Applying the model to the eLib community

Initial problems

At the start of the present Study, the authors realised that the identification of cultural change processes in the eLib programme was likely to be affected by the following problems:

1. What are the indicators of change? In the present context, given that it is impossible to define the pre-existing culture in any given institution or group, the Study has had to focus entirely on indicators that change has occurred, and then try to identify post-hoc how and why the change occurred. Indicators of change occur in the language used by eLib project staff and other eLib actors, when discussing their projects and the programme as a whole. Such indicators are likely to occur spontaneously in communications from projects, by intention within evaluation deliverables, and through elicitation in structured interviews and other activities in contexts like the present Supporting Study. However, it was not possible in the tight timeframe of the present Study to perform any detailed discourse analysis to tease out subtle changes in the language of participants, although such research would be extremely interesting and revealing.
   
2. How can one identify whether a change has occurred as a result of an eLib development, or due to external or pre-existing factors? In the tightly scheduled context of this Supporting Study, it has only been possible to attempt to identify the likely causes of a given occurrence, but there will undoubtedly be some ambiguity over certain developments and issues. This is especially true given the background transformations in HE which inspired the eLib programme itself, such as increasing reliance on technological solutions for many aspects of education and research.

Focus of analysis

In the sections that follow, the overall focus of analysis is slightly different from that suggested by the Study's initial model (presented above). It quickly became evident, from scanning the available material, that there is little evidence in eLib project or programme deliverables of the changes hypothesised in stakeholders' working practices, etc. This may be because most of them require a longer timescale to occur: it may simply be too crude to imagine that librarians' formal or informal work structures will change immediately, simply through single eLib projects. Therefore, our analyses and questions have focused largely on whether eLib has helped create the preconditions for cultural change, by beginning to erode the status quo in (for example) librarians' working roles or academics' information-seeking behaviour.

Methodology

In order to build up a comprehensive picture of cultural change effects of the eLib programme, a two-level approach was adopted for the Study.

1. An examination of individual projects.

2. An examination of the programme as a whole.

A representative sample of 22 projects (out of a total of 59 eLib projects) was constructed. The intention was to abstract generic project trends reflecting cultural change issues for the programme as whole. Although the sample covered all the major programme areas, the findings have not been discussed below according to this classification, as it appeared to be insignificant in terms of reporting cultural change issues. The following criteria were taken into account in selecting the sample:

• Degree of innovation: projects were selected to show a broad range of innovation, methods and approaches.
• User expectations: to reflect areas where electronic products or services were being developed for user communities where there was evidence of very little pre-existing use of electronic information, as well as environments where electronic information use was already fairly well advanced.
• Size of project: in terms of amount of funding, number of project staff, numbers of HEIs involved, outreach to user groups (i.e. how widespread in terms of subject or disciplines covered etc). A deliberate decision was made to select some very large projects, as well as a few very small projects where a small number of staff operate on a part-time basis.
• Maturity: some of the projects in the sample were fairly advanced in terms of product delivery, whereas others had taken a longer and perhaps more carefully considered approach (allowing time and resources on preparatory background studies/research).
• Management of the project: projects were chosen to reflect the different stakeholder groups leading a project (i.e. whether academics or librarians).

Another factor which influenced the selection of projects was the ease with which deliverables and other documentation could be obtained (so that projects with a well developed Web presence and a good dissemination track record tended to be chosen). Despite this approach, considerable difficulties were still experienced in obtaining all the appropriate documentation.

It was intended that, as a minimum requirement, the following core documents were obtained for each project: the proposal, flyer, annual report and evaluation document. In addition, project Web sites, the products and services themselves, conference and journal papers and electronic discussiof lists (where appropriate) were also examined on an ad hoc basis. Analyses of both Ariadne and the lis-elib archive were also undertaken as a means of identifying anecdotal evidence for cultural change assumptions.

All this material was analysed for data and assumptions about cultural change, based on the framework drawn up at the beginning of the Study (see above).

Data was also collected by conducting in depth, semi-structured interviews with 6 'key actors' in the eLib community. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement with key eLib projects, as well as for a broad knowledge of the strategies and policy issues of the programme as a whole. Collectively these interviewees represent a very wide range of knowledge and expertise on eLib. A copy of the interview schedule, which was based on themes and issues emerging both from our literature review and an initial analysis of likely key issues, appears as Appendix 1 to this report.

Informal discussions were also held with some members of eLib projects, primarily to clarify issues arising from analysis of the project deliverables.

In addition to the material from individual projects, documentation produced by the Tavistock Institute was also examined. This included the Evaluation Framework for eLib (1996a), the Policy Mapping Study (1996b) and the Synthesis of Annual Reports (1997).

In May 1997, Clare Davies attended a seminar at Lancaster University, to present initial findings from the Study, and gained valuable feedback from eLib project participants and other researchers active in the digital library field.

A workshop was held at the Tavistock Institute on July 3 to discuss the main tentative findings and solicit feedback from invited participants. The responses and views of the Workshop participants have been incorporated into this final report, with grateful thanks for their input. The following were present at the Workshop:

Professor Charles Oppenheim, Clare Davies, Matthew Hall and Alison Scammell (International Institute for Electronic Library Research, De Montfort University)

Dr Frances Blomely (eLib CINE project)

Chris Carter (HUSAT, Loughborough University)

Catherine Edwards (IMPEL2 project, University of Northumbria at Newcastle)

Professor Peter Ford (Dean of Science at Nottingham University, and JISC CALT member)

John Kelleher (Tavistock Institute)

Dr Juliet Webster (Tavistock Institute and JISC CALT member)

Norman Wiseman (JISC Head of Programmes)

Back to contents

Previous section: Modelling eLib Cultural Change

Next section: Findings: interviews

The Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) was funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
Page version: 1;
Web page maintained by UKOLN Systems Team and hosted by UKOLN - feedback to systems@ukoln.ac.uk .
Site last revised on: Tuesday, 24-Nov-1998 14:21:09 UTC
DC Metadata