70 Doing a literature review
EXAMPLE C LITERATURE REVIEW: CONVERGENCE OF LIBRARY AND COMPUTING SERVICES
Extracts from Bolton (1997).
Historical perspective
Convergence emerged as a theory in the mid-1980s.
However, Sutherland suggests that its real birth place can be traced back to the 1960s in the United States.4 The period witnessed the development of a number of co-ordinated approaches in schools and educational training institutions. Reflective of this early evolution-ary period was the article written by A.D. Veaner in a 1974 issue of the Journal of Library Automation. The article highlighted what proponents of convergence claim to be is one of the primary reasons for its attraction; the growing similarity in the roles of both the library and computer departments within academic institutions.
'Close examination of the library and computer faculty gives evidence that both deal with the same commod-ity: information. . . several institutions have recently coalesced the library and computer centre organiza-tional.'5
Veaner correctly identified that primary to the move-ment towards converged support services was an appreciation that with the developments made in the field of networking, a greater commonality existed between computer and library departments. Whilst computer departments ran the technical side of the network, the library should control what information
The subheading sets out the historical focus for this section of the review.
The point is made that conver-gence is not a recent develop-ment.
Some definitions of what con-vergence is might have been helpful even if definitions had already been given elsewhere.
In the citations there is no need to use initials.
In long quotations there is no need to use quotation (speech) marks.
Note the use of the numerical system.
The author shows agreement with the position being described. But the reason for this is not explained.
The use of the word should is a
Classifying and reading research 73 .vas put over it. American institutions, being more
technologically advanced than their British counter-parts, realized the potential more quickly as a result. It was not however until 1986, that a marked shift towards the development of converged support services started to happen in earnest. It began with the implementation of a converged support service at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, as part of the university's high cost in technological investment programme: Computing by Immersion. Patricia Battin followed suit at Columbia University with the mapping of a new Scholarly Information Centre and the merger of the library and the academic and computer service departments. In an article published in the EDUCOM Bulletin 1984, Battin called for:'... the information of a scholarly information centre by merging libraries and computer centres to provide an information infrastruc-ture that will provide a one-stop shopping community and a stabilizing mechanism for effective and flexible response to rapidly changing technologies'.6
In 1986 Barbara Higginbotham produced an article that supported the work and doctrine of Molholt and Battin. The article concluded with a prediction of the li kely duplication of resources available in both computing centres and libraries because of the increasing similarity in each other's role. This would almost certainly cause confusion to their customers about which service to use and for what purpose. The net result was predicted to be an ineffective and inefficient support service. Higginbotham finished by suggesting:
Academic institutions should provide a single support service of professionals knowledgeable about a variety of information resources, as well as the technologies and software that will help them organize or
manipulate the information.'
1987 witnessed Diane Cimbala's publication of her vision for the scholarly information centre based loosely on staff patterns outlined by Higginbotham.
She considered however that, due to barriers created by the different service cultures, and practical obstacles over skills and professional structures, any change would be within a long evolutionary process.8
Whilst the debate in America forged on, it is not surprising that the issue in Britain did not take shape until 1988. The efforts of Colin Harris at Salford University, Ivan Sidgreaves at the University of Ply-mouth, and Patricia Kelly at Limerick in reorganizing support service structures within their respective institutions along converged lines, went some way to prompting the debate in Britain.
A.G. Williams cites the publication of the British Journal of Academic Librarianship (BJAL) in 1988 as holding
value statement that either ought to be avoided or be clearly explained with the use of evidence. This is because a claim is part of an argument.
The international contrast is a demonstration of reading, helping to focus attention onto events in the UK.
The year 1986 is put forward as a key year. The claim that American university libraries views is difficult to see given that it seems to be critical of those views.
The description of Higgin-botham's work, if it is supposed to be significant, is insuffi-ciently explained.
Following the chronological arrangement succeeding work is introduced. There is no need to use an author's first name. In a short paragraph a substantial and the names included are not explained.
The use of an author's initials is incorrect. Identification of a
74 Doing a literature review special historical significance in being the first journal edition devoted to the topic of convergence.9 It included an excellent exposition ofthe issues involved by Bernard Naylor and a series of case studies from converged institutions at Plymouth, Limerick, Salford and Carnegie Mellon. The case studies were written by senior protagonists and reflect on how and why converged structures were introduced. The decision-making process is articulated and major obstacles are highlighted. The studies published are highly relevant as primary source data but do not go into any real depth on the problems faced and how they were resolved.
The key period within the debate in Britain however is from 1992 to 1994. The period witnessed the publica-tion of a number of key studies, articles and conferences in this area. In 1992 Sutherland10 pub-lished what is considered to be the most extensive study on this issue. The research was initially under-taken on behalf of the then Middlesex Polytechnic.
Middlesex Polytechnic was considering a convergence of a number of their support services and felt that a broad ranging investigation into the experiences of other institutions in this area would be advantageous.
The investigation was undertaken through a literature review and interviews at a number of institutions.
Especially pertinent to this dissertation is the inclusion of recommendations and guidelines for institutions considering a structural re-organization of their support services. Many of these issues will be reflected on during the discussion document.
In 1992 the second IUCC/SCONUL conference took place. Williams cites this event as being significant, not for the number of papers published referencing convergence (only three), but because it illustrated how seriously computing and library managers were considering service re-organization.11 In addition, for the first time in Britain, senior figures within the computing service aired their views on the subject.
Further indication of the growing interest in conver-gence were the seminars held in September 1993 and 1994 for library and information service managers of conveyed support services. Figures from Sidgreaves12 indicate that in the first year fifteen managers attended. By the following year the figure had risen to twenty five, with a further five unable to attend.
Recognition from established bodies came with the publication of the Library Association's Guidelines:
Implications of Convergence for Academic Libraries in October 1992, and the Fielden report published in 1994 as part of the major review undertaken by Sir Brian Follett into library provision within the higher educa-tion sector.
A period is identified as being i mportant. This is justified in terms of the increase of pub-lications on the topic.
A key landmark study is identi-fied, but insufficient details are given about it, especially any i mplications it may have had on the debate. A discussion number 11 needed to go after the reference to Williams, e.g.
Recognition of the topic by a professional body is shown as
Classifying and reading research 75 The guidelines produced by the Library Association
were extremely broad and lacked any real detail. The three page document provided little that could not be found in more detailed expositions in one of the journal articles. However, it is worthy of recognition for symbolic purposes, if only by the fact of its production. The Library Association felt that the issue of convergence held such significance for its members that it had to make its official position known.
The Fielden report was significant however, not only for its symbolism, but also for its substance. It is the document that has probably had the greatest impact on the provision of converged support services. It draws on a large amount of quantifiable data extracted from a variety of sources: a major library and information service university survey, a literature review, and visits and interviews with senior post-holders within the academic library environment.
Whilst only one section is solely devoted to the convergence of information support services, other areas within the report, such as staff implications and training, do directly relate to the issue. The report initially identifies key issues and developments within the academic library environment, then goes on to outline convergence as an organizational theory.
Whilst outlining a variety of converged support service models, Fielden simply breaks them down into sweeping definitions; operational and organizational convergence. Operational convergence is described in terms of the merger of two or more services through a mutuality of roles and responsibilities within an informal, non-converged management structure. Orga-nizational convergence is in practical terms non-converged. That is to say that services are not merged operationally although they are integrated within a management structure.
Fielden makes a series of broad assumptions based on the experiences of British, American and Australian institutions. The prime assertions for consideration are the increase in the number of converged services, and the use of para-professionals. One of his principal suppositions is that professionals will spend more time in consultation with academic staff, producing learning packages and other material, and tutoring in infor-mation skills. This will create a void, leading to the employment of more para-professionals, with both side ranging computing and library skills, to fill the gap. The three major groups affected, and their re-aligned roles outlined are: senior managers, professional/subject li brarians, and library assistants/para-professionals.16 One of the most interesting trends predicted is the transference of the theory into the area of teaching, with the anticipated convergence of support services with the academic community. An increased emphasis has already been placed on user support and the teaching of information skills by library professionals."
Presumably this is a reference to the British Library Associa-tion. As the main professional body for the library profession, more needed to be said about the Association's position by research on which it was based.
The claim is made that the Fielden report makes
Far too much (too many ideas/
topics) is contained within this paragraph. The individual topics needed to be distin-guished using separate para-graphs.
76