Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 14:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Business & FinanceLibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wbfl20
What Is Business Information Literacyand Can the Corporate LibrarianContribute Anything to the Discourse?Avtar Natt aa University of Bedfordshire , Luton , United KingdomPublished online: 28 Mar 2013.
To cite this article: Avtar Natt (2013) What Is Business Information Literacy and Can the CorporateLibrarian Contribute Anything to the Discourse?, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18:2,146-174, DOI: 10.1080/08963568.2013.769290
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2013.769290
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18:146–174, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0896-3568 print / 1547-0644 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08963568.2013.769290
What Is Business Information Literacyand Can the Corporate Librarian Contribute
Anything to the Discourse?
AVTAR NATTUniversity of Bedfordshire, Luton, United Kingdom
The concept of business information literacy is explored throughcontent analysis of scholarly literature and interviews with businessinformation professionals in academic and corporate contexts. Thebusiness school librarian was found to prioritize library instructionwhereas the conversion of information to competitive intelligence isimportant for the corporate librarian. The findings are also foundto be part of wider debates surrounding information literacy andhigher education.
KEYWORDS information literacy, business information literacy,business school librarian, corporate librarian, higher education
INTRODUCTION
Personal experience as corporate librarian and business school librarian inthe United Kingdom has given me exposure to two different environments.In the context of information literacy (IL), I found corporate librarians havelittle need to instruct IL but are strong with their use of specialist financialdatabases and application of subject knowledge when fulfilling business in-formation requirements. In comparison, academic librarians are advocatesand instructors of IL, with strength in supporting academic information re-quirements.
With a current role as business school librarian, my mixed experienceshave made me fascinated with the phrase business information literacy. As anoffshoot of IL, is there something unique about business information literacydeserving of its own definition or is it nothing more than a combination of an
Submitted: 5 March 2012; Revision Submitted: 13 December 2012; Accepted: 16 January2013.
Address correspondence to Avtar Natt, University of Bedfordshire, Learning Resources,University Square, Luton LU1 3JU, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
146
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 147
existing concept (IL) and an adjective (business)? Although I have bandiedaround the term myself, I have not come across any uniform definition.
This study investigates the use, interpretation, and author backgroundof those that use the phrase business information literacy. Specifically, threequestions are addressed:
1. What is business information literacy?2. Is information literacy more of an issue for business school librarians
compared to corporate librarians?3. Do corporate librarians have anything unique about them in the context
of information literacy?
To answer these questions, scholarly communication mentioning busi-ness information literacy will be analyzed. Business school librarians andcorporate librarians were interviewed and specifications of job postings werereviewed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Information Literacy
Information literacy is characterized by a plethora of definitions (Owusu,2005; Town, 2003). The 1989 American Library Association’s (ALA) defini-tion emerges as most popular in academic literature, where to be informationliterate “a person must be able to recognize when information is needed andhave the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed informa-tion” (American Library Association, 1989). The popularity of this definitioncan be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that most authors of IL literatureare based in the United States (Aharony, 2010).
Another interesting phenomenon is that the majority of literature on ILhas been carried out by professionals in the academic and school librarydomains (Lloyd, 2010; O’Sullivan, 2002). Rader (2002) reviewed more than5,000 publications from 1973 to 2002 on library instruction and IL and foundthat on an annual basis, approximately 80% of her sample were articleswritten by professionals employed in academic libraries or school mediacenters. This sheer volume of literature by librarians in higher educationmust inevitably mould interpretations of IL (S. Campbell, 2008).
An example of this influence is the popularization of IL frameworks orcompetency standards. Popular competency standards include the Australianand New Zealand IL framework (Bundy, 2004), the Association of College& Research Libraries (ACRL; 2000) IL competency standards for higher edu-cation in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, the Society of Col-lege, National and University Libraries (SCONUL; 2011) and their updatedSeven Pillars of Information Literacy. These competency standards provide a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
148 A. Natt
pedagogical credibility and marketability for academic librarians and libraryinstruction. What comes with this however, is a lack of critical debate sur-rounding the efforts of authors defining literacy through standards (Elmborg,2006).
A further argument can be made that the IL movement comes with aneed to legitimate the role of the modern librarian. O’Connor (2009a) arguesthat technological advances slowly stripped away the traditional librarianfunctions, resulting in librarians using the momentum surrounding IL fortheir benefit. O’Connor’s (2009b) argument is quite simple: librarianship inthe information age is legitimated thanks to IL.
Subject Specialization
Hallmark (1998) interviewed different types of geoscience information spe-cialists and found a strong science background for geoscience informationspecialists to be highly desirable, if not essential. In fact, some library man-agers preferred to hire a geologist then train them to be a librarian. Similarly,business school librarians need subject specialization in business and finan-cial information (Liu & Allen, 2001; Womack, 2008). Liu and Allen (2001)researched the training and education of American business librarians andfound only 15% of their sample to have an undergraduate major in busi-ness. Similarly, Perrett (2011) found that 76.4% of her sample of businesslibrarians did not have a bachelor’s degree in a business field. Employerdisappointment with application pools of business librarian job postings hasalso been discussed in literature (O’Connor & Marien, 2002, 2008). In the op-posite direction of Hallmark (1998), the common alternative ends up beingto train business school librarians to compensate this deficiency (O’Connor& Marien, 2002; Womack, 2008). The picture painted by Hallmark (1998),Liu and Allen (2001), Perrett (2011), and O’Connor and Marien (2002, 2008)is that librarians in academia lack business information specialization. Thepattern of subject knowledge taking precedence over library experience orcredentials in the corporate environment is an interesting one as it appearsabsent in academic business library environments (Hayworth, 2008).
Business Information (Literacy)
Hawes (1994) wrote about business school graduates needing to be preparedin an information society requiring knowledge workers. In this businesscontext, Hawes sees IL as the ability to effectively and efficiently access andevaluate information when it comes to problem solving and decision makingin the workplace. A popular advocate of IL in the workplace is Cheuk (2008)who mentions the importance of combating information overload with goodinformation practice. Cheuk’s (2008) intervention is interesting because itis against the grain by advocating and applying IL in an environment that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 149
typically does not see it as a popularised term (Gasteen & O’Sullivan, 2000;O’Sullivan, 2002).
When looking for literature specifically on “business information liter-acy,” the phrase looks to have been taken on by practitioners in higher ed-ucation. An example of this comes from Carrie and Mitchell (2010) who em-bedded an undergraduate IL program using the Australia and New ZealandInformation Literacy Framework. Carrie and Mitchell provide no definitionof business information literacy but had an appreciation for business lit-erature (practitioner and academic), the use of business databases, as wellas statistical data. These subject specifics, however, were secondary to crit-ical thinking and inquiry that were considered core cognitive elements (inline with their institutional IL policy). In comparison, Gimse (2010a, 2010b)viewed business information literacy as more of a practical skill set concernedwith subject specific literature, data (whether they be financial, macroeco-nomic, consumer, market based, or relating to companies and industries),legal sources, as well as incorporating the findings into assignments.
A similar interpretation of business information literacy comes fromAbels (2009): “Business information literacy includes an understanding ofbusiness terminology as well as trends in business that have an impact onaccess to business information such as information overload, transparency,and the blurring of various components of business” (p. 693).
Abels’ (2009) interpretation is more accommodating of the corporateenvironment and better encompasses different types of business information(interpreted as industry information, economic data, company information,financial data, contact information, demographic data, and legal information).The difference when it comes to interpretations of business informationliteracy lies with authors that prioritize popularized competency standards orframeworks and those that are sympathetic to subject specific considerations.
METHOD
A mixed-methods approach was adopted with a content analysis of schol-arly communication (Content Analysis A) and a qualitative content analysisof the phrase business information literacy (Content Analysis B). These twoapproaches combine to provide a literature analysis of the concept symbolin question (business information literacy). A content analysis of job post-ings (Content Analysis C) was also performed as well as interviews withinformation professionals (Interviews). Each method is clarified in depth.
Content Analysis A
To retrieve a relevant population for analysis, emphasis was placed on thephrase business information literacy (library instruction was not consid-ered). The Scopus and Google Scholar databases were selected to search
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
150 A. Natt
for articles mentioning the phrases business information literacy, businessinformation literate, or business information literacies anywhere in the textor metadata. Scopus was selected as a database due to its strength in thesocial sciences (Harzing, 2010), and Google Scholar was selected due to thepotential to retrieve gray literature as well as the ability to search phrases inthe literature. The search was performed in the beginning of September 2012with a follow on search performed on the first of January 2013 to ensure allpapers from 2012 were retrieved. Papers from 2013 were discarded.
All bibliographic records were tidied up, with duplicate records andbooks excluded from study. All resulting documents were analyzed, withcoincidences not referring to business information literacy being discardedas well as book reviews, master’s theses, published bibliographies, and ar-ticles that were not in English. Finally, all documents that were not on IL,librarianship, information science, or business in general were discarded.This left a total of 60 documents where the publication, author informationand references were analyzed.
Content Analysis B
To explore business information literacy for definitions and patterns in thescholarly literature, inspiration comes from Thomson (1999) who performeda qualitative content analysis of journal articles. All scholarly texts mentioningbusiness information literacy as a phrase outside the bibliography wereanalysed for patterns according to five categories. The categories were notpredetermined in a reflexive contrast to the quantitative content analysis.
Content Analysis C
To compare business school and corporate librarian, a content analysis ofperson specification for these librarians was performed. The presumptionwas made that person specifications of job postings would demonstrate thequalities of an ideal candidate. Any person specifications containing “Essen-tial” and “Desirable” criteria were included for study as a perfect candidatewould meet all criteria.
To obtain the person specifications for business school librarians, inearly 2011 e-mail requests for person specifications were sent to membersof the Business Librarians Association (BLA) based in the United Kingdomand Ireland. At this point, only three responses were considered suitable forstudy. To increase the sample, vacancies were also screened (from December2010–June 2011) on the Chartered Institute of Library & Informational Profes-sionals job postings website taking the sample to four. To obtain the personspecifications for corporate librarians, an e-mail was sent to three London-based recruitment agencies (in early 2011) asking for person specifications of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 151
any recent corporate librarian or researcher roles based in the financial ser-vices industry. Two recruitment agencies responded with 13 suitable personspecifications. For the sake of comparison with the business school librari-ans, the four most recent person specifications for full-time vacancies wereselected.
Interviews
Ten questions were devised for business school librarians (see AppendixA) with a comparable 10 questions for corporate librarians (see AppendixB). The interview questions belonged to three question types (informationabout self, awareness of IL, opinion of self and others).
To get a sample of business school librarians for interview, those whoresponded to Content Analysis C were invited for interview with the firstfour positive responses selected. To get the sample of corporate librariansto interview, two former colleagues based in the information departments ofLondon investment banks were contacted requesting that their team matesparticipate. The first four e-mail responses that agreed to the telephoneinterview were selected. To avoid prepared responses no questions wereprovided beforehand and all interviews were conducted over the telephoneduring spring 2011. Confidentiality of the interviewees was maintained at alltimes.
RESULTS
Content Analysis A
Table 1 lists the 31 publications mentioning the phrase business informationliteracy. All of the publications relate to librarianship or information science.Most striking is the dominance of the Journal of Business and Finance Li-brarianship (JBFL), with 40% of the sample appearing in this publication.This is hardly surprising because out of all of the publications on Table 1,the JBFL is the one most concerned with business librarianship.
Figure 1 lists the number of publications per year plus the title of pub-lication (in alphabetical order) from 2001 to 2012. The phrase business in-formation literacy appears increasingly in scholarly communication acrossthe years. Furthermore since 2011, 52% of the articles mentioning businessinformation literacy are from the JBFL.
From 2001 to 2012, 107 authors were found to have published a papermentioning business information literacy (see Appendix C). Coauthors weretreated the same as lead authors and for any reports in the sample, theauthor backgrounds were researched. Each of the 107 authors’ backgroundwas analyzed at the point of publication giving 128 separate entries. Table 2shows that 96% of the authors belonged to higher education (whether they
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
152 A. Natt
TABLE 1 Publication Mentioning Business Information Literacy
Publication Total
Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship 24Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 2Business Communication Quarterly 2Journal of Documentation 2Journal of Information Literacy 2Journal of Library and Information Science 2Reference Services Review 2American Library Association 1American Marketing Association 1Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity 1Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy 1Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian 1Business Information Review 1Canadian Association for Information Science 1Collection Building 1Communications in Information Literacy 1Education Libraries 1Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 1Georgia State University 1Industry and Higher Education 1International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 1Journal of Academic Librarianship 1Journal of Information Science 1Journal of Information Technology Education 1Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 1Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 1Library and Information Science Research 1Library Trends 1New Library World 1Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 1Research Strategies 1
were librarians or academics is extraneous), with the remaining 4% consistingof authors from public libraries, the government, or education. None ofthe authors were employed by corporate libraries when their articles werepublished.
When looking at regional differences of the authors, Table 3 showsthat most of the authors were from the United States of America (66%). Thesecond most influential nation was Canada (17%) followed by Australia (8%).
TABLE 2 Author Background According to Sector
Sector Number Percentage
Higher education 123 96.09Public library 2 1.56Government 2 1.56Education 1 0.78
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E1
Yea
rofpublic
atio
n(p
lus
num
ber
)ofar
ticle
sm
entio
nin
gbusi
nes
sin
form
atio
nlit
erac
y(2
001–
2012
).
153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
154 A. Natt
TABLE 3 Author Background According to Nationality
Nationality Number Percentage
United States of America 84 65.63Canada 22 17.19Australia 10 7.81United Kingdom 4 3.13Iran 3 2.34Croatia 2 1.56Fiji 1 0.78Israel 1 0.78Serbia 1 0.78
The other nations (United Kingdom, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Fiji, and Croatia)made up the remaining 9%.
When looking at the bibliographies of the 60 papers mentioning businessinformation literacy, one half of the papers only mentioned the phrase in thebibliography. This means for one half of the sample, the papers with businessinformation literacy in the title by Wu and Kendall (2006), Cooney (2005),or Simon (2009) was the only mention of business information literacy.
When looking for definitions of business information literacy, it wassurprising that only two of the papers provide a clear definition. The firstdefinition comes from Cooney (2005) who defines business informationliteracy as “specific programs and practices that your library utilizes to helpbusiness students recognise when information is needed and have the abilityto locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information”’ (p. 10).Cooney’s definition was published at a time when scholarly communicationon this topic was scarce, and it is essentially the ACRL (2000) definition ofinformation literacy with the adjective business added.
Wu and Kendall (2006) produced a list of business information com-petencies ranked by faculty that ends up becoming the second definition(Company Information, Current Awareness, Presentation tools, Industry in-formation developments/trends, Country Information, International Infor-mation, Local/state/federal laws and regulations, Regulatory Information,Census/demographics, Industry classification). Wu and Kendall’s findingsdemonstrate the unique nature of business information in particular withinformation surrounding companies, countries, and industries.
A “who referred whom” chart displays citation relationships among the60 articles mentioning business information literacy (shown by an X orY ). Each article (on Figure 2) is abbreviated to the lead author plus year ofpublication. Each abbreviation displayed horizontally (the article in question)has been organized with the earliest articles appearing furthest left and thelatest articles furthest right (what issue the journal appeared in for a yearis extraneous). The articles are sorted in similar fashion vertically (who thepapers are cited by) with the earliest articles appearing at the top and the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E2
Who
cite
sw
hom
?
155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
156 A. Natt
most recent articles at the bottom. The references marked with a Y are papersfrom the JBFL.
From Figure 2, two observations emerge. The first is the influence ofwhat I call the seminal works, consisting of the papers by Cooney and Hiris(2003), Cooney (2005), and Wu and Kendall (2006). These three paperswere in 54% of the bibliographies of the sample with the most popular pa-pers (from Cooney, 2005; Wu & Kendall, 2006) also providing definitionsof business information literacy. The second observation concerns the in-fluence of the JBFL. Although not clear on Figure 2, of all the referencingnoted between the papers, 41% of them were found to be what Macdonaldand Kam (2010) call “internal citations” (a paper in a specific journal citingpapers from the exact same journal) from the JBFL. Another way to look atthe influence of the JBFL is the large cluster of Y s in the middle of Figure 2.
Content Analysis B
The qualitative content analysis of the 60 papers suggests five trends in theliterature.
EMPLOYABILITY
Although employability is a more current buzzword bandied around in highereducation, the association between IL for business students and usefulnessin the modern-day workplace is a strong one (Cooney & Hiris, 2003; Conley& Gil, 2011; Katz, Haras, & Blaszczynski, 2010; Simon, 2009; Weiner, 2011).This association is a common sense one stemming back from Hawes (1994),but there are authors questioning this association. Julien, Detlor, Serenko,Willson, and Lavallee (2011) found that students may not transfer libraryinstruction outside the academic context and eventually may abandon it.Furthermore, Papadopoulos (2010) found that IL and analytical skills wasconsidered important by academics but less important by alumni or businessrespondents. Sokoloff (2012, p. 7) goes as far as saying that librarians arethe only ones making the association between IL and desirable workplaceskills.
COMPETENCY STANDARDS
The sample found frequent mention of information literacy competency stan-dards, in particular that of the ACRL. The trend is to be expected given theU.S. focus and how scholarly communication concerning librarianship canbe practice oriented. A popular citation from Cooney (2005) found that only34% of her questionnaire respondents reported using the ACRL competencystandards. According to my sample of papers from the United States or
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 157
Canada, I came across a comparable proportion (17 papers) adopting or en-dorsing ACRL standards. I do however think that Cooney’s statistic is worthyof an update as it is 7 years old.
An example of the competency standard mind-set is Detmering andJohnson’s (2011) message of focusing on the thinking. The pair found thatthough they could not capably teach all of the business information re-sources at their disposal, they could teach across-the-board critical thinkingskills. What this opens oneself up for, however, is the implication that be-ing information literate should offset any issues surrounding expertise withbusiness specific resources. To counter, Hsieh-Yee (1993) found that whenlooking at the database skills of librarians, experienced searchers had anadvantage compared to novice searchers.
COLLABORATION
A key theme from Bowers et al. (2009) is the benefits of collaboration be-tween faculty and librarians. This paper proves to be a popular citationstating that message (along with Atwong & Heichman Taylor, 2008). Fiegen(2011) also reiterates how useful faculty/librarian collaboration can be whenit comes to research assignments.
THE UNIQUE QUALITY OF BUSINESS INFORMATION?
Business information is seen as a domain with a unique information worldcompared to other subjects. Wu and Kendall (2006) when writing aboutbusiness information literacy noted the importance of competency with infor-mation on companies, countries, and industries. Similarly, McGuigan (2008)mentioned the importance of numerical, statistical, or directory information.Furthermore, Detlor, Julien, Willson, Serenko, and Lavalee (2011) believedthat teaching business information instruction is difficult due to there beingso many resources available. These three authors lean toward business in-formation being more than books and journals. Consideration is needed forresources used in the business world.
INCORPORATION
The final theme was an overall feeling that came from the sample. Infor-mation literacy is not a concept widely discussed outside the library andinformation profession. Haras and Brasley (2011, p. 378) notes that in theUnited States, government bodies outlining competencies for graduates aremore likely to use terms like knowledge management, information andcommunication technologies (ICTs), or information technology rather thaninformation literacy. There is a hazy interpretation of business information
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
158 A. Natt
literacy that has been supported by a community that share the IL agenda,rather than a well-constructed and explicit definition that has made its waybeyond library literature.
In the sample of papers different strands of literacy were also noticed,such as investment literacy (Thornton, 2011) or financial literacy (Sokoloff,2012; Spiranec, Zorica, & Simoncic, 2012). Although outside the scope of thisstudy there is also momentum behind “transliteracy” (Andretta, 2009; Ipri,2010; Jaeger, 2011) that functions as one literacy to encompass all others.
Content Analysis C
The content analysis process began with converting the text of all personspecifications to 31 categories (Appendix D). For the business school li-brarians the relevant categories according to the person specifications wereplaced into four groups in order of importance. Criteria that appeared in allfour person specifications went into Tier 1, criteria that appeared in three ofthe person specifications went into Tier 2, and criteria that appeared in twoof the person specifications went into Tier 3. All criteria that only appearedin one of the person specifications went into Tier 4.
The first observation from Table 4 is how the most important criteria forbusiness school librarians (Tier 1) involve being library qualified and havingsome sort of liaison or subject experience. The Tier 2 criteria of personaldevelopment and developments are also interesting. Although subject spe-cialism is a Tier 1 criteria, there was no specific mention of specialist financialdatabases nor familiarity with financial information.
Comparatively, the classified person specifications for the corporate li-brarians were put into four tiers, using the same approach as the businessschool librarians.
The most powerful observation From Table 5 is how the priority forrecruiters of corporate librarians (Tier 1) is the use of specialist financialdatabases, especially when it comes to having the skill and experience to
TABLE 4 Person Specification of Business School Librarians According to Tier of Frequency
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Liaison Communication Academic FinancialLibrary and information science Degree Chartership HoursQualification Developments Databases IndependentService Information technology skills Deadlines TeachingSubject Personal development EnvironmentTeamwork Training Management
MultitaskingNetworkingProvision
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 159
TABLE 5 Person Specification of Corporate Librarians According to Tier of Frequency
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Evaluate Communication Hours DeadlinesFinancial Corporate Independent DegreeInformation retrieval Qualification Service GuidancePressure Subject LanguageDatabases (11) Library and information science Training
Information technology skillsMultitaskingTeamwork
evaluate them. This observation is reinforced by how corporate librarianroles typically refer to approximately 11 databases by name that some sortof familiarity is needed in. Another noticeable observation is training onlyappearing in Tier 4 and how having a library qualification is less of a prioritycompared to business school librarians. The Tier 3 criteria reveal how thecorporate librarians focus on criteria in line with the corporate environment,such as independent working, multitasking, or working long hours.
Interviews
Selected parts from the interviews are presented according to the three ques-tion types mentioned in the methodology, plus an additional fourth sectiontitled “any other points.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT SELF
All of the business school librarians interviewed had a library qualificationwhereas only one half of the corporate librarians had one. No business schoollibrarians were found to have worked in a corporate library previously.
AWARENESS OF INFORMATION LITERACY
It was hardly a surprise that all business school librarians were aware of ILand engaged in IL instruction: “Yes I am definitely familiar with informationliteracy. I do a lot of information skills teaching. I think it’s incredibly im-portant particularly as students are going to have to do this when they leaveand work” (Business School Librarian #1).
Comparatively, one of the four corporate librarians was unaware ofIL. Of the corporate librarians displaying an awareness of IL the noticeableobservation was how IL was more about their own abilities rather thanteaching it to others: “It is something I was aware of as part of my degree. It’s
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
160 A. Natt
a broad concept. I consider it mostly about knowledge of how to search andhow to create searches or to get the best results from a search” (CorporateLibrarian #4).
When the interviewees were asked what they consider “business in-formation literacies” to be, the business school librarians’ responses wereaccomodating of academic information, as well as information prevalent inthe corporate world: “In general, I see three types of [business informationliteracy] . . . educating the students to find journal articles, market research re-ports and data and the last one is company financial data” (Business SchoolLibrarian #2).
Corporate librarians in comparison placed greater priority on the spe-cialist financial databases and resulting resource parameters: “[Business in-formation literacy is] using the sources available and the knowledge of thesources and the content of them and therefore providing the best informationpossible at the most reasonable price” (Corporate Librarian #4).
OPINION OF SELF AND OTHERS
When the business school librarians were asked about their strengths, thefocus was on student support: “I have a good comprehension of the differentsubjects that are studied. So I know what people study but I also know whatthey need to do with the literature in order to get a good grade” (BusinessSchool Librarian #1).
When asked about strengths compared to their counterparts, the aca-demic librarians believed their strengths to lay with academic subjectknowledge and teaching skills: “As a liaison librarian for the businessschool . . . communication skills and business subject knowledge. Also teach-ing skills as I do a lot of teaching in group settings and one to ones” (BusinessSchool Librarian #2).
The corporate librarians encounter environmental differences by work-ing in a pressured environment and have greater knowledge of the resourcesthey routinely use: “It’s a lot more stressful I think working in [a] corporate[library]. There’s less pressure [in an academic library] than in my line ofwork” (Corporate Librarian #1), and “I think an academic librarian seemsto be more administrative role whereas in a corporate environment thestrengths are knowledge of resources, industry markets et cetera” (CorporateLibrarian #2).
When asked what business school librarians considered their weak-nesses to be compared to corporate librarians there was an acknowledgmentof a lack of business information knowledge.
Well I think a corporate librarian will have a lot more experience in usingdifferent databases to actually extract data. Whereas I suppose I wouldshow students how to get hold of the information but not necessarily do
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 161
it for them. So they will be left to their own devices and try and makethem independent learners. (Business School Librarian #1)
ANY OTHER POINTS
Several other points came up during the interviews, the first of which be-ing how for corporate librarians, experience can mean more than a libraryqualification.
I’ve not got the [library] qualification but I’ve picked things up as I’vegone along. . . . I don’t think you need to spend two, three years at auniversity to do the job when you can learn it quite easily on the frontline. . . . I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me I can do my job . . . actuallyI do have a piece of paper that tells me I can do my job—it’s called myCV. (Corporate Librarian #1)
Corporate librarians also have less emphasis placed on professionaldevelopment. Corporate Librarian #3 noted how professional developmentand instruction was not possible due to the work pressures to deliver. Finally,when it comes to the business school librarians, there was acknowledgmentof how subject expertise is less of a priority.
That’s why our library in common with many libraries has gone fromcalling us Subject Librarians, which does imply that you are a subjectspecialist in that subject. I’m not, I liaise with that subject. I developedan interest and I’ve developed competencies in the subject but I’m not abusiness or a finance academic. (Business School Librarian #3)
CONCLUSION
To form conclusions, I return to the questions I set out to answer in theintroduction.
What Is Business Information Literacy?
A possible, minimalist definition of business information literacy could be“being information literate with business information.” Business informationis so varied, however, that the statement really can mean different things todifferent people in different situations. This contextual feel is very much inline with Hepworth and Walton (2009) who place priority on the informationand knowledge landscape when it comes to IL requirements. Returning tobusiness information literacy, there are those that interpret from an academicperspective, placing emphasis on competency standards and frameworks
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
162 A. Natt
BusinessLiterature
FinancialInformation
MarketResearch
FIGURE 3 Business information landscape.
(what to teach) and those that see it entailing more of a practical skills set(what to become). Neither perspective is wrong: both have equal validity.
Previous literature and the results of this article certainly suggest thatbusiness information literacy is something developed by higher educationpractitioners for higher education practitioners. However, business informa-tion literacy is a concept that should apply to educational and corporateenvironments. This point leads to the wider concern of how author ori-entation has permanently affected interpretations of (business) informationliteracy. It cannot be undone.
Based on my experience, I believe that before any retrieval or evalu-ation begins, knowing where to look for business information should beemphasized. I prioritize three information worlds:
1. Business literature: Whether it be academic literature or news relating tobusiness or finance
2. Financial information: Broadly financial data and economic information3. Competitor/industry information: In particular the location of industry re-
search and peer analyses
The ability to navigate these three worlds is a key skill and applicableacross nearly all business information environments. Different informationneeds also dictate the priority given to these three information worlds. Anindustry research question may not utilize financial information, and a stu-dent writing an essay will place greater priority on the business literature.There is also the potential for these three areas to overlap (such as a brokerreport overlapping all three domains).
Figure 3 illustrates these three unique components of the business in-formation landscape.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 163
Is Information Literacy More of an Issue for Business SchoolLibrarians Compared to Corporate Librarians?
These findings suggest that IL may be a concept corporate librarians relateto less than their counterparts in higher education. This is hardly surprisinggiven IL’s emergence from academic and school library literature. There ishowever the concern that the IL discourse has been taken over by librariansin higher education that have moulded its definitions and interpretationsto suit themselves. Although there are exceptions like Cheuk (2008), theyare rare. This outcome is unfortunate given IL’s corporate roots (Zurkowski,1974).
Corporate librarians and business school librarians exist in differentspheres and speak a different language. Information literacy is quite simplynot a buzzword in the corporate world. In comparison, IL, and IL instruction,is ingrained in a modern academic librarian’s professional world. One wouldbe perceived as an infidel (and quite unemployable) for publically dismiss-ing IL in higher education. In agreement with O’Sullivan (2002), IL needsto be better integrated with popular concepts and terms in the corporateworld.
Do Corporate Librarians Have Anything Unique About Them in theContext of Information Literacy?
According to the results, business school librarians see their most importantfunctions as instructors of IL and are most familiar with academic information.Corporate library and information professionals interpret IL as a practical re-quirement for themselves. Their role is to convert information to intelligenceand deliver it to knowledge workers who use it for competitive advantage(Abels, 2009).
Competency frameworks and teaching quite simply are not core ele-ments of a corporate librarian’s job. Being a successful corporate librarianmeans being information literate with business information and is an instinc-tive, natural part of their role as converters of information to intelligence.Based on personal experience as a corporate librarian, I am also aware thatthere just is not time for producing and publishing research. Librarians’ valuein the corporate library is generally not measured by scholarly output butrather is based on expertise with business information and the resourcessubscribed to. In a similar conclusion to Klopper (2006), the differences be-tween the two types of information professionals reflect the environmentsthey work in are thinking (academic) and doing (corporate).
Greater communication between corporate librarians and businessschool librarians is a way to address this separation and could be somethingthe Special Libraries Association (SLA) or vendors could develop. There mustalso be an aspiration for greater career movement between corporate and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
164 A. Natt
academic environment. If modern business schools are recruiting academicstaff from a corporate background, why not librarians?
Exploring this point further, I argue that the experience of corporatelibrarians can be seen as modern day version of subject librarianship forbusiness. There are two trends justifying this thinking. The first trend is howacademic librarianship appears to be going through a phase where thereare fewer subject librarians. They have been replaced by a library-qualifiedgeneration (often called liaison librarians) who may inherit a subject andmay view IL instruction as one of their central functions. The findings ofthis article suggest some desire for subject specialization for business schoollibrarians, however subject specialization tends to play a secondary role tolibrary credentials. Perhaps specialization in business is not always needed,but the depth and breadth of business information is more demanding thanother contexts.
The second trend concerns the assessments commonplace in businesscourses; it is not just essays and exams. Report writing, case studies, and casemethod (see Spackman & Camacho, 2009, for further reading) are popularassessment tools, reflecting what is done in the “real world.” Thus hiringa business information specialist comfortable with practitioner informationrequests can be of benefit. If there were a choice, it probably is best to beinformation literate, but it is better to be information literate and comfortablewith business information and the mind-set that accompanies it.
FINAL THOUGHTS
As an academic librarian I remain an advocate of IL and believe the intentionis to fulfill a genuine need. Although there are criticisms, as a community weacknowledge that there is no better alternative out there.
What I do believe however is that there are unintended consequences(or in Merton’s [1936] terms, unanticipated consequences) from the successesof the IL agenda driven by librarians. For example, the tenure and promotionmodel for higher education in the United States is influenced by scholarlyoutput (Green, 2008). Furthermore, academic librarians in the informationage inevitably engage in IL instruction and publish practice focused research,which on the whole pushes the message of importance. When these two con-siderations are combined, the IL agenda is being shaped almost exclusivelyby academic librarians from the United States. The unintended consequencebecomes the incarnation of IL that works for them but may not be inclusiveenough for other contexts.
The second unintended consequence surrounds the popularity of ILcompetency frameworks. I use the competency frameworks myself and rec-ognize their benefits (especially when teaching in areas where I am enter-ing unchartered territory). IL frameworks are ideal in using the dominant
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 165
language. That said, there ends up becoming a comply or die subtext wherecompliance to the standards is mandated. My corporate library experienceprovided me with an alternative perspective. For that reason, the IL com-petency frameworks are not my entire worldview of IL. My gratitude tothe competency frameworks lies with how they taught me to apply subjectknowledge to a pedagogic framework for instruction.
For me, there is a need for a more critical strand of IL discussion. Authorssuch as Elmborg (2006) and O’Connor (2009a, 2009b) hint toward IL needingto evolve from the legitimation phase from which it emerged but remain acontrast to the dominant strand of IL discussion that remains quite insular.Furthermore, because academic librarians are the greatest beneficiaries of ILand in turn its greatest influencers, we need to work diligently to expandthe conversation. We, as an inclusive community of business informationprofessionals in a variety of contexts, have to decide what we want IL tobecome in the future.
NOTE
1. All references with an asterisk were also used for the content analysis.
REFERENCES1
Abels, E. G. (2009). Business information and its users. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack(Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (pp. 693–700). London,UK: CRC Press.
∗ACRL Science and Technology Section Information Literacy Standards Review TaskForce. (2011). Report on the 5-year review of the information literacy standardsfor science and engineering/technology. Retrieved from http://connect.ala.org/files/26554/STS_IL_Standards_Report[1].pdf
∗Aharony, N. (2010). Information literacy in the professional literature: An ex-ploratory analysis. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 62(3),261–282.
American Library Association. (1989). Presidential Committee on InformationLiteracy: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential
Andretta, S. (2009, August). Transliteracy: Take a walk on the wild side. Paperpresented at World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA GeneralConference and Council, Milan, Italy. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/handle/10760/14868
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy compe-tency standards for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/standards.pdf
∗Atwong, C. T., & Heichman Taylor, L. J. (2008). Integrating information literacy intobusiness education: A successful case of faculty-librarian collaboration. Journalof Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(4), 433–446.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
166 A. Natt
∗Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journalof Documentation, 57(2), 218–259.
∗Bird, N. J., Crumpton, M., Ozan, M., & Williams, T. (2012). Workplace informationliteracy: A neglected priority for community college libraries. Journal of Business& Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 18–33.
∗Bowers, C. V. M., Chew, B., Bowers, M. R., Ford, C. E., Smith, C., & Herrington, C.(2009). Interdisciplinary synergy: A partnership between business and libraryfaculty and its effects on students’ information literacy. Journal of Business &Finance Librarianship, 14(2), 110–127.
∗Broadhurst, D. (2010). Never mind the width, feel the quality: The provision oflibrary services to a global business school. Business Information Review, 27(3),144–151.
Bundy, A. (Ed.). (2004). Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Frame-work, principles, standards and practice (2nd ed.). Adelaide, Australia: Aus-tralian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. Retrieved fromhttp://www.library.unisa.edu.au/learn/infolit/Infolit-2nd-edition.pdf
∗Bury, S. (2011). Faculty attitudes, perceptions and experiences of information lit-eracy: A study across multiple disciplines at York University, Canada. Jour-nal of Information Literacy, 5(1), 45–64. Retrieved from http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V5-I1-2011-1
∗Campbell, D. K. (2011). Broad focus, narrow focus: A look at information literacyacross a school of business and within a capstone course. Journal of Business& Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 307–325.
Campbell, S. (2008). Defining information literacy in the 21st century. In J. Lau (Ed.),Information literacy: international perspectives (pp. 17–26). Munich, Germany:K. G. Saur.
Carrie, D. G., & Mitchell, L. M. (2010). A holistic approach to embedding informationliteracy in the design, delivery, and assesment of an undergraduate businessprogramme. In T. P. Mackey & T. E. Jacobsen (Eds.), Collaborative informationliteracy assessments: Strategies for evaluating teaching and learning (pp. 25–48).New York, NY: Neal-Shuman Publishers.
Cheuk, B. (2008). Delivering business value through information literacy in theworkplace. Libri, 58(3), 137–143.
∗Conley, T. M., & Gil, E. L. (2011). Information literacy for undergraduate businessstudents: Examining value, relevancy, and implications for the new century.Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(3), 213–228.
∗Cooney, M. (2005). Business information literacy instruction: A survey and progressreport. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(1), 3–25.
∗Cooney, M., & Hiris, L. (2003). Integrating information literacy and its assessmentinto a graduate business course: A collaborative framework. Research Strategies,19(3/4), 213–232.
∗Decarie, C. (2012). Dead or alive: Information literacy and dead (?) celebrities.Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 166–172.
∗De Saulles, M. (2007). Information literacy amongst UK SMEs: An information policygap. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 59(1), 68–79.
∗Detlor, B., Booker, L., Julien, H., & Serenko, A. (2010, June 2–4). The effectsof information literacy instruction on business students. Paper presented
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 167
at the Canadian Association for Information Science 37th Annual Confer-ence, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2010/CAIS020_Detloretal_Final.pdf
∗Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Learningoutcomes of information literacy instruction at business schools. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 572–585.
Detmering, R. & Johnson, A. M. (2011). Focusing on the thinking, not the tools:Incorporating critical thinking into an information literacy module for an Intro-duction to Business course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(2),101–107.
Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional prac-tice. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 192–199.
∗Fiegen, A. M. (2010). Systematic review of research methods: The case of businessinstruction. Reference Services Review, 38(3), 385–397.
∗Fiegen, A. M. (2011). Business information literacy: A synthesis for best practices.Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 267–288.
∗Finley, W., & Waymire, T. (2012). Information literacy in the accounting classroom:A collaborative effort. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 34–50.
Gasteen, G., & O’Sullivan, C. (2000). Working towards an information literate lawfirm. In C. Bruce, P. Candy, & H. Klaus (Eds.), Information literacy aroundthe world: Advances in programs and research (pp. 109–120). Wagga Wagga,Australia: Charles Stuart University, Centre for Information Studies.
Gimse, S. (2010a). Business information literacy: informasjonskompetanse vedHandelshøyskolen BI. Fagreferentkonferansen 2010 i Stavanger, 31. mai -2. juni. Retrieved from http://www.uis.no/getfile.php/Biblioteket/Fagreferent_2010/Fagreferentkonferansen(1).ppt
Gimse, S. (2010b). Business information literacy: Informasjonskompetanse ved Han-delshøyskolen BI. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education,2(1). Retrieved from https://noril.uib.no/index.php/noril/article/view/53
Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: the relative importance ofteaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2),117–128.
∗Gunn, C., Hearne, S., & Sibthorpe, J. (2011). Right from the start: A ratio-nale for embedding academic literacy skills in university courses. Journalof University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol8/iss1/6
∗Gunn, M., & Miree, C. E. (2012). Business information literacy teaching at differ-ent academic levels: An exploration of skills and implications for instructionaldesign. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(1), 18–34. Retrieved from http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/1671
Hallmark, J. (1998). Education for the successful geoscience information specialist.Science & Technology Libraries, 17(2), 81–91.
∗Haras, C., & Brasley, S. S. (2011). Is information literacy a public concern? A practicein search of a policy. Library Trends, 60(2), 361–382.
∗Harper, T., & Norelli, B. P. (2007). The business of collaboration and electroniccollection development. Collection Building, 26(1), 15–19.
Harzing, A. W. (2010). Citation analysis across disciplines: The impact of dif-ferent data sources and citation metrics. Retrieved from www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
168 A. Natt
Hawes, D. K. (1994). Information literacy and the business schools. Journal of Edu-cation for Business, 70(1), 54–61.
Hayworth, G. (2008). Early career librarianship in the business library. Journal ofBusiness & Finance Librarianship, 13(3), 227–239.
Hepworth, M., & Walton, G. (2009). Teaching information literacy for inquiry-basedlearning. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing.
∗Hesseldenz, P. (2012). Information literacy and the evolving MBA degree. Journalof Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(4), 287–299.
∗Holler, C. M. (2008). Incorporating vendor-created training into information lit-eracy instruction: A case study. Communications in Information Literacy,2(2), 99–108. Retrieved from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=Fall2008AR3
Hsieh-Yee, I. (1993). Effects of search experience and subject knowledge on thesearch tactics of novice and experienced searchers. Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science, 44(3), 161–174.
∗Hunsaker, M., Howard, F., Liu, S.-H., & Davis, J. (2009). Digital learning objects:A local response to the California state university system initiative. New LibraryWorld, 110(3/4), 151–160.
Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy: What does it mean to academic libraries?College and Research Libraries News, 71(10), 532–567.
Jaeger, P. (2011). Transliteracy – New library lingo and what it means for instruction.Library Media Connection, 30(2), 44–47.
∗Julien, H., Detlor, B., Serenko, A., Willson, R., & Lavallee, M. (2009). Outcomes ofinformation literacy instruction for undergraduate business students. Proceed-ings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1),1–18.
∗Julien, H., Detlor, B., Serenko, A., Willson, R., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Preparingtomorrow’s decision makers: Learning environments and outcomes of infor-mation literacy instruction in business schools. Journal of Business & FinanceLibrarianship, 16(4), 348–367.
∗Katz, I. R., Haras, C., & Blaszczynski, C. (2010). Does business writing re-quire information literacy? Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 135–149.
∗Kelly, A. S., Williams, T. D., Matthies, B., & Burdeane Orris, J. (2011). Course-integrated information literacy instruction in introduction to accounting. Journalof Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 326–347.
∗Kimmins, L., & Stagg, A. (2009, September 28–30). Creating confidence: Develop-ing academic skills and information literacy behaviours to support the preceptsof tertiary academic performance. Paper presented at 4th Asia Pacific Confer-ence on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), University of Wollongong, Australia.Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/apcei/09/papers/17/
∗Kirkwood, H., & Evans, K. (2012). Embedded librarianship and virtual environmentsin entrepreneurship information literacy: A case study. Journal of Business &Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 106–116.
Klopper, S. M. (2006). The journey from corporate to academic librarian. Online,30(5), 14–20.
∗Lieberthal, S. P. (2009). Teaching undergraduate business students to access publiccompany information: Assessing students’ use of library resources. Journal ofBusiness & Finance Librarianship, 14(3), 230–247.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 169
Liu, L., & Allen, B. (2001). Business librarians: Their education and training. College& Research Libraries, 62(6), 555–563.
Lloyd, A. (2010). Information literacy landscapes: Information literacy in education,workplace and everyday contexts. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publications.
∗Long, C., & Shrikhande, M. (2007). Information literacy and informationseeking behavior among business majors (Georgia State University Li-brary Faculty Publications. Paper 16). Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/univ_lib_facpub/16/
∗Luck, E. M., & Thompson, M. J. (2006, December 4–6). Information literacy inte-gration: Maintaining relevance in the business classroom. Paper presented atAustralian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Brisbane, Aus-tralia. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5288/
MacDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2010). Counting footnotes: Citability in managementstudies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 189–203.
∗Makani, J., & WooShue, K. (2006). Information seeking behaviours of busi-ness students and the development of academic digital libraries. EvidenceBased Library and Information Practice, 1(4), 30–45. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/70
∗Mar-Rounds, G. (2011). Better understanding teaching faculty’s beliefs and be-haviour towards information literacy: The University of the South Pacificperspective. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/library-theory-and-research/Projects/researcher-librarian-report-mar-rounds.pdf
∗McGuigan, G. S. (2008). The MBA and academic business librarians: More thangraduate education for subject specialists. Journal of Business & Finance Librar-ianship, 13(3), 405–417.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action.American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.
∗Nazari, M. (2010). Design and process of a contextual study of information liter-acy: An Eisenhardt approach. Library and Information Science Research, 32(3),179–191.
∗Nazari, M. (2011). A contextual model of information literacy. Journal of Informa-tion Science, 37(4), 345–359.
∗Nazari, M., & Webber, S. (2011). What do the conceptions of geo/spatial informationtell us about information literacy? Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 334–354.
O’Connor, L., & Marien, S. (2002). Recruiting quality business librarians in a shrinkinglabor market. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 15(2), 70–74.
O’Connor, L., & Marien, S. (2008). Demand and supply of business informationprofessionals: A study of the market from 2001–2005. Journal of Business &Finance Librarianship, 13(3), 189–200.
∗O’Connor, L. G. (2007). The diffusion of information literacy in academic businessliterature. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(2), 105–125.
O’Connor, L. (2009a). Information literacy as professional legitimation: The quest forprofessional jurisdiction. Library Review, 58(4), 272–289.
O’Connor, L. (2009b). Information literacy as professional legitimation: The questfor a new jurisdiction. Library Review, 58(7), 493–508.
O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? ReferenceServices Review, 30(1), 7–14.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
170 A. Natt
Owusu, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: Enough is enough!Library Review, 54(6), 366–374.
∗Papadopoulos, T. (2010). Beyond discipline and technical knowledge: Industryperspectives on the business curriculum. Industry & Higher Education, 24(2),109–114.
Perrett, R. (2011). A new look at the background and work experience of businesslibrarians. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(1), 46–66.
Rader, H. B. (2002). Information literacy 1973–2002: A selected literature review.Library Trends, 51(2), 242–259.
∗Rich, G. A., & Rich, L. A. (2007). Using Q-methodology to study information lit-eracy among marketing students. American Marketing Association ConferenceProceedings, 18, 231–238. Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower.com/Community/ARC/gated/Documents/Connections/ARC_AMA_SUMMER2007.pdf
∗Saunders, L. (2012). Faculty perspectives on information literacy as a student learn-ing outcome. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 226–236.
Society of College, National and University Libraries. (2011). The SCONUL sevenpillars of information literacy: core model for higher education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf
∗Senior, H., Wu, K., Martin, D. M., & Mellinger, M. (2009). Three times a study:Business students and the library. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship,14(3), 202–229.
∗Sherman, M., Martin, J. A., & An, X. (2012). The impact of library instruction on thequality of student project performance in an advanced financial managementcase class. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 51–76.
∗Simon, C. (2009). Graduate business students and business information literacy: Anovel approach. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(3), 248–267.
∗Sokoloff, J. (2012). Information literacy in the workplace: Employer expectations.Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 1–17.
Spackman, A., & Camacho, L. (2009). Rendering information literacy relevant: acase-based pedagogy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 548–554.
∗Spiranec, S., Zorica, M. B., & Simoncic, G. S. (2012). Libraries and financial literacy:Perspectives from emerging markets. Journal of Business & Finance Librarian-ship, 17(3), 262–278.
∗Stagg, A., & Lane, M. (2010). Using clickers to support information literacyskills development and instruction in first-year business students. Journalof Information Technology Education, 9, 197–215. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p197–215Stagg800.pdf
∗Strittmatter, C. (2012). Developing and assessing a library instruction module fora core business class. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 95–105.
Thompson, I. (1999). Women and feminism in technical communication: A qualita-tive content analysis of journal articles published in 1989 through 1997. Journalof Business and Technical Communication, 13(2), 154–178.
∗Thornton, J. B. (2011). Fast money: Investment literacy for tomorrow’s Wall Streettraders. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 30(1), 3–15.
Town, S. J. (2003). Information literacy: Definition, measurement, impact. In A.Martin & H. Rader (Eds.), Information and IT literacy: Enabling learning in the21st century (pp. 53–65). London, UK: Facet.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 171
∗Usry, M. L., Law, M., Leinbach, W., Magolis, D. E., Staley, A. B., & Shapeero, M.(2010). E-discovery: What future business leaders need to know. Journal ofBusiness & Finance Librarianship, 15(2), 78–93.
∗Weiner, S. (2011). Information literacy and the workforce: a review. Educa-tion Libraries, 34(2), 7–14. Retrieved from http://units.sla.org/division/ded/educationlibraries/34-2.pdf
∗Whitesell, M., & Helms, M. M. (2011). Changing information requirements for localcompany projects. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship. 16(2), 125–144.
Womack, R. (2008). The orientation and training of new librarians for businessinformation. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(3), 217–226.
∗Wu, Y. D. (2006). Information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Library andInformation Science, 32(1), 11–17. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/sjsu_diana_wu/3/
∗Wu, Y. D., & Kendall, S. L. (2006). Teaching faculty’s perspectives on businessinformation literacy. Reference Services Review, 34(1), 86–96.
∗Wu, Y. D. (2012). Information literacy in the workplace: A cross-cultural perspective.Journal of Library and Information Science, 38(1), 84–104.
Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information service environment relationships andpriorities. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and InformationScience. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED100391.pdf
APPENDIX A Interview Questions for Business School Librarians
1. What is your job title? (information about self)2. Do you have a library qualification? (information about self)3. How many years experience do you have in academic librarianship? Please include
how many years have been spent in a business school (information about self)4. Do you have any experience in corporate librarianship? If so, please include how
many years and what type of corporate library you worked in (information aboutself)
5. Is information literacy a concept that you are familiar with? Please include reasonsfor your answer and how you perceive its relevance in the context of your role?(awareness of information literacy)
6. What do you consider “business information literacies” to be in the context of yourrole? (awareness of information literacy)
7. What do you perceive your most important qualities to be that make youinformation literate in your current role? (awareness of information literacy)
8. What do you perceive your strengths to be as an academic librarian in a businessschool compared to those of a corporate librarian, say in the financial servicessector? (opinion of self and others)
9. What do you perceive your weaknesses to be as an academic librarian in a businessschool compared to those of a corporate librarian, say in the financial servicessector? (opinion of self and others)
10. Would you consider changing sectors and having a role as a corporate librarian inthe financial services sector? Please include reasons for your answer (opinion ofself and others)
Note. Question type is included (in parentheses).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
172 A. Natt
APPENDIX B Interview Questions for Corporate Librarians
1. What is your job title? (information about self)2. Do you have a library qualification? (information about self)3. How many years experience do you have in corporate librarianship? Please include
how many years and what type of corporate library you worked in (informationabout self)
4. Do you have any experience in academic librarianship? If so, please include howmany years and if any of that was in a business school (information about self)
5. Is information literacy a concept that you are familiar with? Please include reasonsfor your answer and how you perceive its relevance in the context of your role?(awareness of information literacy)
6. What do you consider “business information literacies” to be in the context of yourrole? (awareness of information literacy)
7. What do you perceive your most important qualities to be that make youinformation literate in your current role? (awareness of information literacy)
8. What do you perceive your strengths to be as a corporate librarian in the financialservices sector, compared to those of an academic librarian in a business school?(opinion of self and others)
9. What do you perceive your weaknesses to be as a corporate librarian in the financialservices sector, compared to those of an academic librarian in a business school?(opinion of self and others)
10. Would you consider changing sectors and having a role as an academic librarian in abusiness school? Please include reasons for your answer (opinion of self andothers)
Note. Question type is included (in parentheses).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
Business Information Literacy 173
APPENDIX C Author Frequency of Business Information Literacy Articles
Surname Publications Surname Publications Surname Publications
Detlor, B. 4 Finley, W. 1 Mellinger, M. 1Julien, H. 4 Ford, C. E. 1 Miree, C. E. 1Serenko, A. 4 Gil, E. L. 1 Norelli, B. P. 1Lavallee, M. 3 Gunn, C. 1 O’Connor, L. G. 1Nazari, M. 3 Gunn, M. 1 Ozan, M. 1Willson, R. 3 Harper, T. 1 Papadopoulos, T. 1Wu, Y. D. 3 Hearne, S. 1 Rich, G. A. 1Cooney, M. 2 Heichman Taylor, L. J. 1 Rich, L. A. 1Fiegen, A. M. 2 Helms, M. M. 1 Sapp-Nelson, M. 1Haras, C. 2 Herrington, C. 1 Saunders, L. 1Stagg, A. 2 Hesseldenz, P. 1 Senior, H. 1Aharony, N. 1 Hiris, L. 1 Shapeero, M. 1An, X. 1 Holler, C. M. 1 Sherman, M. 1Atwong, C. T. 1 Howard, F. 1 Shrikhande, M. 1Baruzzi, A. 1 Hunsaker, M. 1 Sibthorpe, J. 1Bawden, D. 1 Johnson, A. M. 1 Simon, C. 1Berman, E 1 Katz, I. R. 1 Simoncic, G. S. 1Bird, N. J. 1 Kelly, A. S. 1 Smith, C. 1Blaszczynski, C. 1 Kendall, S. L. 1 Sokoloff, J. 1Bogucka, R. 1 Kimmins, L. 1 Sparks, O. 1Booker, L. 1 Kirkwood, H. 1 Spiranec, S. 1Bowers, C. V. M. 1 Lane, M. 1 Staley, A. B. 1Bowers, M. R. 1 Law, M. 1 Strittmatter, C. 1Brasley, S. S. 1 Leinbach, W. 1 Thompson, M. J. 1Broadhurst, D. 1 Lieberthal, S. P. 1 Thornton, J. B. 1Burdeane Orris, J. 1 Liu, S-H. 1 Usry, M. L. 1Bury, S. 1 Long, C. 1 Waymire, T. 1Campbell, D. K. 1 Luck, E. M. 1 Webber, S. 1Chew, B. 1 MacAlpine, B. 1 Weiner, S. 1Conley, T. M. 1 Magolis, D. E. 1 Whitesell, M. 1Crumpton, M. 1 Makani, J. 1 Williams, T. D. 1Davis, J. 1 Mar-Rounds, G. 1 Williams, T. 1De Saulles, M. 1 Martin, D. M. 1 WooShue, K. 1Decarie, C. 1 Martin, J. A. 1 Wu, K. 1Detmering, R. 1 Matthies, B. 1 Zorica, M. B. 1Evans, K. 1 McGuigan, G. S. 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
174 A. Natt
APPENDIX D Definitions of Person Specifications for Content Analysis B
Person Specification Definition
Academic Experience of an academic environmentChartership Chartered Institute of Library & Informational
Professionals chartership or willingness for oneCommunication Communication skills of various typesCorporate Prior experience in corporate environmentDatabases (number in brackets) Experience in using electronic resources or
specialist databasesDeadlines Experience in meeting tight deadlinesDegree Undergraduate degreeDevelopments Keeping up to date with developments in
professionEnvironment Ability to work in adaptable environmentEvaluate Experience in evaluating various resourcesFinancial Use of financial informationGuidance Guiding users in what is good informationHours Flexibility to hours or work and/or working lateIndependent Experience of working without supervisionInformation retrieval Experience of information retrieval skillsIt skills Information technology including Microsoft OfficeLanguage Grasp of foreign languageLiaison Liaising with staffLibrary and information science Experience of providing a library or information
serviceManagement Managing other staffMultitasking The ability to multi-taskNetworking Represent library service in various groupsPersonal development Commitment to personal developmentPressure Experience of working in pressurised environmentProvision Ensuring information is available for people to useQualification Graduate with library qualificationService Service orientated approach to usersSubject Some sort of subject specialismTeaching Some sort of teaching qualificationTeamwork Team or group working skillsTraining Training of users for various library and
information services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 1
4:52
10
Oct
ober
201
4
