The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

The academic library: Structure, space, physical and virtual use T

a b,⁎
Snunith Shoham , Liat Klain-Gabbay
a
Bar – Ilan University, Israel
b
The College of Management – Academic Studies, Israel

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This mixed-methods study aims to characterize the appropriate structure of the academic library in the in-
Academic libraries formation age according to the perceptions of the faculty members who use the library and the academic li-
Branch libraries brarians operating it. Two main issues were addressed: centralization versus decentralization, and the provision
Central library of physical versus virtual services. The study population included members of the faculties of Humanities and
Departmental library
Social Sciences in three academic institutions in Israel and academic librarians working in these institutions.
Division libraries
Faculty library
Qualitative data was collected through interviews with 20 faculty members and 15 librarians, while quantitative
The library as a place data was collected through questionnaires filled by 191 faculty members and 50 librarians in the above-men-
Virtual library tioned institutions. Analysis of these data reveal that faculty members generally prefer a concentration of ma-
terials—rather than decentralization—and they show a similar preference toward a faculty library model, a
combined faculty/departmental library model, and a central library model. Similarly, the academic librarians
prefer either faculty or combined faculty/department libraries, but their preference toward a central library
model is lower than that of the faculty members. The decentralized, departmental library model was the least
favored by both groups. In addition, our findings indicate that both the faculty members and the librarians
appreciate the virtual services that the library provides as well as its physical presence, although fewer faculty
members than librarians perceived the latter as an important role of the library. Taken together it appears that
the preferred model for the academic library in the information age is of large, multidisciplinary libraries that
contain materials from a variety of fields and provide comprehensive virtual services.

Introduction
In the characterization of an academic institution, one of the most
important symbols is its campus library (Yebowaah & Plockey, 2017).
For many years, the library has been perceived as a “knowledge center”
(Jamieson, 2009, p. 19) on campus, in terms of symbolism, geography,
and practicality, as it concentrates and preserves the academic knowl-
edge found in various materials. In recent years, however, the library
has transformed into a ‘learning center’ (Jamieson, 2009, p. 19) ac-
cording to Scott Bennett's model of designing academic libraries, which
describes the transition of the library from a traditional book-centered
structure to a technology-supported, learning-centered structure. In-
deed, the recent change in the library space is both conceptual and
physical (Khoo, Rozaklis, Hall, & Kusunoki, 2016, p. 53).
The transformation to a learning-centered structure is characterized
by the transition of the library from a quiet place of individual learning
to a place that provides, in addition to quiet learning spaces, spaces for
collaborative learning, social gatherings, and non-learning activities;
computers that are connected to various online services; innovative
technological systems; and a place for a new learning culture. Such a
transformation has been greatly influenced by the ongoing changes in
higher education, in general, the most prominent being reflected in the
perception of the student's place in the process of learning (Pinfield,
Cox, & Rutter, 2017). Unlike the traditional perception of the lecturer as
the source of knowledge, the higher education system today encourages
learning groups, multidisciplinary programs, and informal meetings as
additional ways of learning (Zvyagintseva, 2018), and many online
courses have been developed that allow students to learn the course
material outside the campus and at times of their convenience. Because
access to course materials has become immediate via the Internet,
students in ‘the digital era’ expect the library to provide access to full-
text online materials, at any time and from any place. Accordingly, the
modern academic library operates technologies that enable access to
various online materials, and technology has essentially changed the
services and skills required from academic librarians (Association of
College and Research Libraries, 2010; Gwyer, 2015). The modern li-
brary maintains many computer stations for various uses beyond
learning and contains learning areas of various designs, thus expressing

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Snunith.Shoham@biu.ac.il (S. Shoham), Liatk3011976@gmail.com (L. Klain-Gabbay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102053
Received 23 May 2019; Received in revised form 24 July 2019; Accepted 25 July 2019
0099-1333/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay
the perception that the academic library is a center for both formal and
informal learning and for non-library activities that support the de-
veloping and learning communities within the academic institution
(Choy & Goh, 2016; Shoham & Roitberg, 2005; Watson, 2017).
As a result of the changes in both the physical structure of the li-
brary and in the role that it plays on campus, this study opted to ex-
amine the importance of the library as a physical space, as compared to
its virtual activity, according to the perception of both the academic
faculty members who use the library, and the academic librarians who
operate them. In addition, this study examined the preference of the
two groups of users regarding the organizational structure of the li-
braries—centralization versus decentralization—while distinguishing
between departmental, faculty, or central libraries. We first present the
literature and the different types and roles of the academic library, and
then provide both quantitative and qualitative findings.
Research aims
The purpose of this study was to understand how academic faculty
and academic librarians perceive the desired organizational structure of
academic libraries in the 21st century, and to determine whether one
type of structure is preferable over another. In addition, this study
aimed to examine the perception of the library as a physical space as
compared to its virtual use. Understanding these perceptions is im-
portant since, in the 21st century, following the digital revolution,
many changes have been made in the structure of academic libraries, in
the perception of the user's place, and in the perception of space and
activity.
Research questions
1. According to the perception of the academic faculty members and
librarians, should there be one independent central library, a number of
faculty libraries, a number of departmental libraries, or a combined
structure of faculty and departmental libraries?
2. According to the perception of the academic faculty members and
librarians, what is the importance of the physical library versus the
virtual library?
Literature review
The academic library is one of the most important aspects of an
academic institution because it contributes to achieving the goals and
objectives of the academic institution. Indeed, the academic library was
created to meet the needs of the institution's population, which has a
great influence on the existence and activities of the library. The two
main functions of the academic library are supporting teaching and
supporting research, and these functions are expressed through various
activities, including, among others, the acquisition of printed and
electronic materials, instruction in information literacy and in locating
materials and references, and the provision of access to various mate-
rials through computers and advanced library systems. Library services
are provided both in the physical space of the library and by remote
access (Fox & Keisling, 2016; Shapiro, 2016).
There are various organizational structures of the academic library
system on campus; among the most common are, a departmental li-
brary, a faculty library, and a central library, as well as a combination
of these models. A departmental library, according to Lee (2003), is a
library that belongs to a department or several departments, contains
materials relevant for those departments, and is organized so as to serve
the populations connected to those departments. According to Swan
(2002), the departmental library reflects the curriculum and the
changes in its departments. Some departmental libraries are in-
dependent, while others are self-sufficient but receive cataloging,
sorting, and purchasing services from a central library in the academic
institution. A faculty library is larger than the departmental library
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053
and serves the students and staff of a particular faculty, which con-
solidates several departments. Usually, faculty libraries are divided into
the Humanities, Social Sciences, Life Sciences, Exact Sciences, Arts, etc.
Finally, a central library is physically large, contains materials re-
levant to all the departments in the academic institution, supports both
teaching and research, and has its own professional staff, computers,
library systems, and a budget from the institution's administration. In
the combined model of a central library and departmental libraries,
each department in the institution has its own library, staff, computers
etc., but the central library has control over the departmental libraries
and is responsible for purchasing, cataloging, and sorting. In this model,
the departmental library is usually a small, integrated, and not wholly
independent structure.
The development of the structure of the academic library
For many years, there was debate as to whether the academic li-
brary should be centralized in one main building or decentralized into
several branches based on differing divisional schemes. The literature
distinguishes between three types of decentralization: (1) decen-
tralization that is based on the forms of the contained materials, e.g.,
rare book libraries, map collections, etc.; (2) decentralization that is
based on the status of the user, such as undergraduate libraries; (3)
decentralization that is based on subject matter, e.g., a law or medical
library, a library established to serve an academic department, or a
multi-disciplinary divisional library (Shoham, 1982). Branch libraries
encompass all separate facilities with an administrative relationship to
the main library on campus, whether they are considered branches,
departmental or divisional libraries, reading rooms, etc. (Alger, 2010).
The concept of the distinctive departmental library, which is separated
from the main library building, originated in the German seminar
movement that began in the 18th century [notably, German faculty
members kept their books in their offices (Shoham, 1982)] and later
spread to other European countries and to America. The seminar
method of university instruction was first introduced in the United
States in 1869, when Charles Kendall Adams held a special class at the
University of Michigan to study English Constitutional History
(Thompson, 1942). Among the factors that contributed to the estab-
lishment of academic branch libraries was the keeping of the books in
the main libraries on closed-shelves, inaccessible to the users (Shkolnik,
1991).
The expansion of universities and colleges and their growth into
large institutions located in larger areas (and even on several campuses
of the same university) has also led to the establishment of several li-
braries in the same institution (Bottorff, Glaser, Todd, & Alderman,
2008); probably the best example of the extensive development of de-
partmental libraries in the United States is at Harvard University, which
has about 100 collection sites outside the central library. As universities
grew and more departments were added, the proliferation of depart-
mental libraries continued (Bruno, 1971). However, against this back-
ground of proliferating departmental libraries, various speculations
were made during the 1990s regarding the possibility of moving to a
more centralized system. This state of affairs is reflected in ‘The 1990
Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities’
(Association of College Research Libraries, 1991), which extensively
emphasized the importance of a unified (if not physically centralized)
library system.
The arguments made for decentralized, departmental libraries were,
among others, the close proximity of such libraries to departmental
classrooms, the focused collections therein (Winterman & Hill, 2010),
the more personal and direct service from the library staff and the more
flexible loan policy designed to meet the specific needs of the depart-
ment, the more collection responsiveness to users, and the speedier
searches (Shoham, 1982). Shkolnik (1991) adds that, in a branch li-
brary, a closer librarian–user relationship can develop, which leads to
greater faculty support of the library. In addition, the librarian in such a
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay
department would become a subject-matter specialist, who could deal
more efficiently with the unique issues of a particular discipline.
Shkolnik (1991) states that, in general, a decentralized structure re-
sponds more directly to the needs of the users, while Bryne (1989)
maintains that a semi-autonomous branch library, located in close
proximity to its users, offers the best model for creating the user-cen-
tered library.
In contrast to the decentralization of the library, its centralization
enables better funded and equipped facilities and greater facility con-
trol. Centralization thus reduces overall costs because it contributes to
the administrative control of the library and its services, prevents du-
plication of materials, and saves manpower, which can be operated
more flexibly, thus allowing longer opening hours. In addition, a central
library provides more comprehensive collections and greater accessi-
bility to the entire collection—both for the users and for the staff—as
well as more facilities and services (e.g., interlibrary loans) due to the
extended working hours and greater space. Finally, when librarians are
scattered across branches as in the decentralized model, communica-
tion among them is generally more difficult than if all were at a central
library (Tucker, 1995).
Divisional libraries are a possible solution to the controversy. This
model consolidates departmental libraries into three interdisciplinary
libraries—Sciences, Humanities, and Social Sciences—thus facilitating
interdisciplinary study and easing the administrative burden of smaller
libraries, as technical services and administration remain centralized
(Shkolnik, 1991). Some other developments of the library structure
include different expressions of cooperation between central campus
libraries and departmental libraries. In Pakistan, for example, Ullah
(2015) found diverse relationship between the central library and the
seminar libraries; private-sector universities developed integrative re-
lationships, some public-sector universities developed an interactive
relationship, while others developed independent libraries with a lim-
ited relationship. All library professionals interviewed in the study of
Ullah (2015) rejected the idea of independent seminar libraries, and the
majority of them proposed an integrated relationship between the
central library and the seminar libraries.
Because of the transition of libraries from being book-centered to
user-centered, and in line with the development of digital technologies,
academic libraries have become digitally assisted learning centers,
where users learn alone or in groups. Importantly, as digital technolo-
gies eliminate many of the spatial and temporal barriers to obtaining
information, current libraries provide good public spaces with in-
formation services, thus supporting learning in ways that are social and
immersive in nature (Bennett, 2009). In other words, in light of the
changes in teaching and learning methods, the development of digital
technologies, and the fact that most of the electronic resources are es-
tablished, the importance of the library as a physical place has de-
creased, while its social significance has increased. Crockett (2000)
furthers this argument by stating, “Perhaps the most important function
of the library within a university department is the function of [an]
intellectual meeting place, a place where people go not only to search
for information but to talk about ideas and the meaning of information”
(p. 193).
In line with the above-mentioned changes, the 21st century concept
of the academic library is that it should provide the user with the most
convenient conditions for learning, reading, meeting, and accessing
technologies and printed and electronic collections, in order to produce
the best product (Gwyer, 2015; Khoo et al., 2016; Watson, 2017). These
changes have led to a rethinking of the library as a place; for example,
at Indiana University Bloomington, the libraries have moved to a de-
livery model, i.e., they scan and deliver articles electronically, and
books and other printed materials physically (via campus mail) to
branches and faculty offices. This new model has brought the continued
relevance of branch libraries into question (Winterman & Hill, 2010).
Today, some university libraries are designed so that the boundaries
that previously separated the academic and social spaces are
3
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053
intertwined. The concept behind this design is that blurring the lines
between the institution and library (which are perceived as educational
bodies), on the one hand, and social life and informal encounters, on
the other hand, contributes to imparting life skills and information
literacy, such that the student becomes an information consumer with
various life skills beyond academic knowledge (Baglier & Caswell,
2016; Hamilton, 2009). The goal of this approach is to create “flexible
learning” (Jamieson, 2005, p. 7), which empowers the student both
socially and technologically. In a library designed in such a way, stu-
dents can stay for long durations doing various activities, and this is
where the value of the structure itself is expressed (Hamilton, 2009).
Over the past twenty years, the world of information has expanded,
and, at the same time, various technologies have developed for locating
information. Academic libraries invest a considerable part of their
budget in purchasing these technologies, and libraries are constantly in
competition with the diverse technologies that enable access to fast,
available, and free information [e.g., (Ingalls, 2015; Stone, 1982;
Watson-Boone, 1994). Thus, while library administrators are forced to
cope with ever-decreasing budgets, they must also accommodate to the
expanding world of digital information, the constantly changing search
habits and information needs of the users, and the increasing user ex-
pectations from the library. One of the main needs that library users
have shown is the requirement for maximum accessibility to materials,
which is far more important to them than the physical location of the
library or the printed materials contained therein. In addition, there is a
growing demand for concentration rather than decentralization of
materials in small libraries, as academic librarians working in a cen-
tralized environment can organize their time so that they are available
to students and faculty around the clock (Choy & Goh, 2016; in Searing
& Greenlee, 2011, p. 280). As a result of such changes, academic li-
brarians are subjected to various technological, economic, and legal
pressures, while the administration of the academic institutions gen-
erally does not want to invest in larger and more luxurious library
buildings—rather, it tries to reduce budgets and build electronic col-
lections (Frade & Washburn, 2006; Mwaniki, 2018).
The current situation creates a paradox that is reflected in several
aspects. First, the importance of the physical location of the library on
campus seems to be diminishing in terms of perception and awareness
of its relevance, leading to decreasing economic support. This trend is in
contrast to the growing world of science and research, which opens new
opportunities for academic libraries. Consequently, the current reality
is that academic institutions, which are in financial straits like many
other bodies, are cutting the budgets of all departments to one degree or
another, while the development of multidisciplinary research fields,
i.e., the cooperation of researchers from different fields, is creating a
demand for new and varied materials for graduate students, lecturers,
and researchers (Gwyer, 2015; Warwick, Terras, & Nyhan, 2012). The
development in the use of information technology can be seen, for
example, in the Humanities, where a new field—Digital Humanitie-
s—has been developed to combine research in the Humanities with the
development of technologies and applications from the field of com-
puter sciences, thus facilitating interdisciplinary research. Another as-
pect of the paradox is that, as the library's electronic collections are of
great interest to many users, and because researchers increasingly de-
mand new subscriptions to databases, library resources need to grow,
such that the financial expenditure on developing electronic collections
is higher than in the past. However, the administration usually aims to
reduce—rather than increase—the library budget, thus preventing the
library from increasing its electronic collections. In addition, due to the
growing communication between libraries and various technological
systems, inter-library loaning services are developing, and students and
faculty use these services much more than in the past (Baglier &
Caswell, 2016; Barclay, 2007). Finally, another important aspect of the
paradox regards the users; as long as the library provides technological
tools, computers, and rooms for group work, the number of users will
not decrease but, rather, they will use the library in different ways.
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay
Indeed, the changes in the library usage are concurrent with changes in
its electronic services and in accordance with remote learning run by
the academic institution (Delaney & Bates, 2015; Gwyer, 2015; Shoham
& Roitberg, 2005).
These changes in the academic libraries affect the organizational
structure of the libraries on campus. As contemporary library users
expect the library to provide learning spaces, information technologies,
and materials from various fields, the departmental libraries appear to
be in decline. To maintain the departmental libraries in the face of cuts
in manpower and budgets, some universities have been forced to make
structural and organizational changes Doherty & Piper, 2015). Changes
are important because users expect the same conditions and services
from a departmental library as they do from large, central libraries
(Hillman, Blackburn, Shamp, & Nunez, 2017).
Even today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the organizational
structure of the academic library is not uniform in all academic in-
stitutions. Some institutions have one central library that serves the
entire institution, while others may have a library—including desig-
nated staff, collections, services, procedures, and rules—for each fa-
culty or department, although academic institutions tend to consolidate
the catalog of libraries to make it easier for the user and reduce du-
plication (Burke & Shorten, 2010; Mwaniki, 2018).
It is interesting to note that, despite the tremendous changes that
libraries are experiencing—the transformation of knowledge from
printed information to remotely accessible digital information, the
changes in the functioning of the academic library, and the long-
standing debate regarding the ideal model for a library—most large
universities still have faculty and departmental libraries. For example,
Indiana University Bloomington had 25 libraries in 2010 (Winterman &
Hill, 2010); UC Berkeley has 25 separate libraries; Harvard University
has of-today a multi-library system of 28 libraries at several locations
across the campus and beyond; Yale University has 15 libraries; the
Technical University of Munich has nine branch libraries; and the Ox-
ford University library consists of The Bodleian Library as well as 30
libraries across Oxford, including major research libraries and faculty,
department, and institute libraries.
Methodology
Research methods
To answer the research questions raised above, we conducted a
mixed-methods study that integrates qualitative and quantitative ap-
proaches to provide more comprehensive evidence based on a wider
range of data collection tools (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Such an in-
tegrated study allows us to elucidate multiple worldviews and facilitate
a more holistic understanding of the research questions (Crist &
Berman, 2016). Specifically, the first part of the study included an in-
terview with faculty members and academic librarians, aimed at elu-
cidating the specific perceptions held by these two study groups. Based
on the in-depth analysis of these qualitative data, a subsequent ques-
tionnaire was designed to examine the prevalence of the perceptions
raised in the interviews.
Study sample
The research population for the first part of the study (in-depth
interviews) included two groups: (i) 20 faculty members—lecturers,
senior lecturers, and professors—from the faculties of Humanities and
Social Sciences, who teach and conduct research in three academic
institutions in Israel; and (ii) 15 academic librarians from the libraries
affiliated with these institutions and faculties. In the second part of the
study, questionnaires were distributed to all faculty members and li-
brarians in the three academic institutes; the response rates of faculty
members and librarians were 30.9% (191 members from a population
of 619 members) and 62.5% (50 librarians from a population of 80
4
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053
librarians), respectively. Of the responding sample of faculty members,
56.5% (n = 108) were men and 43.5% (n = 83) were women, all be-
tween the ages of 25 and 76 years (M = 49.3 years, SD = 11.1 years),
who had worked in their current academic institutes between 1 and
43 years (M = 13.4 years, SD = 10.4 years). Of the responding sample
of academic librarians, 6.0% (n = 3) were men and 94.0% (n = 47)
were women, all between the ages of 27 and 66 years (M = 47.0 years,
SD = 10.6 years), who had worked in their current academic institutes
between 3 and 40 years (M = 18.6 years, SD = 11.2 years) and were
affiliated with either departmental, faculty, or central libraries.
Data collection
Procedure
In the first stage of the study, in-depth, semi-structured interviews
(see below) were conducted during the 2015–2016 academic year. Each
interview was conducted in the offices of the participants and lasted
40–60 min. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed
(namely, divided into categories, then into group patterns, and finally
to meaningful units), such that they formed the basis for compiling the
questionnaire used in the second stage of the research. In this second
stage, pre-test questionnaires (see below) were first sent out to five
faculty members and five librarians, but, as no significant modifications
were recommended, the same questionnaires were then sent out to all
other participants. The final research population included 619 faculty
members (30.9% response rate) and 80 librarians (62.5% response
rate). The quantitative data were collected using Google Docs and
processed in SPSS.
In-depth, semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews are used to obtain subjective responses
regarding a particular situation or phenomenon that the interviewee
had experienced. Unlike structured interviews, semi-structured inter-
views are highly efficient when sufficient objective knowledge exists
about an experience or phenomenon, but subjective knowledge is
lacking (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). The interviews were designed to be
flexible so as to allow the interviewer not only to ask the pre-prepared
questions but also to develop the conversation based on the answers of
the interviewee, respond to their statements, and ask spontaneous
clarification questions or new questions to obtain additional informa-
tion (Berg, 2009). All interviews included both demographic questions
and content questions addressing six issues according to the model of
Patton (2001): experience and behavior, opinions and values, emotions,
knowledge, sensory, and demography.
Questionnaires
The questionnaires addressed issues similar to those addressed in
the interviews and were based on accepted research methods for
gathering quantitative data; rather than focusing on the individual, they
addressed all participants as a single group (Creswell, 2009). Due to the
descriptive nature of this study, we employed structured questionnaires
with closed-ended multiple-choice questions, in which the possible
answers were stated on the questionnaire. All participants received the
same questions in the same order and the purpose of the research was
not concealed (Sapsford, 1999).
Findings
Qualitative findings
Attitudes of faculty members regarding centralization vs. decentralization
In general, opinions were divided among the faculty members re-
garding the advantages and disadvantages of the departmental or fa-
culty libraries, but all participants appeared to be aware of the value of
the library in terms of resources, budgets, and materials, and of the
various services that it provides. Some interviewees indicated that they
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay
prefer personal assistance and that personally knowing the librarian is
important to them.
Attitudes toward the faculty library. Some interviewees mainly described
the advantages of the large, faculty library in terms of the resources it
provides, which are usually more numerous than those existing in the
departmental library, and in terms of its physical size, which, in their
eyes, expresses the importance and prestige of the place. One faculty
member who teaches at a university that has a combined library
structure (a central library and departmental libraries) said:
I liked the big library at the university, it had five large floors. I
knew what floor my materials were on, and the selection there was
very big. As a researcher, I prefer large, central and non-depart-
mental libraries. However, it is hard for me to believe that some-
thing will change here because the departmental library has become
a source of pride for each department. For me, there are too many
libraries here, relative to the size of the institution. The library is, in
my opinion, an institution that is about to disappear, but I doubt it
mainly because of the psychological effects of the physical structure
of the library. However, alternatives can be offered, especially at the
high cost of library management (Interviewee 8).
Another interviewee, who is a faculty member at a university that
has a few large facultative libraries, said:
I do not think there is room for small libraries, because the fields of
research are no longer departmental but more multidisciplinary …
so too the library should be multidisciplinary, it is a natural process
in the research world … Besides, when people are in a large place
that has materials from different fields that encourages learning and
thinking, the very fact that such a place exists is a message.
Therefore, a departmental library is too narrow (Interviewee 19).
Attitudes toward the departmental library. Some faculty members
explained that the close physical proximity between the departmental
library and the building in which they teach, and the personal
connection with the library staff, are important advantages of
departmental libraries. As one of senior researcher in a university
described it:
Obviously, if I have a break between lessons, for example, it is more
convenient to have a small, departmental library that I can pop into
because it is on the floor above and I can take advantage of the little
time that I have better. Getting to a large library in another building
is more complicated, though I am sure I will get better service there.
The larger library has more repositories, the budgets are much
larger, so they can purchase more technological services and re-
sources. Sometimes, there is temptation to unite with the big li-
braries. But personally, I do like a small, departmental library that I
know and am comfortable with (Interviewee 8).
One of the senior lecturers at a university explained the advantages
of personal contact:
I do not go to the central library now because of the geographic
issue. Once, when it was close, I would pop in occasionally, now that
I'm in a building further away, I do not get there unless I have a
specific book that can only be found there. The priority is geo-
graphic, there is a certain commitment of the librarians in the de-
partmental libraries to the staff in this department, personal re-
lationships develop. The librarians in the central library have no
obligation to me and I do not know them either. I do not develop
personal contact with them, and I cannot pick up the phone and ask
for a favor like I do [with the staff of] the departmental library. I see
the advantage of personal contact, but for example in terms of re-
sources, I do not think it is effective. There are advantages and
disadvantages, but I am from the old generation and enjoy personal
5
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053
face to face connections (Interviewee 10).
A combination of library types. Some interviewees explained the
advantages of combining a large library with a smaller one. Indeed,
these faculty members were aware of the advantages of the small and
topic-specialized departmental library, but they emphasized that there
is a greater advantage to a unified physical structure, which could be
divided to different specializations. A young lecturer at a university
explained:
I think there is value to a large campus library. I think the right
format is to have one large, central library and small departmental
libraries that hold relevant materials for the department. The small
libraries are specialized. Not every book in the small library will be
in the central library. This is more accessible to students of the de-
partment, they can sit in the intimacy of a smaller space, close to
them geographically, sometimes, it is open exactly at times that are
suitable to their timetables. There is convenience of use. For ex-
ample, the librarian here in the departmental library sends emails if
she has a budget, so as researchers, we can order books that we see
fit. I'm really not sure that in a large central library it would work
that way, buying for specific teaching and research areas of the
people working here. I think that the interpersonal relationship with
the librarians is something very important and I think it's mainly in
departmental libraries (Interviewee 9).
Similarly, a senior researcher explained:
Large library with spaces. Consolidate small libraries into a large
library. Even if one maintains separate specialized libraries, it
should still be unified in one physical structure, one roof, even if
there are separate activities (Interviewee 11).
Attitudes of academic librarians regarding centralization vs. decentralization
The opinions of the academic librarians regarding departmental
versus faculty libraries were much divided.
Attitudes toward the faculty library. While there are pros and cons to
each type of library, the general perception is that, in the information
age, there are advantages for faculty libraries in terms of the size of
their staff, the budgets they are given, and the services they can offer.
Librarians who work in large libraries emphasized that they too can and
should be divided into different departments with different specialties.
It is important that librarians have expertise in certain fields and
recognize the needs of certain groups and their users, both students and
lecturers and researchers. As two senior librarians in a university
faculty library explained:
As I see it, we combine all the good between the faculty and the
department. Because the library is small enough, I can specialize in a
particular area, give advice, help in other tangential areas, and thus
give in-depth professional help. The specialization is expressed in
purchasing books, reviewing literature, and recommending mate-
rials (Interviewee 5).
I think that the more we enter the digital age, the greater your
ability to give the resource center a larger resource base at a lower
budget cost, the better. I do not like departmental libraries, they
have problems of operation, hours, quality of people. I think that
here the big libraries provide good service and the phenomenon of
small departmental libraries should be eliminated. Today, the large
libraries have a relationship with each other, and each assistant is in
contact with the department (Interviewee 6).
Librarians working at a university that is characterized by massive
library decentralization understood the problematic nature of depart-
mental libraries and emphasized the disadvantages of this model. For
example, one of the interviewees explained that:
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053

small libraries. In terms of budget, manpower, and activity there are

I think we should have joined the faculty libraries. I unequivocally
advantages for the large libraries (Interviewee 11).
object to the library structure that is here, everything is very de-
centralized, and in my opinion the libraries should have been One of the librarians, who worked for years in a small departmental
merged into faculty libraries. Today, science is very inter- library, explained its advantages and how, in the current era, these
disciplinary. It is impossible to separate all the domains into a large advantages have also become disadvantages:
number of small libraries that have a connection between the fields,
I worked for years in a small library where everyone knew everyone,
and where the division is very artificial (Interviewee 10).
especially the research staff, and it was wonderful. But I really think
In addition, this interviewee also addressed the professional aspect that the technological developments are very difficult for the small
and explained how these changes can have a positive impact on library libraries to handle and prevent the libraries from keeping up, and
work, making the profession more interesting and professional for they [the small libraries] have become limited in various aspects,
academic librarians: both in terms of opening hours, purchasing, and storage. Eventually,
a situation is created where the user needs to go from library to
…besides, it's very productive in terms of work. Academic librarians
library because no one place has everything. It is true that there are
in small libraries repeat their work over and over again in every
advantages of convenience in the small library, but I do think that,
library. If they have a large library, they could do a much more
in general, the faculty or the bi-faculty library is more suited to the
professional job, such as having a large circulation desk and then the
modern information world. The small libraries cannot provide the
professional academic librarians could give more advice and engage
researchers with everything they need, especially now that multi-
in more interesting and professional work. What happens now is
disciplinary research fields are developing and a researcher has to
that professional people do unprofessional work in small libraries
find materials that do not exactly belong to his field but needs to
because there is not enough manpower. They could do consulting
advance into other fields; he has to move to another library. I do not
and development work. I am in favor of working laterally, that is,
mean that there should be one large library, but I think the model of
someone who works as a consultant can also work in other positions,
faculty libraries is correct, rather than researchers needing to go to
such as cataloging, databases, developing new positions …
more than one library when they need materials beyond their fields
(Interviewee 10).
of study. Even faculty or bi-faculty libraries are sufficiently spread
It is important to note that this interviewee was aware of the ad- out and there is no need for small libraries beyond that (Interviewee
vantages of the small libraries, including their intimacy, the familiarity 9).
of the librarians with the faculty staff (and, often, with the students),
the more personal service, and the professional knowledge in the field
Attitudes toward the departmental library. From the statements of an
to which they belong. Therefore, the interviewee described how the
interviewee who works in a large faculty library at a university, she
same atmosphere can be created in the large library, while explaining
appeared to espouse the idea of departmental libraries but also
the problematic nature of the existing structure and the difficulties with
understood the problems therein. Thus, she claimed that the field in
management:
which the library deals is an important aspect:
I mean to make a division into departments, a division into small
There are libraries that might even be essential. For example, an
halls so that the intimate feeling in the small libraries will be
archeology library is a library that should be departmental because
maintained, because there are professors who certainly support the
there are all sorts of related products that might not exist in a large
small libraries as they like the atmosphere of the little library where
library. Architecture also has different materials and different
everyone knows everyone. You can create such an atmosphere in the
training for librarians than in the central library. If you look at the
central library. I also support the unification of collections in the
budget, it sometimes causes duplication and waste, but sometimes
same field … In terms of work, there is a library system that cata-
there is necessity (Interviewee 4).
logs, sorts, purchases and the like …. There should be one budget
that is distributed according to faculties and libraries. The structure An interviewee who works in a small departmental library men-
is very cumbersome. For example, if there is a database suitable for tioned its advantages over a faculty library, and although she under-
more than one faculty, there is a different division in the budget, and stood the advantages of the faculty library, in her opinion, there were
that is exhausting. It would be effective in terms of opening hours, many advantages to having the departmental library. She was quite
and it would be possible to hold various activities on campus if there firm:
was one large united system with a large staff and budget. With
Sometimes there is overlap in fields between the large library and
small libraries it is impossible to do this (Interviewee 10).
the small library in various areas, but there are things that take place
Another interviewee, who works at the same university as in the small library that would not take place in a central library,
Interviewee 10, also emphasized the importance of centralization and such as education for the sciences, educational counseling, educa-
its integration with expertise. She understood that centralization cannot tional psychology, or art therapy. These are areas that the small li-
come at the expense of professionalism and explained the importance of brary gives expression to, but the large library cannot because they
librarians' expertise in certain areas within the large library: were created by and belong to different, separated libraries. The
small library has a relationship and a different attitude towards its
I think we need centralization and we need centralized expertise,
users and there are services suitable for these users, and there are
but not at the expense of professionalization. I think the cen-
areas that developed there that would be swallowed up in a central
tralization should be in structure, a large structure that will contain
library. I do not see much savings and benefits for the large libraries.
large collections, but train academic librarians who will specialize in
It turns out that they serve more customers, so they need to increase
specific fields, librarians who will understand the field and help. I
their purchases, so I do not see savings. The point is that those
am in favor of centralization of faculties and training of librarians.
among the management who think that everything is on the Internet
The decentralization today has created a serious shortage of man-
mainly want to save space. They are convinced that the space should
power in the small libraries and this creates a situation that, when
be used for other purposes. I see advantages in the small library, but
people [library staff] are missing, it seems that the library is dys-
even in the large library it is possible to develop field experts and
functional. In addition, it is possible to create work teams that will
create an atmosphere and generate personal service (Interviewee 8).
work in different fields, something that is not currently available in

6
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay
One of the young librarians working in a small departmental library
at a university also emphasized the aspect of personal service and
personal acquaintance with each user in the departmental library.
However, she was also aware of the problematic nature of such a library
in terms of budgets and resources:
From the service I give, it seems to me that it's not bad to have a
departmental library because I know what people need. I personally
know students and lecturers and they know me and know that they
can turn to me for help. I think you need a personal librarian and
that's what a small library gives, but maybe you can build a format
like this in a large library and appoint a librarian for each depart-
ment or something. The disadvantage in the departmental library is
in terms of budgets, resources, place, and a double collection [of
books] (Interviewee 13).
A combination of library types. An interviewee working in a major
departmental library at a university presented a model of consolidation
and decentralization according to need, judiciously in front of each
department.
At this university, everything is very decentralized, lots of small
departmental libraries. It's an historical thing. My opinion is that
there should have been consolidations but not on a faculty basis.
That is, we are a departmental library of a large department that
belongs to the social sciences, so I do not mean that all the social
sciences be united under one library, but certain libraries belonging
to larger and smaller departments should remain. The method of
small libraries is not good, the activity there seems less effective, I
favor small but not faculty libraries, but according to the size of the
department (Interviewee 7).
Quantitative analysis
Use of library resources by faculty members
In a series of questions, the faculty members were asked to indicate
the extent to which they use the physical and electronic resources of the
library, as well as the nature of this use.
Fig. 1 shows the frequency at which faculty members indicated that
they visit the library. Most faculty members (56%) indicated that they
visit the library at least once a month, while only 14.1% visit the library
only once or twice per semester. However, a relatively high fraction of
the respondents (28.3%) indicated that they rarely visit the library. A
minority (1.6%) indicated that they do not visit the library at all.
Fig. 2 shows the library resources that the faculty members in-
dicated they use when they do visit the library. A high percentage of
respondents visit the library for vocational reading (about 50%) and for
borrowing books (about 43%), and more than a third indicated that
60
50
Percent of respondents
40
30
20
10
1.6
0
Never
Fig. 1. Frequency of visiting the library among faculty members (n = 191).
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053
they are assisted by the library staff for purchasing, referencing, or
inter-library loaning. A small fraction indicated that they visit the li-
brary to use the Internet or other databases, and a very small percen-
tage indicated that they visit the library for professional meetings.
Next, the faculty members were asked a number of questions about
their use of the electronic resources of the library. The vast majority of
respondents (94.2%, n = 180) indicated that they do use the electronic
resources at the library. Breakdown of the uses (Fig. 3) indicates that
more than 90% of the faculty members use electronic resources to
search databases. A lower, but still high fraction of faculty members
uses the library to search through its catalogs, while less than 40% use
other electronic resources accessible from the library. Resources such as
new book reports published by the library, recommended sites that the
library organizes into categories by fields, electronic forms for use by
faculty, courseware, and manuals made by the library.
The appropriate model for a library in an academic institution
Participants were asked what would be, according to their percep-
tion, the most appropriate model for a library in an academic institu-
tion. Fig. 4 shows the responses of academic faculty, as compared with
those of academic librarians. On the X pivot, the preferred models for
academic library are demonstrated.
The findings shown in Fig. 4 indicate that the two models favored by
both faculty members and librarians are a model of faculty libraries and
a combined model (faculty and departmental libraries in the same in-
stitution), librarians have similar preference, 27% and 29.2% compare
to 34% of faculty members. These findings show that the faculty
members support a central library to a greater extent than the academic
librarians, while the departmental library model is less favored by both
groups. Thus, the preferred model is not unequivocal, but the general
preference of both groups—and, to a greater extent, of faculty mem-
bers—is for large, multidisciplinary libraries that contain materials
from various fields.
Perception of the role and importance of the academic library in the current
era
Both the faculty members and the academic librarians were asked to
indicate the importance of three aspects of the library: (A) the library as
a physical place, (B) the library as a facilitator/provider of access to
electronic resources, and (C) a combination of both. The findings,
shown in Fig. 5, indicate that most participants perceive the library as a
combination of a physical space and a provider of access to electronic
resources, although this perception is more prevalent among the aca-
demic librarians than among the faculty members (96.0% of the li-
brarians, as compared with 72.3% of the faculty members). About
10.5% of the faculty members indicated that they perceive the library
only as a physical place, as compared with only 2.0% among the li-
brarians, while 17.3% of the faculty members indicated that they
28.3 29.8
26.2
14.1
Rarely Once or twice Once or twice At least once a
per semster a month week
7
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053

Fig. 2. Uses of physical library resources by faculty members (n = 191).

Fig. 3. Uses of electronic library resources by faculty members (n = 191).

60

50
Percent of respondents

40 34.0 34.0
33.0
29.2
30 27.0

20 14.9 17.0
10.8
10

0
Deparmental Faculty Central Combined
Faculty Librarians

Fig. 4. Perception of the appropriate model for the academic library according to faculty members (n = 191) and academic librarians (n = 50).

perceive the library only as a provider of access to electronic resources,
as compared with only 2% of the librarians.
Discussion
Our findings show that both the faculty members and the academic
librarians prefer faculty libraries and a combined model of depart-
mental and faculty libraries. In addition, faculty members support a
large central library more than librarians, while the smaller, depart-
mental library model is less favored by both groups. Although the
‘optimal’ library model is somewhat debated, the general preference is
for large, multidisciplinary libraries that contain materials from diverse
fields of knowledge. This preference was reported in both groups,
although faculty members favored a faculty/central/combined model
more than the academic librarians, i.e., they prefer a concentration of
materials, rather than decentralization. Throughout the study, diffi-
culties of various kinds were raised regarding the small departmental
libraries; despite the professional knowledge of academic librarians in
such departmental libraries and their personal connections with faculty
members, departmental libraries appear to have numerous drawbacks.
A small departmental library is convenient mostly due to its geo-
graphical proximity to the department and the personal acquaintance
between the librarians and the faculty members. However, in the cur-
rent ‘digital era’, in which the amount of electronic resources is in-
creasing, the available information through these resources is vast, and
the price of resources is high. It is, therefore, very difficult for a

8
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053

100 96.0
90

Percent of respondents
80 72.3
70
60
50
40
30
17.3
20 10.5
10 2.0 2.0
0
Physical place Electronic resources Combinaon
Faculty Librarians
Fig. 5. The perception of faculty members (n = 191) and academic librarians (n = 50) regarding the role of the academic library.

departmental library to keep up with demand. our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that larger libraries,
In addition, there is a growing trend in the academic world to de- which concentrate materials from more fields and receive more
velop multidisciplinary research and professional collaborations be- funding, allow a wider range of uses. It is important that the libraries be
tween researchers from different departments. Faculty and central li- aware of and support these changes, because these changes take place
braries offer various benefits in this respect, which small departmental in all areas of higher education—including the curricula, campus
libraries cannot offer, such as concentrating most of the materials that structure, classrooms and study areas, student populations, etc.—and
the researchers need in one place, offering comfortable workplaces, libraries are an integral part of the academic world.
having more employees to help researchers, having longer hours of
operation, and receiving larger budgets. On the other hand, it seems
Conclusions
very important that the large libraries be divided into departments, in
which academic librarians are familiar with the materials they are re-
The main goal of this mixed-methods study was to elucidate the
sponsible for, are in more personal contact with the faculty members,
perceptions of faculty members and academic librarians regarding the
and engage in purchasing and fulfilling other needs of their department.
optimal model for the structure of the academic library in the in-
Creating focused work teams in the large libraries will allow the li-
formation age. We focused on two aspects of the academic library:
brarians to preserve, as much as possible, the advantages of the de-
centralization versus decentralization and the use of its physical
partmental library (i.e., the personal connection and individual treat-
structure versus its virtual resources. We found that the ‘optimal’ model
ment) in the structure of a large faculty or a central library. The
for the library is somewhat debated, both between the two groups of
importance of this division can be seen in the words of both the faculty
participants and within each group. In general, both the faculty mem-
members and the academic librarians: both groups emphasized, on the
bers and, to a lower extent, the academic librarians prefer a centralized
one hand, the need for personal acquaintance between the librarian and
model of large, multidisciplinary central/faculty libraries (or a combi-
the users and the importance of an intimate knowledge of the materials
nation of central/faculty and departmental libraries) over a decen-
by the librarians, and, on the other hand, the advantages that the large
tralized model. Participants from both groups were aware of the ad-
library offers, including its budget, collections, and physical space that
vantages of decentralization, including, for instance, the more field-
it provides. Thus, an appropriate model may be large libraries that are
specific professional knowledge of the librarians, their personal con-
divided into departments—which will require the reorganization of the
nections with the faculty members, and the physical proximity of the
libraries on campus.
library to the department. However, these advantages appear to be
An important aspect when considering the library structure is how
outweighed by the advantages of larger libraries, e.g., their higher
the users use the library, namely, whether they perceive it as a physical
budgeting, greater manpower, and longer operating hours; the con-
space, a provider of electronic services, or both. Today, both students
centration of numerous materials from various fields in one place,
and faculty members use the library structure for social gatherings and
which facilitates collaborations and multidisciplinary research; and the
for its Internet and information technologies, but they also ‘visit’ the
provision of physical working and meeting places, which can be used
library remotely—through an identification code used from the user's
for various other activities beyond the traditional role of a library. In
office or home—to search through databases to which the library is
addition, we found that the majority of participants from both groups
subscribed (Baglier & Caswell, 2016; Hamilton, 2009; Khoo et al.,
perceive the library as a combination of a physical place and a provider
2016). Faculty members can order books for the library, and all users
of electronic resources, but more faculty members than librarians per-
can ask for inter-library loans, ask the library staff for assistance, and
ceive the library as either a physical place or, to a greater extent, a
use many other services that the library provides. Thus, while the tra-
provider of electronic resources. Thus, it appears that the faculty
ditional use of the library (browsing, reading, and loaning printed
members, more than the academic librarians, appreciate the im-
items) continues to exist, the modern library also provides many other
portance of the virtual library.
services. The library has not disappeared as a result of the emergence of
In practice, our findings suggest that the best model for the structure
online technologies; rather, its function and purpose have changed, and
of the academic library should combine the advantages of the large
its physical structure must be changed as well so as to address these
library with those of smaller ones, while considering the uses of the
needs. Such non-traditional uses of the library can be provided by a
library in the digital era. Thus, a model of a central/faculty library that
both departmental and faculty or central libraries, but the larger the
is subdivided into departmental sections should enable the librarians to
library structure and the higher the library budgets are, the more it can
be more field-specific and to more personally serve the needs of faculty
provide its users with online and technological means and the more
members, on the one hand, while enjoying higher budgets and facil-
space it can provide for individual or group studies, for discussion or
itating multidisciplinary research, on the other.
lecture rooms, for computer labs, etc. (Hillman et al., 2017). Indeed,
A follow-up study should examine the statistical relationship

9
S. Shoham and L. Klain-Gabbay The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 102053

between the size of the library, its definition as departmental/faculty/ Jamieson, P. (2005). Positioning the university library in the new learning environment.
central library, and the uses made therein. Planning for Higher Education, 34(1), 5–11.
Jamieson, P. (2009). The serious matter of informal learning: From the development of
learning spaces to a broader understanding of the entire campus as a learning space.
References Planning for Higher Education, 37(2), 18–26.
Khoo, M. J., Rozaklis, L., Hall, C., & Kusunoki, D. (2016). “A really nice spot”: Evaluating
place, space, and technology in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77(1),
Alger, J. (2010). The value of architecture and design branch libraries: A case study. Art
51–70. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.51.
Documentation: Bulletin of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 29(2), 48–52.
Lee, H. (2003). Departmental Libraries: Guidelines & Requirements. Retrieved from
Association of College and Research Libraries (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic
https://www.ohio.edu/policy/14-101.
libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 71(6), 286–292.
McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-
Association of College Research Libraries (1991). ACRL guidelines for branch libraries in
structured interviews. Global qualitative nursing research, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
colleges and universities. College & Research Libraries News, 52, 171–174.
1177/2333393615597674.
Baglier, T., & Caswell, T. (2016). Destroy your classroom! Re-conceptualizing the in-
Mwaniki, P. W. (2018). Envisioning the future role of librarians: Skills, services and in-
structor/student model in academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1),
formation resources. Library Management, 39(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-
17–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105023.
01-2017-0001.
Barclay, D. A. (2007). Creating an academic library for the twenty-first century. New
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Directions for Higher Education, 2007(139), 103.
Pinfield, S., Cox, A., & Rutter, S. (2017). Mapping the future of academic libraries: A
Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change. Portal: Libraries
report for SCONUL. Retrieved from London: https://sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/
and the Academy, 9(2), 181–197.
documents/SCONUL%20Report%20Mapping%20the%20Future%20of%20Academic
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn &
%20Libraries.pdf.
Bacon.
Sapsford, R. (1999). Survey research. London: SAGE Publications.
Bottorff, T., Glaser, R., Todd, A., & Alderman, B. (2008). Branching out: Communication
Searing, S. E., & Greenlee, A. M. (2011). Faculty responses to library service innovations:
and collaboration among librarians at multi-campus institutions. Journal of Library
A case study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 279–294.
Administration, 48(3–4), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802289391.
Shapiro, S. D. (2016). Engaging a wider community: The academic library as a center for
Bruno, J. M. (1971). Decentralization in academic libraries. Library Trends, 19(3),
creativity, discovery, and collaboration. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(1),
311–317.
24–42.
Bryne, E. D. (1989). Enhancing client-centered services: A branch architecture library
Shkolnik, L. (1991). The continuing debate over academic branch libraries. College &
model. In P. A. Kusnerz (Ed.). The architecture library of the future: Complexity and
Research Libraries News, 52(4), 343–351.
contradiction (pp. 113–119). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Shoham, S. (1982). A cost-preference study of the decentralization of academic library
Burke, S. K., & Shorten, J. (2010). Name authority work today: A comparison of types of
services. Library Research, 4(2), 175–194.
academic libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services, 54(1), 4–20.
Shoham, S., & Roitberg, N. (2005). From electronic library to a learning center in the
Choy, F. C., & Goh, S. N. (2016). A framework for planning academic library spaces.
academic library: Integrating traditional and new uses in the library workstation.
Library Management, 37(1/2), 13–28.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
2005.04.014.
proaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stone, S. (1982). Humanities scholars. Information needs and uses. Journal of
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Documentation, 38(4), 292–313.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Swan, P. G. (2002). Academic departmental library collections as curriculum trend in-
Crist, E. A., & Berman, E. A. (2016). Mixed methods research in LIS literature: A scoping
dicators. Collection Building, 21(4), 161. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Review. University Libraries Faculty and Staff Publications39.
01604950210447403.
Crockett, C. (2000). Reconfiguring the branch library for a more virtual future. Library
Thompson, L. (1942). The historical background of departmental and collegiate libraries.
Administration and Management, 14(4), 191–196.
The Library Quarterly, 12(1), 49–74.
Delaney, G., & Bates, J. (2015). Envisioning the academic library: A reflection on roles,
Tucker, J. (1995). Management issues for off-campus library delivery services, particu-
relevancy and relationships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 30–51.
larly in a multicampus environment. Paper presented at the the seventh off-campus li-
Doherty, B., & Piper, A. (2015). Creating a new organizational structure for a small
brary services conference, San Diego, California.
academic library: The merging of technical services and access services. Technical
Ullah, A. (2015). Examining collaboration among central library and seminar libraries of
Services Quarterly, 32(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2015.
leading universities in Pakistan. Library Review, 64(4/5), 321–334. https://doi.org/
998466.
10.1108/LR-04-2014-0044.
Fox, R. E., & Keisling, B. L. (2016). Build your program by building your team: Inclusively
Warwick, C., Terras, M., & Nyhan, J. (2012). Digital humanities in practice. Facet
transforming services, staffing and spaces. Journal of Library Administration, 56(5),
Publishing.
526–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1105548.
Watson, L. E. S. (2017). Space in the academic library of the 21st century: Trends and
Frade, P. A., & Washburn, A. (2006). The University library: The Center of a University
ideas. BiD(38), 94–99.
Education? Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(3), 327–346.
Watson-Boone, R. (1994). The information needs and habits of humanities scholars.
Gwyer, R. (2015). Identifying and exploring future trends impacting on academic li-
Research Quarterly, 34(2), 203.
braries: A mixed methodology using journal content analysis, focus groups, and trend
Winterman, B., & Hill, J. B. (2010). Continued viability: A review of the life sciences
reports. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.
library at Indiana University in a time of institutional change and proposed branch
1080/13614533.2015.1026452.
library downsizing. Science & Technology Libraries, 29(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/
Hamilton, C. (2009). Fusion building: New trend with some old roots: Any building that
10.1080/0194262X.2010.497725.
serves multiple constituencies requires well-done, integrated planning. Planning for
Yebowaah, F. A., & Plockey, F. D. D. (2017). Awareness and use of electronic resources in
Higher Education, 37(2), 44–52.
university libraries: A case study of University for Development Studies Library.
Hillman, C., Blackburn, K., Shamp, K., & Nunez, C. (2017). User-focused, user-led: Space
Library Philosophy & Practice, 1–32.
assessment to transform a small academic library. Evidence Based Library &
Zvyagintseva, L. (2018). It is our flagship: Surveying the landscape of digital interactive
Information Practice, 12(4), 41–61.
displays in learning environments. Information Technology & Libraries, 37(2), 50–77.
Ingalls, D. (2015). Virtual tours, videos, and zombies: The changing face of academic
https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v37i2.9987.
library orientation. Retrieved July 19, 2018, from Project MUSE database Canadian
Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 39(1), 79–90.

10