Faculty culture and bibliographic instruction: an exploratory analysis - The Library and Undergraduate Education

Lack of Time

Lack of time is frequently given by faculty as a reason not to provide bibliographic instruction (Farber, 1992, p. 3; Werrell & Wesley, 1990, p. 174). Thomas (1994) found a disconcerting trend in this area in her two surveys at the California State University, Long Beach. She found in 1982 that only 16 percent of the responding faculty stated that the curriculum was too full to offer library instruction. In 1990, 52.5 percent of the faculty responding selected this answer. Also, in the 1990 survey, 18.1 percent of the respondents (more than triple the percentage from the 1982 study) reported: "They had no idea how their students learned to use the library and felt no responsibility to teach them" (Thomas, 1994, p. 216). So much for any ideas of the inevitability of the progress of bibliographic instruction.

Farber (1993) provided an anecdote of how even the most ardent supporter of bibliographic instruction can overlook it because of time constraints. In writing about a section of a humanities course he taught some years ago at Earlham, he observed:

Each section had a research paper, with a bibliographic session to

prepare for the paper. I was responsible for giving the bibliographic

instruction for all sections, and I scrupulously got in touch with each

instructor to talk about the content and set up the time for a presentation.

BUT I FORGOT MY SECTION! Why? I realized later that I

was so involved with preparing for the next day's class, meeting with

my students, grading quizzes, choosing the books for next term--so

busy with the kinds of activities that demand the attention of every

conscientious teacher--that the bibliographic instruction was the furthest

thing from my mind. (p. 5)

Farber (1992) concluded from this experience: "Teaching--good teaching--requires lots of time, and we just can't expect BI to be the major concern of a good teacher" (p. 4). He used this incident to point out the importance of librarians taking the initiative in working with the faculty.

What Makes a Difference?

Several studies have evidence of a relationship between certain variables and faculty support of bibliographic instruction. Hardesty (1991) found at four institutions of higher education in Indiana that neither age, rank, tenure, years of teaching, possession of a doctorate degree, nor discipline made a significant difference regarding faculty attitudes toward the role of the academic library in undergraduate education. He found that institutional influences created differences in attitudes. For example, he found the most positive library attitudes among the Earlham College science faculty and the least positive library attitudes from the Purdue University biology faculty (p. 27). The particular institutional culture may make a difference. However, it is not known if faculty are hired in a particular image or whether they change after being employed at an institution with a particular set of values.

Several researchers have found a relationship between faculty members' use of the library and the involvement of their students in bibliographic instruction (Cannon, 1994, p. 525; Thomas & Ensor, 1984, p. 437; Nowakowski & Frick, 1995, p. 6). Also, several researchers have found a relationship between faculty members' publishing output and the involvement of their students in bibliographic instruction (Boosingei, 1990, p. 471; Thomas & Ensor, 1984, p. 437; Cannon, 1994, p. 525). However, Oberg and his colleagues found publication-oriented faculty at Albion College less willing to view librarians as academic equals than did the teaching-oriented faculty (Oberg et al., 1990, pp. 223-24). The vulgarities of faculty culture may lead publication-oriented faculty to value the contributions of the library and the skills needed to use it, but not to highly value those who teach those skills.