Laura Westmoreland Gariepy

James Branch Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University, 901 Park Ave, PO Box 842033, Richmond, VA 23284-2033. Email: lwestmorelan@vcu.edu

This study explores the career paths of former interns of the Environmental Protection Agency/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (EPA/NIEHS) Libraries internship program contracted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Information and Library Science (SILS). A web-based survey was sent to 244 persons who participated in the EPA/NIEHS Libraries internship program. There was a 68% response rate. Results indicated that almost all former interns pursued careers in LIS for some length of time following their internships, and that most respondents currently work in academic or special libraries. Two thirds of respondents believed that their internship experiences had a strong or very strong impact on their careers. This study contributes to a small body of existing literature exploring the relationship between graduate-level LIS internships and participants’ career paths, and will be of interest to all LIS educators.

Keywords: internships, careers, surveys, Environmental Protection Agency Library, EPA, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Library, NIEHS, LIS education

Internships, practicums, and other opportunities for hands-on experience have long been a part of LIS graduate education programs (Leonard & Pontau, 1991). These types of programs (which will be referred to as “internships” throughout this article) provide students the opportunity to gain professional experience in their areas of interest, link what they are learning in the classroom to real-world experience, and make themselves more marketable to prospective employers. However, little has been published about the relationship between graduate-level LIS internships and participants’ long-term careers. Do former participants believe their experiences in internship programs helped them find their first jobs? Do they believe those experiences affect the type(s) of LIS work they pursue in their long-term careers (if they choose to pursue work in LIS at all)? Most published literature exploring these types of issues focuses on post-graduate LIS fellowship programs (Brewer, 1997; Carle, 1995; Lanier & Henderson, 1999; Martin, 1967; Scherrer, 2010), but few studies have explored the relationship between graduate-level internships and participants’ careers and participants’ perception of that relationship.

This study explores the career paths of former interns of the Environmental Protection Agency/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (EPA/NIEHS) Libraries internship program contracted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Information and Library Science (SILS). As a result of this contract relationship, SILS students have provided certain library services to EPA/NIEHS researchers for more than three decades while gaining professional experience working with specialized scientific/government collections. As of March 2009, more than 350 SILS students had participated in the EPA/NIEHS Libraries Internship Program.

In this article, data gathered via a web-based survey will shed light on the career paths of former interns and explore their perceptions of the ways their careers were affected by the EPA/NIEHS Libraries internship program. In what types of libraries are they working? Do they believe their internship experience affected their careers? What types of day-to-day tasks do they perform in their work? The findings of this study will be useful to all LIS educators currently offering internship programs or considering them, and will contribute to a small body of existing literature exploring the relationship between graduate-level LIS internships and participants’ careers and the ways former interns perceive that relationship.

The EPA/NIEHS Internship Program

In the Fall of 1973, administrators from the Environmental Protection Agency in Research Triangle Park (EPA-RTP), a noted research park in North Carolina bounded by Durham, Raleigh, and Chapel Hill, expressed interest to SILS Dean Edward G. Holley in engaging in a contract between SILS and EPA for the provision of library services by SILS students and staff at the EPA-RTP Library (McCoy, 1973). Dean Holley saw the contract as an opportunity to provide financial support and real-world library experience to students while fulfilling a critical need for EPA researchers (Lowry, 1993). After many discussions, SILS entered a contract to provide certain library services to the EPA-RTP Library. The first interns began work in summer of 1974 (McCoy, 1974), and the contract was awarded again in July of 1975 (Holley, 1976). This was the beginning of a long series of contract awards over the years, as evidenced by SILS’s continuous provision of library services to the EPA-RTP facility from 1974 through the time of this publication. Most recently, EPA-RTP again awarded the contract to SILS in Fall of 2009 (EPA/NIEHS libraries internship, 2009).

The overall structure of the internship program has remained largely unchanged since its inception: interns are hired through an application process and are paid to work 20 hours per week, cycling through different “rotations” in the library each semester. Interns generally work for at least one academic year. Over the course of the internship’s existence, rotations have included serials, cataloging/documents processing, interlibrary loan, reference, and online/literature searching. In addition to these most consistently offered rotations, other rotations have been offered over the years and students also have the opportunity to participate in special projects.

In 1985, interns began working at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Library in addition to the EPA Library through an interagency agreement (EPA Contract is 15 years old, 1989). Three interns were assigned to the NIEHS Library each semester and worked rotations in serials, cataloging, and reference (Lowry, 1993). From 1985 until the 2003-2004 academic year, interns worked at either the EPA or NIEHS Libraries. During the 2003-2004 academic school year, the EPA-RTP Library Director at the time (also a SILS-contracted position) provided the opportunity for students to complete rotations at both Libraries over the course of their internships if they so desired (UNC School of Information and Library Science, 2004). This model is still in place today.

The internship program today comprises eight to ten paid interns, two of whom are assigned to the NIEHS Library. Rotations at the EPA-RTP Library as of March 2011 are offered in reference, cataloging, interlibrary loan, advanced reference (searching databases such as DIALOG), serials, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards document publication process. Interns may complete rotations in reference or in technical services (including cataloging and physical processing) at the NIEHS Library (“Environmental Protection Agency,” 2010). The internship is not directly tied to specific learning objectives or courses at SILS, does not require a reflective or graded component, and is generally not completed for academic credit.

Review of Literature

Internships and other forms of practical experience have been a part of LIS education, in varying degrees, as long as LIS education has existed (Roy, 2009). LIS researchers have pursued many avenues of research related to internships, practicums, and other types of field experiences, but little literature exists about the relationship between graduate-level internships and long-term career paths. However, several studies have explored the career paths of participants of post-graduate LIS fellowship or residency programs and the ways former participants perceive the effect of these types of programs on their careers (Brewer, 1997; Carle, 1995; Lanier & Henderson 1999; Martin, 1967; Scherrer, 2010). The majority of these studies found that individuals who participated in these types of post-master’s programs believed their careers were affected by their experiences as fellows/residents, and that most were pleased with their respective programs.

Martin (1967) surveyed former participants of three post-master’s residency programs approved by the Medical Library Association, and found that more than 90% of respondents obtained jobs in medical or biomedical libraries after the completion of their residencies. He concluded that the programs were successful recruitment methods for medical and biomedical libraries. Carle (1995) had similar findings in his survey of former participants of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Library Associates program, the oldest post-master’s residency program in health sciences librarianship in the United States. Surveying 121 former NLM Associates from 1957-1990, Carle found that 108 of them found jobs in health sciences libraries after the completion of their residencies.

In 1997, Brewer surveyed former residents from various post-master’s residency programs and found that 88% of respondents believed that their experiences as residents contributed to jobs they obtained after their residencies to some extent or to a great extent. Additionally, 83% of respondents indicated that they believed their career path would have been different if not for their residencies, and nearly all stated that they enjoyed their experiences as residents. Two years later, Lanier and Henderson (1999) explored several aspects of post-master’s residencies/fellowships by surveying former interns at three institutions: the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), The Library of Congress, and the NLM. Although there were differences in responses depending on which program respondents had participated in, they found that overall, 67.9% of respondents believed their fellowship/residency experience was a factor in obtaining their then-current positions, and 75.5% of respondents believed that their experience was a positive influence on their careers.

Scherrer (2010) evaluated the career impact of the UIC’s Academic Resident Librarian Program, focusing specifically on the participants who worked in the Library of the Health Sciences. Although Scherrer’s work was published after the survey for this study was administered, her findings are worth mentioning. While 15 of the 16 former residents interviewed were working in academic libraries, only four of them were working in academic health sciences libraries. This represents a notable contrast from similar studies of health sciences residency programs that found most former residents ultimately pursued careers in health sciences librarianship (Carle 1995; Martin, 1967).

Very few studies explore the ways in which careers are affected by graduate-level internship programs. In 2002, Bastian reported her findings from a survey of former students of Simmons College’s archives management program to measure success of required archives internships. She found that 68% of former interns were working in archives professionally, and that their internships affected their careers in a number of ways. Former interns indicated that the most important ways in which their internships affected their careers were helping them understand the profession and providing experience for their résumés. Bastian also found that the type of institution in which former interns completed their archives internships (academic archives, public archives, government archives, etc.) was highly correlated with the types of institutions in which they ended up working professionally.

The most similar study to the one currently undertaken was reported in a SILS master’s paper thirty years ago by an EPA Library intern at the time. Thorn (1980) conducted an evaluation of the career paths of EPA/NIEHS interns who had either completed or were currently participating in the EPA Library internship program. At that point, the internship program did not yet include the NIEHS Library.

Thorn surveyed 66 of the 75 then-current and former interns based on the availability of contact information and had a return rate of 76%. Her findings indicated that most former interns at the time worked in special libraries (42%), biomedical libraries (18%), academic libraries (18%), or public libraries (8%). Smaller percentages of former interns indicated that they worked in law libraries, other libraries, were unemployed, or that they worked in a non-library setting. When asked to provide job titles, 21% of former interns indicated that they were reference librarians and 21% were “either librarians with several areas of responsibility or held faculty status” (Thorn, 1980, p. 37). Another 13% and 11% identified themselves as information specialists or systems analysts, respectively, and another 11% indicated they worked in technical services. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents identified themselves as coordinators, supervisors, directors, or chiefs/heads, indicating that a substantial number of former interns were in management and/or leadership roles.

Findings from the Workforce Issues in Library and Information Science 1 (WILIS 1) study provide background information on the careers of North Carolina LIS graduates. WILIS 1 is a “large scale retrospective career study of graduates of all library and information science (LIS) programs in North Carolina from 1964-2007” (Marshall et al., 2009, p. 141) that provides information on the types of work NC LIS graduates are performing. In 2009, Marshall et al. reported on key findings of WILIS 1, including the types of libraries in which graduates are working. They found that of those still working in libraries, 33% worked in school libraries, 31% in academic libraries, 20% in public libraries, and 16% in special libraries. Although the scope of WILIS 1 is much broader than this study, these numbers provide a useful point of comparison.

Overall, the existing literature suggests that both post-master’s residencies and graduate-level internships have notable impacts on participants’ careers according to the perceptions of former participants. Studies indicate that former participants in these programs often end up working in institutions or types of librarianship similar to their residencies/internships. They are generally very satisfied with their experiences as residents/interns.

Methods

A survey was developed with Qualtrics Survey Software to explore several aspects of interns’ careers in LIS after the completion of their EPA/NIEHS Libraries internships, and their overall satisfaction with the internship program. The survey asked former interns to provide information regarding many aspects of their careers. However, this article reports key findings restricted to:

• Whether or not they were employed in LIS at the time of the survey’s administration.
• Their perception of the role of the EPA/NIEHS Library internship program in finding their first jobs.
• The types of libraries in which they work and have worked.
• The types of tasks they perform in their jobs.
• Whether or not they deal with or have dealt with scientific or government information in their jobs since the conclusion of their internships.
• Their perception of the internship program’s impact on their careers.

The survey employed a series of “skips” that asked respondents different sets of

questions depending on previous responses. For example, individuals no longer working in LIS were not asked to indicate the nature of their current position or information that was not transferrable to the current LIS environment. Additionally, respondents were free to skip any questions in the survey.

According to a list maintained by the EPA-RTP Library, 355 individuals had completed internships at the EPA and/or NIEHS Libraries at the time this survey was administered. Email addresses were obtained by searching the web and by gathering information available in the SILS Alumni Directory. The author also sent a request to the SILS alumni email listserv briefly describing the study and requesting email addresses of those who were eligible and willing to participate. A total of 244 valid email addresses were gathered after identifying inactive accounts by sending a test email. The survey was sent to all of the active email accounts and included information on the study’s approval by UNC’s Institutional Review Board. The survey was open for 18 days, and a reminder was sent to all valid email addresses after 10 days. Results were linked to respondents’ computers’ Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, but were otherwise anonymous. The survey had a 68% return rate (n=167). Data were analyzed in both Qualtrics and SPSS 17.0.

Results

Interns from all decades of the internship’s existence were represented in the survey results. Eighty-one (81%) percent of respondents (n=167) indicated that they are currently employed in the LIS field. An additional 15% of respondents indicated that while they do not currently work in LIS, they have done so at some point since the conclusion of their internships. Only 2% of respondents indicated that they did not work in LIS at any point after the conclusion of their internships (small percentages indicated they were unsure or did not answer the question).

Current Positions of Former Interns

Respondents who indicated that they were currently employed in LIS (n=135) were asked to describe in their own words their position and type of institution (excluding names, locations, etc.). Based on the responses, the author developed categories and calculated the percentages of former interns working in different types of libraries in order to provide a snapshot of “where they are now” (see Figure 1).

The largest numbers of former interns currently work in academic libraries (42%). For the purposes of coding this data, academic libraries were defined as those that are part of an institution of higher education, excluding health sciences libraries in higher education. Health sciences settings in academia were categorized separately due to the focus on health sciences at both the EPA and NIEHS Libraries. The author deemed this focus strong enough to differentiate between health sciences librarianship in academia and other types of academic library work. In fact, 5% of respondents indicated that they currently work in academic health sciences libraries.

The second largest group of respondents (27%) indicated that they work in special libraries. Special libraries were defined as library or information settings not associated with academic institutions, public libraries, school libraries, or vendors. Those who provided responses that were categorized as special libraries worked in a variety of settings, including non-profit research organizations, corporate libraries and information centers, law libraries, hospitals, biomedical or pharmaceutical firms, and government agencies. Almost a third of this group indicated in their answer that they work in libraries focused on science or health sciences. Smaller numbers of former interns indicated that they currently work in public libraries (10%), school libraries (6%), or for vendors (3%).

These numbers differ markedly from Thorn’s (1980) findings in her study of EPA interns’ career paths, although it is worth noting that the findings are not directly comparable since respondents’ answers were not aggregated into identical categories. Still, Thorn’s findings offer an interesting point of comparison. While the largest number of respondents in this study indicated that they work in academic libraries (42%), Thorn found that only 18% of her respondents worked in academic libraries. Instead, she found that the largest numbers of respondents in her study worked in special libraries (42%), while only 27% of respondents in this study indicated they were currently working in special libraries. What might have caused the decrease over time in the number of students pursuing careers in special libraries since the time of Thorn’s study? Without a more comprehensive study of all of the factors that could impact the career decisions of former interns, as well as the reasons they elected to participate in the internship program, it is difficult to say. Many factors could be at play here, including recruitment methods for the internship, availability of other internships at SILS, and changes in the types of jobs available in the LIS field.

Data from the WILIS 1 project (Marshall et al., 2009) regarding the types of libraries in which North Carolina LIS graduates are currently working provide another point of comparison to the data gathered in this study (see Figure 2). The scope of the WILIS 1 project was much larger than this one, exploring the career paths of graduates from North Carolina LIS programs from 1964-2007. While only 16% of WILIS 1 respondents indicated that they currently work in special libraries, 27% of former EPA/NIEHS interns indicated that they worked in a special library at the time of the survey. This data suggests EPA/NIEHS Library interns may be more likely to pursue careers in special librarianship than other LIS students. Former EPA/NIEHS were also more likely to work in academic libraries.

Tasks Performed in Current Jobs

Individuals who indicated that they were currently employed in LIS (n=135) were asked to indicate the types of tasks performed in their jobs (see Figure 3). The most commonly performed tasks were reference services (70%), collection development (64%), and instructional services (64%). Around two-thirds of respondents (61%) indicated that they have management or supervisory responsibilities in their current positions. This is an increase from Thorn’s (1980) study, in which she found that 37% of respondents had supervisory responsibilities. This increase may be due in part to the fact that former interns have had considerably more time to climb the administrative ranks since Thorn’s study.

Close to half the group indicated that they performed marketing and outreach tasks or online/literature searching services in their work, while forty-one percent (41%) of respondents indicated that they have web authoring and design duties. Less commonly performed tasks included cataloging (30%), database administration (29%), systems support (19%), and interlibrary loan services (19%). More than a quarter of respondents indicated that they perform “other” tasks in their current jobs, which they were asked to describe. Some of the more frequently indicated tasks reported by respondents who selected “Other” included acquisitions, knowledge management, archive services, digitization, and project management.

It is not surprising that former interns perform such a vast array of tasks in their current positions. The rotation system that has been part of the EPA/NIEHS Library internship program since its inception is intended to prepare students to work in various facets of librarianship, and/or work in a position that requires performance of many tasks. That, combined with the expectation that individuals’ careers change and evolve over time to include new tasks and roles, offers an explanation for the varied tasks performed by former interns—even if they were not rotations in the EPA/NIEHS internships.

It is surprising that so few respondents indicated that they perform cataloging or interlibrary loan services in their current positions, as both have been long-standing rotations in the EPA/NIEHS Library internships. Generally, the tasks reported by former interns seem to be primarily public services (reference, instruction, marketing and outreach, literature searching) as opposed to technical services (cataloging, interlibrary loan, etc.), despite the fact that the rotations offered provide a balanced experience in public and technical services. It is possible that interns begin their internship with preferences for specific rotations, but for the benefit of the EPA/NIEHS Libraries, they also end up working in rotations that may not align entirely with their ultimate career goals. Many students might have completed rotations in technical services at the EPA/NIEHS Libraries because it was part of the “package deal” of the internship—not necessarily because they hoped to pursue a career in that area. This scenario might offer some explanation as to why relatively few interns have pursued careers in technical services.

Employment in Federal or State Libraries

Twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents indicated that they have worked in a federal or state library at some point since the conclusion of their internships. Since this study only included former EPA/NIEHS Libraries interns, it is impossible to suggest whether or not this percentage is significantly different from that of students who did not participate in the internship program. This comparison could be explored in future research.

Use of Scientific and Government Information in LIS Jobs

Two types of materials frequently utilized at the EPA/NIEHS Libraries are scientific information and government information. Former interns who have worked in LIS at some point since the completion of their internships were asked to indicate how often they deal (or, in the case of those not currently working in LIS, dealt) with both of these types of information in their current or most recent jobs.

The frequency with which former interns use(d) government and scientific information is comparable. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents indicated that they use government information often or very often at work, while 38% indicate that they use scientific information often or very often. An additional 31% and 26% percent indicate that they sometimes use government information and scientific information, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the EPA/NIEHS Libraries internships play a role in equipping a significant number of interns to work with these types of information throughout their careers.

Satisfaction with Internship Experience

Ninety-two percent (92%) of respondents indicated that they were either very satisfied or satisfied with their experiences as interns. Another 5% were somewhat satisfied, and only 2% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Respondents who worked exclusively in either the EPA Library or the NIEHS Library showed very comparable degrees of satisfaction with the internship program: Ninety-two percent (92%) of respondents who worked exclusively in the EPA Library were very satisfied or satisfied with their experience, while 96% of respondents who worked exclusively in the NIEHS Library were very satisfied or satisfied with their experiences. Interestingly, 100% of respondents who worked at both libraries during their internship indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the experience—perhaps because they received a more varied experience and were therefore more marketable when seeking first jobs and throughout their careers. These numbers clearly demonstrate that both the EPA and NIEHS Libraries internships are highly regarded by former interns.

Perceptions of Internship’s Impact on Obtaining First Job and Impact on Career

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents who currently work or have previously worked in LIS believed their internship had a significant or very significant impact on obtaining their first jobs, while 19% percent believed the internship was somewhat significant in obtaining their first jobs. In terms of long-term career impact, those currently employed in LIS were more likely to indicate that the internship had a strong or very strong impact on their careers than those who formerly worked in LIS but have left the field (see Figure 4). It is plausible that individuals who no longer work in LIS may have pursued a career change or stopped working altogether, either of which might render their experiences from the EPA/NIEHS Libraries less significant to their careers.

Other interesting findings include that respondents currently working in LIS and who indicated that they have at some point worked in a government library were more likely to indicate that the internship had a strong or very strong impact on their careers than those who had not worked in government libraries (78% and 70%, respectively). Similarly, more respondents who currently work in LIS and have at some point worked in a special library indicated that the internship had a strong or very strong impact on their careers (80%) than those who had worked in academic libraries (69%), public libraries (70%), or school media centers (75%).

Discussion and Implications for Future Research

Although this study focuses on former participants of the EPA/NIEHS Libraries Internship Program, many of the findings are thought-provoking for the LIS community at large. The data give cause for LIS educators to consider the relationship between graduate-level internships, assistantships, and other types of fieldwork and participants’ long-term careers. In this study, we discovered that students who participated in the EPA/NIEHS Libraries Internship Program were more likely to work in specialized library settings than the general population of North Carolina LIS graduates from 1964-2007 (Marshall et al., 2009). However, in general LIS researchers have not systematically explored the idea of graduate-level internships as catalysts for developing professionals interested in pursuing careers in certain types of librarianship. Do internships focusing on particular aspects of librarianship create librarians who pursue that type of work? Do we want them to? If internships and other forms of practical experiences at the graduate level have an impact on the types of work librarians ultimately pursue, whether that is due to the fact that it sparks student interest in a type of librarianship or because they provide an avenue for students to gain experience in an area they’re already interested in, LIS programs have an opportunity to utilize internships and other practical experiences within the curricula to foster graduates interested in specific aspects of the LIS field.

This study yielded a number of findings that are interesting in their own right, such as how many former EPA/NIEHS Libraries interns have at some point worked in government libraries, the types of tasks they perform day-to-day, and the types of LIS settings in which they currently work. However, these findings would be more useful to the profession with additional data to which they could be compared. Similar surveys administered to former participants of other LIS student internship programs at both UNC and at other library schools would yield data that offer a more contextualized understanding of how students perceive the EPA/NIEHS Libraries Internship Program compared to other student internship programs, and whether or not former EPA/NIEHS Libraries interns’ career paths are unique. Similarly, research exploring students’ career goals upon admission to an LIS program and then again after participating in a particular internship could provide further understanding of the reasons students might choose a particular internship and/or the ways in which internships affects their career paths.

Limitations

The findings of this study are not generalizable to populations other than former interns of the EPA/NIEHS Libraries internship program. This study provides a foundation for understanding the impact of the internship program on interns’ careers. In the future, a similar study with more qualitative data would be useful in gaining a more in-depth understanding of what former interns valued most and least about their internship experiences, the reasons for choosing to participate in the internship program, and the ways in which they believe it has affected their careers in the long term.

Without more background information on the former interns’ decision-making process in applying for and accepting an internship position, it is impossible to say whether the internship program impacted their careers directly, whether their original career goals affected their decision to pursue a position as an intern, or both. Future research exploring LIS students’ career goals at the time they begin their program, reasons for pursuing a particular internship or other practical experience, and their career goals and paths after participating in an internship would provide a clearer picture of different programs’ impacts on participants’ long-term careers.

Conclusion

This study explores the career paths of former participants of a large and long-standing LIS internship program, as well as their perceptions of the way in which their experiences as interns affected their careers. The majority of the former EPA/NIEHS Libraries interns believe that their internship had a strong or very strong impact on their long-term careers. Additionally, most respondents believed that their internship experience played a significant or very significant role in obtaining their first jobs in LIS. Former interns perform a variety of tasks in their day-to-day work, and most of them work in either academic libraries or special libraries. Nearly all respondents went on to work in LIS for at least some length of time after the conclusion of their internships, 82% of respondents continue to work in the field now, and almost all indicated high levels of satisfaction with the program. Hopefully, these findings will serve as a springboard for further research in the ways LIS graduate internships affect participants’ careers and encourage further evaluation of these programs.

References

Brewer, J. (1997). Post-master’s residency programs: Enhancing the development of new professionals and minority recruitment in academic and research libraries. College and Research Libraries, 58, 528-537.

Bastian, J. A. (2002). Measuring the success of internships in an archives education program. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43(2), 164-174.

Carle, D. O. (1995). A longitudinal study of associates at the National Library of Medicine: 1957-1990. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83(3), 275-279.

EPA contract is 15 years old. (1989). News from Chapel Hill, 36, 1.

EPA/NIEHS libraries internship contract extended. (2009). Retrieved from http://sils.unc.edu/news/2009/EPAContract.

Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Libraries. (2010). Retrieved from http://sils.unc.edu/careers/EPA_NIEHS/overview.html.

Holley, E. G. (1976). Report of the dean: The School of Library Science, 1975-1976. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Lanier, D., & Henderson, C. L. (1999). Library residencies and internships as indicators of success: Evidence from three programs. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87(2), 192-199.

Leonard, B. G., & Pontau, D. Z. (1991). Sculpting future librarians through structured practicums: The role of academic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 17(1), 26-30.

Lowry, S. (1993). Information interns. Endeavors, 10(2), 12-13.

Marshall, J. G., Marshall, V. W., Morgan, J. C., Barreau, D., Moran, B. B., Solomon, P., &  Thompson, C. A. (2009). Where are they now? Results of a career survey of library and information science graduates. Library Trends, 58(2), 141-154.

Martin, J. A. (1967). What happens to medical library interns? Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55(4), 416-417.

McCoy, F. (1973). Minutes of faculty meeting: Wednesday, October 24, 1973, 3:30 p.m. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Library Science.

McCoy, F. (1974). Minutes of faculty meeting: Monday, August 26, 1974. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Library Science.

Roy, L. (2009). Preface. In L. Roy, K. Jensen & A. H. Meyers (Eds.), Service learning: linking library and education and practice (pp.vii-xii). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Scherrer, C. S. (2010). Evaluating a health sciences library residency program: What have we learned? Journal of the Medical Library Association 98(4), 300-302.

Thorn, R. K. (1980). A Description and Evaluation of the UNC EPA Library Internship Program. (M.Lib.Sci. Paper). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

UNC School of Information and Library Science: 2003-2004 annual report. (2004). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

]]> http://jelis.org/featured/the-environmental-protection-agencynational-institute-of-environmental-health-sciences-libraries-internship-program-an-analysis-of-former-interns%e2%80%99-careers-by-laura-westmoreland-gariepy/feed/ 0 http://jelis.org/table-of-contents/531-table-of-contents/ http://jelis.org/table-of-contents/531-table-of-contents/#comments Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:44:28 +0000 JuliaSkinner http://jelis.org/?p=2008 JELIS 53(1), Winter 2011, Table of Contents

I. Editors’ Notes

Supporting our Students, Improving our Scholarship
MICHELLE M. KAZMER and KATHLEEN BURNETT

II. Research Articles

Are You My Mentor? Identifying Mentors and Their Roles in LIS Doctoral Education
CASSIDY R. SUGIMOTO

The Environmental Protection Agency/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Libraries Internship Program: An Analysis of Former Interns’ Careers
LAURA WESTMORELAND GARIEPY

Multi-Modal Stories: LIS Students Explore Reading, Literacy, and Library Service Through the Lens of “The 39 Clues”
LEANNE BOWLER, REBECCA MORRIS, I-LING CHENG, REHAM AL-LSSA, BRIAN ROMINE, and LISA LEIBERLING

Fifty Years of LIS Education in Australia: Research Productivity and Visibility of LIS Educators in Higher Education Institutions
CONCEPCIÓN S. WILSON, SEBASTIAN K. BOELL, MARY ANNE KENNAN, and PATRICIA WILLARD

Phenomenological Critical Realism: A Practical Method for LIS
JOHN M. BUDD

I. Editors’ Notes

Competitiveness and Innovation: The Best of the ALISE 2011 Conference Papers
KATHLEEN BURNETT and MICHELLE M. KAZMER

II. Best Conference Papers, ALISE 2011

Are We There Yet? Results of a Gap Analysis to Measure LIS Students’ Prior Knowledge and Actual Learning of Cultural Competence Concepts
KAFI KUMASI and RENEE FRANKLIN

What is the Value of LIS Education? A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Tennessee’s Rural Librarians
BHARAT MEHRA, KIMBERLY BLACK, VANDANA SINGH, and JENNA NOLT

Faculty Responses to Library Service Innovations: A Case Study
SUSAN E. SEARING and ALISON M. GREENLEE

Hands on from a Distance: The Community-Embedded Learning Model Contextualizes Online Student Coursework
LINDA R. MOST

III. Research Article

Library and Information Science Students’ Feedback in an Online Course
NOA AHARONY

Introduction

This  is  a  year  two  report  of  a  3-­year  longitudinal  design  that  tracks  the  Journal   of   Education   for   Library   and   Information   Science   (JELIS)   subscribers/readers’   satisfaction  with  the  scholarly,  double-­blind,   peer-­reviewed  publication  of  the  Association   for   Library   and   Information   Science   Education   (ALISE).   According   to   Park   and   Capps,   last   year’s   2009   JELIS   survey   indicated   “that   relevance   and   quality   of   content   are   major   factors   contributing   to   the   dissatisfaction   with   JELIS”   (2010,   p.  7).  This  year’s  JELIS  2010  Satisfaction   Survey   addresses   these   factors   and   highlights   the   changes   noted   in   user   satisfaction   as   indicated   by   the   feedback   of   the   anonymous  participants  (n  =  76).
As  part  of  their  stated  editorial  goals  to   make   JELIS   a   communication   dissemination  hub,  Burnett  and  Kazmer  demonstrated  a  concerted  effort  over  the  past  year  to   raise  the  acceptance  standards  of  the  manuscript   publications.   They   also   initiated   the  process  of  activating  the  evaluation  of   JELIS   for   inclusion   in   ISI.   In   addition   to   keeping   the   journal   publication   on   schedule,   the   Editors   continued   to   improve   the   journal’s  presentation  format;  e.g.,  reducing  the  table  size  and  adding  the  month.
The   web   presence   role   of   the   jelis.org   community   was   expanded   to   meet   the   needs   of   a   dynamic   research   community.   Operating   within   copyright   boundaries,   the   site   provides   high-­quality   content   online   and   communication   tools   that   may   be   used  to  initiate  scholarly  debate  on  current   issues.   The   jelis.org   site   is   designed   to   address  the  information  needs  of  JELIS  readers,  reviewers,  and  future  contributors.

Research  Design

The   JELIS   Satisfaction   survey   was   designed  to  assess  the  satisfaction  of  readers   and   to   inform   the   editorial   decision   processes.  The five major categories devised for   the   2009   survey   were   carried   over   to   the  2010  administered  online  survey.  The   areas   were:   (1)   JELIS   use,   (2)   degree   of   satisfaction,  (3)  topics  on  demand,  (4)  loyalty,   and   (5)   demographic   questions.   The   questionnaire   scope   covered   the   JELIS   subscribers/readers’  satisfaction  on  the  issues  published  during  the  2009  golden  anniversary  year,  50(1–4),  and  on  the  newly   revised  JELIS  website.
There  were  minor  2010  survey  revisions  to reflect participant comments received from  the  previous  year’s  questionnaire  administration.  To  investigate  the  sharing  of   JELIS  copies  with  others,  a  Yes/No  option   was  adopted  over  the  previous  year’s  multiple-­choice  response  format.  The  instructions   for   the   question   related   to   journal   ranking  were  revised  to  improve  readability plus a grammatical error was fixed. In addition   to   these   basic   readability   changes,   questions   on   the   recently   redesigned   JELIS  website  were  added  to  capture  user   satisfaction  with  the  website,  the  purposes   of  site  visitations,  and  future  site  enhancement  recommendations  that  would  address   currently  unmet  JELIS  community  needs.
The  survey  was  announced  at  the  2010   ALISE   conference   and   on   the   jESSE   listserv.  A  recruitment  blurb  was  also  posted on   the   JELIS   website.   The   respondents   were  asked  to  indicate  their  reading  and   use   patterns   plus   their   overall   satisfaction   with  JELIS.  The  survey  was  available  online   between   January   13th   and   February   12th,  2010.

Results  and  Discussion

The   questionnaire   data   was   exported   to   an   Excel   spreadsheet   from   the   online   survey   system   and   analyzed   with   SPSS.   Open-­ended   question   responses   were   manually   coded.   In   compliance   with   the   Internal  Review  Board  to  obtain  informed   consent,   the   one   negative   consent   response  participant  data  was  removed  from   the  study  prior  to  analysis.

Demographic  Characteristics

The   demographic   questions   gathered   occupational   position,   organizational   affiliation, and geographic region information.  The  characteristics  of  respondents  to   the   2010   survey   were   similar   to   those   in   the   2009   survey.   As   shown   in   Appendix   A,  70%  of  this  year’s  respondents  reported   to   be   faculty   members.   The   faculty   classification included professors and dean/department   chairs.   The   remaining   participants were self-identified as students (17%)  or  librarians  (6%).   Most  of  the  respondents  were  from
doctorate-­granting   universities   or   master’s   college   and   universities,   67%   and   22%   respectively.   Eighty-­three   percent   of   the   re-­ spondents   lived   in   the   United   States   at   the   time  of  the  survey;  the  remaining  11%  per-­ cent  of  respondents  were  distributed  across   two   categories,   Canada   (7%)   and   Asia   and   Pacific (4%). The demographic characteristics were used to obtain readership profile information.   Similar   to   the   2009   results,   Appendix   A  illustrates  that  the  majority  of   respondents   in   the   2010   respondents’   profile were from an academic setting.

JELIS  Use

Respondents   were   asked   how   they   use   JELIS  in  terms  of  reading,  citation,  publication,  length  of  subscription,  sharing,  and  retention of the journal. Ninety-five percent  of   respondents   this   year   reported   to   have  either  read  or  looked  through  an  issue   of   JELIS.   This   was   a   substantial   increase   over  last  year’s  89%;  5%  reported  spending  more  than  an  hour  on  an  issue  upon  receipt  while  72%  spent  30  minutes  or  less.   In   addition,   68%   of   the   respondents   indicated  that  they  skim  the  titles  to  be  aware   of  the  contents  and  read  the  articles  of  interest  (see  Figure  1).
46%   of   respondents   reported   that   they had  cited  an  article  from  JELIS.  This  was   a   substantial   gain   over   the   30%   reported   in   the   previous   year.   When   asked   how   often   they   cite   an   article   in   JELIS,   there   was   little   change   over   last   year.   Twenty-­ one   percent   still   responded   ‘never,’   40%   responded  ‘less  than  once  a  year,’  24%  responded  ‘once  a  year,’  and  16%  responded   ‘more  often  than  once  a  year.’  There  was   a  slight  downward  shift  from  34%  to  30%   of  the  respondents  that  indicated  they  had   previously   published   in   JELIS.   Fifty-­one   percent  reported  that  not  sharing  a  copy  of   JELIS  with  others.  When  asked  how  long   they  keep  a  copy  of  JELIS,  this  year’s  57%   was   in   keeping   with   last   year’s   58%   that   responded ‘indefinitely.’ Appendix B contains   additional   2009–2010   comparison   results  related  to  JELIS  use.

JELIS  Satisfaction

Figure   2   shows   the   changes   of   JELIS   subscribers/readers’   satisfaction   on   six   constructs   as   well   as   overall   satisfaction.   Based  on  these  numbers,  the  respondents’   satisfaction   rates   on   all   measurements   in   2010  are  higher  than  in  2009  and  they  may   be   interpreted   as   a   positive   indication   of   JELIS  subscribers/readers  satisfaction  rate   increases.
To test the statistical significance of rate increase  between  2009  and  2010,  T-­tests   were  conducted,  and  the  results  reveal  that  there was a statistically significant increase in  overall  satisfaction  from  2009  to  2010  (t   =  –2.681,  p  <  0.05).  In  terms  of  constructs,   in  particular,  the  mean  value  of  JELIS  subscribers’   satisfaction   for   three   constructs,   including   relevance,   timeliness,   and   layout, was significantly increased. However, there was no statistically significant change  in  2009  and  2010  in  terms  of  quality   and   breadth   of   topics,   which   suggests   editors   and   board   members   need   to   continue  their  effort  to  enhance  the  quality  of   the   journal   and   to   improve   the   breadth   of   journal  topics.

JELIS  Website

The  JELIS  editors  redesigned  the  web-­ site  to  include  blog  communication  tools   to   facilitate   an   interactive   relationships   between   readers-­authors   and   readers-­ readers.   The   redesign   of   the   JELIS   website  was  announced  in  the  jESSE  listserv   on   January,   2010.   Due   to   the   short   time   period   between   the   launching   of   the   revised  jelis.org  site  and  the  survey  administration   period,   the   readers’   ability   to   access   the   website,   only   36.8   %   of   total   respondents   had   visited   the   JELIS   web-­ site.   Overall,   the   majority   of   these   respondents were satisfied with the website contents  and  design.
The   most   frequently   stated   purpose   of   those   visiting   the   JELIS   website   was   to   ‘Find  author  guidelines’  (n  =  16).  This  was   followed   by   ‘Read   full-­text   articles   of   in-­ terest’  (n  =  12),  ‘Find  reviewer  guidelines’   (n   =   11),   ‘Find/Verify   citation   information’  (n  =  11),  and  ‘Review  recent  trends   in  LIS  education  research’  (n  =  10).
The   questionnaire   included   an   open-­ ended   question   to   identify   needs   of   website  users.  Even  though  there  are  only  seven   comments,   three   of   them   were   related   to  open  access  and  full-­text  service.  As  the   two  results  indicate,  open  access  is  a  topic   of  interest  to  JELIS  readers,  and  an  objective  of  the  editors.

Conclusion

This   article   reported   on   survey   results  that reflected respondent perceptions prior to  January  2010.  Satisfaction  is  a  dynamic   process.   The   JELIS   editors,   staff,   and   the   authors   continue   to   work   toward   the   production  goal  of  a  high  quality  journal  that   meets   the   needs   of   the   ALISE   members   and  the  research  community  at  large.  Your   participation   and   feedback   will   assist   in   improving   the   readability   and   reputation   of   JELIS.   If   you   missed   the   opportunity   to   share   your   thoughts   in   2010,   we   look   forward   to   hearing   from   you   in   the   2011   JELIS  Satisfaction  survey.

Acknowledgement

The  JELIS  co-­editors  and  editorial  staff   sincerely   thank   all   of   the   respondents   of   the   JELIS   2010   Satisfaction   survey.   Special   thanks   to   Lorna   Peterson   (ALISE   President)   and   Kathleen   Combs   (Executive  Director)  for  their  support  in  publicizing  the  survey.

References

Park,   S.,   &   Capps,   J.   (2010).   2009   JELIS   Satisfaction   Survey.   Journal   of   Education   for   Library   and  Information  Science, 51(1),  4–8.

Learning About Law in Library School: A Snapshot by Jean Dryden, p. 184

Effects of Communication Medium on Class Participation: Comparing Face-to-Face and Discussion Board Communication Rates by Lorraine F. Normore and Brandy N. Blaylock, p. 198

Use of Adjunct Faculty in Delivery of Distance Education in ALA-Accredited LIS Master’s Programs in the U.S. and Canada by June Lester, p. 212

Brief Communication
Collaborations Between LIS Education and Rural Libraries in the Southern and Central Appalachia: Improving Librarian Technology Literacy and Management Training by Bharat Mehra, Kimberly Black, Vandana Singh and Jenna Nolt, p. 238

Editors’ Notes
Paying Attention to Our Important Issues by Michelle M. Kazmer and Kathleen Burnett, p. 165

Education for eScience Professionals: Job Analysis, Curriculum Guidance, and Program Considerations by Jeffrey M. Stanton, Youngseek Kim, Megan Oakleaf, R. David Lankes, Paul Gandel, Derrick Cogburn, and Elizabeth D. Liddy, p. 79

DigIn: A Hands-on Approach to a Digital Curation Curriculum for Professional Development by Bruce Fulton, Peter Botticelli, and Jana Bradley, p. 95

Developing and Implementing a Master of Archival Studies Program: A Collaborative Effort of a State University, a State Archives, and the National Archives and Records Administration by Cherie Long, P. 110

Review Article
Social Interaction and the Role of Empathy in Information and Knowledge Management: A Literature Review by Faye Miller and Jake Wallis, p. 122

Brief Communications
Introducing Elevator Speeches Into the Curriculum by Andrew M. Cox and Lucy Marris, p. 133

Developing and Organizing a Community Engagement Project That Provides Technology Literacy Training to Persons with Intellectual Disabilities by Dan Albertson, Maryann S. Whitaker and R. Alexander Perry, p. 142

Research Article
A Service-Learning Framework to Support an MLIS Core Curriculum by Dan Albertson and Maryann S. Whitaker

Editors’ Notes
Digital Library and Digital Curation Education, Part Two by Jeffrey Pomerantz, p. 77

Also Included in This Issue: Growing the LIS Curriculum by Michelle M. Kazmer and Kathleen Burnett, p. 78

Museum Informatics Across the Curriculum: Ten Years of Preparing LIS Students for Careers Transcending Libraries, Archives, and Museums by Paul Marty and Michael B. Twidale, p. 9

Digital Curation for Digital Natives by Elizabeth Yakel, Paul Conway, Margaret Hedstrom, and David Wallace, p. 23

Research Articles
LIS Learning Culture: Identifying Disaffected Students by Elizabeth H. Dow, p. 32

A Measurement Model of Students’ Behavioral Intentions to Use Second Life Virtual Environments by Yunfei Du, p. 41

Comparative Evaluation of the Level of Competence Expectations of LIS Educators and Practitioners in Database Management by Chukwuemeka Dean Nwakanma, p. 54

Editors’ Notes
Digital Library and Digital Curation Education, Part One by Jeffrey Pomerantz, p. 1

Also Included in This Issue by Michelle M. Kazmer and Kathleen Burnett, p. 2

Satisfaction of JELIS Subscribers and Users: Comparative Analysis by Sung Jae Park and Janet L. Capps, p. 3

LIS Program Expectations of Incoming Students’ Technology Knowledge and Skills by Bill Kules and Jennifer McDaniel, p. 222

Inviting the World Into the Online Classroom: Teaching a Gaming in Libraries Course via YouTube by Scott Nicholson, p. 233

Building a Virtual Archives and Preservation Curriculum Laboratory at Simmons College: A Case Study in Collaborative Construction by Jeannette Bastian, Ross Harvey, Martha Mahard and Terry Plum, p. 241

Research Articles
The Effect of Service Learning on LIS Students’ Understanding of Diversity Issues Related to Equity of Access by Patricia Montiel Overall, p. 251

KM Education at LIS Schools: An Analysis of KM Master’s Programs by Md. Roknuzzaman and Katsuhiro Umemoto, p. 267

Editors’ Notes
Creating a Culture of Collaboration: Best Conference Papers (2010) by Michelle M. Kazmer and Kathleen Burnett, p. 209

Keywords: service-learning, equity of access, latinos, LIS curriculum, diversity, cultural competence, qualitative analysis

Two challenges facing 21st century librarians are rapid growth in information technology and the growing population of diverse students (U. S. Census Bureau, 2006), many of whom lack access to information and technology (Fairlie, 2005; Fairlie, London, Pastor, Rosner, 2006). Most LIS students are aware of disparities in society through classroom-based coursework on topics such as the digital divide, limited access to technology, and inadequate availability of linguistically and culturally relevant content (American Library Association, 2004). However, the reality of these social inequities is often beyond LIS students’ experiences, even though the likelihood is great that they will need to understand issues involving access for diverse populations during their professional career (Josey & Abdullahi, 2002).

The challenge is particularly significant for librarians who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the populations they    serve    (Lynch, 1998).    For    example, the majority of school librarians are older, monolingual, and do not generally come from the same ethnic background as their students (American Library Association, 2007). Efforts to prepare LIS students for    challenges of  today’ s society have been undertaken by LIS schools through incorporating courses on diverse populations into the general curriculum. However, the complexity of issues raised in these courses requires more than a theoretical understanding that comes from classroom instruction. Firsthand experience with diverse populations is often needed, particularly when those populations are from linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds that are different from that of the students.

Background

Service-Learning

Service-learning, a pedagogy which integrates professional learning experiences and academic curriculum (Billig, 2002; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Furco & Billig, 2002; Kraft, 1996; Pritchard, 2002), has been used to improve learners’ understanding of course content through service to communities. Real-life experiences become a learning and teaching tool to help students develop a deeper understanding of information (Rhoads, 1998). Students learn to work with rather than for communities (Weah, Simmons, & Hall, 2000) to develop interpersonal skills and social responsibility (Eyler, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999), two essential attributes required of LIS professionals to adequately provide service to communities (American Library Association, 1999).

Service-learning was introduced as a course requirement into an LIS graduate course taught by the author to narrow the gap between theory and practice (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). The course, “Equity of Access for Diverse Populations,” examines the debate on the digital divide and other issues involving access to information and technology, such as availability of culturally diverse content for diverse populations including Latinos whose access is often limited. By providing students with greater awareness of sociocultural issues related to the course, a deeper under- standing of issues was anticipated (Valerius &   Hamilton, 2001). The requirement of service within a diverse community was seen as a way to provide LIS students firsthand knowledge and experience with populations different from themselves. Such experiences are seen as a way to help students develop cultural competence and respect for cultural differences (Montiel-Overall, 2009).

Equity of Access

Equity of access refers to equality in opportunities for diverse groups to access in- formation including access to library collections, library resources, and instruction. An aspect of discussions about equity of access involves the digital divide, which refers primarily to access to technology. Lack of access to resources, information and computer technology has been found to be high among minority and underserved populations (e.g., Native Americans, African Americans, Latinos, poor, elderly, and disabled), and is highest among growing populations of Latinos (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006). The increase in this population has resulted in an effort by LIS schools to prepare students to better understand Latinos and their information needs.

Two required components of the equity of access course are a written cultural heritage autobiography (CHA) and a required fieldtrip. The CHA is submitted electronically before the first class session, and provides an opportunity for students to discuss their cultural backgrounds. Rosaldo’ s (1989) definition of culture as daily activities shared by individuals and groups is used in conjunction with assigned course readings related to culture.

The second requirement is a fieldtrip at the beginning of the semester to a state-of-the-art elementary school library. The fieldtrip library is a two-story facility with 40,000 books, 25 computers, an electronic blackboard and document camera, and active participation of parents as library volunteers. The fieldtrip library is located in a geographic and socioeconomic area that differs from the service-learning communities.

Theoretical Framework for Experiential Learning

Service-learning is grounded in experiential learning and works of John Dewey (1938), David Kolb (1984) and others (e.g., Bruner, 1966), which provide a framework for incorporating experiential opportunities into instruction for LIS students. Kolb (1984) defines learning as a “process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experiences” (p. 38). Applying these theories to learning provides a lens to examine learning as “an intimate and necessary relation between the process of actual experience and education” (Dewey, 1938, p. 20), and “a continuous process grounded in experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 27). Experiential learning also provides individuals with opportunities to contribute to society (Bruner, 1966, p. 167) and to build social capital within community groups and organizations. These multiple theoretical frameworks provide a broad background for studying the effect of service-learning with Latino and Spanish-speaking populations on library and information science (LIS) graduate students.

Problem Statement and Purpose

Equity of access is a major concern to LIS professionals inasmuch as populations of library users are increasingly those who are from underserved and underrepresented populations. Under- standing issues related to equity of access is critical for those graduating from LIS programs. This study examines graduate students’ understanding of equity of access issues by connecting content and service-learning to experiences in schools and public libraries serving large populations of Latinos. The research questions addressed include: (1) Does service-learning contribute to a better understanding of course related issues? (2) To what extent does service-learning contribute to depth of understanding of issues related to course content? (3) To what extent do service-learning experiences contribute to increased understanding of equity of access issues and cultural understanding? and (4) To what extent are social capital and civic involvement developed through service to community?

Procedures

Student Participants

Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, seven students who had enrolled in a 15 week course at a large university in a southwest metropolitan area consented to participate in the study in the fall of 2007. Students were at various stages in their graduate program in LIS and the course was one of several courses available to students to fulfill a diversity requirement for graduation. A total of four female and three male students participated in the study. One male student was a native Spanish speaker from South America. The remaining students spoke English only and had no previous experience working in libraries or with Latinos.

Procedure

Students agreed to complete 30 hours of service-learning with librarians at elementary schools or public libraries serving large populations of Latinos. Seven sites were selected by the instructor, two public libraries and five K–8 school libraries. Libraries were selected because the populations served were predominantly Latino. Schools selected had approximately 90% of children on free or reduced lunch.

Data Sources and Collection

LIS students met once a week during the semester for a two and a half hour face-to-face class where they participated in discussions of course readings and group activities. Students also engaged in online discussions and kept logs and fieldnotes of their service-learning activities. These were posted to a private space on an electronic course management tool, Desire to Learn (D2L). Students also submitted self-reflections and took pre- and postsurveys on service-learning. Questions on a 44-item service-learning survey were adapted from questionnaires developed by Simons and Cleary (2005) and Cram (1998). At the end of the semester, six students were interviewed. Various qualitative data were used to achieve triangulation. See Appendix A for sample pre-survey questions.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data for this study were grouped into four sets of items for analysis: (1) fieldnotes, (2) interviews, (3) self-reflections, and (4) pre- and postsurveys on service-learning. This article reports on data derived from these four sets. Analysis proceeded in the manner described by Miles and Huberman (1994). Coding of data was carried out by the researcher and two research assistants who identified broad a priori categories based on the research questions. Coders independently coded a student self-reflection based on categories to determine interrater reliability. A comparison of coding yielded high results. Each set of items was then coded independently; however, discussion between coders was ongoing. Preliminary categories identified included culture (CUL), equity of access (EQ), connection between SL and course content (CON), and change over time (COT), social capital (SC) and civic engagement (CE).

Member check occurred at weekly class meetings during discussions regarding the service-learning experiences and course readings. At that time issues and questions that appeared on online logs and fieldnotes were clarified. Small group discussions of course content also took place weekly with a focus on ongoing findings and conclusions involving assigned readings and service-learning experiences. Throughout this process, coders discussed stability of categories across data as findings emerged. Several categories were divided further into sub-categories and additional categories were added. This procedure was equivalent to “surfacing” and “filling-in” discussed in Lincoln and Guba (1985). Several iterations of coding occurred on each set of data to identify information that clustered together into categories. Recoding continued and tables and summaries were made for further analysis. When coders thought categories had reached saturation and no new categories could be identified, the four data sets were compared. Themes emerged from the final list of categories, from which further interpretation of data could be made. Results are reported in following section.

As with all studies, there are limitations to this study that must be considered in interpreting results. A limitation of this study was the length of time students were involved in service learning, which was limited by the duration of the course.

Results

From the extensive analysis discussed above, recurring themes emerged to address research questions regarding students’ understanding of course content (equity of access for diverse populations) and knowledge of the effect of Latino language and culture on equity of access, and the development of civic responsibility and social capital. Table 1 illustrates overarching themes and categories, including: technology and computers, economic disparities, language and literacy, culture, and social benefits. Themes are identified on the left side of the table. Categories appear in the center. Summary statements from multiple data sets appear on the right side.

Table 1: Themes and Categories Related to Equity of Access Based on Qualitative Data Analysis.

Technology

LIS students noted similar issues involving computers and technology at school and public libraries. These included insufficient computers, insufficient time on computers, inadequate computer literacy, and lack of maintenance of computers. For example, an LIS student assigned to a public library serving a predominantly Latino community noted that a request to repair computers submitted three weeks before he began his service-learning had still not been acted upon by the end of his service-learning several months later. “I understandably got a lot of [patrons’ ] questions (four the first hour) about when the computers would be up and running again, and if the library maintenance had been contacted.”

Another LIS student at a large midtown public library explained that although only 5% of the population in the neighborhood served by the library owned their own computers, the library had only eight computers for public use. These were in constant demand and required time limitations be placed on the computers. High demand resulted in many computers being available for only 15 minute periods, and a few computers being available for 45 minutes. An additional restriction on 45-minute computers was that they could only be used by a patron once a day. Patrons were often seen waiting up to one hour to use a computer. The student reported “. . . the neighborhood heavily uses the technology and could easily fill ten more computers in the evenings if they were available.”

At school libraries, systems were old and outdated, and when newer technology was made available, there were in- sufficient new applications to accommodate all students. Consequently, students simultaneously worked on old and new systems resulting in considerable wasted time for those using newer systems waiting for students to complete their work on older operating systems.

Another common situation was lack of basic and computer literacy skills demonstrated by Latinos in public and school libraries. Latino children at schools lacked basic keyboarding ability and seemed unfamiliar with “basic site for- mat.” For example, students were uncertain which box to put search information in (i.e., box for URL or search box). Catalog searches required a high level of spelling ability. A student looking for books on skateboards would be unsuccessful if the word were misspelled or entered incorrectly (e.g., skatebord). Consequently, the librarian spent much of her time spelling search terms for students.

Classes were offered at the public branch but were “rudimentary,” which surprised the LIS student who wondered if “illiteracy [made] using computer work difficult.” He noted that a library user took almost 20 minutes to write a sentence on a computer.

At schools, computer use was highly variable. During lunchtime, large numbers of students used computers to play games. At other times, computers were not used at all, suggesting the need for improved scheduling. Another reason computers were not used was that students were not allowed to use computers unless a teacher or librarian was present. At one site, computers were vacant much of the time for this reason.

Another commonly observed phenomenon at school libraries was inadequate space for computer use. School libraries, which were generally described as large open spaces, served multiple purposes including serving as a computer lab. However, libraries often served as multipurpose rooms. When libraries were used for other purposes such as staff meetings or testing (e.g., DIEBLES or speech therapy testing), computers could not be used. Libraries were also closed when they substituted as classrooms. An LIS student noted that a school library was closed for several months when a classroom air conditioning unit was being repaired and when a classroom was being painted. During that time, students had no access to computers or to the library. An LIS student noted differences between the library at her service-learning site and the fieldtrip school library, which had several rooms for different uses. It “had a room for just picture books and a room for all the other books, and a room upstairs where the older kids can feel separate. There wasn’t that kind of separation of space at [the service-learning school].”

Finally, adequate technical support was noted by LIS students as a challenge at both public and school libraries. While public libraries offered classes to patrons, lack of computer literacy of library users was daunting to volunteers who taught computer classes. At elementary schools, while librarians demonstrated a high level of technical ability, both students and teachers lacked the ability to use innovative technology. As an example, a teacher used an electronic board as a screen for an overhead projector (“She was projecting onto a SMART board ironically to use as the projector screen.”).

Economic Disparity

A second theme in Table 1 is economics, which was highlighted by disparities that emerged from the data. Students observed daily examples where equity of access was limited by the economic situation of library users. For example, LIS students noted that most students or patrons at their libraries did not have home computers although literature discussed in class indicated the digital divide had been bridged (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002, 2004). Also noted was that patrons at public libraries were unable to pay even small fines, and replacement costs of $1.50 for lost library cards were also difficult for patrons. At a school, a child printed a homework assignment in the library because her family could not afford the cost of ink for a printer.

Another aspect of economic disparity identified was transiency of students. An LIS student noted that up to 20 students who were in one school at the beginning of the year couldn’t be found in that school two months later. LIS students observed that many students traveled back and forth from the United States to Mexico. Also, some students moved frequently. Others lived out of their cars.

The economic situation of Latino families affected the amount of time parents were able to volunteer in classrooms. At some schools, unless parents were in paid positions as cafeteria helpers or crossing guards, they rarely participated at school. A student commented “. . . in an inner city environment, the parents are busy with providing for their family, . . . they don’t have the time to invest into supporting the school as opposed to [the fieldtrip school] where [there were] 27 to 29 volunteers, almost all of them are parents . . .”

The result of economic disparities was noted by an LIS student who stated,

“Those without access are prevented from participating in social and political activities and events, such as finding voter information, witnessing debates, finding the location of their voting place, or being able to communicate with government members on a regular or daily basis.”

Cultural Awareness

A third theme identified in Table 1 is cultural awareness. This theme emerged from the data in statements by LIS students about cultural differences between themselves and Latinos. Cultural differences included practices LIS students identified as different from what they did (e.g., how Latino families used the library, attire of Latinos who used the library, and language and literacy needs of Latinos). Examples of cultural differences are discussed below. To preface the discussion, the term culture is defined.

Culture was defined as the daily activities that were evident in the lives of groups or organizations. Throughout the course, students were asked to explain what they thought culture meant and to provide examples of cultural differences. Through discussions in class and assigned readings, students who had initially equated culture with ethnicity began to separate these terms. Ethnicity was defined as the historical roots of groups of people from different geographic areas.

Examples of cultural differences were noted by LIS students in their fieldnotes. An entry noted that whole families came into the library together even though only one individual in the family used resources in the library. Several LIS students noted that families who had recently arrived from Mexico were not familiar with school or public libraries. They were not accustomed to checking out books from the library, and thought they needed to pay to check out books. Other cultural differences were noted. For example, an LIS student noted that “all [Latina] girls had ears pierced,” even baby girls, which she described as different from her own family’s practice. Another LIS student noted lack of direct eye contact, which caused some concern to the LIS student who stated, “The boy just wouldn’t speak up or look me in the eye, instead mumbling his request. I’m always disappointed when a patron walks away from a reference interview with such a downcast look . . .” Possible reasons for downcast eyes, other than misunderstanding, were discussed in class.

Three closely connected and overlap- ping aspects of the theme of Cultural Awareness, which were   prominent in the data, were language proficiency and literacy, and availability of Spanish language collections.

Language proficiency and literacy were identified as factors affecting access to information at school and public libraries. Lack of English language proficiency was noted as a factor affecting Latinos’ basic literacy in English including the ability to spell, read, and write. An LIS student noted that “the language divide was somewhat responsible for the digital divide.” Lack of English proficiency in adult Latinos was evident at school and public libraries, where adult Latinos who did not speak English used their children to translate written material for them. Children were also used as interpreters of conversations with English speaking librarians who did not speak Spanish. When public librarians were not able to communicate with Latino clients, their information requests could not be met and they were unable to access materials or information needed.

At school libraries, LIS students found similar literacy problems with students. For example, second graders had problems with alphabetical order, and few children were reading over grade level. An LIS student commented that perhaps Latino children who did not speak enough English to understand what was being taught “should be in a bilingual classroom.”

LIS students also commented on the effect of Spanish language use policies on access to information by parents at schools. For example, one elementary school used both English and Spanish during awards assemblies where parents were present. At another school a teacher translated for parents and instructions were provided in Spanish for parents. However, Spanish could not be used for instruction of Spanish speaking students. The misperception by some teachers and librarians at these schools was that using Spanish would delay children’ s acquisition of English.

At one school library students would not speak Spanish. “A student “…just wouldn’ t speak [Spanish] at   school because he thought he wasn’t supposed to because of the laws.” At the same time, other LIS students observed “Children spoke Spanish to each other sometimes and it seemed to make them more comfortable.” Children also seemed to feel more comfortable speaking Spanish with the Latino LIS student. “Being Latino . . . speaks to . . . the importance of having people with similar background [as the students] . . . especially within elementary schools and education.”

An LIS student noted that she had never worked with children who switched from one language to another. She commented, “Today, two girls playing a game would switch to Spanish for some words/phrases/sentences. I couldn’ t  discern a pattern    (they weren’ t  consistent in which words were spoken in which language), but they switched smoothly between English and Spanish without hesitation.”  The LIS  student’ s comment sparked a class discussion and the instructor used the opportunity to introduce research on first and second language acquisition and the phenomenon described by the student, which is called code-switching. Code-switching is a term used in linguistics to describe switching from one language to another language within the same sentence or during a conversation. It is a natural linguistic occurrence in areas where two or more languages are spoken, and requires a high level of linguistic competence in both languages contrary to the generally negative perception of code-switching held by many individuals. Some students admitted that they too had misconceptions about using Spanish and English together and had not considered code-switching an asset but a deficit in a person’ s    ability   to speak either language well.

At a public library, an LIS student who did not speak Spanish explained that he had gained a better understanding about what it felt like not to understand what others were talking about. He explained that he realized that “language barriers have a limiting effect on working with others [and] functioning productively.”

Spanish language library collections also emerged as a category, which included Spanish language books and other resources (e.g., newspapers) available to Latinos in school and public libraries. LIS students at public libraries noted adequate Spanish language materials in public libraries including books, magazines and newspapers. At one public library, older Latino men regularly used the public library to read newspapers. However, even though the public library had a large collection of Spanish language books, an LIS student wondered if some patrons could read at all. He said that for the first time in his life he dealt with semi-literate adults.

Access to library collections at schools was more complicated for Latino students. An LIS student commented that there were only three or four shelves of Spanish or bilingual books, despite a large Latino population. At another site with a large population of Spanish speaking students, only five percent of the collection was in Spanish. Also, there were only six chapter books in Spanish and these were targeted at girls.

Some school libraries had separate Spanish and English collections depending on the philosophy of the librarian or school. For example, at some schools, Spanish children’ s books were integrated into regular school library collections be- cause the librarian wanted Spanish language books to be more accessible, while at other schools Spanish language books were in a separate section. During a class discussion, an LIS student noted that when Spanish collections were separated from the regular collection, some children were embarrassed to check out At a public library, an LIS student who did not speak Spanish explained that he had gained a better understanding about what it felt like not to understand what others were talking about. He explained that he realized that “language barriers have a limiting effect on working with others [and] functioning productively.” Spanish language library collections also emerged as a category, which included Spanish language books and other resources (e.g., newspapers) available to Latinos in school and public libraries. LIS students at public libraries noted adequate Spanish language materials in public libraries including books, magazines and newspapers. At one public library, older Latino men regularly used the public library to read newspapers. However, even though the public library had a large collection of Spanish language books, an LIS student wondered if some patrons could read at all. He said that for the first time in his life he dealt with semi-literate adults.

Observations such as these were discussed in class, and misconceptions about language use in developing literacy were clarified during class discussions and course readings, which provided further information about language issues. An LIS student commented she thought that having Spanish language collections would be detrimental to developing English, but that “a real light bulb” had gone off during the discussion when she realized that “reading was reading in any language.”

Other issues discussed in this category included a wide range of issues that had presented themselves to LIS students during their service-learning. In one in- stance a parent would not allow her child to check out books in Spanish because she wanted her children to learn English. In another library, an LIS student noted that a first grade student checking out a book from the library  didn’ t know whether the book was in English or Spanish. Another LIS student commented that she often asked students to read the title of a book before checking it out and found that there were some students who couldn’ t speak English but   could read English. These situations were discussed in class and addressed in course readings.

Social Awareness, Civic Engagement and Social Capital

Civic involvement and social capital, which are considered essential elements of service-learning (Toole, 2002), emerged as themes and were labeled social awareness. LIS students felt they were helping to make a difference in the lives of the individuals they worked with in libraries whether in filling out job applications, or introducing children to literature. LIS students noted that they “developed empathy,” and that working with Latinos helped them develop a better understanding of their needs. Also, students noted that they became more sympathetic to those without access. Only one student stated that she “could see a lot of the problems . . . [but was] not particularly self motivated to go out and fix any of them.”

LIS students noted the need for librarians to be civic minded and contribute to underserved communities. These comments reflected an understanding of social capital discussed by Putnam (1995, 1996, 2000). Specific examples of students’ understanding of social capital included statements about providing clients with networking opportunities, building trust among community members and library patrons, and cooperating with individuals served (e.g., Latino children and adults).

Discussion

The service-learning experience appeared to provide LIS students with experiences that helped transform course content from theory to reality. Findings from pre- and post-surveys as well as other qualitative data provided evidence of changes in LIS students’ understanding of equity of access, and in students’ perceptions about diversity issues related to equity of access issues from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. Students indicated that the service-learning experience had helped them develop a deeper understanding of the type of access to information and technology Latinos had. LIS students also demonstrated a broader understanding of reasons for limited access (economic, language, lack of experience) and future needs of Latinos (having enough computers, time on computers, Spanish resources).

Students indicated they would “definitely recommend service-learning to other classmates” and that service-learning had been an ideal environment in which to experience first-hand what it will be like to be a librarian.” A student stated, “. . . I learned so much that I do not think I could have just ‘read’ about it.”

Service-learning was also valuable in providing first-hand knowledge of how disadvantaged Latinos were. A student commented,

“They needed library access to computers. The neighborhood was a bit scary in terms of crime and vandalism. The patrons were in lower income brackets. Lots of families who came together. Library used as safe place for children/teens after school. All ages used library.”

LIS students also gained experience with culturally different situations from service-learning as well as the fieldtrip. A student stated, “I have observed how people in other cultures see and experience things differently. I have more [of a] perspective about other perspectives.” Another student stated, “I had a “culture shock” visiting [the fieldtrip library]— that place was a palace in comparison with tons of technology, bright, well painted, and lots of books!”

Table 2 provides additional key experiences from service-learning during the course.

Table 2: Summary of Key Service-Learning Experiences.

Value Added

Finally, data indicate that service-learning indeed helped students gain an understanding of course content, which supports the growing body of literature on the benefit of service-learning (Billig, 2002; Billig & Eyler, 2003; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001; Welch & Billig, 2004). As a student poignantly noted,

[We learned] what equity of access was. It’s not just a yes or no. It is the quality of access, the kind of access, how long you have it, how often you have it, where you have it, all those kinds of issues really play into what kind of access to information . . . technology that you have.

Students clearly became more aware of the community and all but one thought they had contributed to social capital of library and community. A student explained that she “thought it was helpful to talk about the inequalities in libraries— but see it played out in the two libraries [the fieldtrip library and my library] was priceless.” The fieldtrip clearly was an important part of the learning process that provided students with an example of equity of access from which they could compare their service-learning experience. A student summarized the experience by stating that he realized “there [was] a direct relationship between educational achievement and computer ownership . . .” and that it was a major factor in the digital divide. But other factors such as having a well-equipped library with WiFi, adequate space, enough functioning and current computers, adequate help at the desk, regular open library hours (not closed because of staff meetings, testing, special instruction, the library is serving as a backup classrooms) were essential to equal access to information.”

The service-learning experience appeared to support the notion of “value added” as introduced by Simons and Cleary (2005). Figure 1 illustrates two paths for teaching course content: a traditional path and a service-learning path.

The “value added” for the course is captured in a student’ s comment:

“[I]t gave a real-world example of how low funding affects disadvantaged populations” and “[o]bservation at the school reinforced what I was learning in class. I saw real life examples of the issues we were discussing as part of the course.”

Figure 1. Adapted from Simons and Cleary (2005) “Student and Community Perceptions of the ‘Value Added’ for Service-learning.” The diagram illustrates two possibilities related to student understanding of course content represented by arrows connected to the box on the far left. These arrows connect course content to the shaded area, which represents the learning en- vironment. The lower arrow illustrates course content without service-learning. The upper ar- row illustrates course content with the addition of service-learning, shown by the large box in the learning environment. The arrows on the right side of the box illustrate the benefits derived from service-learning. These include academic understanding (shown in the lower right hand circle), civic engagement and social capital, which come from working within communities (shown in the middle right hand circle), and increased knowledge of Latinos and greater aware- ness of the complexities of equity of access issues for Latinos (shown in the upper right hand circle). The added value that comes from the addition of service-learning to course content is the increase in student learning, illustrated by the three circles on the right.

Conclusions

This study adds to the body of knowledge about the effectiveness of service-learning to improve instruction for students (Bringle & Hatcher, 2005), about “facilitating cultural and racial understanding” (Eyler et al. 2001, para. 3), and about improving the depth of LIS students’ understanding of course content and its issues related to equity of access for Latino populations. The study also contributes to the growing body of information about service-learning in LIS studies (Roy, Jensen & Meyers, 2009).

Finally, this study supports findings of others that when service-learning is established as a vital and integral component of students’ education, students’ understanding of content is enhanced. This study provides evidence that service-learning does contribute to a better understanding of course related issues and leads students to a deeper level of examination of course readings. It is clear that students gained increased understanding of equity and cultural issues, which they will inevitably have to deal with as future library and information science professionals. Although not all students indicated that they would become more involved in civic endeavors in their community, an awareness of community issues among students was apparent.

For the LIS field, service-learning provides a bold new direction for instruction, which may better prepare students for their careers in librarianship by providing real-life experiences in settings with diverse populations where the themes identified in this study are the norm. Service-learning appears to be a strategy with tremendous potential for preparing future LIS professionals and should be considered as an essential component of the LIS curriculum.

Appendix A

Sample Questions for Presurvey:

Q1 What is service-learning?
Q2 What kinds of activities do you anticipate doing?
Q4 How do you think service-learning will help those you are going to work with?
Q5 How might service-learning help you understand or apply course content to “real life” experiences?
Q6 What experience do you have working with Latinos?

Sample Questions for Postsurvey:

Q1 Tell me about your service-learning experience?
Q7 What did you like least about your service-learning assignment?
Q15 Describe some of the needs you identified in the population where you did your service-learning.
Q16 Describe some of the resources you identified in the population where you did your service- learning.
Q23 Were there any changes in you as a service learner? If so, describe.
Q26 How can we improve the service-learning assignment?
Q28 Did service-learning give you a better understanding of the professional role of librarians? Explain.
Q29 Have your attitudes and perspectives toward diversity changed? If so, describe.
Q30 Do you feel more competent in relating to people with culturally different backgrounds, especially working with Latino students? Explain.
Q34 Has service-learning helped shape your perceptions of yourself and the community? If so, explain.
Q36 Do you feel more comfortable and competent in working with a population different from your own? Explain.
Q38 Explain if and how service-learning helped you understand course content.
Q39 Would you recommend your service-learning experience to any of your friends or classmates? Explain.
Q43 Describe what (if anything) you gained from participating in service-learning.
Q44 Do you feel more connected to the community compared to the beginning of the semester? If so, explain.

References

American Library Association. (1999). Libraries: An American value. Retrieved April from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ statementspols/americanvalue/librariesamerican. cfm

American Library Association. (2004). Library technical reports. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section= archive&template=/contentmanagement/ contentdisplay.cfm&ContentID=58395

American Library Association. (2007). Diversity counts. Office of Research & Statistics and Office of Diversity. Retrieved from http:// www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/diversity/ diversitycounts/diversitycounts_rev0.pdf

Billig, S. (2002). Support for K–12 service-learning practice: A brief review of the research. Educational Horizons, 80(4), 184–189.

Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (Eds.). (2003). Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (2005). Service-learning as scholarship: Why theory-based research is critical to service-learning. Acta Academica Supplementum 3, 24–44.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

Cram, S. B. (1998). The impact of service-learning on moral development and self-esteem on community college ethics students. Dissertation University of Iowa. ED, 460-701.

Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’ s the Learning in Service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J. S. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of service-learning on student learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service- learning, Special Issue, Research, 11–17.

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At A Glance: What We Know about The Effects of Service-learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993-2000: Third Edition. Retrieved from http://servicelearning.org/filemanager/ download/4192_AtAGlance.pdf

Fairlie, R. W. (2005). Are we really a nation online? Ethnic and racial disparities in access to technology and their consequences. A report for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. Retrieved from http://www.freepress.net/docs/lccrdigitaldivide. pdf

Fairlie, R., London, R., Pastor, M., & Rosner, R. (2006). Crossing the divide: Immigrant youth and digital disparity in California. Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community. Retrieved from http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/digital.pdf

Furco, A. & Billig, S. H. (Eds.) (2020). Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Josey, J. E., & Abdullahi, I. (2002). Why diversity in American libraries. Library Management, 23(1/2), 10–16.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kraft, R. J. (1996). An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 131–159.

Lincoln,Y.S.,& Guba, E.G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lynch, M. J. (1998). Racial and ethnic diversity among librarians: A status report. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.pla.org/ala/research/ librarystaffstats/diversity/racialethnic.cfm

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Montiel Overall, P. (2009). Cultural competence: A conceptual framework for library and information science professionals. Library Quarterly, 79(2), 175–204.

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (2001–2004). Retrieved from http://www.servicelearning.org/

Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). From 200 million to 300 million: The numbers behind population growth. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/25.pdf

Pritchard, I. A. (2002). Community service and service-learning in America: The state of the art. In Andrew Furco & Shelley H. Billig (Eds.), Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy, pp. 3–21. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

Putnam, R. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, 24(Winder). Retrieved from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/detoc/assoc/ strange.html

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling along: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rhoads, R. A. (1998). In the service of citizenship: A study of student involvement in community service. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 277–298.

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: A remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Roy, L., Jensen, K., Hershey Meyers, A. (2009). Service-learning: Linking library education and practice. Chicago: American Library Association.

Simons L., & Cleary, B. (2005). Student and community perceptions of the “value added” for service-learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 164–188.

Stanton, T. K. (2000). Bringing reciprocity to service-learning research and practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning Special Issue, 119–123.

Toole, J. C. (2002). Civil society, social trust and the implementation of service-learning. In Andrew Furco & Shelley H. Billig (Eds.), Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

U. S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/dn/nationonline_020502.htm

U. S. Department of Commerce. (2004). A Nation Online: Entering the broadband age. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/index.html

U. S. Census Bureau. (2006, May). Nation’s population one third minority. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/ www/releases/archives/population/006808.html

Valerius, L., & Hamilton, M. L. (2001). The community classroom: serving to learn and learning to serve. College Student Journal, 35(3), 339–344.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Eds. Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weah, W., Simmons, V. C., & Hall, M. (2000). Service-learning and multicultural/multiethnic perspectives. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 673–675.

Welch, M., & Billig, S. H. (Eds.). (2004). New perspectives in service-learning: Research to advance the field. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Perspectives of East Tennessee’s Rural Public Librarians about the Extent of Need for Professional Library Education: A Pilot Study by Bharat Mehra, Kimberly Black and Shu-Yueh Lee, p. 142

From Metadata Creation to Metadata Quality Control: Continuing Education Needs Among Cataloging and Metadata Professionals by Jung-Ran Park, Yuji Tosaka, Susan Maszaros and Caimei Lu, p. 158

Barriers and Challenges to Teaching Reference in Today’s Electronic Information Environment by Denise E. Agosto, Lily Rozaklis, Craig MacDonald and Eileen G. Abels, p. 177

Teaching Information Retrieval With Web-based Interactive Visualization by Peter Brusilovsky, Jae-wook Ahn and Edie Rasmussen, p. 187

Brief Communications & Research in Progress
The first Workshop on the Future of iSchool Doctoral Education: Issues, Challenges, and Aspirations by Paul T. Jaeger, Jennifer Golbeck, Allison Druin and Kenneth R. Fleischmann, p. 201

Editors’ Notes
The Breadth and Depth of LIS Education by Michelle M. Kazmer and Kathleen Burnett, p. 129