Virgil, Candance L. “An Analysis of the Academic Library and the Changing Role of the Academic Librarian in Higher Education: 1975-2012.” ProQuest LLC (2013). ERIC. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
Virgil’s dissertation affords readers a historical look at academic libraries and their changes from 1975-2012. The crux of her historical exploration centers on the work of librarian-scholar, Evan Ira Farber. As her baseline, Virgil uses Farber’s 1999 cornerstone article, “College Libraries and the Teaching/Learning Process: A 25-Year Reflection.” Based on Farber’s work, Virgil makes her primary research question the following: “What are the similarities and differences between the academic issues discussed by Farber in each decade of his review of the years 1975 to 1999 and those same identified issues from 2000 to 2012” (24)?
As her approach, Virgil uses document analysis to compare Farber’s observations up to 1999 to her own research on the first decade and the first couple years of the second decade of the 21st century. Not fully aware of document analysis’ place in research, I sought clarification, which lead to an article that states,“[D]ocument analysis is particularly applicable to qualitative case studies—intensive studies producing rich descriptions of a single phenomenon, event, organization, or program” (Bowen 29). Based on this clarification, Virgil’s deployment of this method seems reasonable, as she takes on academic libraries as a phenomenon. Interestingly, however, Bowen says that document analysis is often used in a mixed-methods approach to carry out triangulation (28), but this is not Virgil’s approach.
Justification for her methods aside, Virgil carries out her document analysis by reviewing Farber’s article, in chapter three, laying out his top five issues for libraries from 1975-1999, including access to knowledge, bibliographic instruction, electronic information and technological development, computers in libraries, and faculty culture and attitudes. Then, in chapter four, Virgil reviews library literature in the twenty-first century for similar issues to Farber’s and includes additional concerns or trends, mostly with access and technology. Finally, in chapter five, Virgil compares the current state of libraries to those indicated in Farber’s article. Virgil discusses activities, philosophies, and issues “that have almost totally disappeared” and “issues present today which have changed immensely since Farber’s time” (123).
Collectively, Virgil’s dissertation takes a broader view, but I felt that my research needed to go beyond library-related collaborations to find justification for librarians’ greater work — or at least greater labeling of their work — with writing instruction in the librarians’ changing roles over the years. While not explicit, documentation of the change in faculty reception to instruction, starting in the 1990s (117), provides some support to my claim; that is, the push for strong instructional services has been part of libraries for twenty years, and, likewise, those services overlap, at least through information literacy and related heuristics, with writing instruction. In addition, the recent trend of libraries’ linking to improved student retention, graduation rates, and student achievement (127) plays to the need for librarians to be more relevant and flexible than ever, including expansion of services. Overall, the dissertation would have benefited my case more if it had greater focus on instruction, but it does give example of a new method heretofore unexplored in my research.
Bowen, Glenn A. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9.2 (209): 27-40. Emerald Insight. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.