This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Harland, Fiona, Stewart, Glenn, & Bruce, Christine(2017)Ensuring the academic library’s relevance to stakeholders: The role of theLibrary Director.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), pp. 397-408.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/108661/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No DerivativeWorks 2.5

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.009

1

Ensuring the academic library’s relevance to

stakeholders: the role of the Library Director

Fiona Harland, Corresponding author

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of

Information Systems

2 George Street

Brisbane, Qld 4000

Australia

E-mail address: f.harland@connect.qut.edu.au

Glenn Stewart, Professor

Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Christine Bruce, Professor

Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

This paper presents a substantive grounded theory about how the Library Director can ensure the

library’s relevance to university and external stakeholders in the face of rapid changes in

technology and higher education. A constructivist grounded theory research approach involved 14

semi-structured interviews with 12 Library Directors of publicly funded university libraries in

Australia and the United States. The substantive theory and the conceptual model presented in this

paper suggest that the Library Director responds to the problem of rapid change by enacting the

following strategies: aligning strategic vision with the university; continuously reinventing the

library; engaging with stakeholders; building an agile and engaged culture; and demonstrating

value to the university. The strategies interact with each other in a cyclical pattern. This is an

original theory that emphasizes the important role of the Library Director as the agent and model

for library strategy and culture. The theory requires library leaders to be strategic thinkers and to

be engaged in strategic planning processes that aim for continuous improvements that make the

library agile and engaged with stakeholders. The theory also has a significant impact upon the

behaviors required for all library staff members.

Keywords: Academic libraries; constructivist grounded theory; dynamic capabilities of competitive

advantage; learning organizations; Library Directors; organizational culture; strategic

management.

2

Introduction This paper explores how the Library Director, as chief executive officer (CEO) of the

university library, can ensure the library’s relevance to its stakeholders in the face of rapid

changes to its environment. In recent years the university library’s digital resources have

struggled to compete with free open access resources such as Google Scholar and open access

journals (Connaway, White, & Lanclos, 2011; Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013, p. 637; De

Rosa et al., 2014; Gwyer, 2015, p. 279; Saarti & Juntunen, 2011; Shapiro, 2014, 2016). More

importantly, the pressures of domestic government higher education policies, competition in

the global higher education environment, and economic realities such as the global financial

crisis (GFC) have manifested in budget cuts to academic libraries (Association of Research

Libraries, 2013; Jubb, Rowlands, & Nicholas, 2013; Nicholas, Rowlands, Jubb, & Jamali,

2010)

This situation means that the Library Director must ensure that the library is continually

realigning strategies, innovating new products and services, and that it is sensitive to changes

in client behaviour and expectations (Chan & Soong, 2011; Teece, 2007). The these things

must occur rapidly in order to maintain the library’s competitive position within the

university and ensure its long-term survival (Harland, 2017; Jantz, 2012a).

The term Library Director as used throughout this study refers to the CEO of the

Library. This is a university-focused rather than a library-focused role, and includes

responsibility for defining the library’s strategic direction, articulating its vision and

participating in the academic life of the university (Garrison, Ryan, & DeLong, 2012). The

Library Director “can have a profound impact on organizational outcomes and the ability to

innovate” (Jantz, 2012b, p. 4). This role is important because institutions that are successful

innovators and change managers are led by individuals with “line authority” who drive the

change, rather than by delegated committees or other team structures (Furst-Bowe & Bauer,

2007).

We refer to stakeholders as anyone with a stake in the activity of the library. According

to Bourne (2009) the stake may be “an interest; rights (legal or moral); ownership;

contribution in the form of knowledge or support” (p.30). Stakeholders of the university

library include all teaching, research and administrative staff, undergraduate and postgraduate

students, and a broad range of community groups, communities of practice and professional

groups.

3

Despite a substantial body of literature that urges the need for change in academic

libraries (Cox & Corrall, 2013; Jubb et al., 2013; Nicholas et al., 2010), there is a paucity of

empirical research that generates a theory of the overall strategy that the Library Director can

use to ensure the library’s relevance to its stakeholders. The only recent research to

investigate such a theory is the doctoral dissertation of Harland (2017), upon which this paper

is based.

This paper reports a substantive grounded theory, which, according to Charmaz (2014)

is “a theoretical interpretation [emphasis added] or explanation of a delimited problem in a

particular area” (p. 344). It also presents a conceptual model. During this research, we were

guided by the question:

How can the Library Director ensure the relevance of the university library to its

stakeholders in the current environment of rapid change?

This paper proceeds with an overview of current literature to determine the research

gap (Machi & McEvoy, 2012). This is followed by a description of the constructivist

grounded theory research approach and research design. Following this we present our

substantive grounded theory and conceptual model. Finally, we discuss the research results

and how they relate to current research literature. We also include a discussion of the

limitations of our research and the theoretical and practical implications of the theory.

Literature Review

While there are several recent studies that examine the role, strategies and priorities of

the university Library Director (Casey, 2011; Jantz, 2012a, 2012b, 2015; Otero-Boisvert,

2015; Wolff-Eisenberg, 2017), there are none that provide a theory about how the Library

Director can ensure the relevance of the University Library to stakeholders. Therefore, this

literature review examines the library and information science (LIS) research literature from

two strategic management perspectives: learning organization theory, and the dynamic

capabilities concept of competitive advantage.

The Learning Organization

According to Peter Senge (1990), the learning organization is:

…where people continually expand their capacity to create results they truly desire,

where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration

is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together (p.3).

4

Most learning organization authors agree that the learning organization purposefully

strives to achieve a state of continual learning, accordingly adapting its organizational culture

and behaviour (Schwandt & Marquardt, 1999, p. 26; Sun & Scott, 2003, p. 203). Several

learning organization authors agree that leaders are change agents, developing purpose, value

and vision, gaining commitment to them, and modelling the values and vision to others

(Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Pearn, Roderick, & Mulrooney, 1995; Senge, 2006; Watkins &

Marsick, 1993).

Several learning organization frameworks provide a systematic and practical framework

for continual learning. Senge’s seminal work (1990) proposed that learning occurs at executive

level of an organization through shared vision and systems thinking; team level through team

learning; and individual level through personal mastery and mental models. Watkins and

Marsick (1993) and Marsick and Watkins (1999) produced a framework that emphasizes the

strategic role of the leader in developing learning, connecting the organization to its wider

environment; establishing knowledge management systems; and sharing a vision that

empowers people (Watkins & Marsick, 1993, p. 11). Team collaboration and learning are

encouraged; inquiry and dialogue are promoted and learning opportunities are provided for

individuals (Watkins & Marsick, 1993, p. 11). Authors such as Huber (1991), Nevis, DiBella,

and Gould (1995), and Pearn et al. (1995) also developed frameworks, and Anders Örtenblad

(2004) proposed an integrated learning organization model.

Fowler (1998) judges that the ideas of Watkins and Marsick (1993) have an empirical

basis in several case studies and that they describe “operational terms that may be more readily

tested” (p.22). Fowler was writing before the later work of Marsick and Watkins (1999)

appeared, and we consider this later work to be more comprehensive because it adds the leader

action of provide strategic leadership for learning.

The learning organization and LIS research

Study of the academic library as a learning organization is an emerging field of research.

A meta-analysis of learning organization literature by Örtenblad et al. (2013, p.39) identified

only eight research studies of libraries as learning organizations. Rowley (1997) and Örtenblad

(2015) suggest that current learning organization frameworks may not be suitable for the library

context, and to advance the discipline, Örtenblad (2013, p.9; 2015) has proposed the

development of learning organization frameworks for each organizational context, and the

development of empirical research within those contexts.

5

Several studies suggest that cultural factors may inhibit the development of certain

learning organization attributes, particularly at the leadership level. This view is supported by

Örtenblad et al. (2013, p.38) who state that studies conducted in non-Western contexts often

account for cultural factors. For example, the research of Tan siew chye and Higgins (2002, p.

173), conducted at Nanyang Technological University, showed a marked learning organization

weakness at the library’s leadership level. The studies of Kassim and Nor (2007) and Abdullah

and Kassim (2008) produce similar findings. Tan siew chye and Higgins (2002) note that the

Asian cultural mindset inhibits employees from participating in knowledge sharing or being

proactive in decision making. A conference paper by Su (2006) describes a quantitative survey

of 145 librarians in five Taiwanese university libraries in 2005. This paper recommends the

responsibility of the executive library leadership in being committed to the concepts of the

learning organization, empowering staff and promoting learning (Su, 2006, p.250). While

having a solid empirical basis, this paper does not make recommendations about how academic

library leaders can establish these processes.

Several North-American research studies examine the three learning organization levels

in academic libraries (Fowler, 1998; Giesecke & McNeil, 2004). Giesecke and McNeil (2004)

describe the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries learning organization program, finding

that, 8 years after the program start, the library had developed a vision, but had not developed

systems thinking. Saarti and Juntunen (2011) describe systematic approach of the library of

Kuopio University to creating a learning organization through concentrating on staff

development. The studies of Fowler (1998) and Giesecke and McNeil (2004) do not reflect

current realities, while the single case study of Saarti and Juntunen (2011) does not have the

broader empirical basis offered by this research. None of these studies examine the role of the

Library Director as the instigator of organizational learning.

Papers by Leong and Anderson (2012) and Leong (2014) describe the development of a

learning culture at RMIT library in Melbourne, Australia, that is aligned to the university’s

strategic plan. Renner et al. (2014) describe the use of learning organization concepts to

implement change in the library of the University of Western Australia. Papers by McBain,

Culshaw, and Walkley Hall (2013) and Hall and McBain (2014) examine the impact of a

Research Working Group (RWG) at Flinders University Library, Australia, that was designed

to produce librarians who could engage more effectively with the university’s research culture

(p.449). While the Library Director was the instigator of the process (McBain et al., 2013, p.

452), yet again, this case study evaluates a single initiative in a single university library.

6

Dynamic Capabilities Concept of Competitive Advantage and LIS Research

The dynamic capabilities concept of competitive advantage theory is an important theory

because it deals with the capability of an organization to maintain its competitiveness in a

continually changing environment. The dynamic capabilities conceptual framework ensures

that the attitude of organizational learning is embedded through an intentional executive

management strategy and entrepreneurial style that seeks constant improvement and

innovation. According to dynamic capabilities theory, the capabilities an organization requires

in a dynamic environment are: sensing and shaping opportunities and threats; seizing those

opportunities; and finally, moving to enhance, protect and, if necessary to restructure the

organization’s intangible and tangible assets (Teece, 2007, p. 1319).

The capability of sensing and shaping opportunities and threats requires an awareness of

problems and current trends in markets, technologies, consumer behaviour, politics and

legislation (Teece, 2007, p. 1322). The sensing capability (Teece, 2007), involves a formal

research and development process, but also includes informal engagements with clients and

suppliers, collaboration with other organizations, and critical analysis in decision-making

(Teece, 2007, p. 1324).

The responsibility for the seizing capability lies with the leader, who synthesises

information, such as a prevailing technology or system, and then executes its introduction

through middle management processes (Teece, 2007, p.1323). According to Teece (2007) “an

important class of dynamic capabilities lies around a manager’s ability to override certain

‘dysfunctional’ features of established decision rules and resource allocation processes”

(p.1327).

The third capability of managing threats and reconfiguration involves reconfiguring

assets and routines. Organizational structure must also be configured so that management are

not isolated from market realities (Teece, 2007, p. 1335).

To date, only one study exists that explores the strategic repositioning of an academic

library using the dynamic capability framework (Chan & Soong, 2011). This case study affirms

the usefulness of the dynamic capabilities framework in an academic library, but it does not

provide an argument for the usefulness of this theory based upon wider empirical research.

7

Research Approach and Design

Constructivist Grounded Theory Research Approach

The defining characteristics of grounded theory include the process of simultaneous data

collection and analysis, the constant comparison of data, the creation of codes and categories

and identification of their relationships, and advancing an emerging theory that is grounded in

the data (Birks & Mills, 2011, p. 10; Charmaz, 2006, p. 5; Creswell, 2013, p. 84). Grounded

theory sampling is purposeful and is aimed at theory construction, with initial sampling and

theoretical sampling stages (Charmaz, 2014, p. 7). Memo writing is another defining practice

that aids in fleshing out the theory (Charmaz, 2014, p. 7). Finally, the literature review is

generally conducted when the theory is complete or its components have become clear to the

researcher (Charmaz, 2014, p. 7).

Constructivist grounded theory, which was developed by Kathy Charmaz in the 1990’s,

adds an interpretive approach that recognises each individual’s own reality that has been

influenced by life, society or culture (Charmaz, 2014, p. 17). Charmaz asserts that the resulting

substantive theory is the researcher and participants’ mutually constructed interpretation of

multiple realities (Charmaz, 2008, p. 402; 2009, p. 138; Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014, p.

11). Charmaz also argues that the researcher has an important role in mining tacit meanings as

well as the more obvious explicit meanings in the data (Charmaz, 2009, p. 131; Mills et al.,

2006b, p. 31) . Finally, for Charmaz (2014, p. 231) the theory makes sense of the phenomenon

in an imaginative way. In this case, the phenomenon is how Library Directors can ensure the

relevance of their libraries to their stakeholders.

This exploratory research employed a constructivist grounded theory research approach

(Charmaz, 2014) because grounded theory methods help to develop theory when current

theories, are inadequate for the phenomenon being examined (Creswell, 2013, p. 48; Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 32; Morse et al., 2009, p. 16). Grounded theory is also useful in studying

management processes such as decision making and change management (Fendt & Sachs,

2008; Locke, 2003). Locke (2003) agrees that the theory that emerges from grounded theory

research “is particularly adept at bridging theory and practice, providing employees and

managers a way to identify and institute changes that might improve their situations” (p.96).

Constructivist grounded theory also answers the what and how questions (Charmaz, 2008), and

therefore corresponds with our research question.

8

Research Design

The research participants were 12 experienced Library Directors from publicly funded

university libraries, as shown in Table 1. Two participants were recruited from state system

universities in the United States, and two were recruited from each of the following Australian

university contexts: technology, research, elite and regional universities (Table 1). Participants

from public universities in the US were included because Australia has a higher education

system that is similar to that of the United States (International Association of Universities,

2015; Marginson, 2002). This range of university types provided an opportunity for

comparison between the university contexts, providing credibility, nuance and better quality to

the theory (Charmaz, 2014, p. 33). Table 1 reflects our efforts to protect the identities of

participants throughout this study by excluding identifying information such as gender or age.

Type of University Location of

University

Number of

Participants

Participants

State System

Universities

Cities - United

States

2 Library Director 1

Library Director 9

Universities of

Technology

Cities - Australia 2 Library Director 2

Library Director 8

Research Intensive

Universities

Regional Cities -

Australia

3 Library Director 3

Library Director 7

Library Director 10

Elite Universities Cities - Australia 3 Library Director 5

Library Director 6

Library Director 11

Regional

Universities

Regional areas -

Australia

2 Library Director 4

Library Director 12

Table 1. Range and number of university libraries in research sample.

9

The initial purposive sampling phase took place between December 2014 and June 2015,

and included semi-structured interviews with 10 Library Directors. Each participant was sent

a copy of the interview protocol (Appendix A) two days before the interview, which took place

either face to face or via Skype™. Each interview began with the main interview question

(section 1 of Appendix A). If this question was not answered fully in the course of the

interview, the related interview questions were asked (section 2 of Appendix A) The related

questions focused upon the detail of the experienced phenomenon of maintaining the relevance

of the university library (Charmaz, 2006, p. 26). The median length of interviews was 41

minutes.

It is important to note that the research process was repetitive, rather than linear.

Following each interview, the interviewer transcribed the interview recordings, imported the

transcript to NVivo™, and then analysed and coded the data. Initial coding generally involved

coding the transcript line by line. This was important in order to achieve a theory that was

credible, providing sufficient range, number and depth of observations (Charmaz, 2014, p.

337). The interviewer then moved on to the next interview, exploring any questions arising

from the analysis of the previous interview.

The constant comparative analysis involved the constant comparison of phrases, ideas or

incidents within the same and previous interview transcripts (Charmaz, 2014, p. 132; Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 106). This entailed classifying data under existing initial codes or new codes,

and it helped to ensure that the data accurately reflected the meanings of the codes (Charmaz,

2014, p. 133). The analysis that followed each interview allowed the identification of patterns

or problems for exploration in the following interview (Charmaz, 2014, p. 128).

After initial sampling and coding, approximately 1170 initial codes were classified into

focused codes. Examination of the focused codes revealed gaps in the emerging theory.

Therefore, the following theoretical sampling phase involved new interviews with one prior

and two new participants. These interviews included the theoretical sampling questions from

section 3 of Appendix A. The new interviews produced extra codes, but no further properties

or categories, indicating that data saturation had been reached (Charmaz, 2006, p. 6; Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 61).

Following this, the theoretical coding phase involved noting the logical steps, processes

and relationships between properties and categories. This added precision to the theory

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 151). Charmaz (2014, p. 151) indicates that the relationships can emerge

10

naturally, or the researcher can use Glaser’s coding families (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2005). We

applied Glaser’s coding families as listed in Theoretical Sensitivity (Glaser, 1978). The main

coding families used in this research were: strategy, goal, and interactive (Glaser, 1978).

Figure 1 demonstrates the analytical process described above. The numbered properties

on the left of the figure are ordered into processes. For example, the category of aligning

strategic vision with the university includes processes that begin with the problem that the

participants identified, a response phase, the strategy for solving the problem, and the goal to

be achieved (Charmaz, 2014, p. 190). The arrows demonstrate either a linear process, or an

interactive or mutually dependent process, as is the relationship between the categories of

aligning strategic vision with the university and building an agile and engaged culture. The

arrow at the bottom of the figure shows the theorizing process as moving from the detail of the

initial codes to the more abstract theoretical codes. Therefore, at the abstract level, the theory

is about the interactive relationship between culture and strategy.

11

Figure1. Theoretical coding: from properties to categories to theory. Adapted by the authors

from Saldaña (2013, p. 13)

Figure2. Theoretical coding: from properties to categories to theory. Adapted by the authors

from Saldaña (2013, p. 13)

Properties Categories Theoretical Codes Theoretical

concepts

1A. Increasing

uncertainty about the

future

1B. Responding to

changes in university

strategy

1C. Thinking

strategically to

enhance the library’s

profile

1D. Planning for an

aligned library

The problem

Response

phase

Strategy

Goal

Aligning strategic

vision with the

university

Strategy

Building an

agile and

engaged

culture

4A. Culture of

complacency

4B. Future proofing

the workforce

4C. Building a

customer focus

4D. Building a

learning culture

4E. Building team

culture

The problem

Strategy

Culture

Culture

Themes/

Concept

s

Theor

y

PARTICULAR ABSTRACT

12

During the final phase of the research, four participants from different university types

were shown the theoretical model (Figure 2) and were asked whether it resonated with their

experience (section 4 of Appendix A). Although the participants showed general concurrence

with the model, two noted the continuous nature of the category of reinventing the library.

Therefore, we changed the name of this category to continuously reinventing the library.

A hindrance to this research process was the ineligibility of many prospective participants

from the regional university sector due to their short time of incumbency or lack of availability.

During the initial sampling phase, only one regional university Library Director was

interviewed. This problem was countered by the recruitment of a second regional university

participant during the theoretical sampling stage. This participant was also interviewed in the

resonance checking stage, overcoming any concerns about the credibility of the substantive

theory for this university sector.

Findings

We present the substantive grounded theory about the Library Director’s role in

extending the value of the library to stakeholders as five conceptual categories: aligning library

strategic vision with the university; continuously reinventing the library; engaging with

stakeholders; building an agile and engaged culture; and demonstrating value to the university.

We then define the relationships between the categories and present them in a conceptual model

of the grounded theory (Figure 2).

Category 1: Aligning Library Strategic Vision with the University

The research participants stressed the importance of ensuring that the vision, goals and

strategy of the library were aligned with those of the university, as Library Director 9 stated:

Really it comes down to our planning process and we link our library strategic plan

with the university strategic plan. That helps inform us of the critical priorities of the

university. It also informs the university how we are supporting those critical priorities.

So, the university strategic plan is critical regarding relevance.

Table 2 below shows the properties of this category. The properties represent the

strategies and processes used by the Library Director. They begin with the problem of

uncertainty and the library’s need to respond to changes in university strategy. The strategy of

seeking to enhance the library profile, while encouraging creative thinking and a customer

focus, facilitates the library’s own planning process.

13

CATEGORY 1 PROPERTIES: STRATEGIES AND PROCESSES

Aligning strategic vision with the

university

A. Increasing uncertainty about the future

B. Responding to changes in university strategy

C. Thinking strategically to enhance the library’s profile

D. Thinking creatively, customer-focused

E. Planning for an aligned library

Table 2. The properties of Category 1: Aligning strategic vision with the university

The major challenge for all participants was increasing uncertainty (Property 1A), which

is caused by factors such as globalisation of the higher education sector, changes in government

policy, and technological advances. According to the Library Directors, uncertainty within the

university environment is caused by change in the university’s strategic focus and changes to

campuses and course offerings.

The participants indicated that they responded to changes in university strategy by being

aware of the university’s strategic plan (Property 1B). They stated that they must also respond

to university directives such as new strategic goals and targets, or university budget cuts. The

Library Directors also scrutinise the university’s strategic plans for core priorities. The

consequence of non-response to such change, according to Library Director 8, is dire, because

“if we don’t respond we’re seen as an out rider. You know, an independent sort of organization

that just goes its own road and you become irrelevant, and they do something about you.”

The Library Director and the library’s senior staff then focus upon how it can contribute

to the university’s goals, while enhancing the library’s profile (Property 1C). They assess the

adequacy of the current library services in supporting the core priorities of the university. More

importantly, the Library Director and the library executive team try to identify new

opportunities for the library to serve the university. This requires the identification of the

university's new strategic goals, and then defining how the library can support the university

strategies given the constraints on skills and budget. This process involves identifying

opportunities that add value to the university. The library then seeks to add value through the

following strategies: maintaining and refreshing core library functions; and supporting the

university strategies of engagement, teaching and learning, and research. The Library Director

and the leadership team then consider the impact of the library’s initiatives on university

strategy.

In addition to this, Property 1D stresses the importance of organizational culture that

encourages creative thinking and being customer-focused. Several participants recognized the

14

role of creative thinking in strategic planning. A customer-focus is also necessary for the library

to be engaged and responsive to the university’s strategic goals.

The final phase in aligning the library’s strategy is to achieve the goal of a strategic plan

(Property 1E). This is done by documenting a library plan that is based upon the university

plan. The library takes time for the process of planning implementation to occur, and then

informs university administrators of the library’s progress, which is often through the annual

reporting process.

Category 2: Continuously Reinventing the Library

The necessity of reinventing the core notion of “what is a library?” was central to the

thinking of many of the Library Directors in this research. Several Library Directors stated that

the library was moving beyond traditional library roles. Library Director 1 observed that “we

have incrementally changed our vision of our organizational roles on campus and in fact our

place within the higher educational institutions that we serve”.

Continuous reinvention was regarded as necessary to correct imbalances in services and

to release resources that could be used in major growth areas. Furthermore, some of the Library

Directors stated that they were trying to ensure that the library was seen to be participating in

adding value to the university.

Table 3 below presents the properties, or strategies and processes of this category. The

library director needs to know the library’s limits before transforming the library’s systems.

The transformation can take place by developing a learning and knowledge management

infrastructure, while also encouraging an agile culture. Finally, the library leadership team

make evidence-based decisions about the library reinvention.

CATEGORY 2 PROPERTIES: STRATEGIES AND PROCESSES

Continuously reinventing the library A. Knowing the limits

B. Transforming the library

C. Developing learning and knowledge management

infrastructure

D. Encouraging an agile culture

E. Making evidence-based decisions

Table. 3 The properties of Category 2: Continuously reinventing the library

The research participants were aware that they needed to know their limitations (Property

2A). The limitations included university budget reductions, external cost pressures caused by

fluctuations in exchange rates, workforce shortfalls, stakeholder needs, the need to balance

service offerings, and the fears of library staff.

15

In response to these limitations, the university library transforms its various systems such

as its organizational structure, workflows, communications, service offerings and technology

(Property 2B). The Library Directors considered that they achieved transformation by firstly

adopting systems thinking. Systems thinking involves seeing the how parts of the library

function as part of the whole university system. The library leadership team then decides to

change organizational and technical systems through conducting systems reviews. They then

effect incremental change, finally achieving an overall transformational change.

An organizational infrastructure that includes learning and knowledge management

practices (Property 2C) is important to engage library staff in the process of continuously

reinventing the library. Learning and knowledge management practices include formal

professional development practices such as training meetings, but also team learning. The

Library Directors revealed that they did this through learning from other leaders and

establishing a team structure through all levels of the library. Participants saw the role of the

leadership team as identifying new opportunities or roles for the library. The importance of a

university library that operates as a team was emphasised by Library Director 8, who stated

“it’s a team effort. It’s not just me, and that’s important for a relatively big library at a

relatively big, sort of medium size university.” The university library also requires an agile

culture that enables rapid change and facilitates the reinvention of the library (Property 2D).

An agile culture incorporates the encouragement of both a team culture and a learning culture,

and is described in detail in Category 4.

Finally, the Library Directors stressed the necessity of evidence in decision-making

processes (Property 2E). According to Library Director 1 evidence-based decision making

(EBDM) is important because of the increasing complexity involved in decision making. The

evidence required for decision making is either quantitative or qualitative, and is gained

through engagement with stakeholders (see Category 3). We find that the goal of EBDM is

achieved by formulating a question, gathering data relevant data and evaluating the evidence.

The Library Directors then take appropriate action, allowing time for the action to take place,

and reviewing the project upon its completion.

Category 3: Engaging with Stakeholders A number of Library Directors stated the importance of engagement with stakeholders,

as Library Director 8 stressed “I made engagement a major priority for us…. That’s an item on

all of our management meeting agendas, and everybody knows it’s a significant issue.”.

Library Director 4 stated that the consequence of non-engagement with stakeholders is that “If

16

you sit back and wait for them to ask, often it won’t happen. They’ll sit back and grumble

about what they’re not getting, but you’ll be none the wiser.”

According to the participants, engaging with stakeholders has a dual purpose. It enables

the library to find out the needs of stakeholders and how the library can best meet those needs.

It also allows the library to promote itself and its services. Library Director 7 commented that

“by staying engaged you are able to promote what you do and you’re able to get feedback from

those people”.

Table 4 below presents the strategies and processes the library director uses to engage

with stakeholders. The problem of the diversity of stakeholders and their requirements involves

a response with a strategy that seeks to know stakeholders, while also encouraging an engaged

library culture. Finally, the Library Director uses strategies for the library to engage with

internal and external stakeholders.

CATEGORY 3 PROPERTIES: STRATEGIES AND PROCESSES

Engaging with stakeholders A. Coping with the diversity of stakeholders and their requirements

B. Knowing the stakeholders

C. Encouraging an engaged culture

D. Engaging internally within the university

E. Engaging with external stakeholders

Table 4. The properties of Category 3: Engaging with stakeholders

The participants stated that the main problems for university libraries in their engagement

activities are stakeholder diversity and the variety of stakeholder requirements (Property 3A).

Library Directors from some universities in regional locations claimed the biggest challenges

because they had more diverse student populations (Library Directors 4, 7). These universities

tended to the needs of many first-year students who were at risk of dropping out due to being

first in family, of low socio-economic status or being low ranking tertiary admission students.

On the other hand, the elite university libraries of Library Directors 5 and 6 struggled with the

problem of the entrenched attitude of academic staff towards changes in the library. Library

Director 6 expressed frustration about the expectation to maintain print collections, while also

building electronic collections. Library Director 11 expressed an awareness of this problem in

other elite universities, and therefore proceeded cautiously with a library restructure.

Many participants acknowledged the importance of knowing the library’s stakeholders,

and all Library Directors described their stakeholders in detail (Property 3B). Some of the

Library Directors expressed interest in an engagement framework, which involved a holistic

17

approach that recognised the different strategies required for different stakeholders, and the

need to communicate with stakeholders in their own language.

Along with a strategic engagement framework, the library also requires an engaged

culture, which includes a customer focus and a team culture (Property 3C). Category 4 expands

upon customer focus and team culture.

All participants discussed their strategies for engaging with their university stakeholders

(Property 3D). These strategies included formal mechanisms for engagement set by the

university. These formal mechanisms included formal reviews and library advisory

committees. Strategies also involved informal mechanisms with the various stakeholders that

included engagement with the highest administrative levels of the university and collaboration

with departments and faculties across the university. Such projects included collaborating with

faculties on digital literacy and collaborating with various university committees and task

forces on fundraising and engagement, English language services or identifying talented

academics for recruitment. Informal mechanisms also include liaison with academic staff,

supporting researchers, and engaging and retaining students.

External stakeholders were also important to many of the participants (Property 3E).

Engagement with external stakeholders included the following mechanisms: community

engagement using space; community engagement using communications media; engaging with

donors; involvement in external organisations; participation in the library sector; and

promoting the university to local schools and feeder organisations.

Category 4: Building an Agile and Engaged Culture

Culture refers to the ethos or values of the library and of the attitudes, personal attributes

and behaviour that are expected of staff members. The participants emphasised the importance

of the workplace culture, with Library Director 7 stating “You can push as hard as you like to

show how relevant you are, but if that’s not being demonstrated by your workforce, then it’s

not going to go anywhere”.

Many participants indicated that they wanted a library that was agile. This meant that the

library could adapt itself quickly to changes in its environment, solve problems, and adapt

services for the benefit of its stakeholders. The participants remarked that an agile culture does

not get overwhelmed by change, that agility requires constant awareness of change and there

must be willingness to move with that change. An agile culture also sees change as an

opportunity to expand the influence of the library. This is done by identifying emerging needs,

18

and then identifying how the library can meet those needs. Such a change in culture takes time

and practice. Library Director 7 also stressed the need for the library to be customer-focused

or engaged with its stakeholders.

The research participants also reported that they required a culture where the library is

continually striving to be best practice through the continual evaluation and review of its

services, collections, learning systems and professional practices.

Table 5 below presents the strategies and processes required for building an agile and

engaged culture. The culture of complacency in the library can be improved by future proofing

the workforce, which also involves changes in culture that include a focus on customers,

learning, teams and creativity.

CATEGORY 4 PROPERTIES: STRATEGIES AND PROCESSES

Building an agile and

engaged culture

A. Culture of complacency

B. Future proofing the workforce

C. Building a customer focus

D. Building a learning culture

E. Building a team culture

F. Building a creative culture

Table 5. The properties of Category 4: Building an agile and engaged culture

The Library Directors noted that a culture of complacency currently exists in university

libraries (Property 4A). Library Director 3 noted that libraries’ passive culture has

disadvantaged them because:

There’s an [administrators’] attitude that libraries and librarians always cope with

whatever you throw at them and that they’re good managers and they do very well in

their universities, therefore you don’t have to pay attention to them.

Library Director 7 stressed the importance of overcoming the complacency of staff

because:

Again, you can change your services to meet needs, but if your staff are dragging their

heels, or if they just continue maintaining the services that they wish to maintain, it

does make it hard.

The Library Director responds to the issue of complacency by future-proofing the

workforce (Property 4B). Future proofing the workforce entails capabilities in staff members

that show flexibility and the ability to learn new skills. According to participants, an

organizational cultural shift can be achieved when the Library Director intentionally leads and

models the culture of the library. The Library Director engages in succession and workforce

19

planning to achieve strategic goals and redirects staff so that their skills are aligned with library

and university strategies.

The participants indicated that the library can exhibit a culture with the following specific

attributes: customer focus (Property 4C), learning culture (Property 4D), team culture (Property

4E), and creative culture (Property 4F). Customer focus is encouraged by fostering a service

culture, collaborating with stakeholders, being responsive to stakeholder requirements, and

promoting the library’s services. Learning culture means that all members of staff are learning,

and can change their work practices and behaviours accordingly. Learning begins with the

Library Director as the model, with many stressing the importance of learning from others in

the global LIS community. Staff learning often involved multiskilling in the smaller libraries.

Most participants called this professional development, which included formal learning,

experimentation, collaboration, problem solving, learning through play, and reflection.

The Library Director builds team culture by empowering staff, establishing an egalitarian

approach to reporting structures, communicating openly with staff, encouraging collaboration

amongst staff, and working together towards a common vision. Creativity is also encouraged.

The attributes of team culture and creativity were acknowledged by Library Director 9 in

discussing a budget cutting exercise:

It’s a great story. I wish I could take credit for it, but our head of Tech services is

phenomenal and every individual within the library have been really creative about

how to manage that smaller staff size. They’re just an awesome staff.

Category 5: Demonstrating the Library’s Value

Demonstrating the library’s value was regarded as a very important strategy because the

library must vie with other departments for funding, as Library Director 7 stated “People still

love the library and they tell me that, but I often wonder: if it was their budget or my budget,

what would it come down to? Library Director 4 stated that demonstrating value was at the

forefront of most Library Directors’ thinking:

I think there is a growing consciousness in the sector that we need to be constantly

proving our value, or demonstrating our value, for want of a better word and of course

showing how relevant we still are in this current environment.

Table 6 demonstrates that demonstrating the library’s value is a challenge that requires

evidence-based measurements of value in articulating the library’s contribution to university

20

outcomes. Moreover, the library needs to demonstrate the library’s value by engaging with

stakeholders.

CATEGORY 5 PROPERTIES: STRATEGIES AND PROCESSES

Demonstrating the library’s

value

A. Struggling to demonstrate the library’s value

B. Using evidence-based measurements of value

C. Demonstrating the library’s value

D. Articulating the library’s value

E. Engaged culture

F. Achieving measures of success

Table 6. The properties of Category 5: Demonstrating the library’s value

Most participants identified the struggle to demonstrate the library’s value as a major

challenge (Property 5A). The Library Directors acknowledged that they fight outdated

perceptions and ignorance about the library and they struggle to measure value, gain budget

funding, and achieve valued status.

To deal with these problems, the Library Directors use evidence-based measurements of

value (Property 5B), because, as P4 stated:

…it is very easy to fall into the trap of knowing, of deciding that you know what they

want, so therefore you’ll give it to them. That can be quite dangerous because

sometimes what you think they want is not necessarily what they want.

While participants acknowledged that libraries have traditionally been very good in using

statistical measurements, most of the participants emphasised a more holistic approach to

measurement. The Library Directors indicated that they use quantitative and qualitative

measurements; and benchmarking instruments for comparison with other institutions.

Quantitative measurements included client surveys or university business analytics systems

that can analyse the library’s impact upon, for example, student retention. Qualitative

measurements included focus groups or anecdotal feedback. Some of the participants

highlighted the importance of giving all feedback a critical and analytical framework.

Demonstrating the library’s value (Property 5C) or promotion of the library and its

services is also important because, according to Library Director 6 “sometimes, producing

documents and having plans isn’t enough. It’s actually the demonstration and communication

of what we’re actually achieving”. The library can demonstrate its value by gaining political

support within the university, developing a good reputation, and demonstrating leadership and

high visibility. This is done through activities such as collaborating with other departments on

projects or active membership of university committees.

21

Articulating value entails the verbal and written communication of the library’s value to

the university and its stakeholders (Property 5D). Library Directors stated that they did this by

reporting to stakeholders, developing persuasive arguments for university administrators, and

encouraging the university to adopt library goals.

The demonstration and articulation of value occurs through an engaged culture (Property

5E), as described in Category 4.

Some of the Library Directors participating in this study claimed success in

demonstrating and articulating the library’s value (Property F). This occurred by meeting

performance indicators or gaining adequate budget funding, or by the library goals becoming

the university’s goals. Library Director 10 claimed success in attaining the high regard of

university stakeholders by being mentioned by the Vice Chancellor in various forums.

22

Discussion

Figure 2. Conceptual model: How the Library Director ensures the relevance of the library to its stakeholders

The Conceptual Model

The conceptual model above (Figure 2) illustrates the categories and the relationships

between them. It begins with the role of the Library Director in scanning developments in the

library’s environment. The hexagons present the categories, which explain what happens. The

categories are the strategies that the Library Director uses to maintain their library’s relevance.

Each of these strategies are part of Glaser’s (1978, p. 76) strategy family of theoretical codes.

The arrows represent the relationships between each strategy. One-way arrows explain one

strategy leading to another in a process. The two-way arrows show a mutually dependent

Aligning

strategic vision

with the university

Continuously

reinventing

the library

Engaging with

stakeholders

Building an agile and

engaged culture:

Customer focused

Learning culture

Team culture

Creative culture

Demonstrating

value to the

university

Culture

Strategy

Relationships

between

categories

Action of the Library Director:

Scanning Library, Technology and

Higher Education Environments,

Setting Strategic Direction and

Building Organizational Culture

23

relationship, suggesting mutual effects or a mutual dependency. This relationship belongs to

Glaser’s (1978, p. 76) interactive family of theoretical codes. The spheres explain the nature

of the relationships between all categories.

The cyclical pattern begins when the Library Director aligns the library’s strategic vision

and plan with that of the university. The next phase of continuously reinventing the library

occurs concurrently and is in a mutually dependent relationship with the strategy of engaging

with stakeholders. Engagement with stakeholders then leads to and is in a mutually dependent

relationship with the strategy of demonstrating value to the university. The cycle begins again

when external and internal factors cause the university to change its strategic vision and goals.

Aligning library strategic vision with the university requires the library to have a creative

and customer-focused culture that enables strategic thinking. Continuously reinventing the

library necessitates an agile culture that incorporates a learning culture and a team culture.

Engaging with stakeholders entails an engaged culture that is customer-focused.

Demonstrating the library’s value involves an engaged culture that enables the library to

promote itself and its achievements.

Therefore, each of these strategies has an interdependent relationship with the strategy of

building an agile and engaged culture. Strategy and culture are mutually dependent because

attributes of culture are present in each of the strategies. According to the participants, strategy

cannot be successfully enacted without an organizational culture that supports the strategy

The Categories

Category 1: Aligning strategic vision with the university

We find that the Library Director responds to changes in university strategy by aligning

the vision, goals and strategy of the library with those of the university. This involves strategic

and creative thinking that aims to enhance the library’s profile, and then creating the library’s

own strategic plan. This finding echoes numerous studies about the library’s alignment with

university strategy (Casey, 2011; Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 10;

McNicol, 2005; Robertson, 2015). While there are numerous single case studies describing the

strategic alignment of university libraries (Franklin, 2009; Jeal, 2014; Nutefall & Chadwell,

2012; Wynne, Dixon, Donohue, & Rowlands, 2016), Saunders (2015, 2016) recent content

analysis of the strategic plans of 63 US academic libraries finds that they are failing to explicitly

align their strategic plans with those of the parent institution. Therefore, the strategies we

present here provide an important practical guide for the Library Director to follow.

24

Category 2: Continuously Reinventing the Library

The process of continuously reinventing the library begins when the Library Director

learns from other leaders in the global university library environment, scans the higher

education environment, and researches management and IT innovations. The development of

learning and knowledge management infrastructure enables all library staff to scan and learn.

An agile culture will enable staff to make evidence-based decisions. These findings have

similarities to the concept of continuous improvement (CI) which is the “business process of

evident and intermittent incremental innovation with the use of few resources” (Bessant,

Caffyn, Gilbert, Harding, & Webb, 1994, p. 251).

We find that Library Directors prefer the incremental change of CI over more disruptive

radical changes. Due to the small size of the sample we report tentative findings that the smaller

regional libraries retrain staff for changes, while larger metropolitan university libraries have a

larger employment pool from which to employ skilled staff. We also find that the larger

libraries struggle to make changes due to resistance from academic staff and because of the

necessity of dealing with unions.

LIS research literature includes many single case studies describing the changes made to

academic libraries (Derven & Kendlin, 2011; Jeal, 2014; Michalak, 2012; Nutefall &

Chadwell, 2012; Somerville, 2015). Many studies also investigate the individual elements

involved in continuous reinvention, but this research fills a gap by exploring the process

necessary in such change.

Category 3: Engaging with Stakeholders

We find that Library Directors respond to the challenge of diverse stakeholder

requirements by encouraging an engaged staff culture and producing a framework for

stakeholder engagement. The framework provides guidelines for engagement with both

internal university and external stakeholders. These findings reflect service organisation

literature that argues that innovation in a service organisation requires close engagement with

customers (Agarwal, Selen, Roos, & Green, 2015; Carbonell & Rodriguez-Escudero, 2014;

Kindström, Kowalkowski, & Sandberg, 2013; Ordanini & Parasuraman, 2011; Wang, Zhao, &

Voss, 2016). Our findings are also an applied LIS variation of stakeholder theory (Freeman,

2010; Friedman & Miles, 2006; Philips, 2011) and stakeholder relationship management

(Bourne, 2009) or customer relationship management (Kumar & Reinartz, 2011; Peelen &

Beltman, 2013).

25

LIS literature includes many studies that discuss the individual ways that academic

libraries maintain service quality or engage with their stakeholders (Chatten & Roughley, 2016;

Denda & Hunter, 2016; Saunders, 2015; Wynne et al., 2016), but there is no research that

discusses holistic frameworks for engagement. This research adds an integrated theory that

brings these elements together.

Category 4: Building an Agile and Engaged Culture

The Library Director responds to the challenge of complacency by future proofing the

library. This involves recruiting and training staff to be customer-focused, team players,

continuous learners, and creative. We also find that the regional libraries retrain staff rather

than conducting the redundancies that often occur in the larger metropolitan libraries. It is also

possible that the traditional elite university libraries place less emphasis upon agility than the

smaller libraries.

Tellis (2006) argues that an organisation that thrives in the face of disruptive technology

requires an internal culture that is willing to take risks and is competitive. Several single case

studies focus upon a library culture that encourages agility, innovation or change (Casey, 2011;

Jeal, 2014; Leong & Anderson, 2012; Michalak, 2012; Somerville, 2015). Our findings bear

similarity to the survey research of Maloney, Antelman, Arlitsch, and Butler (2010) finds that

a strong adhocracy culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), where the library is continuously

making small adjustments is necessary in academic libraries.

The necessity of an engaged culture mirrors Bourne’s (2009) assertion that the culture of

the organisation is important in ensuring the engagement of stakeholders. While Michalak

(2012) discusses the reorganization of the University of North Carolina (UNC) library to

become more “outward-facing”, we provide an original contribution to the literature because

we examine the processes the Library Director initiates in building an agile and engaged

culture.

Category 5: Demonstrating the Library’s Value

To demonstrate value the Library Director focuses on engaging with stakeholders,

tangible demonstrations and written reports of the library’s value to university administrators

using evidence-based measurements of value. Reporting mechanisms can help to instil in

management confidence in the ability of the organisation to deliver (Bourne, 2009, p. 20).

Albert (2014)

26

LIS literature about the demonstration of library value has little empirical basis (Albert,

2014; Hernon, Dugan, & Matthews, 2014; Oakleaf, 2010). Indeed, Saunders’(2016, p. 10)

content analysis of university libraries’ strategic plans demonstrates the difficulty in

demonstrating value. Therefore, we provide an important contribution to this field.

The Overall Substantive Theory

The overall substantive theory provides an original contribution to the domain of

University Library strategic management. No other existing theory or framework explains the

strategies and processes the Library Director employs to maintain the library’s relevance to

stakeholders.

Limitations and Future Directions

This research seeks the experiences and perceptions of the Library Director rather than

other staff members of the university library. Moreover, this research does not seek to discover

the impact of the library on university, research or student outcomes. Future studies may test

these areas of the substantive grounded theory by interviewing or surveying the stakeholders

to determine whether the university library is relevant to their needs. Future research can also

explore further the relationship between organizational culture and strategy because of the

complexities and difficulties of different organizational cultures.

Significance of this Research for LIS Practice

This substantive grounded theory will benefit Library Directors in their understanding of

how they are ensuring and extending the library’s relevance to its stakeholders. The findings

will also impact the capabilities and personal attributes required of the Library Director. The

substantive grounded theory finds that the Library Director must have an outward-looking

focus that recognises the vision of the university. This involves recognition of the role of the

library in supporting the vision, and contributing towards that vision. The Library Director

must recognise the limitations of the university environment and embrace the opportunities of

the university context. The Library Director must also be able to promote the library to

university administrators, senior faculty, others in the library profession and community

stakeholders. Finally, the Library Director must be systematic in planning for goals, providing

key performance indicators to measure progress.

Significance of the Substantive Grounded Theory for Research

The substantive grounded theory provides a significant contribution to the body of LIS

knowledge because the study of the academic library, in terms of how it strategically ensures

27

relevance, is an emerging field of research. This research is also unique because it applies a

constructivist grounded theory research method to examine the phenomenon. Previous studies

examining the phenomenon of strategies for maintaining relevance of the academic library

have been single case studies. No wider empirical research has been undertaken into this

phenomenon, and no wider research has examined the actions of the Library Director in

extending the relevance of the university library to stakeholders.

Conclusion

This paper investigated how the university Library Director can ensure the library’s

relevance to its stakeholders at the current time of rapid changes in its environment. The

substantive grounded theory that was generated from this research signifies the important role

of the Library Director as the agent and model for a library strategy and culture that drives the

library forward in ensuring its relevance to its stakeholders. Moreover, this theory demonstrates

the attitudes and behaviours required of senior library leaders and staff to future proof the

library’s role on the campus. A customer-focused, creative, learning and collaborating library

culture enables the library to continuously realign its strategic vision with the university,

reinvent itself, engage with its stakeholders, and demonstrate its value to the university. In a

corresponding manner, the library that is continuously realigning its strategic goals and

reinventing its services sustains the momentum of a library culture that is continually striving

for improvement.

Acknowledgments

The first author was a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship during this

research and of a QUT Write-up Scholarship.

Ethics clearance was gained from the QUT Ethics Committee for the conduct of this research (QUT

Ethics Approval Number 1400000814).

28

Abdullah, K. A. S., & Kassim, N. A. (2008). Perceptions of organizational learning practices among Yemeni university librarians. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 13(1), 77-90.

Agarwal, R., Selen, W., Roos, G., & Green, R. (2015). The handbook of service innovation (Vol. 2015). London: Springer.

Albert, A. B. (2014). Communicating library value - the missing piece of the assessment puzzle. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6), 634-637. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.10.001

Association of Research Libraries. (2013). Library and university expenditure trends (Time-Series). Retrieved from http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/EG_3.pdf

Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R., & Webb, S. (1994). Rediscovering continuous improvement. Technovation, 14(1), 17-29. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(94)90067-1

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Los Angeles: SAGE. Bourne, L. (2009). Stakeholder relationship management : A maturity model for

organisational implementation. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture (3rd

ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez-Escudero, A. I. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of using

information from customers involved in new service development. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 29(2), 112-122. doi:10.1108/JBIM-04-2012-0071

Casey, A. M. (2011). Strategic priorities and change in academic libraries. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/883918467?accountid=13380

Chan, D. L. H., & Soong, S. C. (2011). Strategic repositioning in a dynamic environment. Library Management, 32(1/2), 22-36. doi:10.1108/01435121111102557

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397-412). New York: Guilford Press.

Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127-154). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Chatten, Z., & Roughley, S. (2016). Developing social media to engage and connect at the

University of Liverpool library. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1-8. doi:10.1080/13614533.2016.1152985

Connaway, L. S., White, D., & Lanclos, D. (2011). Visitors and residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-7. Retrieved from doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801129

Corrall, S., Kennan, M. A., & Afzal, W. (2013). Bibliometrics and research data management services: Emerging trends in library support for research. Library Trends, 61(3), 636-674.

29

Cox, A. M., & Corrall, S. (2013). Evolving academic library specialties. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1526-1542. doi:10.1002/asi.22847

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Gallagher, P., Hawk, J., Hoffman, I., & Page, R. (2014). At a tipping point: Education, learning and libraries: A report to the OCLC membership Retrieved from https://www.oclc.org/reports/tipping-point.en.html

Denda, K., & Hunter, J. (2016). Building 21st century skills and creating communities: A team-based engagement framework for student employment in academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 56(3), 251-265. doi:10.1080/01930826.2015.1121662

Derven, C., & Kendlin, V. (2011). Evidence-based librarianship: A case study of a print resource cancellation project. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(2), 166-170. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.009

Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2008). Grounded theory method in management research: Users' perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 430-455. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1094428106297812

Fowler, R. K. (1998). The university library as learning organization for innovation: An exploratory study. College & Research Libraries, 59(3), 220 - 231.

Franklin, B. (2009). Aligning library strategy and structure with the campus academic plan: A case study. Journal of Library Administration, 49(5), 495-505. doi:10.1080/01930820903090862

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Bauer, R. A. (2007). Application of the Baldrige model for innovation in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(137), 5-14.

Garrison, J., Ryan, M., & DeLong, K. (2012). Moving up: Positioning for director roles in academic libraries. In B. L. Eden (Ed.), The associate university librarian handbook : A resource guide (pp. 137-159). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Giesecke, J., & McNeil, B. (2004). Transitioning to the learning organization. Library Trends, 53(1), 54-67.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:

Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA:

Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. G. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory : Strategies for

qualitative research. New York: Aldine Gwyer, R. (2015). Identifying and exploring future trends impacting on academic libraries: A

mixed methodology using journal content analysis, focus groups, and trend reports. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(3), 269-285. doi:10.1080/13614533.2015.1026452

Hall, L. W., & McBain, I. (2014). Practitioner research in an academic library: Evaluating the impact of a support group. Australian Library Journal, 63(2), 129-143.

30

Harland, F. M. (2017). How the University Librarian ensures the relevance of the library to stakeholders: A constructivist grounded theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/106745/

Hernon, P., Dugan, R. E., & Matthews, J. R. (2014). Getting started with evaluation. Chicago: American Library Association.

Higginbottom, G., & Lauridsen, E. I. (2014). The roots and development of constructivist grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 8-13. doi:10.7748/nr.21.5.8.e1208

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. doi:10.2307/2634941

International Association of Universities (Ed.) (2015). International handbook of universities 2016 (27th ed. Vol. 3). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jantz, R. C. (2012a). A framework for studying organizational innovation in research libraries. College & Research Libraries, 73(6), 525-541.

Jantz, R. C. (2012b). Innovation in academic libraries: An analysis of university librarians' perspectives. Library & Information Science Research, 34(1), 3-12. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.008

Jantz, R. C. (2015). The determinants of organizational innovation: An interpretation and implications for research libraries. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 512-536. doi:10.5860/crl.76.4.512

Jeal, Y. (2014). Strategic alignment at the University of Manchester library: Ambitions, transitions, and new values. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(3), 278-295. doi:10.1080/13614533.2014.919328

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 library edition Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf

Jubb, M., Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2013). Value of libraries: Relationships between provision, usage, and research outcomes. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(2), 139-152.

Kassim, N. A., & Nor, A. M. (2007). Team learning in a learning organization: The practices of team learning among university librarians in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 12(1), 55-64.

Kindström, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling service innovation: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1063-1073.

Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Customer relationship management: Concept, strategy, and tools (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

Leong, J. (2014). Purpose-driven learning for library staff. The Australian Library Journal, 63(2), 108-117. doi:10.1080/00049670.2014.898236

Leong, J., & Anderson, C. (2012). Fostering innovation through cultural change. Library Management, 33(8/9), 490-497. doi:10.1108/01435121211279858

Locke, K. (2003). Grounded theory in management research. London: SAGE Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Maloney, K., Antelman, K., Arlitsch, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Future leaders’ views on

organizational culture. College & Research Libraries, 71(4), 322-347. doi:10.5860/crl-47

Marginson, S. (2002). Education in the global market: Lessons from Australia. Academe, 88(3), 22-24.

31

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

McBain, I., Culshaw, H., & Walkley Hall, L. (2013). Establishing a culture of research practice in an academic library: An Australian case study. Library Management, 34(6/7), 448-461. doi:10.1108/LM-08-2012-0053

McNicol, S. (2005). The challenges of strategic planning in academic libraries. New Library World, 106(11/12), 496-509.

Michalak, S. C. (2012). This changes everything: Transforming the academic library. Journal of Library Administration, 52(5), 411-423. doi:10.1080/01930826.2012.700801

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35.

Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 73.

Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Jubb, M., & Jamali, H. R. (2010). The impact of the economic downturn on libraries: With special reference to university libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(5), 376-382. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.06.001

Nutefall, J. E., & Chadwell, F. A. (2012). Preparing for the 21st century academic library realignment. New Library World, 113(3/4), 162-173. doi:10.1108/03074801211218543

Oakleaf, M. (2010). Value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and report Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3-23. doi:10.1177/1094670510385332

Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: Towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3), 129-144.

Örtenblad, A. (2013). What do we mean by the learning organization? In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Handbook of research on the learning organization: Adaptation and context (pp. 3-21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Örtenblad, A. (2015). Towards increased relevance: Context-adapted models of the learning organization. The Learning Organization, 22(3), 163-181. doi:10.1108/TLO-06-2014-0027

Örtenblad, A., Fan, Z., Peng, C., Li, B., Li, Z., Cong, X., & Zhou, J. (2013). Putting the learning organization into context: Contributions from previous works In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Handbook of research on the learning organization : Adaptation and context (pp. 35-50). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Otero-Boisvert, M. (2015). Funding the academic library: An ethnographic study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84749/

Pearn, M. A., Roderick, C., & Mulrooney, C. (1995). Learning organizations in practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Peelen, E., & Beltman, R. (2013). Customer relationship management (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

32

Philips, R. A. (2011). Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Renner, F., Clark, C., Shilkin, B., Benn, J., Albatis, M., & Howard, R. (2014). 'Thanks for being awesome': Using the learning organisation model to enhance university library and IT client service. Australian Library Journal, 63(2), 118-128.

Robertson, M. (2015). Perceptions of Canadian provosts on the institutional role of academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 76(4), 490-511. doi:10.5860/crl.76.4.490

Rowley, J. (1997). The library as a learning organization. Library Management, 18(2), 88-91. doi:10.1108/01435129710157707

Saarti, J., & Juntunen, A. (2011). Bringing out the best of everyone. Library Management, 32(8/9), 579-588. doi:10.1108/01435121111187932

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Saunders, L. (2015). Academic libraries' strategic plans: Top trends and under-recognized

areas. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 285-291. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011

Saunders, L. (2016). Room for improvement: Priorities in academic libraries’ strategic plans. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/01930826.2015.1105029

Schwandt, D. R., & Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Organizational learning: From world-class theories to global best-practices Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). London: Random House.

Shapiro, S. (2014). The internet, web-based technologies, and user vs. library empowerment in academic institutions. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 26(3), 216-221. doi:10.1080/1941126X.2014.939042

Shapiro, S. (2016). Engaging a wider community: The academic library as a center for creativity, discovery, and collaboration. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(1), 24-42. doi:10.1080/13614533.2015.1087412

Somerville, M. M. (2015). Informed systems: Organizational design for learning in action. Amsterdam: Chandos

Su, S. S. (2006). Individual learning and organizational learning in academic libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105914

Sun, P. Y. T., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Exploring the divide - organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 202-215. doi:10.1108/09696470310476972

Tan siew chye, M., & Higgins, S. E. (2002). NTU (Nanyang Technological University) library as a learning organisation. Libri (København), 52, 169-182.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. doi:10.2307/20141992

Tellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 34-38. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00179.x

Wang, Q., Zhao, X., & Voss, C. (2016). Customer orientation and innovation: A comparative study of manufacturing and service firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 221-230. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.029

33

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2017). Ithaka S+R US library survey 2016. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.303066

Wynne, B., Dixon, S., Donohue, N., & Rowlands, I. (2016). Changing the library brand: A case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1-13. doi:10.1080/13614533.2016.1156000

34

Appendix A

1. Main interview question

1) How do you maintain the relevance of your library to your stakeholders and extended

community at the present time?

2. Related interview questions

2) Who are the stakeholders in your library at the present time?

3) What do you perceive to be the challenges facing your library at the present time?

4) How do you discover the challenges that affect your library?

5) How do you deal with these challenges?

6) How do you know that you and your staff are dealing with these challenges adequately?

7) Can you think of anything else which helps the library to achieve relevance to its

stakeholders?

3. Theoretical sampling questions

1) How did you make the decisions about your library restructure?

2) Are there any factors that indicate success in maintaining the library’s relevance to the

university?

4. Resonance questions

1) What resonated with you in this model?

2) What is still important in 2016?

3) What is of lesser importance in 2016?

4) What is missing in the model in your current context?

5) What is in the foreground?

6) What is in the background?