[Library and Information Science] Developing People’s Information Capabilities Volume 8 || Building Partnerships for Information Literacy among HE Institutions in African Universities:

Chapter 9

Building Partnerships for Information

Literacy among HE Institutions in

African Universities: Opportunities and

Challenges — A Case Study

Edward Lumande, Babakisi Tjedombo Fidzani and Silas Oluka

Abstract

This case study looks at building partnerships and networkingrelationships that developed in the course of implementing a three-year (August 2009–August 2012) Information Literacy (IL) in Highereducation project ‘‘Developing an Information Literacy Programmefor Lifelong Learning for African Universities’’ funded by Develop-ment Partners in Higher Education (DelPHE). The process leading tothe end of the project has been enriching and opened windows tovarious professional networking relationships and institutional coop-eration within the African region and with those abroad. The contactshave opened new avenues for further research and collaboration inareas such as monitoring and evaluation of the IL programs in HigherEducation (HE) institutions. The University of Botswana (UB) hasbenefited from these collaborative initiatives and this chapter tracesthe partnerships that evolved in the course of institutionalizing andembedding information literacy at UB, its participation in the DelPHEproject, and how the leadership took advantage of opportunities thatcame along in order to augment and enrich the activities and outcomes

Developing People’s Information Capabilities: Fostering Information Literacy in Educational,

Workplace and Community Contexts

Library and Information Science, Volume 8, 127–147

Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2013)0000008013

dx.doi.org/

128 Edward Lumande et al.

of the project as well as promote the university’s vision and mission.The chapter concludes by highlighting some of the benefits andchallenges of collaboration among institutions, organizations, andindividual professionals in advancing the institutional policies,strategic plans, and interests which may be at variance and how someof these challenges can be overcome.

Keywords: Partnership; collaboration; information literacy; Africa;University of Botswana; DelPHE; Higher Education

9.1. Introduction

This chapter does not discuss ‘‘what is information literacy’’ as there isplenty of information about its definition and content (Elisam & Keya,2004; Ojedokun & Lumande, 2005; Oluka, 2011a, 2011b; Oluka, Fidzani, &Lumande, 2012), but rather it is a case study of how the University ofBotswana (UB) became involved in the DelPHE project and what positivespin offs resulted through professional interaction within the course of theproject. Literature is full of papers that points to the need for collaborationbetween librarians and academic staff in the integration and delivery ofinformation literacy (IL) skills. This chapter traces the partnerships thatevolved in the course of institutionalizing IL at UB and how the leadershiptook advantage of opportunities that came in order to augment and enrichthe activities and outcomes of the project. The chapter further highlights theimportance of networking among institutions and organizations inadvancing the institutional policies and strategic plans. Institutions use avariety of approaches in establishing and integrating IL.

9.2. Literature Review

9.2.1. Collaboration and Partnerships

Collaboration may take place when two institutions or people work togetheron a common goal. The need for this usually is to bring their separatecompetencies to bear on a problem and work for a solution richer in optionsthan might have been possible working alone (Raspa & Ward, 2000). TheOxford Reference Online defines collaboration as ‘‘the action of workingwith someone to produce something’’ (Home Oxford Reference, n.d.). Jainon the other hand quotes Edwin S. Clay who says partnerships ‘‘y is a state

Building Partnerships for Information Literacy in African Universities 129

of being a partner y and having joint interest’’ (Jain & Nfila, 2011). Bennisin his book Organizing Genius (Bennis, 1997) says that ‘‘y None of us is assmart as all of us.’’ Wilson puts the same idea differently and sayscollaboration brings together the widest range of talents and resources tosolve a problem, build a program, or create something entirely new (Wilson,n.d.). Doug Cook quotes A. T. Himmelman (Cook, 2000) who offered threetypes of connections that may be associated with library partnerships:

� Networking: ‘‘Exchanging information for mutual benefit.’’ This can takeplace at forums such as conferences, workshops, research days, and otherinformal connections to facilitate information sharing and exchange. Thisnetworking is by the librarian with an academic member of staff.� Coordination: is a formal process of networking dealing with a commonagreed problem. In Cook’s example of this level of connection, a librarian,shares a common goal with a classroom faculty member to teach studentscritical thinking skills, but may work independently to develop a libraryinstruction session for a course.� Collaboration: Collaboration Cook says is a more complex formalizedstructure which will involve the parties who ‘‘y meet together, plan theassignment, work out a joint presentation scheduley and evaluate theresults.’’

These interactions and partnerships are not mutually exclusive as theyoverlap and continue to form and develop and need to be managedproperly.

Introducing IL is a challenging task for many Higher Education (HE)institutions (Charbonneau & Croatt-Moore, 2006). One of the challengesfaced by librarians is the perceived difference between the academics andlibrarians. Machin, Harding, and Derbyshire (2009) quote Bowler andStreet, and Webber that ‘‘y cultural differences exists that can disadvan-tage collaborative efforts between academic and library staff.’’ IL by itsnature requires stakeholders to collaborate in an effort to accommodateeach other for the benefit of student learning. Mackey says that ‘‘Thesechallenges afford libraries exciting opportunities to be more innovative withinformation literacy programming and to gain new advocates or partners’’(Mackey & Jacobson, 2005). She says that ‘‘Partners in collaboration sharethe risks and responsibilities, as well as resources, skills, and benefits’’(Charbonneau & Croatt-Moore, 2006). Whereas partnerships at institu-tional level between academic staff and librarians is crucial, it also requires‘‘cross institutional cooperation and collaboration’’ (Elisam & Keya, 2004).These strategic alliances, networking, and coordination are recommended,whether at an institutional or cross institutional level and requires a


structure (Elisam & Keya, 2004) within which such activities can bepromoted and developed.

Librarians are well known for cooperative and collaborative efforts intheir service provision. This culture is fundamental to the library and ispremised on the principle that no library can be 100% self-sufficient. Thishas manifested itself in many long-standing resource sharing programs thatlibraries are involved in such as inter-library loans and consortiums. InSouth Africa alone there are five regional academic library consortia:Gauteng and Environs Library Consortium (GAELIC), the Free StateLibraries and Information Consortium (FRELICO), Cape LibrariesCooperatives (CALICO), Eastern Seaboard Association Libraries (ESAL),and South Eastern Academic Libraries’ System (SEALS) (Ojedokun &Lumande, 2003). This applies to other regions and parts of the world.

9.3. UB Library Experience

UB was established 31 years ago (Nfila, n.d.) and it has grown to include themain campus in Gaborone and the Centre for Continuing Education (CCE)in Francistown and the Okavango Research Institute in Maun. It iscurrently serving over 15,000 students (Nfila, n.d.) most of whom areundergraduates and some of whom attend part-time. It is the first andlargest of the two public universities in Botswana. The UB Library servesseven faculties of Business, Education, Engineering & Technology, HealthSciences, Humanities, Science, and Social Sciences.

UB as the largest national university in the country is tasked withproviding the country with graduates who will participate in the social andeconomic development of the country. This responsibility is clearly stated inthe institution’s mission and vision statements. A number of policydocuments have also been put in place to ensure that the university is ableto produce graduates who are able to make a meaningful contribution to thenational economy. UB through its learning and teaching policy (Universityof Botswana, 2008) asserts that UB students should be independent learnersand also be equipped with lifelong learning skills; one of which is IL. It isworth noting that UB library started its IL program even before theuniversity management recognized the importance of IL in its policydocuments. UB library like other academic libraries has gone through anumber of stages in terms of the development of IL as an important andcritical skill for lifelong learning.

The evolution of IL at UB is captured in a number of papers and followsa similar pattern that has been found in most academic libraries. TheUniversity of Botswana Library (UBL) has had a long history in offering


user education (Lamusse, 1996; Lumande, Mbambo, & Roselle, 1996;Lumande, Ojedokun, & Fidzani, 2006; Mbambo & Roselle, 1999; Roselle &Mbambo, 1996).

Like most academic libraries, UBL sought to provide a welcoming libraryenvironment to new students by conducting library tours which started withthe University Librarian, as the post was called then, addressing first-yearstudents on the activities and role of the library in their learning process.The library tour or orientation formed the basic form of library instructionand focused on familiarizing the students with services and resourcesavailable but did not include teaching students skills on how they can fullyutilize the resources except the use of the card catalogue and which laterbecame the OPAC. In 1996/1997 academic year the orientation content wasmodified and now included information about what is available, where tofind books, and whom to ask for information.

Whereas library orientation was for first years, subject librarians furtherarranged with academic staff for time to conduct bibliographic instructionto senior students on the use of specific information tools. In this waysubject librarians had started to practice the skill of networking, which is akey feature in a subject organizational structure. The librarians went beyondjust giving students an overview of the library resources and services butactually taught students how to use the OPAC and other topics likesearching the Internet.

Among the complaints and criticisms of this activity was that studentsdid not value it and as a result many missed these sessions particularlybecause there was no mark to be gained. Further, the bibliographicinstruction being offered did not address the issues relating to the impact ofinformation technology and the proliferation of both print and electronicinformation sources.

The University library has benefited, from its set up, on a subjectstructure which encourages closer liaison with departments. The concept offaculty liaison, or ‘‘door to door’’ coined by the Health Sciences librarianat UBL, has been an integral part of the IL propagation. Librarians hadto sell the concept of IL to the faculty through liaison relationships inthe disciplines or faculties they are assigned to. The success of most ILrelationships is a result of a strong relationship between the library andfaculty. Mbambo (2006) in her evaluation of trends in faculty supportin Southern African universities noted that good relations between thelibrary and faculty lead to faculty support of library programs, effectiveutilization of library services, and improved support from librarians toresearchers.

McGuinness (2007) brings up a concept of ‘‘working from the topdown.’’ He brings to the fore an important point that, though, ‘‘puttingdown roots with individual academics, librarians must view their ultimate


objective as the full incorporation of IL as a central cog in the pedagogicalwheels of their institutions.’’

McGuinness (2007) adds that y ‘‘while librarians should not completelydismiss the short-term opportunities that are created through targeting‘academic champions,’ they should focus and direct their energy towards thedevelopment of sustainable collaborations that are mandated from the topdown and resistant to changes in personnel and other environmental factors.’’

McGuinness (2007) further advances realistic and practical ‘‘strategieswhich take into account a long-term view of IL development in highereducation,’’ as follows:

i. Identify and exploit opportunities that arise from major restructuringinitiatives in your institution: Librarians should be aware of majorcurriculum reforms that may offer them a chance to reposition andintegrate IL on a more permanent basis within the pedagogical structureof the institution.

ii. Identify and exploit opportunities arising from innovative pedagogicalinitiatives.

iii. Embedding discipline-sensitive, inquiry-based learning at the heart ofthe learning experience.

iv. Exploiting the synergies between collaborative inquiry, informationliteracy development and networked learning in new and innovativeways (Levy, n.d.).

v. Work toward the inclusion of IL modules on the roster of trainingcourses offered to academics by institutional teaching and learning units:Rather than invest all their time and energy in the promotion of studentIL training to academics, librarians should work to ensure the additionof IL to the list of professional development modules offered toacademics within their institutions.

Lobby for the explicit inclusion of IL in mandates and educationaldirectives that are issued by the highest levels of national governance: Thestrategic positioning of IL on national political agendas should be anongoing objective of librarians. Therefore the library persevered in its belieffor the importance of IL.

UB, in time, recognized the changes brought by technology in HE andthus through a Task Force recommendation introduced general educationcourses (GEC). These were aimed at ensuring that the UB graduates getskills and even attributes that would equip them to function in the workenvironment and the society as a whole. One of these courses wasComputing and Information Skills and the Task Force recommendedthat the library was to be part of the course. The Library in 2002 formed apartnership with the Department of Computer Science and came up


with two courses — Computing and Information Skills GEC121 forsemester 1 covering topics: Concept of information, Organization ofinformation, Information access tools or (which later changed to ‘‘Findinginformation’’), Reference sources, and Periodical literature; and GEC122for semester 2 covering topics: Periodical literature, Indexes, Abstractingindexes and full-text electronic databases, Evaluation of informationsources, Legal issues of information use covering Copyright Law, citation,and referencing styles.

These were credit bearing courses in which the librarians collaboratedwith computer science academic staff in teaching, setting of tests andexaminations and marking. Computer staff taught basic computing skillsand the librarians dealt with the IL content. The course made abreakthrough because for the first time there was a formal course thatfocused on information skills for all first-year students. However, althoughthe content and syllabus that initially developed in preparation for thecourse covered upper levels, resources did not allow for this to be rolled outbeyond the first-year level of undergraduates.

9.3.1. Course Linked Information Literacy

To address the gap that developed between the first-year programmeand higher levels, the library came up with a term called ‘‘course linkedinformation literacy.’’ Subject librarians were encouraged if not expected toliaise with their assigned faculty and departments and request for time slotsto teach IL skills. UBL emphasized the need for librarians to integrate IL incourses at the university but there was no formal or official notice to makethe faculty aware of that requirement. At that time the university had not yetcome up with policy papers like the Learning and Teaching Policy (2006) andthus it depended on the librarian’s relationship with the faculty to actuallybargain the integration of IL in the upper classes. For most librarians atUBL bargaining with lecturers for slots to teach IL was met with someresistance. Academic staff felt that their courses were fully loaded.

9.3.1.1. University Teaching and Learning Policy The UB library was astep ahead of some universities in the region in that developments in thestrategic direction of the university created an enabling environment forpromoting IL.

A strategy for excellence: UB Strategic Plan, 2016 and beyond, facilitatedthis process. This strategy had six priority areas:

� Extending access and participation� Providing relevant and high-quality programs


� Intensifying research performance� Strengthening engagement� Improving the student experience� Enhancing human resources

This strategy had positive impact on IL. Other institutional enabling factorsincluded a number of policies such as Employability Strategy, the Learningand Teaching Policy, as well as the Research Strategy. In addition, theuniversity has an academic program review process for all new courses orcourses being revised. The library examined all these policies and decided totap into them to make itself relevant in the university core business oflearning, teaching, and research.

9.3.2. Learning and Teaching Policy

What is crucial about this policy are the 12 graduate attributes:

1. Information and communication technology knowledge and skills2. Self-directed, lifelong learning skills3. Critical and creative thinking skills4. Problem-solving skills5. Communication skills6. Entrepreneurship and employability skills7. Organizational and teamwork skills8. Research skills and information literacy9. Social responsibility and leadership skills

10. Interpersonal skills11. Cross-cultural fluency12. Accountability and ethical standards

In these 12 attributes, the library identified numbers 2, 4, and 8 to focus onto market IL to the departments.

9.4. DelPHE Project

When the DelPHE project was being put together, UB was already activelyin dialog within the university on the issue of IL. As indicated above, thelibrary has constantly been advocating for space in the courses for yearswith some measure of success, particularly when the general educationcourses were implemented. The idea that brought about the DelPHE projectwas first made at the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU)


inaugural planning meeting of the Libraries and Information Network inOctober 2007 that was sponsored by the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), hosted by UB when thenetwork itself was established.

The meeting recognized IL as an important component for effectivestudent learning and it accepted that there were challenges to theestablishment of IL in many of the HEIs, especially in Africa. They notedthat the process of integrating IL within the curricula was not thatstraightforward and challenging. Challenges included the lack of methodol-ogies to follow on how to integrate IL in academic programs; how todemonstrate value of the IL skills to both academic staff and students.

However, the participants agreed that there was great potential for therole of the library in developing IL and that this is what the librarians shouldbe doing particularly with graduate employability becoming an increasingconcern for many institutions. They noted that IL skills add a lot to theperceived and actual value of university degree programs. Libraries mighteven increase their standing by offering new services, and by showingcolleagues how they and their students would benefit from the skills not onlyto find information but also to analyze and evaluate it.

The Vice Chancellor, Professor Bojosi Otlhogile from UB equallysupported the presence of IL in the institutional drive for excellence, andhe urged librarians to find ways of making this engagement a tangiblecomponent of academic discourse in university education. It was agreed thatthis might be addressed effectively by developing collaborative ILcurriculum frameworks through library partnership, which could then beshared across the network and be tailored by individual institutions to fit theneeds of their own courses and departments.

Convinced of the importance of IL the meeting recommended that HEinstitutions should collaborate and form partnerships on matters relating toIL to share experience and approaches that can be transferred and adoptedby other HE institutions. Thus in 2009 CBU, UB, and University of AbertayDundee (UAD) formed a partnership to design the project and apply forfunding from DelPHE.

This partnership of three institutions brought together institutions thatwere at different levels of IL development. CBU did not have an existing ILprogram in place at the time, UB was in the process of expanding theprogram that was already unfolding, and UAD was to be the model uponwhich the project would be based because it already had such a programrunning. After a year of negotiations the project was finally approved forfunding by DelPHE at the rate of d30,000 per year from 2010 to 2012 underthe project title ‘‘Developing an IL Programme for Lifelong Learning inAfrican Universities’’ and CBU library as the lead partner through whomthe reporting was to be done with the funding agency.


The project was intended to bring academic staff and librarians closertogether in curriculum design and program implementation in the field ofIL, and to help empower libraries to fulfill their role in developing anddelivering lifelong university learning strategies.

Over the last three years, UB has been privileged to be part of thisproject. For UB this project focused on identifying strategies for bringinglecturers and library professionals closer together in curriculum design andprogram implementation, and ways of empowering libraries in general tofulfill their role in developing and delivering lifelong university learningstrategies. The project itself also had the goal of coming up with anevidence-based framework for embedding IL into university programs aswell as to provide a pedagogical training program for library professionalsand academic staff.

9.4.1. Principal Stakeholders and Project Participants

The fundamental aim of the project was to bring stakeholders to worktogether. Stakeholders were students, library professionals and academics,and other selected university staff and senior managers who were thoughtwould recognize the value and role of IL in the broader institutionalexcellence mission and its role in enhancing academic quality and engage-ment goals of the university such as faculty deputy deans.

It was recognized from the start of the project that CBU was behind UBand therefore was to benefit from the processes employed by UB. UB was totake the lead and then attempted to replicate all UB project activities atCBU with the hope that an active IL program would be started by the timethe project came to a close.

9.4.2. Project Implementation

The IL DelPHE project came at a critical time in the on-going institutionalefforts and commitment to embed quality across program planning,design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, alongside humanresource development which is a necessity for effective program delivery.UBL approached the Centre for Academic Development (CAD), as thecenter responsible for academic development, to be partners on the project.The two departments quickly identified three members of staff (thedeputy director Library Services, a senior librarian, and an academic fromCAD — deputy director responsible for teaching and learning) to form thecore local project planning team to implement the project and collaborate


with the other two project partners in Zambia and Abertay Dundee.Strategically, the UB project team requested the acting director for CAD tobe the patron of the project and the deputy vice-chancellor (AcademicAffairs) agreed to be the sponsor of IL in the university. This meant that theproject had the blessing of two important departments of the university thatare directly responsible for academic affairs and policies on programdevelopment.

The UB project team further decided to have a group of senior academicswho would be called the IL Reference group who would assist in advocacyefforts. This was done to ensure that IL was not simply a ‘‘library’’ projectbut to ensure that the academia understood the value of IL and to firmlyroot it within the university culture from the top management to thedepartmental and program level.

CBU also formed a team of three (the university librarian, a Librarian,and an academic staff member). UAD library also had one staff memberresponsible for communicating and providing advice to the project team.The joint project team engagement and assessment of progress by the threeinstitutions were quarterly. These engagements were mainly preceded byeither a workshop or a conference on the subject of IL.

9.4.3. Conceptualizing the Project — UB Context (November 2009–August2010)

9.4.3.1. Approach Once the project was approved by DelPHE which wastoward the end of 2010, the UB project planning team met and the first taskof the project team was to study the project philosophy, rationale, and itsgoals. This is because two of the key UB staff that had drafted the requestfor funding had left the university. The CAD staff member also was broughtinto the team only after the funding had been approved. The teamconducted a literature survey on the subject and examined UB policies andstrategic position documentation. This process allowed for a commonunderstanding of the existing institutional policies as well as an awareness ofwhat current IL issues were in higher institutions of learning. At the end ofthis process a three-year rolling work plan with contextualized goals andoutcomes that were linked or had a bearing to the university’s ‘‘A Strategyfor Excellence the University of Botswana Strategic Plan to 2016 andBeyond’’ (University of Botswana Council, 2008) was drawn-up. It wasimportant that although the project was meant to come up with tools thatwould be of use to other African institutions of higher learning, it was at thesame time necessary that activities were practical, relevant, and promotedthe UB strategic vision and goals.


9.4.3.2. Baseline study The second task in the first year of the project workplan was to conduct a baseline study among academic staff and students. Thegoal of the study was to uncover the institutional context of ILS in thecourses, pedagogy, and institutional support services that existed. The teamhad felt that the project needed to start off on a firm ground and not onspeculative assumptions about the stakeholders’ perception of theimportance and practice of IL at UB. The baseline proposal and surveyinstrument were developed and data collection was augmented by focusgroup discussions and interviews of some students, academics, and librarians.Distribution of the questionnaire was done with the assistance of researchassistants. Data analysis of the study was undertaken using SPSS tool.

A detailed report (Oluka, 2011a, 2011b) was published to be published inthis book, suffice it to say that there was an appreciable convergence ofunderstanding of what IL is, conceptually, among students and staff. Staffand student feedback indicated a significant IL absence in curriculum. Interms of learning, teaching, and assessment as a whole the study revealedspecific areas of IL that present challenges across programs in ways thatcould impact institutional quality. The study concluded that IL frameworksand toolkits together with staff professional development and studentacademic support would be required in order to realize institutional goalsfor program quality.

9.4.3.3. Embedding IL at UB Since the start of the project, CAD and UBLhave been working together to bring academic staff and library professionalsto partner in curriculum design and program implementation in the field ofIL, and in this process empower the library to fulfill its role in developing anddelivering university lifelong learning strategic goals. Part of the first andsecond year of the project the team was developing an evidence-basedframework for embedding IL into university programs by engaging academicstaff and librarians in workshops. Some of these workshops raised awarenessand highlighted the importance of IL as a critical ingredient for academicexcellence among students, librarians, academic staff, and universitymanagement. Other workshops were meant to develop competencies andprofessional development in IL of the stakeholders. The last in this line oftraining was a reflective conference and hands-on workshop represented byregional partners that converged at Copperbelt University, Kitwe, Zambia inMay 2011. The outcomes of these undertakings culminated in drafts of an ILframework and IL toolkits. This workshop was repeated at UB.

As awareness was growing among the academic staff on IL, UB librarycommenced discussions with CADs Communication and Study Skills Unit(CSSU) with a view to initiating a formal process of integrating IL in theCSSU course structures. Following several joint meetings and retreats thatconsidered the content and course outlines, an agreement was reached to


revise CSSU courses for them to reflect IL components. The revised and ILrecast courses of CSSU with a faculty discipline focus have been processedand approved by the University’s Academic Program Review PlanningCommittee for implementation at year-one level.

For UB it was fundamental for the success of the project to partner withCAD. It would not have been easy to get the courses approved if theyemanated from the library, which is not an academic department. Never-theless, the library’s approach has not been to create a separate IL course, butrather infuse IL in existing identified programs at different levels of study.This has been achieved at first-year level.

However, leaving it at year-one level is not enough since students havereported and shown to lack these skills at higher level of study because theyhad forgotten the skills they learnt in their first year of study. The intentionis to have IL in other programs as well. To achieve this, it needed academicstaff to appreciate the value of IL skills in their courses. To bring about theneeded awareness, the project had to organize a series of workshops thatwas jointly attended by representatives from academic departments andlibrarians. Those who attended these workshops at UB included assistantdeans and program coordinators.

Some of the themes covered in the workshops included: Anchoring IL forquality learning in HE programs in Sub-Sahara Africa: frameworks, models,experiences, challenges, and opportunities; pedagogical skills and ILcurriculum development skills for library staff and academics.

The involvement of the deputy director and head of the Teaching andLearning Unit at CAD and a member on the project team was very criticalto the success of the workshops. This was because of the way he linked IL tothe Learning and Teaching Policy of the university in which the key toevaluating the quality and relevance of programs is the integration of arange of graduate attributes into the study program design and implementa-tion. Invitations to participants came from his office. This approach waslater also adopted by the project counterparts at CBU who managed tobring in the director of Academic Development Centre (ADC) to be part oftheir project team.

9.4.3.4. Toolkits During the second year of the project and once thetraining workshops that elicited ideas from academic staff and librarians onhow they thought IL should be part of the academic programs, it was left tothe project team to draft the ILS Toolkits. The CAD at UB was given theconsultancy role to draft the toolkits because of its expertise in curriculumdesign. At UB, CAD is an enabler in the provision of strategic support forcurriculum development and implementation for the university. It hadalso been a partner since the beginning of the IL project and so hadan insight into the activities carried out and what was envisaged in the


toolkits for them to be able to effectively and within the required timeframeto draft and produce toolkits. Since CAD does not have professionallibrarians, one of the librarians on the team was part of the drafting team(Table 9.1).

A joint workshop between CBU and UB was organized to review thedraft toolkits and given a final approval for publication.

9.4.4. Advocacy

Guided by the baseline study results, the UB project team undertook a seriesof advocacy initiatives. These included dissemination of the baseline findings

Table 9.1: Information literacy — DelPHE project journey at UB.

Activity Objectives/Content/Outcome

Policies � Strategy for excellence� Learning & Teaching policy� Work plan

Stakeholders � Students, academic staff, librarians, administrators

Collaborators � UBL, CAD (internal), CBU, UNZA, UM, IDS (external)

Baseline study � Stakeholders’ perception of importance and practice of IL at UB

at curriculum and pedagogy level� Study concluded that IL frameworks and toolkits together with

staff professional development and student academic support

would be required in order to realize institutional goals for

academic quality� Findings shared at conferences at: CBU, Zambia (August 2010);

Botswana, UB ILS SCANUL ECS conference (December 2010);

and LILAC, UK, (April 2011)

Workshops � Integrating information literacy in the curriculum: frameworks,

models, experiences, challenges, and opportunities� Information Literacy Pedagogy� CBU/UB joint project meetings

IL course integration CSSU communication & study skills courses

� Baseline findings shared at conferences at: CBU, Zambia

(August 2010); Botswana, SCANUL

Advocacy � ECS conference, Gaborone, Botswana (December 2010);

LILAC, UK, (April 2011); SCANUL ECS conference, Nairobi,

Kenya (December 2012); during Information Literacy Week,

September 10–14, 2012.

Source: (adapted from Machin et al., 2009).


among a cross-section of stakeholders and partners in the project at UB,regionally and internationally. Presentations were made to an internationalconference that was held at CBU, Kitwe, Zambia in August 2010 thatincluded representation from University of Malawi, University of Zambia,Copperbelt University, and UB. This interaction was significant in that itbrought in two additional universities in the project activities. Otherpresentations were made to the UB library staff and the staff of thedepartment of Library and Information Studies; to the UB/CBU jointmeeting held in Gaborone on February 24 and 25, 2011; to the INASPInformation Literacy Workshop for librarians and researchers andacademics in Institutions of Higher learning and Colleges of Zambia,August 16–18, 2010. The same information was further presented to the Pre-SCECSAL information literacy workshop entitled ‘‘Strengthening Informa-tion Literacy Interventions; Using Creative Approaches to Teaching andLearning’’ on information skills, December 5, 2010 at which presentationswere made by two members of the project team. A posting was also made onthe Chat literacy web site (http://www.eldis.org/) in December 2011.

At an institutional level a series of briefing meetings and presentationswere carried out to library staff and faculty executives. The actingdirector, CAD, the project patron also made briefing presentations at theAcademic Affairs Division Management Team (AADMT). This is theteam whose members include all deans and chaired by the deputy vice-chancellor for academic affairs. This was a strategic move on our part inorder to keep the deans within the loop so that later when we decided togo down to the departmental level and talk to their staff, the HODswould be on our side or at least would have been familiar with the subjectmatter.

9.4.5. Partnership Opportunities — Tapping into Emerging Synergies

Looking out for opportunities to enrich a project is always advantageousand proved useful for the UB team. Project teams need to be open to‘‘outside’’ input and suggestions and be ready to share the progress of thework done and not wait until the end of the project as a whole. In the case ofthe UB, when the project team interacted with their colleagues at thedifferent forums on the issue of IL, it was clear that there was commoninterest in the subject in many institutions. The process leading to the end ofthe DelPHE project opened windows to many potential networkingrelationships and institutional collaborations in the region and abroad.Such networking has had positive impact on the end result of the project aswell as on the IL programming at UB. The networking contacts haveopened new avenues for further research and collaboration in areas such asmonitoring and evaluation of the IL programs in HE institutions.

http://www.eldis.org/


9.4.6. University of Abertay Dundee

In many ways the UBL and CAD staff have benefited from collaborativeinitiatives during the life of DelPHE IL project mainly in capacity buildingand sharing of experiences. The contact with staff at Dundee was enrichingand they provided insight into the planning of workshops and conferencesheld. They also provided technical support in the production of the finalversion of the IL toolkits.

9.4.7. UNZA–IDS–INASP Workshop

Through professional networking, a partnership was established with theIDS staff that was facilitating INASP funded workshops. Important amongthem was the ‘‘Information Literacy Workshop for Librarians andResearchers and Academics in Institutions of Higher Learning andColleges’’ from August 16 to 18, 2010 in Lusaka, Zambia. The UB DelPHEproject team was invited to share its activities, particularly on how UBstarted integrating IL in academic programs. These contacts with IDS led toan establishment of a mutually beneficial informal partnership. Theworkshop in Lusaka was followed by further sharing at a UB, IDS hostedSCECSAL Pre-Conference workshop on the theme: ‘‘StrengtheningInformation Literacy Interventions; Using Creative Approaches to Teach-ing and Learning’’ on information skills, December 5, 2010.

At these workshops, a collaborative network was mooted to consolidatethe gains made by UB, IDS, and INASP among others in the area of IL.Specifically, the area of monitoring and evaluation was seen to be lacking inmany institutional drives to introduce IL and required a collaborative effortto develop the necessary tools. The IDS facilitator was invited a few monthslater to facilitate at a conference UB library was organizing on behalf of theStanding Conference of Academic National University Librarians inEastern Central Southern Africa (SCANUL ECS).

These two workshops were attended by people from different institutionsthat had interest in IL and were interested in linking up with otherswith similar interests and projects. Among them were the officials fromIDS, INASP, University of Loughborough, and from Electronic Informa-tion for Libraries (EIFL). As a follow-up to the pre-conference workshop,an informal meeting was held between IDS, INASP representative,and some of the UB project members. This meeting was as a result ofinterest triggered by the UB experiences in the DelPHE IL project. Themeeting discussed a possible opportunity for a parallel project on moni-toring and evaluation of IL programs. The issue was further discussed whenone of the project members was invited to participate and make a


presentation at the LILAC conference that was held in the United Kingdomin April 2011.

Three institutions (University of Zambia, UB, and University of Malawi)were identified to be partners to cooperate on a project to developmonitoring and evaluation tools with the support of IDS and the Universityof Loughborough. From UB’s point of view, any such work on IL was to bea continuation of its own efforts in line with the institutional efforts some ofwhich had already been undertaken under the DelPHE project. It took timeto come to an understanding with the ‘‘lead’’ cooperating partner on whatthe objectives and the processes to take for the new project. It took a threedays workshop of all UB stakeholders to find a common way forward interms of what areas were to be addressed. This was crucial because initiallythe approach did not seem to be responding to the local needs.

The DelPHE project also benefited further from the activities of IDS.Two of the IDS/INASP trained IL facilitators were requested and providedtraining at both UB and CBU training workshops on IL pedagogy. This wasan important addition to the project which had not even been in the initialplan of activities. This means that projects need to be flexible to be able toadjust and accommodate relevant input from stakeholders and otherinterested parties within the wider profession context.

9.4.8. Challenges

Challenges are many that will be faced by project partners. The firstchallenge of the UB team was the distances between the three collaboratinginstitutions, CBU, and Abertay Dundee, which meant face-to-face meetings,would be spaced. Whereas, the two African partners where able to meetevery quarter, the representative from Abertay Dundee was only able toparticipate by video-conferencing and e-mail communication. Apart fromthe common goal for the three institutions, CBU and UB were expected toeach implement or develop programs of activities from which recommenda-tions and practical experiences would emanate for the development of ILwithin each institution. This did not work at a fast enough pace for anumber of reasons. One reason was to do with late release of funds whichate into the project period. Second, impact of IL activities at CBU and UBwere not the same due to the fact that institutions were at different stages.UB was already integrating IL in programs whereas CBU was stillsensitizing academics and librarians on the IL and having the IL conceptpaper discussed and approved by faculty boards.

Other challenges were to do with the partners having or not having whatMachin calls ‘‘shared meaning.’’ Machin says ‘‘y having openly sharedperspectives and listened to the views of all participants, agreement needs to


be reached on what the team is trying to achieve and how this will bearticulated’’ (Machin et al., 2009). This scenario was faced by the UB teamat two levels. The first was to ensure that academic staff and librarians areable to come together and look at issues from the same point of view. Thiswas done by bringing together the two stakeholders in workshops whichhighlighted the clear roles and contribution each one would bring to thelearning and delivery of IL. This proved useful to the development ofharmonious relationships.

The second was when following up on the monitoring and evaluationsystem that was to be developed jointly with IDS as an offshoot of DelPHEproject. There was no project document agreed upon or shared among theproposed partners. UB felt that the issue of partnership should involvedeveloping a memorandum of understanding or a project plan documentwhich would outline who the partners are and what their role is. The projectplan also should indicate the project objectives in detail. Cooperatinginstitutions may have to agree prior to the implementation on the source offunding and have an indication of the intellectual property ownership of theproceedings or product. Unfortunately, the third part was unaware of thesignificance of these constraints and also because of time constraints onlydrafted a brief proposal. This is an example of the challenges associated withpartnerships and forming partnerships.

The brief proposal that was drafted for the proposed new project onmonitoring and evaluation did not meet all these requirements, whichfosters a common understanding of the project. In this case it should haveindicated how it differs with DelPHE and how it would complementDelPHE or continue from where DelPHE would have ended. UB teamwas of the view that providing information or being a study object doesnot constitute partnership. In fact the other party was keen to be fullyparticipative and collaborative.

Whereas the initial understanding was that the next collaborative projectwould be a follow-up or build on the DelPHE project results but thesubstantive proposal from partners looked different and seemed a repetitionof the DelPHE activities. In order to come up with common understandingamong the involved parties a workshop was organized at UB in order toidentify what it was the UB needed to do to advance IL at the university firstand foremost and second to ensure that there were clear identified areas ofcommon interest that were to be studied. The UB workshop was held fromMay 22 to 24, 2012 at the University of Botswana, Gabarone, was highlyparticipative, and successful and the UB team were able to prioritize anddevelop their ideas further on priorities and ways to monitor and evaluatefurther activities.

The workshop provided UB with the opportunity to reflect on the currentsituation at UB with regard to fostering information literate, critical


thinking independent learners and, in particular introduced an approachthat could be used to frame further monitoring and evaluation activities,and to enable ideas to be shared with regard to future plans and possiblecollaboration. The workshop was titled: ‘‘Exploring International Partner-ships for the Development of Information Literate (IL), Critical Thinking,and Independent Learners.’’ The workshop (Hepworth & Duvigneau, 2012),funded by IDS, was organized by the University of Botswana Library andCentre for Academic development and facilitated by Dr. Mark Hepworth(Department of Information Science, Loughborough University) andSiobhan Duvigneau (The British Library for Development, the Instituteof Development Studies (IDS)).

9.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the IL activities at UB have come a long way. The DelPHEIL project came at a critical time in the on-going institutional efforts andcommitment to enhancing academic quality across program planning, design,implementation, and monitoring, alongside human resource development foreffective delivery. With the demonstrated commitment of UB ExecutiveManagement, the capacity building activities goals initiated by DelPHE ILproject are set to stay on track and contribute to enhancement of academicprograms at UB. Collaboration through formal and/or informal partnershipsis useful as they are a form of benchmarking and should be promotedwithin and across institutions. Dialogue and professional interaction amongstakeholders, be it through face-to-face meetings, workshops, or by othercommunication means will resolve many differences for the common good.

References

Bennis, W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. London:

Nicholas Brealey.

Charbonneau, D. H., & Croatt-Moore, C. F. (2006). The ABC’s of building

information partnerships: Factors for success in building active and engaged

partnerships. Library Scholarly Publications, Paper 30, 5pp. Retrieved from http://

digitalcommons.wayne.edu/libsp/3

Cook, D. (2000). Creating connections: A review of the literature. In D. Raspa &

D. Ward (Eds.), The collaborative imperative: Librarians and faculty working

together in the information universe (pp. 19–38). Chicago, IL: The American

Library Association.

Elisam, M., & Keya, A. P. (2004). Building information skills among undergraduate

students in universities: A case of Makerele University. Makerele Journal of

Higher Education, 1, 92–103.

http://www.ub.bw/documents/Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ub.bw/documents/Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Policy.pdf


Hepworth, M., & Duvigneau, S. (2012). Building research capability: Enabling critical

thinking through information literacy in Africa. Brighton: IDS.

Home Oxford Reference. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/.

Accessed on June 8, 2013.

Jain, P., & Nfila, R. B. (2011). Developing strategic partnerships for national

development: A case of Botswana. Library Review, 60(5), 1–14.

Lamusse, F. (1996). Report on student orientation, 1992 in take. Library plans for

NDP 8: 1997–2003 (Doc. UB NDP 8/040, 26 June), 6pp., University of Botswana

Library.

Lumande, E., Mbambo, B., & Roselle, A. (1996). Information literacy skills

programme: A report (10pp.), University of Botswana.

Lumande, E., Ojedokun, A., & Fidzani, B. (2006). Information literacy skills course

delivery through WebCT: The University of Botswana library experience.

International Journal of Education and Development using ICT [Online], 2(1).

Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=96.

Machin, A. I., Harding, A., & Derbyshire, J. (2009). Enhancing the student

experience through effective collaboration: A case study. New Review of Academic

Librarianship, 15, 145–159. doi: 10.1080/13614530903240437.

Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2005). Information literacy: A collaborative

endeavor. College Teaching, 53(4), 140–144.

Mbambo, B. (2006). A review of international trends in library faculty support in

higher education:A special focus onSouthernAfrican university libraries. InSubject

librarians: Engaging with the learning and teaching environment (pp. 175–187).

Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Mbambo, B., & Roselle, A. (1999). Integrating information literacy skills instruction

into the curriculum: Comparison of two approaches. In A. Kari, et al. (Eds.),

LOEX of the west: Collaboration and instructional design in a virtual environment

(pp. 145–158). New York, NY: JAI Press.

McGuinness, C. (2007). ‘‘Exploring strategies for integrated information literacy:

From academic champions’’ to institution-wide change. Communications in

Information Literacy, 1(1), 26–38.

Nfila, R. B. (n.d.) Academic libraries support for e-learning: Initiatives and

opportunities — The case of University of Botswana Library.

Ojedokun, A. A., & Lumande, E. (2003). Cooperative electronic networks of

academic libraries in Southern Africa. Information Development, 21(1), 66–73.

Ojedokun, A. A., & Lumande, E. (2005). The integration of information literacy

skills into a credit earning programme at the University of Botswana. African

Journal of Library, Archives, and Information Science, 15(2), 17–124.

Oluka, S. (2011a). Strengthening institutional capacity in information literacy: UB

DELPHE project experience, University of Botswana.

Oluka, S. (2011b). Strengthening institutional capacity in information literacy: UB

DeLPHE project: Baseline study of the University of Botswana experience.

Gaborone, DeLPHE Team, University of Botswana.

Oluka, S., Fidzani, B., & Lumande, E. (2012). Developing an information literacy

programme in higher education: A University of Botswana environmental scan.

Paper presented at a joint University of Botswana, Copperbelt University and

University of Abertay Dundee conference, Kitwe, Zambia, March (13pp.).

http://www.ub.bw/documents/strategic%20plan%20approved%20by%20council%20june%202008%20final%20closed.pdf


Raspa, D., & Ward, D. (2000). Listening for collaboration faculty and librarians:

Faculty and librarians working together. In D. Raspa & D. Ward (Eds.),

Collaborative imperative: Librarians and faculty working together in the information

universe. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.

Roselle, A., & Mbambo, B. (1996). Partners in education: The faculty and the library.

Higher Education Development Unit Bulletin, No. 14, pp. 14–15.

University of Botswana. (2008). Learning and teaching policy. Retrieved from http://

www.ub.bw/documents/Learning%20and%20Teaching%20Policy.pdf. Accessed

on July 1, 2012.

University of Botswana Council. (2008). A strategy for excellence: The University of

Botswana strategic plan to 2016 and beyond. To be a leading centre of academic

excellence. Retrieved from http://www.ub.bw/documents/strategic%20plan%20

approved%20by%20council%20june%202008%20final%20closed.pdf. Accessed

on July 1, 2012.

Documents

[Library and Information Science] Developing People’s Information Capabilities Volume 8 || Building Partnerships for Information Literacy among HE Institutions in African Universities: