Factors influencing the faculty-librarian collaboration at the Vietnamese universities

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Factors influencing the faculty-librarian collaboration at the Vietnamese universities Thi Lan Nguyen, Kulthida Tuamsuk

⁎

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, KhonKaen University, Thailand

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Influencing factors Faculty-librarian collaboration Vietnamese universities Academic libraries

This article aims to enrich understandings of factors having effects on the faculty-librarian collaboration at Vietnamese universities. A quantitative methodology was used. Four universities in Vietnam were chosen to survey. The questionnaires were sent to three key participants, including (1) administrators (dean/vice dean of faculty, director/deputy director of library), (2) the faculty who is teaching and research in a university, (3) librarian is a library staff working at an academic library. The descriptive statistics and factor loading value were used to analyze the surveyed data. Based on the results of the descriptive statistical data, it was noted that individual dimensions were the highest factor having impacts on the collaboration, followed by Time and space, Roles of faculty and librarian, and resources, Organizational structure, Power, Work culture/environment, Information and communication technology, Collaborative networks, Mission/vision, educational philosophy, and strategic plan, Learning about the collaboration, Incentives policy, Organization's values, and External pressures. On the other hand, there are 11 sub-factors will be removed in the research model because the factor loading value is less than 0.4. This study helps the university's leaders, administrators, faculty members, and librarians find ways to boost factors in supporting the collaboration.

Introduction Faculty-librarian collaboration is considered here as a model that can yield benefits for teaching and research. Many studies have confirmed that collaborative initiatives can improve information literacy skills for students (Farber, 1999), support the academic community, promote students' success, enhance lifelong learning skills (Bennett & Gilbert, 2009). This collaboration can also be seen as an activity that increases the number of library users and develops instructional library programs to meet users' needs (Johnson & Toscos, 2011), creates and promotes quality library and information products and services (Yu, 2009), and enhances learning and research competence (Little, Fallon, Dauenhauer, Balzano, & Halquist, 2010). Other studies have shown various elements that influence collaboration. Mahmood and Richardson (2013) indicated that social networks, and especially the application of Web 2.0 technology, contribute to improving interactions, and can promote information resources and services (Xiao, 2010) and shared expertise (Hue, 2016). In light of this, librarians have not only participated in integrating and teaching information literacy (Bewick & Corrall, 2010), but have also managed research data, provided academic resources for research and publications, and taken part in online research (Kesselman & Watstein, 2009). ⁎

Other studies have highlighted that the disparities in working culture (e.g., time, knowledge and expertise, freedom in decision making, independence, lack of respect, etc.) can cause barriers if the two parties do not understand each other's culture (Christiansen, Stombler, & Thaxton, 2004). It is, therefore, necessary to establish an active and flexible organizational structure (Hue, 2016) and a collaborative plan/ strategy to allow stakeholders to support each other to achieve common goals (Thull & Hansen, 2009). In Vietnam, it has shown that collaboration has significant effects on the development of academic and research performance. However, collaborative initiatives are in their initial stages and have not yet developed in a systematic, intensive, and manageable manner. There are several causes for this: firstly, librarianship has been viewed as a profession dominated by women and has been underestimated by the public due to social patterns (Hue, 2016). Secondly, limited knowledge about specific subjects has influenced the effectiveness of developing information and research skills for students. Faculty members have also underestimated the teaching capacity of librarians (e.g., teamwork skills, English language skills). Thirdly, a lack of support from leaders, administrators, and the faculty and time constraints due to work overloads give rise to limited opportunities for librarians to implement collaborative initiatives. Finally, the limitations of budget, income, and

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.L. Nguyen), [email protected] (K. Tuamsuk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102130 Received 21 September 2019; Received in revised form 14 January 2020; Accepted 17 January 2020 0099-1333/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Thi Lan Nguyen and Kulthida Tuamsuk, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102130

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

campus to improve teaching and learning performance or exchanges of new teaching methods but also improves motivation, job satisfaction, employee self-confidence, and problem-solving relating to information processing. Additionally, a flexible and dynamic organizational structure in which members have equal power would facilitate collaboration (Hue, 2016).

a shortage of qualified librarians have also been significant challenges for academic libraries (Hue, 2016). Faculty-librarian collaboration at Vietnamese universities, in general, is in its initial stages and is also influenced by various factors. However, ranking the level of influence of factors to facilitate the evaluation and identification of the core factors necessary for collaboration was not mentioned. This article, therefore, aims to enrich the understanding of factors affecting faculty-librarian collaboration. Our research results can support leaders, faculty, and librarians in identifying well-rounded solutions to establish and boost sustainable collaboration relationships.

Roles and resources The change of a librarian's role from solely handling work regarding technical processing to engaging in teaching and research improves librarians' knowledge, teaching and research skills, and self-confidence. It can see that an understanding of the roles of partners can consolidate trust and respect. Concerning resources, Hue (2016) also revealed that units should strive to develop human resources for collaboration, which specify personnel assignments, time allocations, or staff development. Functional and financial support should be provided to foster the collaborative process.

Literature review Franklin (2013) identified nine critical sub-factors in a partnership aiming to develop information literacy, in which the researcher noted that organizational culture, resources, and an understanding of and interest in the partner's discipline or professional field had a more significant impact on the collaborative relationships. Other crucial barriers noted related to a limited understanding of the librarian's work and expertise, time constraints (Julien & Given, 2003). Besides, expertise and limited time, workplace conditions, qualities/attitudes, common goals (Mulligan & Kuban, 2015), behavior, characteristics of individuals (Schrage, 1990), the high workloads, and the lack of policies and resources (Ivey, 2003) have also emphasized. Hue (2016) also confirmed the collaboration influenced by three main dimensions: governance structure, socio-cultural dynamics, and personal dimensions. Meanwhile, according to Lester (2009), in order to enhance collaborative relationships, seven crucial features were required. Based on an analysis and comparison of the similarities and differences between elements in two theoretical frameworks, we summarised 13 factors that affected the collaboration, as follows.

Values and rewards Lester (2009) revealed that values considered to form one of the most critical components of organizational culture, alongside “behaviors and artifacts (what people do), and basic assumptions.”All organizations have core values that form and change over time, corresponding to the organization's mission, goals, educational philosophy, and culture. Meanwhile, rewards are considered to be a catalyst to promote individuals to accomplish their work, and to bring benefits to the organization, increase product quality and job satisfaction, help individuals feel more confident and self-reliant. Technology The development of social technology creates social interaction and integration, facilitatesthe building of personal relationships, and narrows the distance between parties. The framework of Hue (2016) presented librarians and faculty worked on different technology platforms since the varying nature of this work can cause a misunderstanding of the partners' roles and a lack of understanding of each party's work, leading to conflicts and collaborative constraints.

Mission/vision and educational philosophy The organization's mission “includes and focuses on the values and core beliefs about education and human existence” (Lester, 2009) and plays an imperative role in helping individuals understand collaborative purposes, priorities, values, and norms, the built vision and consciousness of the reason for establishing relationships, as well as providing guidance for collaboration. Meanwhile, “the educational philosophy provides the level of detail necessary to translate the mission into action” (Lester, 2009), and demonstrates different approaches to working in a collaborative mission via specific ideas, and guides faculty on how to consider the syllabi and classes to develop students' knowledge.

Power and culture

The establishment of networks with knowledgeable and enthusiastic personnel can facilitate the utilization of collective influence and strength to promote collaboration, change the organizational structure, and create links allowing everyone to navigate and operate the organization rapidly, effectively, and efficiently. Furthermore, learning can help individuals to understand the challenges and difficulties involved and determine how to overcome these difficulties in collaborative practices. Learning collaborative knowledge and skills plays an essential role in promoting collaboration and is consistent with the university's mission, values and culture, reduces obstacles and difficulties and minimizes risks on campus (Lester, 2009).

Hue (2016) indicated that inequality of power arises from a variety of reasons. The first involves the impact of rules and the recognition of partners' roles. If partners equally evaluated in terms of their expertise, knowledge, and skills, this can enable the development of mutual trust and respect in collaborative partnerships. The second reason is related to social position, and the stereotypes influencing the perceptions of the partners about each other's roles. The final reason relates to the autonomy of time and space. While the faculty members have a high level of autonomy in managing timetables and physical space, the fixed hours and spaces of librarians can limit the ability to interact, communicate, and expand relationships. Besides, the differences in a work culture that affect individuals' perceptions of themselves and their partners. It stressed that autonomy, independence, freedom in decision making, flexibility, and focus on individualism leads to the faculty concentrating solely on teaching and research. In contrast, the librarians' culture is not self-reliant, dependent, and inflexible, but instead focuses on collaborative processes, teamwork, structure, and detail.

Integrating structures

External pressures

According to Lester (2009), integrating structures not only helps to build the individuals' perception and vision about the values and priorities associated with collaborative work connects people on

External factors often influence universities (e.g., requirements from government agencies, customer needs, and expectations, job responsibilities, so on) which can increase or create pressure and impede

Networks and learning

2

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

collaboration. According to Lester (2009), the requirements from the external environment “have a vested interest in the success of the organization.”External pressures are motivations to promote collaborative work and can influence and require organizations to change to meet the diverse needs of users and to develop the social, economic, and technological environment.

Table 1 The summary of factors influencing the faculty-librarian collaboration. No.

1 2 3 4 5

Time and space Time is an essential sub-factor to help understand and enhance perceptions about the partner's knowledge, skills, and expertise. A sustainable partnership, therefore, needs a long time to initiate and develop mutual beliefs and understanding. Accordingly, comfortable space for communicating and sharing information or face-to-face meetings is anecessary condition to promote interaction and to create the opportunity to meet and connect (Hue, 2016).

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Factors

Individual dimensions Time and Space Roles of collaborators, and resources Work culture/environment Organizational structure of library/ faculty Barriers between faculty and librarian Information and communication technology Developing collaborative networks Mission/vision, educational philosophy and strategic plan Learning about collaboration Incentive policy Organizational values External pressures

N = 455

Factor loading value

Mean

S.D.

4.13 4.10 3.97 3.91 3.91

0.443 0.531 0.484 0.468 0.487

0.808 0.786 0.542 0.696 0.606

3.91 3.86

0.607 0.558

0.709 0.754

3.78 3.77

0.487 0.509

0.741 0.680

3.55 3.47 3.45 3.39

0.619 0.789 0.745 0.650

0.821 0.825 0.814 0.777

Personal dimensions Findings and discussion

Hue (2016) indicated four personal characteristics influence collaboration. Firstly, collaborative work can progress when collaborators trust the knowledge, expertise, and professionalism of partners; secondly, personality involves organizational structure and environment, social power and work culture; thirdly, personal relationships built and developed based on partnerships that have taken place over time; finally, perceptions influenced by social systems, power asymmetry, organizational culture, and the perception of the collaborators' roles.

The research results in Table 1 show that the individual dimensions were the most important factor influencing faculty-librarian collaboration (x̄=4.13); meanwhile, incentive policy has the highest factor loading value (β = 0.825). This followed by time and space (x̄=4.10; β = 0.786), roles of faculty and librarian, and resources (x̄=3.97; β = 0.542), the work culture/environment (x̄=3.91; β = 0.696), organizational structure (x̄=3.91; β = 606), barriers between faculty and librarian (x̄=3.91; β = 0.709), information and communication technology (x̄=3.86; β = 0.754), developing collaborative networks (x̄=3.78; β = 0.741), mission/vision, educational philosophy and strategic plan (x̄=3.77; β = 0.680), learning about collaboration (x̄=3.55; β = 0.821), incentive policy (x̄=3.47), the organization's values (x̄=3.45; β = 0.814), and external pressures (x̄=3.39; β = 0.777). The findings of a detailed analysis of the items are as follows (Table 2):

Research methodology In this research, four universities in Vietnam were chosen to carry out a survey: University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City), University of Technology and Education, University of Science (Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City) and Nong Lam University. The four chosen universities cover many science fields and have numerous students and lecturers with a wide range of curricula, and has transformed into a research and technology-oriented university. The critical informants of this research were the faculty, librarian, and administrators. However, for the faculty, because of the large number of staff involved, the researchers identified the survey sample based on the formula of Yamane (1973) with a level of confidence of 0.5. Researchers chose four experts in different fields to evaluate the quality of the questionnaire: one liaison and digital librarian, one director of an academic library, one lecturer from the educational field in Vietnam, and one deputy director in the area of cooperation and administration (Thailand). The researchers used the indexes of item-objective congruence (IOCs) from Turner and Carlson (2003) to evaluate the content validity. The results showed that the value of Cronbach's alpha was 0.953, meaning that the questionnaire was highly reliable. Consequently, 455 valid questionnaires were returned between March and May 2019 (54 questionnaires returned from librarians and 401 from faculty respondents). It found that most of the respondents were faculty members (88.1% compared to 11.9%). After analyzing the validity of Cronbach's alpha for the variables, the sub-factor of time and space eliminated because the corrected item-total correlation was less than 0.3 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1978). The descriptive statistics included the mean (x̄), standard deviation (SD), and factor loading value (β) based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) used in this research. All variables with a factor loading value in the EFA of less than 0.4 were removed (Samuels, 2016).

Mission/vision, educational philosophy, and strategic plan Of the seven sub-factors, the faculty-librarian collaboration is viewed as the most critical component of a strategic plan for the library/faculty, as it ranked at the highest level (x̄=4.29). Meanwhile, a strong influence of the collaborative guidelines of the library/faculty on the quality of the collaborative model has the highest factor loading value (β = 0.697). The results emphasize that it is necessary to establish a strategic plan for collaboration. According to Thull and Hansen (2009), without top-down direction, collaboration only takes place when needed. Hue (2016) has also mentioned that “strategies for developing collaboration were insufficient, since libraries focused on collaboration in teaching rather than research, while faculties displayed a more research-focused orientation.” Thus, a university's policy is a critical element in boosting collaboration (Bruce, 2001). The results also support those of a study by Radomski (2000), which states that publishing a policy encourages the faculty and librarian to work together. Radomski believed that policy was a “key graduate outcome and as an integral part of the curriculum model that places lifelong learning and generic/transferable capabilities at the heart of course curriculum.” Developing collaborative networks The strongest sub-factor is the need for a university to have the policy to support the establishment of collaborative networks that are 3

1. Individual dimensions In many cases, successful collaboration is based on personal relationships rather than through policies or administrative procedures Trust in the partners' knowledge, roles, level of qualification and expertise is a necessary condition of a sustainable relationship The collaborative attitude of faculty and librarians influences the development and implementation of collaborative activities Personal relationships are considered as an important element of the sustainable collaboration relationship Personality influences the establishment of sustainable collaborative relationships Soft skills affect the development and maintenance of the partnerships Personal relationships are created based on mutual trust and respect, and an understanding of the partners' roles and expertise Personal relationships facilitate collaboration and avoid conflicts between faculty and librarians The collaborator's perception of the nature and benefits of collaboration facilitates the building of sustainable relationships A lack of understanding of personality between faculty and librarians can cause conflicts in the collaborative process Faculty and librarians need to improve their contributions, bring benefits to the collaborative process, and enhance perception of the collaborators' roles and capacities 2. Time and space Lack of time due to high workload limits the establishment of relationships and the deployment of collaborative work Flexible working time helps librarians to achieve autonomy in collaborating with faculty Collaboration requires a long time to improve the faculty's perception of the librarians' roles and create mutual trust and respect Comfortable and convenient work spaces in communication and information sharing will facilitate the interaction and establishment of collaborative relationships Formal and informal work spaces can support the establishment and improvement of partnerships 3. Roles of collaborators, and resources Low salary affects faculty interest in the collaboration, as they focus on improving their income Units need to develop an infrastructure and information technology system to support faculty-librarian collaboration The roles and responsibilities of faculty and librarian are clearly defined in the collaborative process Changes to the librarian's roles will improve his or her image and position for faculty The limited number of faculty and library staff influences the arrangement of personnel joining in collaborative activities 4. Work culture/environment Collaboration with librarians must be considered a criterion for assessing the level of work performance of faculty The work cultures of the faculty and librarians are influenced by the work culture of the leaders (i.e., work style, work environment, trends, vision, etc.) Job requirements will motivate faculty and librarians to be proactive and active in accomplishing the unit's objectives and enhancing collaborative performance The difference in the work culture between faculty and librarians influences the building of collaborative relationships An understanding of each partner's work culture helps to eliminate barriers and avoid conflicts A professional and flexible culture is built and differences are respected to encourage collaborative relationships Librarians and faculty are willing to work together to accomplish common goals, and are encouraged to share ideas Librarians are welcome to attend the meetings of some faculties 5. Organizational structure of library/faculty Unit leaders enable the faculty and librarian to work together The library and faculty have autonomy in the collaborative process Mutual work and responsibility are shared between faculty and librarian in collaborative activities Library representatives can join in important and strategic meetings within the university A dynamic, flexible and adaptable organizational university structure can offer good support for the collaboration The library participates in decision making and building its university's development strategy The library has representatives on senior committees/councils or academic councils 6. Barriers between faculty and librarian The outdated conception of librarians has limited the establishment of collaborative relationships Asymmetry of the level of autonomy and priority can impede the establishment of collaborative relationships The difference of qualifications, knowledge, and social position between faculty and librarian can lead to conflicts in the collaborative process There is a lack of trust in the university/faculty leaders about the librarian's roles, responsibilities, and expertise Understanding and proficiency in information technology creates a power gap between faculty and librarian 7. Information and communication technology Social networks are capitalized on to establish social relationships, within organizations and between individuals

Sub-factors

Table 2 Factors influencing faculty-librarian collaboration.

0.427 0.698 0.708 0.714 0.703 0.749 0.774 0.730 0.754 0.719 0.758 0.836 0.504 0.749 0.767 0.681 0.734 0.751 0.485 0.777 0.727 0.633 0.851 0.708 0.465 0.858 0.707 0.703 0.707 0.727 0.762 0.778 1.079 0.494 0.672 0.774 0.674 0.742 0.694 0.786 0.759 0.552 0.802 0.780 0.721 0.818 0.933 0.545 0.715

4.16 4.32 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.23 4.17 4.17 4.20 4.14 4.02 3.81 4.12 4.44 4.22 4.07 4.02 3.85 3.96 4.27 4.07 3.96 3.75 3.76 3.91 4.14 4.14 4.05 4.05 3.97 3.85 3.83 3.22 3.90 4.04 3.94 3.94 3.87 3.84 3.86 3.84 3.92 4.04 4.04 4.01 3.88 3.60 3.82 4.01

3.95 4.00 3.89 4.04 4.02 3.80 4.03 4.28 4.37 3.93 3.89 3.67 3.91 4.02 3.91 4.11 3.83 3.89 4.11 3.78 3.67 3.97 4.11 3.98 3.93 4.11 4.09 3.91 3.65 3.84 4.11 3.85 3.85 3.74 3.63 4.16 4.26

3.95 3.83 4.15 4.09 3.81 3.81 4.19 4.11 3.83 4.00 3.61 4.06

Mean

Mean

0.689 0.952 0.925 0.776 0.921 0.959 0.473 0.787 0.760 0.669 0.744 0.644 0.497 0.921 0.937 0.634 0.841 0.634 0.664 0.839 0.752 0.433 0.604 0.714 0.696 0.744 0.591 0.830 1.084 0.924 1.003 0.940 1.089 1.169 1.138 0.564 0.705

0.515 1.005 0.711 0.708 0.754 0.754 0.729 0.816 0.795 0.614 0.811 0.763

S.D.

N = 54

N = 401 S.D.

Librarian

Faculty

4.10 4.38 4.18 4.07 4.02 3.84 3.97 4.27 4.10 3.95 3.76 3.74 3.91 4.13 4.11 4.06 4.02 3.96 3.89 3.83 3.27 3.91 4.05 3.95 3.94 3.90 3.87 3.87 3.82 3.91 4.05 4.02 4.00 3.87 3.60 3.86 4.04

4.13 4.26 4.21 4.20 4.18 4.18 4.17 4.16 4.16 4.12 3.97 3.84

Mean

4

0.786 0.434 0.641 0.587 0.611 0.590 0.542 0.660 0.477 0.341 0.366 0.447 0.696 0.482 0.361 0.659 0.403 0.379 0.591 0.342 0.498 0.606 0.463 0.343 0.364 0.696 0.310 0.767 0.726 0.709 0.626 0.675 0.738 0.661 0.504 0.754 0.654

0.808 0.472 0.684 0.652 0.487 0.311 0.614 0.612 0.416 0.438 0.427 0.547

Factor loading value

(continued on next page)

0.531 0.788 0.793 0.693 0.757 0.778 0.484 0.777 0.736 0.637 0.839 0.701 0.468 0.865 0.741 0.695 0.727 0.717 0.755 0.784 1.055 0.487 0.664 0.766 0.675 0.746 0.687 0.791 0.805 0.607 0.828 0.802 0.774 0.866 0.958 0.558 0.718

0.443 0.756 0.708 0.714 0.721 0.761 0.768 0.740 0.767 0.708 0.775 0.831

S.D.

N = 455

Total

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Information technology helps change the librarian's roles in terms of supporting and joining in teaching and research activities Technology plays an important role in communicating, and organizing the collaborative activities Technology helps support the learning, teaching and research activities between faculty and librarian The use of technology by both faculty and librarians depends on the vision and development strategy of the university/units Social networks help promote library resources, services, academic activities and events to the faculty 8. Developing collaborative networks The university has a policy to support the establishment of collaborative networks congruent with its mission Networks can help capitalize on resources to navigate the collaborative strategy and policy, as well as overcome barriers and enhance the effectiveness of collaboration Exchange and discussion activities and events etc. are organised to encourage network-building activity Important areas relating to faculty's interests are identified in order to connect them via social events, conferences, symposia, and recreation/creative activities Various convenient methods of collaboration are created to attract participation by faculty members Existing public spaces are capitalized on to establish and develop collaborative relationships The organization of meetings is prioritised for all faculty and librarians who are interested in collaboration to discuss, share and propose ideas Individuals who like to collaborate are gathered in units to support the building of the collaborative plan, initiatives, and process Collaborative needs are anticipated and collaborative relationships developed to create large and reliable networks 9. Mission/vision, educational philosophy and strategic plan Faculty-librarian collaboration is viewed as an important component of the strategic plan of the library/faculty Contents relating to faculty-librarian collaboration are in line with the university's mission/vision/educational philosophy Collaborative guidelines of the library/faculty strongly influence the quality of the collaborative model The strategic plan is regularly revised to improve efficiency or to meet the dynamic requirements The mission/vision, educational philosophy and strategic plan is used to build a collaborative plan, resources, and process The university's educational philosophy is built to help the faculty and librarians realize the meanings of this philosophy in collaborative work The university's mission/vision and educational philosophy are regularly disseminated to faculty and librarian to enhance understanding, and to build an appropriate collaborative plan 10. Learning The necessary documents are created to support the collaboration The perception and learning spirit of the librarian in the development of information technology influences the building of relationships with faculty Formal and informal meetings of units are held to learn collaborative knowledge and skills, thereby enhancing the understanding of the collaborative nature, values, and benefits Specific information is shared about work procedures and job requirements to boost the understanding of both faculty and librarians relating to the collaboration Faculty and librarians are sent to conferences and external events to reinforce and enhance their understanding of collaborative work Successful collaborative models are disseminated or successful collaborators invited to share and change individual perceptions about collaborative work The policies and documents of external partners are searched to improve the understanding of collaboration, fostering collaboration at the university 11. Incentive policy Incentive policies are built for the collaborative work in line with the organization's conditions Opportunities are created for individuals to meet new people, participate in courses and study visits, and working in a comfortable environment is an important policy in fostering the collaboration Promotion policies are reviewed, barriers affecting the values of collaborative work are removed and new policies that boost collaborative work are established Faculty and librarians are allowed to participate in building an incentive policy Incentive policies are equally built 12. Organizational values The university's core values are defined, and these values are used to improve or boost the units' collaborative goals Understanding core values helps faculty and librarians to know how to work together to achieve common goals Values are shared and disseminated to enhance understanding, trust, and cohesion by leveraging influential individuals and existing relationships with units A core group is established to integrate the core values in designing and developing collaborative work 13. External pressures External pressures are capitalized on to promote collaboration by assessing the university's conditions, then building collaborative plans and strategies External pressures are capitalized on, as the unit's leaders may require faculty and librarians to attend collaborative groups/activities, and search for materials relating to collaborative work Accreditation requirements and reports on the university and units are searched for in order to be proactive in developing appropriate collaborative plans

Sub-factors

Table 2 (continued)

0.743 0.773 0.782 0.719 0.833 0.486 0.792 0.635 0.701 0.770 0.747 0.731 0.806 0.847 0.841 0.501 0.694 0.660 0.763 0.746 0.776 0.886 0.839 0.615 0.738 0.918 0.765 0.746 0.918 0.888 0.967 0.801 0.726 0.796 0.840 1.782 1.193 0.732 0.811 0.825 0.941 1.001 0.651 0.679 0.693 0.954

3.90 3.81 3.81 3.73 3.66 3.76 3.97 3.96 3.87 3.86 3.86 3.61 3.55 3.56 3.52 3.73 4.29 3.82 3.82 3.65 3.59 3.48 3.46 3.51 3.77 3.65 3.60

5

3.56 3.41 3.32 3.23 3.42 3.88 3.55 3.47 3.21 2.99 3.40 3.71 3.43 3.29 3.16 3.35 3.66 3.35 3.30

3.80

3.78 3.65 3.76 3.87 3.98 3.98 3.87 3.67 3.71 3.85 3.63

3.89 3.89 3.81 3.67 3.81 3.94 3.93

3.87 3.96 4.07 3.78

4.15 4.07 3.91 3.85 3.87 3.78 3.69 4.04 4.24 4.20 3.98 3.94 3.91 4.11 3.91

4.20 4.11 4.13 3.94 4.33 3.93 4.13 3.91

Mean

Mean

0.762

0.744 0.781 0.910 0.715 0.765 0.835 0.825 0.952 0.553 0.737 0.784

0.691 0.861 0.803 0.777 0.591 0.738 0.749

0.552 0.823 0.749 0.691

0.737 0.821 0.652 0.737 0.754 0.883 0.748 0.488 0.751 0.655 0.629 0.685 0.591 0.691 0.807

0.762 0.744 0.754 0.656 0.700 0.474 0.778 0.591

S.D.

N = 54

N = 401 S.D.

Librarian

Faculty

3.36

3.51 3.26 3.08 3.45 3.74 3.49 3.36 3.22 3.39 3.68 3.39

3.60 3.46 3.38 3.29 3.47 3.89 3.59

3.55 3.79 3.70 3.62

3.90 3.88 3.87 3.64 3.59 3.59 3.54 3.77 4.29 3.87 3.84 3.69 3.63 3.56 3.51

3.93 3.84 3.84 3.76 3.74 3.78 3.99 3.95

Mean

0.582

0.661 0.446 0.766 0.814 0.383 0.649 0.687 0.707 0.777 0.465 0.504

0.664 0.736 0.732 0.738 0.825 0.428 0.615

0.821 0.385 0.527 0.549

0.395 0.709 0.427 0.501 0.629 0.572 0.461 0.680 0.547 0.627 0.697 0.533 0.618 0.593 0.597

0.533 0.498 0.520 0.509 0.544 0.741 0.547 0.455

Factor loading value

(continued on next page)

0.946

0.834 1.699 1.188 0.745 0.809 0.844 0.946 1.008 0.650 0.688 0.709

0.747 0.923 0.892 0.956 0.789 0.727 0.799

0.619 0.750 0.909 0.758

0.711 0.778 0.736 0.735 0.805 0.853 0.831 0.509 0.701 0.670 0.750 0.745 0.763 0.888 0.847

0.751 0.775 0.785 0.715 0.846 0.487 0.791 0.629

S.D.

N = 455

Total

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

3.28 3.27

0.969 0.805

0.588 0.541

congruent with its mission (x̄=3.99). The respondents were less focused on anticipating collaborative needs and developing collaborative relationships to create large and reliable networks since this item only received an agreement with x̄=3.54. Meanwhile, the identification of critical areas relating to faculty interests in order to connect them via social events, conferences, symposia, and recreation/creative activities (β = 0.709) had the highest factor loading value. It can see that networks are significant way to capitalize on human resources and support both partners in encouraging training, teaching, and research. Lester (2009) emphasized that universities should focus on connecting individuals who are interested in collaboration by creating a centralized unit with specific tasks, encouraging units to participate in collaborative activities, and providing incentives for participants. For the faculty, it is necessary to prioritize activities and areas that can attract their attention, such as social events, seminars, and symposia. However, when establishing networks, it is essential to base them in the specific context of the organization to build a strong network.

0.977 0.813 3.21 3.24

3.76 3.54

Mean S.D. Mean

0.751 0.693

S.D. Mean

N = 54 N = 401

S.D.

N = 455

Librarian Faculty

Organizational structure of library/faculties

External pressures are evaluated and interpreted to motivate faculty and librarians to participate in collaborative work, as well as to connect them each other External pressures are capitalized on to create a sense of urgency about the need for collaboration and to create motivation to achieve the organization's important goals

Sub-factors

Table 2 (continued)

Total

Factor loading value

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

Most of the participants agreed that the unit leaders should enable the faculty and librarians to work together (x̄=4.05). However, it was found that participation by the library in decision making and building the university's development strategy had the highest factor loading value (β = 0.767), followed by ensuring that the library has representatives on senior committees/councils or academic councils (β = 0.726); representatives participating in essential and strategic meetings in the university (β = 0.696); and unit leaders enabling faculty and librarian to work together (i.e., organizing working space, flexible timetable, staffand funding sources, etc.) (β = 0.463). The results of the survey data consolidated the perspective of Hue (2016) in terms of creating opportunities for librarians to establish relationships with the faculty by changing the organizational structure. It is necessary to build a flexible organizational structure in which the faculty and librarians have autonomy and can be involved in senior committees, research council (Jumonville, 2014). Thull and Hansen (2009) also mentioned that the support of the senior managers is significant in enhancing collaborative initiatives, and faculty-librarian collaboration can rarely happen without the guidance of leaders. Roles of the collaborators, and resources Overall, this factor obtained the third-highest position in factors affecting collaboration (x̄=3.97). Low salaries can affect interest from the faculty in the collaboration, as they focused on improving their income (x̄=4.27), and this factor is ranked the highest. The results of the EFA indicate that this item strongly affects the collaborative relationship with the highest factor loading value (β = 0.660). From the statistical data, it showed that in the Vietnamese context, faculty members focused solely on improving their income due to low salaries. It is therefore essential to improve salaries and to have a suitable bonus policy. Also, developing the infrastructure and information technology system is a crucial solution for facilitating collaboration. A study by Hue (2016) found that “faculties often preferred spending their budgets on activities that were directly profitable, as opposed to more intangible activities such as collaboration between academic and library staff.” The university would face difficulties in collection development, purchased new technologies if it was a limited budget. In terms of the roles and responsibilities of collaborators, Øvern (2014) mentioned that it is pivotal to create a document identifying the specific responsibilities of all participants and units. Another notable finding of Given and Julien (2005) was that the faculty members did not view librarians as equal partners, since the faculty's cognition and attitudes towards librarians were quite negative, and there was a lack of understanding of the librarians' roles. 6

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

The need to construct incentive policies for collaborative work in line with the organization's conditions had the highest mean scores (x̄=3.89). From the results of EFA, an incentive policy that isequally built was the sub-factor with the highest influence level (β = 0.766), followed by reviewing promotion policies, removing barriers that reduce the values of collaborative work and establishing new policies that boost collaborative work (β = 0.661). The results highlighted the necessity of establishing an incentive policy in universities to encourage individuals to take part in the collaborative practice. Lester (2009) showed that rewards were complicated to develop because leaders had to “struggle to find resources, identify rewards for different groups, combat competition and change long-supported systems of tenure and promotion.” However, the authors realized that rewards were a very significant way to improve collaboration.

These results seem to support the evaluation of Hue (2016), who confirmed that librarians were underestimated by the faculty members, who lacked respect for their knowledge, training experience and teaching ability due to social attitudes and stereotypes. Also, the difference in the objectives, social position, knowledge, and expertise was a barrier in promoting collaboration (Shen, 2012). Therefore, Wolff, Rod, and Schonfeld (2016) suggested that librarians should participate in teaching and research activities to improve their image and position. Dewey (2005) also noted that the librarian's participation in teaching information literacy, taking part in training programs and designing learning and research activities (Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013) would improve their image within the faculty so that they were viewed as an equal partner (Bewick & Corrall, 2010). According to Franklin (2013), collaborators needed to understand the other party's values, practices, and expertise to facilitate working together and achieve the desired results. Furthermore, “faculty must be willing to understand and show interest in what librarians do”(Franklin, 2013).

Information and communication technology

Organizational values

Capitalization on social networks to establish social relationships within organizations and among individuals (Facebook, email, Google Hangout, Zalo, Line) had the highest position of all the factors affecting the collaboration, both in terms of the mean score and the factor loading value (x̄=4.04; β = 0.654). The next most crucial factor is the use of social networks to promote library resources, services, academic activities, and events to the faculty (β = 0.544; x̄=3.74). The findings indicated that social networks were an essential tool in universities to capitalize on interactions among the faculty and librarians, in a similar way to a previous study by Lester (2009), who found that “technology systems are emerging that allow for integration of services and support of collaboration work”, and created opportunities to connect among people. Further evidence supplied by Hue (2016) at Hanoi University showed that librarians and academic members often used Facebook, Zalo, Google Hangout, and email in interactions, working exchanges, and expertise and experience sharing. Capitalizing on social networks to establish and develop collaborative partnerships is therefore very useful for universities.

In comparison with the other sub-factors, establishing a core group to integrate the core values in designing and developing collaborative work (i.e., creating documents, developing collaborative activities, and evaluating the collaborative process) has the highest factor loading value and therefore is the item with most influence on the organization's values (β = 0.707). In contrast, the mean score of three subfactors has the opposite value to the factor loading values (x̄=3.22, x̄=3.36, x̄=3.49, respectively). The findings correlated with those of Lester (2009), who determined that an understanding of values could help connect individuals to learn work ways together, achieve common goals, share meaning and link collaborative efforts in line with the university's mission. Shared values can improve the understanding of how to collaborate, increase trust, and cohesion among collaborators on campus.

Incentive policy

Work culture/environment This category has five sub-factors, in which the use of job requirements to motivate faculty and librarian to be active in accomplishing the unit's objectives and enhance collaborative performance is the highest value in both mean and factor loading (β = 0.659, x̄=4.06). These results are similar to the findings of Yu et al. (2019), who reported that if the faculty did not mandate collaboration, it was hard for librarians to collaborate at Hong Kong universities; meanwhile, “a Taiwan faculty member complained that his or her institutional administrators and leaders did not understand or care about the functions of the library. It was consequently difficult for librarians to implement any collaborative project with faculty members” (Yu et al., 2019). Also, Julien and Pecoskie (2009) pointed out that librarians are underestimated because the faculty members saw “librarians' self-positioning as defeated, passive, dependent and subordinate to teaching faculty” and due to the hierarchical culture of the university. Franklin (2013), therefore, suggested that organizations need to create a unique culture based on their missions, in which collaboration defined as standard, and where individuals are encouraged and expected to collaborate. Leaders need to review development strategies and missions to build a dynamic and flexible work environment, establish a professional and harmonious work culture based on mutual understanding, and respect differences (Hue, 2016).

Learning In this factor, the searching of policies and documents of external partners to improve the understanding of collaboration, and to foster collaboration at the university (β = 0.738) had the greatest factor loading value. Meanwhile, the creation of necessary documents to support the collaboration had the highest average value (x̄=3.79). The previous results highlighted the limitations of expertise, knowledge, pedagogical skills, and the theoretical basis impeded collaboration (Bell & Shank, 2007). Thus, librarians need to learn and enhance their knowledge, expertise, and skills (Hue, 2016). Similarly, Lester (2009) also showed that to enhance learning effectiveness, leaders could capitalize on networks to build a learning environment between enthusiastic individuals and those interested in collaborating. Next, formal meetings should be set up to boost learning opportunities, observe and identify collaborative pioneers, and combine learning opportunities with various benefits. Perceptions can then be changed of collaborative work to motivate and attract more individuals to become involved in the collaborative process. Barriers

External pressures Among the sub-factors relating to barriers, differences between the qualifications, knowledge, and social position of the faculty and librarian can lead to conflicts in the collaborative process, and this factor has the highest factor loading value (β = 0.738) and third highest mean score (x̄=4.00).

The lowest mean score recorded for external pressures, x̄=3.39. Capitalization on external pressures to promote collaboration by assessing the university's conditions and building collaborative plans and strategies was the item with the highest mean score at x̄=3.68, and also 7

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

had the lowest loading factor value β = 0.465. On the other hand, evaluating and interpreting external pressures to motivate faculty and librarians to take part in collaborative work and to connect them had the most significant factor loading value β = 0.588, but a mean value of only x̄=3.28. These statistical data confirmed the previous evaluation of Lester (2009) that external pressures were motivations for individuals to view and promote collaborative activities at universities. This author found that “external pressures could be capitalized on as mechanisms for communicating the importance and value of collaboration work to various campus stakeholders” and that universities needed to “establish faculty collaborative networks to build relationships that can be called upon to respond to grant agencies that require faculty from multiple disciplines” and “provide institutional funds as well as opportunities to bring together groups of faculty and staff in anticipation of the external pressures for interdisciplinary work and collaboration.”

that the trust of each individual in the integrity of their partners was a necessary component of sustainable business relationships. Conclusions The findings of this research indicate that among the sub-factors affecting collaborative partnerships, 11 sub-factors eliminated from the research model. The remaining items have different levels of influence on collaboration. In order to improve the effectiveness of collaborative initiatives to support and to enhance the quality of teaching and research at Vietnamese universities, the researchers suggest several applications based on the research results: (1) Administrators need to establish a clear strategic plan in which the collaboration viewed as an important part of the libraries/faculties' plan and the collaborators' roles and responsibilities and specific regulations identified as requiring collaboration. Furthermore, the faculty-librarian collaboration should consider as a criterion for the evaluation of the level of completion of the work of the faculty. If there are no compulsory requirements, the collaboration takes place as a voluntary; consequently, librarians will face challenges in terms of designing collaborative activities and the faculty will not be able to capitalize on the available quality resources from their library to enhance teaching and research performance.

Time and space Time and space had the second highest mean score of the factors studied (x̄=4.10). Of these items, a lack of time due to the high workload that limits the establishment of relationships and the deployment of collaborative work had the lowest factor loading value at β = 0.434, and the highest mean value of x̄=4.38. These results are similar to those reported by Franklin (2013), who noted that time was a necessary factor to communicate, develop relationships and goals, and to promote understanding of each other. Yu et al. (2019) suggested that librarians at Hong Kong universities should spend more time talking about and identifying the faculty's needs and desires, then find opportunities to collaborate with them. Another prominent result of Ivey (2003) was that allowing sufficient time is an essential condition of collaborating to develop learning programs and establish collaborative relationships. Another aspect relating to the workspace identified by Hue (2016) was that “proximity, accessibility, and shared social spaces for face-to-face meetings were factors facilitating social interaction and relationship building. Library participants who worked in small campuses were more likely to have a closer collaborative relationship than their counterparts on larger campuses”. Thus, it is necessary to design convenient workspaces for communication and interaction.

To ensure that collaboration deployed, managers should disseminate the organization's mission/vision and values to help participants understand the significance of collaboration for the university's strategic goals. Also, leaders could refer to successful collaborative models or documents from other organizations to design an appropriate model with the characteristics of their organization. (2) A dynamic and flexible organizational structure should build in which librarians can work together on essential activities, and administrators can enable their staff to work together in a convenient space and at flexible times. Leaders could also publish a policy to support the building of collaborative networks that are congruent with the university's mission and which enable individuals to join in social events and recreation activities. Furthermore, technology platforms are indispensable tools that should be applied to enhance interaction and to encourage collaborative network-building activity, especially social networks (e.g., Facebook, Zalo (Vietnamese network), Line, email).

Individual dimensions Personal aspects formed the greatest influencing factor chosen by participants (x̄=4.13). The success of collaboration due to personal relationships rather than through policies or administrative procedures (x̄=4.26) had the highest-ranked position. In terms of the factor loading value, trust, collaborative attitude, and soft skills were the three sub-factors with the strongest effects on collaboration (β = 0.684; β = 0.652; β = 0.614). The sub-factor relating to the influence of personality on the establishment of sustainable collaborative relationships had a factor loading value less than 0.4(β = 0.311); however, since this item plays an important role and impacts on collaboration, it was not removed. This result strongly supported the study of Schrage (1990) that successful collaboration must base on the individuals' capacity for the current task, shared goals and clarity, mutual respect, tolerance and trust, working in a common space, and continuous communication. Additionally, proactive behavior, open and bright communication, and the listening skills of the collaborators were also essential elements in promoting collaborative partnerships. These arise from the attitudes and positive relationships built between stakeholders and based on mutual trust and respect (Wijayasundara, 2008). Similarly, a study by Ivey (2003) also indicated that trust, mutual respect, and continuous interaction were important behaviors affecting successful collaborative relationships. In the same vein, Phelps and Campbell (2012) showed

(3) The results indicated that low salaries, lack of budgets and infrastructure, limited human resources within units, and time constraints were sub-factors affecting the establishment of collaborative relationships. It seems that increasing the budget to develop facilities and information technology infrastructure for collaboration is an essential requirement to boost and create motivation for collaborators. Administrators could enable librarians to participate in faculty events or educational activities to build understanding and support the faculty in some necessary cases. Furthermore, the deployment of a librarian liaison model is also a well-rounded solution to create and promote the best direction for collaborative practice. (4) It should realize that soft skills, personality, trust, perception, and personal relationships are sub-factors that are required to improve to reduce barriers to establishing partnerships. Librarians, therefore, need to carry out self-study to enhance their knowledge, expertise, and skills. Administrators should enable librarians to improve their professional development by allowing them to join in workshops, short-course training, and courses relating to the disciplines in which they work. Additionally, the results also showed that successful collaboration based on a personal relationship; thus, 8

The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (xxxx) xxxx

T.L. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk

to develop relationships by participating in university events where they can meet the faculty to increase interaction and communication is vital for librarians. Regular promotion of information resources and library and information services to the faculty is also pivotal to enhance the image and skills of librarians. Designing research projects which the faculty can be invited to join is also a good way to open relationships.

https://figshare.com/articles/Collaboration_between_academics_and_library_staff_a_ comparative_study_of_two_universities_in_Australia_and_Vietnam/4712188 (accessed 8 December 2018) . Ivey, R. (2003). Information literacy: How do librarians and academics work in partnership to deliver effective learning programs? Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 34, 100–113. Johnson, S. F., & Toscos, T. R. (2011). Faculty and librarian collaboration in online instruction: Harnessing the learning management system. available at http://opus. ipfw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037andcontext=lib_facpres. Julien, H., & Given, L. M. (2003). Faculty-librarian relationships in the information literacy context: A content analysis of librarians’ expressed attitudes and opinions. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27, 65–87. Julien, H., & Pecoskie, J. (2009). Librarians' experiences of the teaching role: Grounded in campus relationships. Library and Information Science Research, 31, 149–154. Jumonville, A. (2014). The role of faculty autonomy in a course-integrated information literacy program. Reference Services Review, 42, 536–551. Kesselman, M. A., & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating opportunities: Embedded librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 49, 383–400. Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration: A guide for campus leaders. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Little, J. J., Fallon, M., Dauenhauer, J., Balzano, B., & Halquist, D. (2010). Interdisciplinary collaboration: A faculty learning community creates a comprehensive LibGuide. Reference Services Review, 38, 431–444. Mahmood, K., & Richardson, J. V. (2013). Impact of Web 2.0 technologies on academic libraries: A survey of ARL libraries. The Electronic Library, 31, 508–520. Mulligan, L. M., & Kuban, A. J. (2015). A conceptual model for interdisciplinary collaboration. available at http://acrlog.org/2015/05/14/a-conceptual-model-forinterdisciplinary-collaboration/comment-page-1/. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill. Øvern, K. M. (2014). Faculty-library collaboration: Two pedagogical approaches. Journal of Information Literacy, 8(2), 36–55. Phelps, S. F., & Campbell, N. (2012). Commitment and trust in librarian–faculty relationships: A systematic review of the literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38, 13–19. Radomski, N. (2000). Framing information literacy: The University of Ballarat experience. Information literacy around the world: Advances in programs and research (pp. 67–81). Wagga Wagga, New South Wales: Charles Sturt University. Samuels, P.. Advice on exploratory factor analysis. (2016). available at https://www. researchgate.net/publication/304490328_Advice_on_Exploratory_Factor_Analysis (accessed 5 April 2019). Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House. Shen, L. (2012). Improving the effectiveness of librarian-faculty collaboration on library collection development. Collaborative Librarianship, 4(1), 14–22. Thull, J., & Hansen, M. A. (2009). Academic library liaison programs in US libraries: Methods and benefits. New Library World, 110, 529–540. Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3, 163–171. Wijayasundara, N. D. (2008). Faculty–library collaboration: A model for University of Colombo. The International Information and Library Review, 40, 188–198. Wolff, C., Rod, A. B., & Schonfeld, R. C. (2016). Ithaka S+ R US faculty survey 2015. available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1016andcontext=scholcom. Xiao, J. (2010). Integrating information literacy into blackboard: Librarian-faculty collaboration for successful student learning. Library Management, 31, 654–668. Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An introductory analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Yu, T. (2009). A new model of faculty-librarian collaboration: The faculty member as library specialist. New Library World, 110, 441–448. Yu, T., Chen, C.-C., Khoo, C., Butdisuwan, S., Ma, L., Sacchanand, C., & Tuamsuk, K. (2019). Faculty-librarian collaborative culture in the universities of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand: A comparative study. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 24(1), 97–121.

The results supported the researchers to consider critical factors affecting the collaboration, then draft a collaborative model to get recommendations from experts in Vietnam. Next, based on the experts' suggestions, an official model will be drawn following the Vietnamese context to contribute to the development of the faculty-librarian collaboration in particular and boost the effectiveness of teaching and research performance at institutions of higher education. CRediT authorship contribution statement Thi Lan Nguyen: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft.Kulthida Tuamsuk: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Acknowledgments This research received support from the Scholarship Program of the Vietnamese Government. The researchers also thank all respondents from four Vietnamese universities. References Bell, S. J., & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design: A blended librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association. Bennett, O., & Gilbert, K. (2009). Extending liaison collaboration: Partnering with faculty in support of a student learning community. Reference Services Review, 37, 131–142. Bewick, L., & Corrall, S. (2010). Developing librarians as teachers: A study of their pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42, 97–110. Bruce, C. (2001). Faculty-librarian partnerships in Australian higher education: Critical dimensions. Reference Services Review, 29, 106–116. Christiansen, L., Stombler, M., & Thaxton, L. (2004). A report on librarian-faculty relations from a sociological perspective. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30, 116–121. Corrall, S., Kennan, M. A., & Afzal, W. (2013). Bibliometrics and research data management services: Emerging trends in library support for research. Library Trends, 61, 636–674. Dewey, B. I. (2005). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 17, 5–17. Farber, E. (1999). Faculty-librarian cooperation: A personal retrospective. Reference Services Review, 27, 229–234. Franklin, K. Y. (2013). Faculty/librarian interprofessional collaboration and information literacy in higher education. The Claremont Graduate University. available at https:// search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1353094219/6F3CE41318F644DAPQ/1? accountid=27797 (accessed 8 December 2018) . Given, L. M., & Julien, H. (2005). Finding common ground: An analysis of librarians’ expressed attitudes towards faculty. The Reference Librarian, 43, 25–38. Hue, T. P. (2016). Collaboration between academics and library staff: A comparative study of two universities in Australia and Vietnam. Australia: Monash University. available at

9