Regression analysis of the relationship between the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians, and their experiences/perceptions of success factors for developing faculty-librarian collaborative project ................... 174 Table 66. Regression analysis of the relationship between the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians, and their experiences/perceptions of the difficulties faced by faculty members and librarians for conducting faculty-librarian collaborative project ............................................................................................... 176. xvi.

(17) List of Figures Figure 1. A conceptual model of faculty-librarian collaboration .............................................24 Figure 2. Schein‘s three-level model of organizational culture................................................30 Figure 3. Research conceptual framework ...............................................................................45 Figure 4. Conceptual structure of the faculty-librarian collaborative culture ..........................55 Figure 5. Research procedure flow chart .................................................................................56 Figure 6. Types of faculty-librarian collaborative model .........................................................80 Figure 7. Differences and relations between the previous and the final seven dimensions in FLCCQ .....................................................................................................................81 Figure 8. Regression analysis results between faculty-librarian collaborative culture and collaborative development ..................................................................................... 178 Figure 9. Seven elements of faculty-librarian collaborative culture ...................................... 185 Figure 10. Summary of the distinctions among Hong Kong(HK), Singapore(SG), Thailand(TH), and Taiwan(TW) toward the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture ............................................................................................. 199 Figure 11. Successful model for the development of faculty-library collaboration ............... 201. xvii.

(18) Chapter 1. Introduction Over the past few decades, collaboration has increasingly become a crucial concept for the reformation and improvement of teaching and learning at all levels of educational systems, including primary schools, middle schools, and higher education institutions. Due to various challenges and changes, such as the rapid development of information technology, cost reduction, manpower constraints, rigid evaluation, and increased competition, numerous faculty and administrative staff members in higher education have come to recognize the problems and stresses involved in the transformation of teaching methods and the tasks of enhancing student learning outcomes and improving institutional performances. As a result, collaboration has become one of the beneficial approaches for employees in numerous universities to cope with these challenges and issues. The researcher has been teaching for almost 20 years and appointed to the position of Library Director for more than 10 years at a university in Taiwan. Because of the dual roles, faculty member and librarian, the researcher frequently not only considers the relationships between faculty member and librarian, but also thinks about the possibilities for collaborations between them for enhancing the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and working, and in a university.. 1.1 Background and motivation In fact, academic librarians have been working together with faculty members for a long time to implement library instruction, conduct cooperative teaching classes, prepare teaching materials, design library assignments, compose research project proposals, prepare research presentations, organize workshops, design websites for specific courses, join school committee works, and develop library collections (Jeffries, 2000). 1.

(19) Librarians are particularly suitable to collaborate with other members on campus because they practice listening to many questions and handle various needs from faculty and students daily (Raspa & Ward, 2000). Cook (2000) agreed that librarians have made a connection with members of the academic community to deal with the development of digital technology and information literacy education. Caspers and Lenn (2000) asserted that librarians‘ collaborative role in teaching and learning has been promoted, along with the emergence of distance learning and for solving problems of cost reduction. Wijayasundara (2008) assumed that the rapid development in ICTs (information and communication technologies) has built a platform for librarians and faculty members to work collaboratively. In addition, it has been reported that faculty members were gradually relying on librarians‘ assistance for instructing students to gather and utilize information in the electronic information age (Jeffries, 2000; Jenkins, 2005). The researcher, as a librarian in a university, has a lot of experience working with faculty members. It is evident that librarians and faculty members working together did promote the use of our libraries‘ resources and improve the achievement of information literacy education. Therefore, it is necessary for both faculty members and librarians to emerge from their isolation to collaboratively solve complex problems and cope with various changes for enhancing the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and working in a university. However, several experts and scholars have proposed negative views about collaborations between faculty members and librarians. Hardesty (1991, 1995) assumed that librarians hardly ever appreciated the values of faculty members and do not understand the complexities of faculty culture; thus, it was not easy for librarians to work with faculty members. Segal (1999) indicated that ―status of identity‖ was a critical factor to influence 2.

(20) the collaboration between faculty members and librarians. It was addressed the struggle of librarians for academic recognition. Jenkins (2005) mentioned that librarians frequently find it difficult to gain respect from faculty members because most of them do not possess Ph.D. degrees, subject specialization, or research skills. In fact, they provide different organizational functions to the institutions. Librarians are labeled as ―staff‖ and faculty as ―faculty.‖ In addition, organizational power is usually unequal on most campuses, i.e., faculty members generally possess more power than librarians in terms of decision-making bodies (Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004). In light of this, it is not easy for librarians to successfully collaborate with faculty members because a crucial gap exists between faculty members and librarians, which may be caused by their different cultures and unfamiliarity with each other. Although librarians and faculty members frequently do not find it easily to collaborate with each other, they still work together in numerous universities. Therefore, the researcher attempts to understand why they need to work together. What kinds of collaborative projects or activities do they prefer to implement? What difficulties do they encounter when collaborating with each other? How do they maintain their collaborative relationships over a long period of time? Since there are various kinds of distinctions between faculty members and librarians, librarians should have a better understanding of the values and cultures of faculty for establishing collaborative relationships (Biggs, 1981; Hardesty, 1991). In addition, librarians must learn to understand faculty characteristics and concerns in order to work with them effectively (Jenkins, 2005). Wijayasundara (2008) emphasized that librarians need to consider faculty attitudes towards collaborative practices. Furthermore, Phelps and Campbell. (2011). suggested. that. researchers 3. should. focus. on. collaborative.

(21) relationship-building between librarians and faculty members for future studies. Based on the aforementioned concepts, understanding each other‘s differences, especially regarding culture, is essential for building good relationships between librarians and faculty members. In addition, establishing collaborative relationships is the first step for achieving successful faculty-librarian collaborations. However, whether or not good relationships can successfully sustain the collaborations between faculty members and librarians over the long-term seems to require further investigation.. 1.2 Statement of the problem During the past 20 years, numerous experts and scholars in librarianship worldwide have advocated the importance of forming collaborative relationships and initiating collaborative projects between librarians and faculty members (Hardesty, 1995; Farber, 1999; Raspa & Ward, 2000; Rockman, 2001; Doskatsch, 2003; Jenkins, 2005; Kraat, 2005; Wijayasundara, 2008; Cha & Hsieh, 2009; Yu, 2009). The researcher agrees with these scholars‘ viewpoints, but does not believe that forming a good collaborative relationship or initiating a collaborative project can successfully sustain the faculty-librarian collaboration over a long period of time. The researcher considers that ―culture‖ is probably the critical issue determining the success of a long-term collaboration between faculty members and librarians. ―Culture‖ is a complex concept and has been defined in many ways. When we apply it to groups and organizations, one of the definitions by Schein (1992) is ―culture as a set of basic assumptions defines for us what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions take in various kinds of situations (p. 22).‖ Accordingly, culture can be a kind of socialization process that influences and reflects the 4.

(22) values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the members in a group or an organization. No matter how culture is defined, however, it is linked with the success of educational organizations, and plays a significant role in modeling organizational members‘ behaviors (Mees, 2008). In truth, culture is related to the success of an organization, but it often takes years to change and must be moved in small increments in new directions that benefit the organization (Rosen, 2007). This implies that it is not possible for culture to be created in a short time in a group or an organization. Collaboration is a behavioral result of having a collaborative culture that embraces particular values, principles, and behaviors, for not only promoting collaboration but also supporting expectations from it (Sanchez, 2012). Southern (2005) defined collaborative culture to mean shared values, beliefs, and behaviors, which facilitate a group of members working together toward a common goal, process, or product. In organizational studies, the culture of collaboration is related to changing business models and organizational DNA (Rosen, 2007). This implies the importance of collaborative culture in an organization. Weiss (1999) proposed that a school organization with a collaborative culture can enhance their teachers‘ commitment to teaching, continue their teachers‘ professional development, and keep their employees‘ morale high. It is clear that ―collaborative culture‖ is the key for establishing a fruitful long-term collaboration between faculty members and librarians. Based on the aforementioned definitions and concepts, the importance and the influence of collaborative culture in a group and an organization are clear. In addition, collaborative culture can be treated as a sort of or a part of organizational culture that influences the performance of organizations. As a result, the culture of collaboration can be considered as the basis for faculty members and librarians to collaborate with each other 5.

(23) and the key for a long-term collaboration between them in a university setting. Through referring to previous studies on the topic of collaboration between faculty members and librarians, we found that numerous studies focused on the discussion of building collaborative relationships and initiating collaborative projects between faculty members and librarians. However, few studies have mentioned the importance of collaborative culture in collaborations between faculty members and librarians. In fact, the results of several studies have only briefly reminded us of the impact of organizational subcultures (e.g., faculty culture) on collaborations between faculty members and librarians (Hardesty, 1995; Wade, 1999; Jenkins, 2005). Creating a collaborative culture for a successful collaboration in an organization can be influenced by various factors, such as personal factors (e.g., ethnic background, attitude towards collaboration, relationship to a team, individual knowledge and skills), and organizational factors (e.g., organizational culture, organizational structure, organizational size, organizational type, and leadership). Schein (1992) offers a significant message to leaders, ―If we understand the dynamics of culture, we will be less likely to be puzzled, irritated, and anxious when we encounter the unfamiliar and seemingly irrational behavior of people in organizations. Therefore, a deeper understanding of cultural issues in groups and organizations is necessary (p. 5).‖ Schein‘s statement suggested the critical necessity of understanding culture, and the significance of building a collaborative culture in groups and organizations. Based on the aforementioned concepts, this study attempts to explore the collaborations between faculty members and librarians from the perspective of culture, and aims to discover the elements that can be utilized to construct the contents of faculty-librarian collaborative culture. 6.

(24) Since collaborative culture is related to the culture of an organization, the researcher considers that it can also influence the members of a society and can be influenced by the culture of a nation. Through referring to previous studies, the researcher found that most studies were conducted in the Western world, such as North America and Australia. However, few studies were conducted by librarians and scholars in Taiwan or other parts of Asia. One of the possible reasons for this is that some articles are published in a local language rather than English. Another likely reason is that this topic has not yet been perceived as important by librarians and scholars in regions of Asia. Therefore, the researcher also attempts to extend the geographical range of the investigation to cover Taiwan and several other countries and regions in Southeast Asia, i.e., Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand. This can not only provide a chance to elucidate the current development of the faculty-librarian collaboration in other parts of Southeast Asia, but also compare the differences in the current development of the faculty-librarian collaboration among these different countries and regions in Southeast Asia.. 1.3 Research purposes According to the concepts mentioned above, five main research purposes are listed as follows: 1.. To discover the elements that can be utilized to construct the concept of faculty-librarian collaborative culture.. 2.. To explore the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan.. 3.. To understand the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan, such as the reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration, the methods for developing 7.

(25) faculty-librarian collaborative relationships, the models for implementing faculty-librarian collaboration, and the success factors and difficulties faced in maintaining faculty-librarian collaboration. 4.. To investigate the relationships among the background characteristics of faculty members and librarians, the levels of faculty-librarian collaborative culture, and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration among the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan.. 5.. To compare the distinctions in the levels of faculty-librarian collaborative culture and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities among different national cultural backgrounds, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan in Southeast Asia.. 1.4 Research questions Based on the research purposes as mentioned above, this study proposes five main research questions and eight sub-questions as follows: 1.. What are the elements involved in building the construct of faculty-librarian collaborative culture?. 2.. What are the levels of collaborative culture valued by faculty members and librarians in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan?. 3.. What is the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan? 3.1 Why do faculty members and librarians work together? 3.2 How do faculty members and librarians build collaborative relationships? 3.3 What are the types of collaborative models typically adopted by faculty members and librarians to work together? 8.

(26) 3.4 What are the success factors for faculty members and librarians to work together in collaborative projects? 3.5 What are the difficulties faced by faculty members and librarians to work together in collaborative projects? 4.. What are the relationships among the background characteristics of faculty members and librarians, the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture, and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan? 4.1 Do the background characteristics of faculty members and librarians influence the value levels of faculty-librarian collaborative culture? 4.2 Do the background characteristics of faculty members and librarians influence the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration? 4.3 Do faculty members and librarians with different value levels of faculty-librarian. collaborative. experiences/perceptions. culture. regarding. have. the. an. current. impact. on. development. their of. faculty-librarian collaboration? 5.. What are the distinctions in the values of faculty-librarian collaborative culture and the current development of faculty-librarian collaboration in universities among different national cultural backgrounds, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan in Southeast Asia?. 1.5 Definition of terms 1.5.1 Collaboration Collaboration is defined as a dynamic, interactive, and interdependent process in which two or more group members work together, share resources, and sometimes a vision 9.

(27) to achieve their common goals (Arroyo, 2003, p. 8). For this study, collaboration is defined as a dynamic, interactive, and interdependent process of action in which two or more group members work together, and share visions, resources, and tasks to achieve their common goals.. 1.5.2 Culture Culture is defined as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from those of another (Hofstede, 2001). For a group of people, the collective programing of the mind as a set of basic assumptions defines what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions to take in various situations (Schein, 1992, p. 22). For this study, culture is defined as a set of basic assumptions that represent the collective norm, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors within a group or an organization.. 1.5.3 Collaborative culture Collaborative culture means shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that facilitate working together toward a common goal, process, or product (Southern, 2005, p. 40). For this study, collaborative culture is defined as a set of shared norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that facilitate a group of members working together toward a common goal, process, or product.. 1.5.4 Collaborative relationship Collaborative relationships include: (1) a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; (2) a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; (3) mutual authority and accountability for success; and (4) sharing of resources and rewards (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001, p. 4). For this study, collaborative relationship is defined 10.

(28) as a mutual relationship in which two or more group members work together, and commit to shared responsibilities, resources, and rewards for their common goal.. 1.5.5 Faculty-librarian collaboration For this study, faculty-librarian collaboration is defined as a dynamic, interactive, and interdependent process of action in which faculty members and librarians work together, and share a vision, resources, and tasks to achieve their common goals.. 1.5.6 Faculty-librarian collaborative relationship For this study, faculty-librarian collaborative relationship is defined as a mutual relationship between faculty members and librarians in which they work together, commit to shared responsibilities, resources, and rewards for their common goals.. 1.5.7 Faculty-librarian collaborative culture For this study, faculty–librarian collaborative culture is defined as a set of shared norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors between faculty members and librarians that facilitate them to work together to perform collaborative projects, such as implementing an information literacy program, designing a library assignment, developing the library collection, preparing teaching materials, conducting a cooperative teaching class, composing a research project proposal, organizing a workshop, etc.. 11.

(29) Chapter 2. Literature Review This study reviews scholarly literature to connect the concepts and issues that have been proposed in Chapter 1. The literature review focuses on five areas. First, some important questions are examined in the first section, for instance, the elements of faculty-librarian collaboration, reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration, methods. for. developing. faculty-librarian. collaborative. relationship,. models. for. implementing faculty-librarian collaboration, success factors for and difficulties in conducting faculty-librarian collaboration. Second, the concepts of collaborative culture are deeply explored and defined. Third, several collaborative culture theories are derived from the theories of organizational culture and described, such as Sirvastave and Banaji‘s collaborative culture theory, Schill organizational collaborative culture theory, Rosen‘s proposition for the culture of collaboration, and Cruenert‘s school collaborative culture theory. Fourth, the relationship between national culture and collaborative culture is observed. Finally, a number of studies regarding the faculty-librarian collaboration in the countries and regions of Southeast Asia, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan are also reviewed in this study.. 2.1 Faculty-librarian Collaboration 2.1.1 What is collaboration? The term ―collaboration‖ is frequently used synonymously with words, such as cooperation, coordination, coalition, network, alliance, partnership, and bridge (Huxham, 1996). Unlike other words, however, collaboration refers to a more pervasive, long-term relationship in which participants recognize common goals and objectives, share more tasks, and participate in extensive planning and implementation (Raspa & Ward, 2000). Rosen 12.

(30) (2007) believed that collaboration creates greater value than do the traditional structures of communication and teamwork. Wagner (1998) defined, ―collaboration is a process of action in which everyone works to understand the problem, engage in discussion to reach agreement on the goal, and shares responsibility for implementing change, assessing progress, and achieving results (p. 517).‖ In organizational studies, collaboration means various relationships between individuals and social groups striving for a common goal. Collaboration can also be considered as a management instrument that is beneficial within the framework of partnership-based collaboration (Kozuch, 2009). Collins (2013) summarized several scholars‘ definitions and stated that collaboration means working together efficiently and effectively towards higher organizational performance such as improved products, processes, and services. Cook (2000) proposed that collaboration comprises three basic components: (1) collaboration‘s purpose is to achieve common goals; (2) collaboration is supported by a well-designed structure; and (3) collaboration is mutually beneficial. Essentially, collaboration is a way of working together for the purpose of contributing to the common good (Southern, 2005). Collaboration may be divided into formal and informal varieties. On an informal, more personal level, people may undertake a collaborative activity with a friend or colleague who has a similar interest. On a formal, organizational level, a collaborative activity may be created by or between departments, colleges, or institutions (Raspa & Ward, 2000).. 2.1.2 Elements of faculty-librarian collaboration Regarding faculty-librarian collaboration, in the case of either formal or informal collaboration, five fundamental qualities are required for collaboration to occur, which are known as the ―Five Ps of Collaboration.‖ They are: (1) passion; (2) persistence; (3). 13.

(31) playfulness; (4) promotion; and (5) project. ―Passion‖ means that librarians will be interested in collaborative efforts to develop powerful classroom experiences and instructional faculty may be interested in exploring active teaching methods with library resources. ―Persistence‖ means that librarians and faculty members will take advantage of every opportunity to promote collaboration. ―Playfulness‖ means that librarians and faculty members will be passionately engaged in the ―here and now‖, i.e., focused on the task that is right in front of them. In other words, a librarian or faculty member needs to open his or her heart to collaborate with someone new. ―Promotion‖ means that librarians and faculty members are willing to encourage institutions, departments, and individuals to undertake initiatives that enhance internal and external communication for collaboration. Finally, ―project‖ means that collaboration must revolve around a focus to which librarians and faculty members may contribute their ideas, energies, and skills (Raspa & Ward, 2000). According to the definition of collaboration stated by Mattessich and Monsey (1992), Cook (2000) asserted that the collaboration between librarians and faculty members has three basic components: (1) collaboration‘s purpose is to achieve common goals; (2) collaboration is supported by a well-designed structure; and (3) collaboration is mutually beneficial. In summary, several crucial elements are involved in collaborations between librarians and faculty members according to the aforementioned definitions and concepts. They are: (1) collaborative relationship: this is the first step, in which both librarians and faculty members are willing to establish a formal or informal collaborative relationship; (2) common goal: understanding the reasons and objectives involved in a collaborative project is needed; (3) shared responsibility: clarifying the duties and tasks between librarians and faculty required for a collaborative project; (4) mutual benefit: both librarians and faculty 14.

(32) can obtain benefits in a collaborative project; (5) collaborative process: collaboration must be a well-structured process of action for achieving a common goal; and (6) organizational performance: improving organizational effectiveness is the final goal (e.g., improvement of teaching and learning).. 2.1.3 Reasons for developing faculty-librarian collaboration Raspa and Ward (2000) mentioned that various trends push librarians towards a true collaborative relationship with faculty members. First, librarians do not have the subject expertise required in teaching in the disciplines. Second, with increased demands for instructional accountability, librarians are experiencing pressure to explore more effective methods for teaching and learning. Third, both librarians and faculty members will seek more personal satisfaction from their work; thus, they will look for rewards in various interpersonal processes of their work environment. The fourth trend is that more collaborative projects are needed for the reformation of higher education. In light of the reformation of higher education, Jeffries (2000) proposed that librarians are on the edge of an information explosion and play a critical role in educating students and teachers about the effective utilization of technology in the electronic information age. Caspers and Lenn (2000) assumed that changes in information technology and increasing pressures to achieve cost reduction have promoted the collaborative role of librarians in teaching and learning. Cook (2000) asserted that librarians have made a connection with members of the academic community to deal with the development of digital technology and information literacy education based on the result of a review of the literature. Wijayasundara (2008) proposed that the emergence of life-long learning motivated the requirement for faculty-librarian collaboration.. 15.

(33) As a result, faculty members and librarians in higher education have to change the ways in which they teach and work because of enormous challenges and changes, such as the rapid development of information technology, cost reduction pressure, increased competition, teaching reformation, etc. Therefore, collaboration has become one of the most efficient methods for them to cope with rapid changes and stresses in higher education.. 2.1.4 Methods for developing faculty-librarian collaborative relationship Numerous scholars and experts in librarianship have agreed that the relationships between librarians and faculty members are often depicted as adversarial because there is something incongruent between their values and beliefs (Biggs, 1981; Hardesty, 1995; Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004; Jenkins, 2005; Badke, 2005). In other words, faculty members and librarians have different cultures and they are unfamiliar with each other. The library liaison program is a popular method for increasing the interaction and understanding between faculty members and librarians (Macaluso & Pertruzzlli, 2005). It gives faculty members a personal contact in the library and provides librarians with a new way to collaborate with faculty members in research and teaching (Carpan, 2011). Therefore, some libraries create liaison librarians to strengthen the relationships with faculty members in different departments. As Oberg (1990) stated, ―The greater the faculty contact with the library, the higher the rank given librarians (p. 225).‖ Accordingly, the liaison service may be an appropriate approach for librarians to start an interpersonal relationship and build a communicating network with faculty members in every academic department. Nevertheless, a case study at Texas A&M University revealed that the liaison model does not reflect increased collaboration because liaison librarians are not viewed 16.

(34) primarily as research consultants but instead as the first person to contact when faculty members experience library problems (Yang, 2000). According to Donham and Green (2004), they also emphasized that librarians need to progress from the passive liaison model to the proactive consulting model for collaborating with faculty members. This means that a successful liaison librarian has to proactively meet faculty members‘ specific needs for collaborative services instead of only serving as a contact person. In the early 1990s, George Washington University created a position of Faculty Outreach Librarian (FOL). The primary role of the FOL was to educate faculty members on the growing role of information technology in research and teaching and to enhance their support for new electronic resources. The FOL at George Washington University must hold a doctoral degree and have experience in reference services. According to the experience of George Washington University, the FOL did help faculty members to view them as a peer (Jenkin, 2005). In fact, the function of the FOL is similar to the position of the liaison librarian and subject specialist in a library. Raspa and Ward (2000) emphasized the importance of listening and communication in building collaborative relationships between librarians and faculty members. They assumed that it requires hearing the other completely, waiting before speaking, recreating in one‘s mind what was just said, and making sure that it was understood in collaboration. According to the survey study of Jeffries (2000), 80% of faculty members preferred to receive an email for brief messages from librarians, with phone calls being a distant second. In that study, Jeffries further suggested 10 tips for librarians to develop good collaborative relationships with faculty. They are: (1) be interested in faculty research; (2) be friendly; (3) be courteous and respectful; (4) be a promoter of new products, services, and acquisitions; (5) be a personal librarian; (6) be willing to attend faculty meetings; (7) be committed; (8) 17.

(35) be a good listener; (9) be responsive to student needs; and (10) be knowledgeable. Understanding the complexities of faculty culture, such as traits, concerns, and attitudes of faculty, is essential for building collaborative relationships between librarians and faculty members. Biggs (1981) and Hardesty (1991, 1995) mentioned that librarians should possess a better understanding of the values and cultures of faculty for establishing collaborative relationships. Jenkins (2005) asserted that librarians must learn to understand faculty characteristics and concerns in order to work with them effectively and maintain a good relationship. Phelps and Campbell (2011) have reviewed several relevant articles. They found that librarians and faculty members working together on student learning is the most frequently mentioned benefit of the faculty-librarian relationship. In addition, collaborating with faculty to teach information literacy is the best way for librarians to build a close relationship with faculty and raise their status in the academic community (Callison, Budny, & Thomes, 2005; Parello, 2005). In summary, building shared goals and values, having good communications, and establishing trust and commitment between librarians and faculty members are the most important antecedents to maintaining a long-term collaborative relationship for librarians and faculty members.. 2.1.5 Models for implementing faculty-librarian collaboration Partnering with faculty in new educational methodologies is one significant way in which librarians and faculty can work together to enhance student learning (Bennett & Gilbert, 2009). Therefore, what types of collaborative models are typically adopted by librarians and faculty members to work together? Librarians particularly work together with 18.

(36) faculty members to implement library instruction, conduct cooperative teaching classes, prepare teaching materials, design library assignments, compose research project proposals, prepare research presentations, organize workshops, design websites for specific courses, join school committee projects, develop library collections, etc. (Jeffries, 2000). In the study of Gallegos and Wright (2000), 12 various collaborative projects between librarians and faculty members were surveyed in different universities in the United States, Australia, and Canada. They found that approximately 60% of the collaborative projects focused on library instruction and information literacy education. In addition, several special collaborative projects were explored in this survey study such as writing a book, developing a course workbook, and creating a course website that incorporated many kinds of learning resources. In fact, many scholars agree that librarians cannot develop library instruction and information literacy education in isolation, and the relationships between librarians and faculty are crucial to the success or failure of library instruction and information literacy education (Hardesty, 1995; Farber, 1999; Raspa & Ward, 2000; Ivey, 2003; Ellison, 2004; Kraat, 2005; Badke, 2005) It is evident that librarians working with faculty members to implement library instruction or information literacy education has become the most successful form of collaboration.. 2.1.6 Success factors for conducting faculty-librarian collaboration Wattessich, Murry-Close, and Monsey (2001) proposed 20 factors that influence the success of collaborations formed by nonprofit organizations and government agencies. The 20 factors are grouped into six categories as shown in Table 1.. 19.

(37) Table 1 Success factors of collaborations for nonprofit organizations and government agencies (Source: Wattessich, Murry-Close, & Monsey, 2001) Categories 1.. Environment. Factors (1) History of collaboration or cooperation in the community (2) Collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader in the community (3) Favorable political and social climate. 2. Membership characteristics. (1) Mutual respect, understanding, and trust (2) Appropriate cross section of members (3) Members see collaboration as in their self-interest (4) Ability to compromise. 3. Process and structure. (1) Members share a stake in both process and outcome (2) Multiple layers of participation (3) Flexibility (4) Development of clear roles and policy guidelines (5) Adaptability (6) Appropriate pace of development. 4. Communication (1) Open and frequent communication (2) Established informal relationships and communication links 5. Purpose. (1) Concrete, attainable goals and objectives (2) Shared vision (3) Unique purpose. 6. Resources. (1) Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time (2) Skilled leadership. Regarding successful collaboration between librarians and faculty members, numerous experts in librarianship have proposed various ideas and suggestions. Building a good 20.

(38) relationship is the first step in achieving effective collaboration (Jones, 2000; Montiel-Overall, 2005). Raspa and Ward (2000) emphasized that the ―Five Ps‖ are critical to the pursuit of collaboration, including passion, persistence, playfulness, promotion, and project. Muronage and Harada (1999) asserted that successful collaboration is based on a shared vision, common goals, and a climate of trust and mutual respect. Major (1993) suggested that librarians need more self-confidence to make faculty members treat them as colleagues. In other words, the more librarians respect themselves, the better faculty members will respect them. Gallegos and Wright (2000) proposed four factors necessary for a successful collaborative project between librarians and faculty members in the process of collaboration. First, working relationships are based on issues of mutual concern. Second, they must be willing and able to propose a joint project and then to initiate a process of exploration. Third, the manner in which they work together is strongly influenced by particular preferences. Fourth, the process of working together requires discussion. Wijayasundara (2008) proposed that the success of collaborative effort between faculty members and librarians depended on the size and the type of the university. He assumed that effective communication is possible in small institutions, as there are many channels of communication even on a personal basis. In addition, faculty-librarian collaborative efforts may produce better results in universities that are research-oriented. Ivey‘s (2003) study demonstrated that the following four behaviors are essential factors for achieving a successful collaborative partnership: (1) a shared, understood goal; (2) mutual respect, tolerance and trust; (3) competence for the task at hand by each of the partners; and (4) ongoing communication. In addition, in fostering a successful collaboration practice, the library needs to have adequate staffing. Doskastsch (2003) mentioned that ―institutional commitment‖ is proven to be one of the crucial factors to 21.

(39) promote collaborative relationships for librarians and faculty. Furthermore, the institutional culture and the institutional value on collaboration can influence the development of collaboration between faculty and librarians in an institution, as Hardesty (1991) mentioned previously. In other words, if a university places a high value on the culture of collaboration between librarians and faculty members, a faculty-librarian collaborative project will be easier to establish in a university.. 2.1.7 Difficulties in conducting faculty-librarian collaboration According to the study of Manuel, Beck, and Molloy (2005), 21 faculty members at New Mexico State University were surveyed to determine why they use library instruction and what they value about it. The results showed that one of the worst experiences that the faculty members had with library instruction was a disconnection or miscommunication between themselves and the librarians. Furthermore, the situation of disconnection or miscommunication caused the failure of collaboration with librarians regarding library instruction. Therefore, building a positive working relationship and maintaining a qualitative communication between the teaching partners were identified as essential conditions for collaborative partnerships (Ivey, 2003). In fact, working with others is frequently not easy. It can be difficult for different groups or organizations to collaborate with each other because different professional groups or organizations may have many dissimilarities in terms of aims, languages, procedures, cultures, and perceived power (Huxham, 1996). Beryerlein et al. (2003) also assumed that the difficulty of collaboration in today‘s organization was due to task complexity and uncertainty, the nature of the work environment, and the speed requirement created by unpredictable change. As a result, collaborations tend to require significant amounts of time to be spent communicating between different groups or organizations in reaching better 22.

(40) understandings and agreements. Regarding faculty-librarian collaboration for information literacy, Leckie and Fullerton (1999) pointed out that faculty‘s pedagogy seeks to protect their disciplines, preserve their academic freedom, and maintain control of the classroom, thus making it difficult for librarians to interfere with faculty-held territory. In fact, even when librarians have faculty status, faculty members do not typically consider librarians to be their academic equals, because faculty members more often value librarians for work at the reference desk, often described as service rather than teaching (Ivey, 1994). In addition, faculty‘s knowledge of librarianship and their experiences with using the library might influence the level of cooperativeness to collaborate with librarians for information literacy (Feldman & Sciammarella, 2000; Hardesty, 1999). In other words, if a faculty member is less familiar with the library, he or she will be less interested in working with a librarian. Christianse, Stombler, and Thaxton (2004) proposed that there is an asymmetrical disconnection that exists between librarians and faculty members. Although the two groups are both necessary to the successful functioning of any academic institution, they are generally separated. According to their observations, two frameworks may explain this disconnection. The first are organizational dimensions and issues, such as physical separation, cultural distinction, knowledge-literacy gap, unequal organizational power, different structure of work, etc. The second are status difference factors, such as different organizational function, professional degree, work-time expectation, pay and benefits, social relations on campus, etc. In addition, a conceptual model of faculty-librarian collaboration was developed by Wijayasundara (2008), as shown in Fig. 1.. 23.