CG_StyleGuide_01 by 7L6t10

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 20

									About the Author(s)
Author: Susan D. Beatty
Position: Head
Division In Organisation:
Information Commons
University Library
Affiliated Organisation: University of Calgary
Short Biography: Susan Beatty has been a library manager for over 30 years,
most recently at the Information Commons, University of Calgary. Her interest is
in library management, leadership and change. In addition to her managerial
responsibilities she also instructs in the areas of human resource management,
leadership and workplace learning.
Contact Details
Mrs. Susan Beatty
Head
Information Commons
University Library
University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. NW
Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4
Canada
E-mail: sdbeatty@ucalgary.ca

Phone: 1-403-220-2629; Fax 1-403-282-6024
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities


Main Description
Starting in the early 1990’s academic libraries in North America and elsewhere
have been adopting a new service model called the Information Commons – an
integrated service facility which offers reference and technical assistance in a
collaborative team environment with other academic support units. The success of
this model has driven and continues to drive change within academic libraries as
well as the university itself. Additional academic units are beginning to join in
and create a new collaborative service delivery. This paper will identify models of
collaboration in Information Commons and discuss how this collaboration is
leading to a changing collaborative environment in academic institutions.


Short Description
Information Commons is a collaborative service delivery model within academic
libraries. The success of this model is leading others within academic institutions
to collaborate to create a holistic learning environment.


Keywords
Information Commons
Collaboration
Academic libraries
Change in academic institutions




                                                                                 5
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

Introduction
   Born out of the desire by libraries and other academic support units to flourish
and remain vital to the academic experience, and in response to the growing
ubiquity of technology and digital resources, the Information Commons has
become a model for successful collaboration of service delivery and a driver for
further change in the academy. The Commons or IC is an integrated service
facility which normally offers both reference and technical assistance often in a
collaborative team environment. This paper will provide a brief overview of the
development of the Information Commons, identify models of successful IC
collaboration and finally offer some examples of current and future trends in the
changing collaborative environment of academic learning support.

   The Information Commons has been generally described as an integrated
learning facility where users have access to digital resources, reference assistance
and technical assistance.1 The IC can range in size from a facility with 10
computers to a facility with hundreds of computers. It generally exists in or near a
library, supported by collaborative partners who provide reference assistance,
technical assistance and support, often with other various supports for learning, to
students and faculty alike. Because technology has been a key driver for the
development of the Commons it is not unusual to see a wide variety of hardware
and software reflective of the learning needs and service priorities of the user and
the academy.

   The call for collaboration and new models of service delivery in higher
education is not new. Early visionaries such as Philip Tompkins in 19902 called
for a teaching library and in 1992 stated, “an era of reconceptualization and
boundary spanning collaboration is occurring.”3 He noted that the planning for
information technologies should encompass the integration of instructional and
information and communication resources and that it could not happen without
the “reconsideration of the design of old spaces and the invention of new
spaces.”4 He may well have been commenting on the Information Arcade at the
University of Iowa which opened in 1992 and by 1994 “…has fostered one
extraordinary change and it is not technological. Collaboration of faculty,
librarians and computing professionals has become a cornerstone of the
program.”5 Interestingly, the early success of this IC was measured not so much
in the numbers of people who used it but in the way the various units worked
together to make new learning happen. Creth and Lowry point to the
collaboration which occurred throughout the planning, implementation and
operational actions of the Arcade as steps towards its early success. Tompkins’
own vision influenced the design and development of the Estrella Mountain
Community College Center and its Information Commons in the early nineties,
which brought together information resources, learning enhancement services,
personal computing support and instructional design resources and services. Both
of these facilities were remarkable at the time for their innovation and vision and
for their integrated service delivery. They were at the front edge of change.

6
                 The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

Development of the Model
   Throughout the nineties many more institutions began to examine the IC
service concept and develop their own plans for an Information Commons or a
library-based technology learning center of some sort.        Some of the early
Commons were solely computer labs, integrating both high technology and user
assistance in library space (University of Toronto), some were library based
(Estrella Mountain), and some as noted above had collaborative outcomes
(University of Iowa), because of their focus on learning and educational
technologies. Some were highly revolutionary and evolutionary in their concepts
(University of Washington Odegaard Undergraduate Library – Centre for
Teaching, Learning and Technology, and University of Michigan, Duderstadt
Centre formerly Media Union). All in some way were leading the adaptation of
technology by the institution and applying it to the fundamental goals of teaching
and learning for both students and faculty.

    It is not surprising that academic libraries were in the forefront of this change.
By necessity, libraries were early adopters of technology. And, to improve access
to information, services and resources, academic libraries needed to collaborate or
at least develop a cooperative relationship with the external IT units which
supported the academy’s technological infrastructure. With the advent of the
Information Commons, libraries and computer units began to extend their
collaboration beyond internal support to external service delivery, often through
serving the user directly and often together at a single service point (University of
Calgary). Sometimes the collaboration with computer services was not entirely
successful and it had to be re-evaluated (University of Southern California), and
sometimes the collaboration was already based on an established integrated
service unit where teams of librarians and computer specialists already worked
together (Lehigh University). Additionally and more latterly, collaborators have
come to the Commons offering additional and specialized learning support for
both faculty and students (Marquette University). Information Commons have
generally tended towards one of two models: providing service and learning
support from what were previously separate internal library units (Dalhousie
University) or working with other units on campus, normally the computer or
Information Technologies (IT) unit (Emory University). In the new Information
Commons model the lines between library and information technology and
learning support have become more blurred as service delivery becomes more
integrated as the transformation towards learning and knowledge centres takes
hold (University of Arizona).

   The most recent model and likely the area of future growth is exemplified by
the proliferation of the Information Commons typified as prototypes or test-bed
scenarios. At Georgia Tech, for example, experimentation may lead to a complete
revision of the role of the library and computer services and their partners.
Information Commons buildings such as at the University of Auckland have
expanded the role and outcomes of the library to include enhanced teaching and

                                                                                    7
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

learning experience of the students and faculty. The Information Commons,
through attracting collaborative partners for service delivery, continues to change
the face of the academic library and the concomitant learning and teaching
support.

    The Information Commons arose out of a response to technology and the
ubiquitous nature of digital information and it has given rise to further change
itself. The key changes are the integration and expansion of information,
academic and computer services at universities and the expansion of the role of
the library and its collaborators – from information organizers and providers, to
team-based learning facilitators. The Information Commons creates a new
learning environment. It is a collaborative environment. These changes surround
the true outcome of the Information Commons, which is the holistic, integrated
service delivery to support learning.


Collaboration: A Matter of Survival
   Traditionally, academic institutions have not been hotbeds of collaboration.
They have been steadfastly individualistic and competitive, from the individual
faculty member to the institution itself. But the forces of change are upon them.
While the academy is not exactly experiencing total chaotic change, it has
certainly come to experience crisis over the past twenty years. In 1999, James
Duderstadt noted the forces of change for the academy are financial, societal need
and technology. He predicted that these forces of change are going to change the
nature of the four basic activities of the academy: teaching, research, the library
and the knowledge service delivered. As the enterprise moves to a more learner-
centered focus there will be unbundling, mergers, acquisitions and takeovers and
experimentation.6 Duderstadt could well have been describing the very nature of
the birth, growth and development of the Information Commons as a microcosm
of what the institution as a whole must or will experience.

   Duderstadt is not the only one who has called for “mergers and acquisitions”
within the academy. There have been many who have more gently called for
teamwork and collaboration, but with the same sense of urgency and a desire to
achieve a higher goal. But, the achievement of a higher collaborative goal is not
without its barriers. The main barrier is the inherent nature of the academy which
interferes with collaboration. It is competitive and not collaborative. Frost and
Gillespie note that “the system leads to competition for resources and dampens a
natural desire to collaborate, and discourages true team dynamics among
colleagues.”7 It is not only colleagues who are encouraged to compete. I would
suggest that this holds true for units within the academy as well.

   Although libraries and technology units are not the only academic units
familiar with the push to collaborate or merge administratively, they have been
leaders in this endeavour, as outlined by Arnold Hirshon in 1998.8 In his report
on integrating library and information technology units, Hirshon notes that two

8
                 The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

essential drivers leading to successful collaboration/integration are a collaborative
history between the computing and library operations and an institutional desire to
build a client-service-oriented and technology-enabled organization whereas one
of the less successful drivers is to save money. In other words, to achieve
success, collaboration and integration should be based on the learner/user
outcomes and not primarily on administrative penny-pinching. Kezar also backs
this up when she states that the trend for success among collaborations on
campuses is within cultures of growing demands.9 That is, if the focus is on the
client/user/learner and their needs, then by seeking out partners/collaborators who
can assist in meeting the need, you are more likely to be successful in achieving
your goals. Or more succinctly put “people collaborate when the job they face is
too big, too urgent or requires too much knowledge for one person or group to do
alone.”10 The delivery of integrated service in an Information Commons is
definitely a big job.

   Successful and failed collaborations have marched hand in hand in the
academy. However, successful integration and collaboration continue to be
outcomes of the Information Commons. Success is chiefly due to close attention
to the mission and vision of the Commons and aligning actions to achieve
collaborative user-centered outcomes. A closer look at some of the mission and
goal statements of the Information Commons will uncover a desire to collaborate
to achieve a goal that no one unit can achieve by itself. Fox et al in describing the
Information Commons at the University of Saskatchewan state that the
“information commons will build on collaborative relationships among key
information providers on campus”.11 Washington State University’s Information
Union has as one of its goals “to forge collaborations with other departments and
units.”12 The University of New Mexico in its Preliminary Report on an
Information Commons states there will be “Cooperative relationships with other
internal departments such as computer support/technology, graduate library
programes…”13 Taking it one step further, the University of Southern Illinois
Statement of Partnership for its Academic Technology Center, perhaps
acknowledging the dangers of merging cultures, includes a section which clarifies
expectations of teams along with ways of solving problems.14 By joining together
to create a new service model, the academic library and computer centres and
others are acknowledging the power of collaboration. By stating goals and
methodology for collaboration they are establishing new ways of working to
create a new service.

   The growing recognition that no one unit can go it alone and that collaboration
is essential is rife within the library and computing domains. There is also the
recognition that it is not easy. Culture clash is a familiar phenomenon. As Kezar
observes, “The individualistic culture of the academy is not often friendly to calls
for working in groups, shared goals, multidisciplinary teaching or cross-divisional
work.”15 Libraries however have a tradition of collaboration and cross-functional
service delivery which may help them. Kershaw and Safford observe
“partnerships in postsecondary education have probably been around the longest

                                                                                   9
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

in the area of library support.”16 Additionally libraries, perhaps more than most,
are aware that their very survival depends on working with collaborators and
developing new models of service delivery.17 & 18 To mitigate the trend towards
low use, underfunded facilities, and irrelevancy, academic libraries are seeking
partners to co-design services which focus on the learner. Traditionally user-
centered, they have attracted like-minded units to create a more powerful model:
the Information Commons. The result is that libraries have been reinvigorated
and are claiming for their Information Commons a central role on campus.

   New Commons have been variously self-described as a “campus information
center”, “a hub for related activities and services”, “an all campus resource”, “a
social and learning center”.      The momentum for change is growing as the
collaborations prove fruitful. The benefits are both internal and external,
everyone is a winner: administration, leaders, staff and students. As Kratz
observes:


       “…information commons projects require the desire to rethink service delivery
       models and to create new synergies and relationships: administrative interest and
       support; collaborative leaders with vision and professional commitment… and an
       empowerment of staff.”19



   Ferguson, Spencer and Metz similarly note that the blended operation of IT
help desk and library reference desk make sense from the user’s and the
administrator’s point of view.20 Additionally, from the technology side comes the
very practical advice “unless the relationship between the library and the
computer center is particularly adversarial it is to everyone’s advantage ..to work
together.”21 It is a matter of survival.


An Example of Collaboration: University of Calgary
    The Information Commons at the University of Calgary is an integrated service
facility jointly staffed by the University Library and Information Technologies
and housed in the University Library. Together the two units planned, developed
and now co-operate in the delivery of this service.22 Noting the need to have
common, integrated goals that focus on the service goals of both units following
is the vision and mission:


       Our Vision is to provide the space, technology, and expertise needed to support
       the scholarly use of information resources and act as the focal point for
       information services.




10
                 The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

       Our Mission is to be the core facility for the provision of information resources
       and information technology for scholars at the University of Calgary.
       The outcomes that we based our plan on were clear and user focused. The user
       will:

              acquire information literacy and information technology skills
              acquire information resources
              acquire help
              have access to various spaces/technology to complete the work.

   The vision, mission and outcomes are not unique to any one unit. In fact the
only way that they can be accomplished is through collaboration. Since the
Commons opening in 1999, collaboration continues on the service program
through various communication mechanisms such as a joint operating team where
services, personnel and policy are discussed and decided. Sharing costs as well as
service makes for a productive and interesting partnership and result in a complex
organizational unit with a diversity of interests, priorities, and resources.

   The success of the Commons is dependent upon the good will of the units
involved and their ongoing focus on user needs. Feedback from users is positive
and the integrated service model continues to flourish. Success comes through
paying attention to the planning process, the user and the people who provide the
service.

   Growing out of the success of the Commons and a vision of one-stop service,
the University of Calgary is now using the Commons service model to focus on
building a larger student-centered facility which will encompass many academic
service units including the Library, Information Technologies, and various student
services, providing integrated service. We are taking our successful model one
step further and moving to a new model. This is an example of leveraging change
to create transformation.


Future Possibilities
   Academic libraries, and especially those with Information Commons are being
urged to continue to collaborate, to leverage the transformation of library services,
computer services and learning in the academy. Crockett in her review of the
Leavy Library Information Commons at USC states “perhaps one should go
further and begin to think of holistic service in information commons, meaning
service that is completely transparent and intuitive to the user.”23 I would suggest
that holistic service in the Information Commons is going to mean more changing
relationships than can be imagined. And, it is the new relationships that will
create new models and new services. In this era of competition, collaboration
seems to make perfect sense. Collaboration focused on user outcomes will bring
strength and creativity to the academy. The Information Commons provides a
perfect platform for creativity and knowledge-sharing. Collaboration that relies on

                                                                                           11
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

the knowledge, skills and relationships of the people involved are crucial to
organizational success. As Beyerlien observes:


       “Organizations that actively leverage the talent of their people through
       knowledge sharing, mutual support and co-creation outperform organizations that
       depend on talent alone… it has become a critical success factor that applies to all
       relationships.”24



  Learning, which is a collaborative activity, is a shared goal of the academy.
People learn from and with each other. The job of the academy is to determine
and support the best ways to learn and succeed. One of the emerging and best
ways is to create a collaborative organization, to create an Information Commons.

   The new ways identify the collaborative vision. The Georgia Institute of
Technology in its test bed (the Library West Commons) for an innovative learning
resource center believes that the collaboration of library, information
technologists and instructional technology will demonstrate ”a new era of cultural
integration across campus service entities.”25 Santa Clara University’s library for
the 21st century “will leverage technology and people, information content and
management tools, learning and teaching in a single facility.”26 And, a decade
after his call for collaboration Tompkins reported that :


       “In the United States there has been a happy convergence of accessible
       networked multimedia technologies…, a surge in designing and building new
       high technology libraries and centers for teaching and learning.”27


   Beatty and White in their recent environmental scan of Information Commons
in university facilities with over 100 computers, noted that the new and emerging
model of IC buildings is notable for its collaborative service delivery model, and
the ongoing trend is towards more collaboration.28 They speculate that the trend
will succeed because the holistic service model is being well received by both the
learners and the academy.

   The Collaborative Facilities project (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~collab/),
sponsored by the Coalition for Networked Information is a project designed to
collect, organize and disseminate information about model “collaborative
facilities” on college and university campuses. The project exists to assist
institutions in developing various collaborative facilities including Information
Commons. This project is further proof that collaboration is desirable and that the
Information Commons collaborative model is one of the leading indicators of the
trend.


12
                 The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

    While the barriers and borders to holistic service and collaborative learning are
being eliminated or ameliorated, it is useful to contemplate where we might be
going. Will the academic library disappear and be absorbed in learning centres?
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Will the technology overwhelm the learners
and result in impersonal, high-tech buildings or will there still be room for the
high-tech, high-touch environment? Will learning move away from a building
entirely and become a virtual interface? The exciting and adventurous activities
of the universities previously cited and many others indicate that growth of the
collaborative facility on campus will continue.



Conclusion
   Information Commons grew out of desire by academic libraries to improve the
learning environment of the student. The libraries sought out collaborations with
their technical service partners and in a large part they have created something
new – a new collaborative service model. These two collaborators acknowledge
that working together cross-culturally is not easy, but they have found that success
breeds success. They have built a new service which has proven to be a template
for change.




                                                                                  13
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities



Bibliography

American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel
  Association, and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
  “Powerful Partnerships: a Shared Responsibility for Learning: a Joint Report.”
  In Understanding the Role of Academic and Student Affairs Collaboration in
  Creating a Successful Learning Environment, ed. Adrianna Kezar, Deborah D.
  Hirsch, and Cathy Burack. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Beagle, Donald. “Conceptualizing an Information Commons.” Journal of
  Academic Librarianship 25, no. 2 (1999): 82-89.

Beatty, Susan, and Peggy White. Information Commons: Models for E-Lit and the
  Integration of learning (2004).
  Available at: http://www.elit-conf.org/elit2004/docs/sess2rma2.html

Beyerlien, Michael M., et al. Beyond Teams: Building the Collaborative
  Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2003.

Carlson, Scott. (2001) “The Deserted Library.” Chronicle of Higher Education
  48, no. 12 (2001): A35-39.

Creth, Sheila D., and Charles B. Lowry. “The Information Arcade: Playground for
  the Mind.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20, no.1 (1994): 22-24.

Crockett, Charlotte, Sarah McDaniel, and Melanie Remy. “Integrating Services
  in the Information Commons: Toward a Holistic Library and Computing
  Environment.” Library Administration & Management 16, no. 4 (2002): 181-
  186.

Duderstadt, James J. “Can Colleges and Universities Survive in the Information
  Age?” In Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New
  Competition in Higher Education, ed. Richard N. Katz, et al. San Francisco:
  Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Ferguson, Chris, Gene Spencer, and Terry Metz. “Greater Than the Sum of its
   Parts: the Integrated IT/Library Organization.” Educause Review 39, no. 3
   (May-June 2004): 38-46.

Fox, David et al. University of Saskatchewan Information Commons:
  Reconfiguring the Learning Environment, 2001.




14
                The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities


Frost, Susan H., and Theresa W. Gillespie. “Organizations, Culture, and Teams:
   Links Toward Genuine Change” In Using Teams in Higher Education;
   Cultural Foundations for Productive Change, ed. Susan H. Frost. San
   Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Georgia Institute of Technology. Library West Commons, 2002. Available at:
  www.lwc.gatech.edu

Hirshon, Arnold. Integrating Computing and Library Services: an Administrative
   Planning and Implementation Guide for Information Resources. CAUSE
   professional paper series, #18,1998.

Kershaw, Adrian, and Susan Safford. “The Impact of Technology and Student
  Choice on Postsecondary Education: Plus ca Change.” In Chaos Theory &
  Higher Education: Leadership, Planning and Policy, ed. Mark Cutright. New
  York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Kezar, Adrianna. “Documenting the Landscape: Results of a National Study on
  Academic and Student Affairs Collaborations.” In Understanding the Role of
  Academic and Student Affairs Collaboration in Creating a Successful Learning
  Environment, ed. Adrianna Kezar, Deborah D. Hirsch and Cathy Burack. San
  Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Kratz, Charles. “Transforming the Delivery of Service: Joint-Use Library and
  Information Commons.” C&RL News 64, no. 2 (2003) Available at:
  http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2003/february1/transfo
  rming.htm

Lougheed, Tim. “Libraries Gain Clout and Cachet in the Information Age.”
  University Affairs 42 (2001): 9-11, 7.

Peterson, Billie. “Tech Talk: Information Commons.” LIRT News (Dec. 2002): 9-
   11, 7.

Ritchie, Lorin, et al. Information Hub Planning Document. Available at:
   http://www.ucalgary.ca/IR/infocommons

Santa Clara University Library. SCU’s Library for the 21st Century; Fusing
  Resources for Learning, Creativity. (2004) Available at:
  www.scu.edu/newlibrary

Tompkins, Phillip. “New Structures for Teaching Libraries.” Library and
  Administration Management (Spring, 1990): 77-81.



                                                                                 15
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

________. Information Technology Planning and Community Colleges: a
  Variance in a Transitional Era. HEIRAlliance, 1992. Available at:
  www.educause.edu/ir/library/text/HEI1040.txt

________. Collaborative Learning in the United States. A Progress Report on
  Instructional Teams 1990-2000. Etudes et Recherche de l’Information;
  Colloque international, 1999. Available at:
  www.fr.ch/bcu/newmani/colloque99/actes/tompkins

University of New Mexico. Zimmerman Public Services Faculty. Information
  Commons Preliminary Report. (2000) Available at:
  www.unm.edu/~libadmin/prelimreport.htm

University of Southern Illinois. Statement of Partnership. (2002) Available at:
  www.dartmouth.edu/~collab/institutions/so_il/IT_Lib_Partner_v1.2.pdf

Washington State University Libraries. The Information Union: the WSU
  Libraries of the Future. (2002) Available at:
  www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/general/iuplan2.html




16
                  The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

                            COMMON GROUND PUBLISHING

                        PO Box 463, Altona, Victoria, 3018, Australia



                                PUBLISHING AGREEMENT



   1. COMMON GROUND WILL PUBLISH THIS PAPER OR CHAPTER

   This agreement is between the author(s) of the submitted work and Common Ground
Publishing. Common Ground will publish this work in print and electronic formats,
separately and/or in a collection of other papers/chapters. Common Ground will provide
the author with one free printed copy of the work when it is first published. The author
may purchase additional printed copies of the work at the author discount of 50% of the
recommended retail price.



   2. COPYRIGHT IS THE AUTHOR'S

    Copyright will be attributed to the author(s). Common Ground will be the exclusive
international publisher of the work in all formats. Common Ground will pay the author
50% of rights purchased for any other purpose - including translation, photocopying and
re-publication rights.



   3. THE AUTHOR WILL REFEREE THREE SIMILAR PAPERS OR CHAPTERS

    Each author agrees to review or referee at least three other works on comparable
themes and of similar length within twelve months this agreement. The author(s) may
reject a request to review a particular work, but they nevertheless agree either to
communicate this or to return a completed review or referee report within two weeks of
an email request being made by Common Ground Publishing.



   4. THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL MATERIAL

   The author(s) assure the publisher that the material contained in the paper/chapter is
not defamatory, unlawful, obscene, invasive of another person's privacy, hateful, racially
or ethnically objectionable, abusive, threatening, harmful or in contempt of court, and
undertake to indemnify Common Ground Publishing against any claims which may be
made in situations where material is considered to be any of these things, or has any of
these effects.



   5. THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT OF OTHERS


                                                                                       17
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

   The author(s) assure Common Ground Publishing that the chapter/paper is based
entirely on original material, that it does not infringe anybody else's copyright, and that
the author(s) have the right to licence copyright to Common Ground. In the case of
copyright material, such as the use of quotes or images beyond what is legally
considered 'fair use', the author(s) and/or editor(s) will undertake to arrange, and if
necessary to pay for, permissions, and retain documentation proving that these
permissions have been secured. The author(s) agree to indemnify Common Ground
against any claims as a result of breech of the copyright of others.



     6. ROYALTIES

    The publisher will pay royalties at a rate of 20% of the publisher’s sales revenues,
either direct sales revenues through the publisher’s own online bookstore, or indirect
sales revenues to other online or physical bookstores. In the case of author purchases,
the royalty payment is included in the author discount of 50%. Below a minimum amount
of $US50, royalties will be allowed to accumulate. Royalties shall be divided amongst the
author(s) on the assumption that their contributions are equal. Royalties will be paid on a
six monthly basis.



     7. THE AUTHOR(S) AGREE TO PUBLICATION

   By submitting their paper for refereeing and then resubmitting the final paper for
publication, the author(s) agree to the publication of their paper by Common Ground
Publishing. The final paper should include this contract at the end of the paper and be
sent from an email address that includes the name of the principal author (the person
who has submitted the paper in its original or revised form). In the case of multiple
authorship, the principal author guarantees Common Ground that they have provided the
other authors with a copy of the text for their checking, and that they have all agreed to
the terms of this agreement.




1
  Donald Beagle, “Conceptualizing an Information Commons,” Journal of Academic
Librarianship 25 no. 2 (1999): 82.
2
  Philip Tompkins, “New Structures for Teaching Libraries,” Library and Administration
Management (Spring, 1990): 77-81.
3
  Philip Tompkins, Information Technology Planning and Community Colleges: a
Variance in a Transitional Era, (HEIRAlliance, 1992) Available at:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/text/HEI1040.txt
4
  Ibid.
5
  Sheila Creth and Charles B. Lowry, “The Information Arcade: Playground for the
Mind,” Journal of Academic Librarianship (1994), 20(1): 22.
6
  James J. Duderstadt, “Can Colleges and Universities Survive in the Information Age?”
in Dancing with the Devil: Information Technology and the New Competition in Higher
Education, ed. Richard N. Katz and assoc. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999), 1-26.

18
                 The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

7
  Susan H. Frost and Theresa W. Gillespie, “Organizations, Culture and Teams: Links
Toward Genuine Change,” in Using Teams in Higher Education; Cultural Foundations
for Productive Change, ed. Susan H. Frost. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 11.
8
  Arnold Hirshon, Integrating Computing and Library Services: an Administrative
Planning and Implementation Guide for Information Resources. (1998) CAUSE
professional paper series, #18, viii.
9
  Adrianna Kezar, “Documenting the Landscape: Results of a National Study on
Academic and Student Affairs Collaborations, “ in Understanding the Role of Academic
and Student Affairs Collaboration in Creating a Successful Learning Environment, ed.
Adrianna Kezar, Deborah D. Hirsch and Cathy Burack. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2001).
10
   American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel Association
and the National Association for Student Personnel Administrators, “Powerful
Partnerships: a Shared Responsibility for Learning; a joint report,” in ibid., 18.
11
   David Fox et al, University of Saskatchewan Information Commons: Reconfiguring the
Learning Environment, (2001), 2.
12
   Washington State University Libraries, The Information Union: the WSU Libraries of
the Future, (2002). Available at; http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/general/iuplan2.html
13
   University of New Mexico. Zimmerman Public Services Faculty. Information
Commons Preliminary Report, (2000). Available at:
http://www.unm.edu/~libadmin/prelimreport.htm
14
   University of Southern Illinois. Statement of Partnership, (2000?). Available at:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~collab/institutions/so_il/IT_Lib_Partner_v1.2.pdf
15
   Adrianna Kezar, Deborah D. Hirsch and Cathy Burack, ed. Understanding the Role of
Academic and Student Affairs Collaboration in Creating a Successful Learning
Environment, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 2.
16
   Adrian Kershaw and Susan Safford, “The Impact of Technology and Student Choice on
Postsecondary Education: Plus ca Change,” in Mark Cutright, ed. Chaos Theory &
Higher Education; Leadership, Planning and Policy (New York: Lang, 2001), 171.
17
   Scott Carlson, “The Deserted Library,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, no. 12
(2001): A35-39.
18
   Tim Lougheed, “Libraries Gain Clout and Cachet in the Information Age,” University
Affairs, 42 (2001): 9-11, 7.
19
   Charles Kratz, “Transforming the Delivery of Service: Joint–Use Library and
Information Commons,” C&RL News, 64, no. 2 (2003) Available at:
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2003/february1/transforming.htm
20
   Chris Ferguson, Gene Spencer, Terry Metz, “Greater Than the Sum of its Parts: the
Integrated IT/Library Organization,” Educause Review, 39, no. 3
(May-June 2004): 38-46.
21
   Billie Peterson, “Tech Talk: Information Commons,” LIRT News (Dec. 2002): 10.
22
   Lorin Ritchie et al, Information Hub Planning Document (1998) Available at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/IR/infocommons
23
   Charlotte Crockett, Sarah McDaniel, Melanie Remy, “Integrating services in the
Information Commons; Toward a holistic library and computing environment,” Library
Administration and Management, 16, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 181.
24
   Michael M. Beyerlien et al, Beyond Teams; Building the collaborative organization
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2003), 16.
25
   Georgia Institute of Technology, Library West Commons (2002?) Available at:
http://wc.gatech.edu/


                                                                                   19
The Information Commons as an Agent of Change in Universities

26
  Santa Clara University Library, SCU’s Library for the 21st Century: Fusing Resources
for Learning, Creativity (2004) Available at: http://www.scu.edu/newlibrary



27
   Philip Tompkins, Collaborative Learning in the United States. A Progress Report on
Instructional Teams 1990-2000. Etudes et Recherche de l’Information; Colloque
International (1999) Available at:
http://www.fr.ch/bcu/newmani/colloque99/actes/tompkins
28
   Susan Beatty and Peggy White, Information Commons: Models for E-Lit and the
Integration of Learning (2004)
Available at: http://www.elit-conf.org/elit2004/docs/sess2rma2.html




20

								
To top