1. Tim Schlak, Ph.D. Director, University Library Robert Morris University schlak@rmu.edu Social Capital & Liaison Librarianship

2. Introduction - Liaison Librarianship  Shen (2013)  “Faculty who received more services from their liaisons were more satisfied with the liaison services than those who did not.”  “Faculty who knew their liaison by name or who had recent contact were more satisfied with the liaison services that those who did not.”  Chung (2010)  A relationship-building approach to liaison work can lead to iterative collaborations with faculty over time.

3. Definitions - Social Capital  “Features of a social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 2000).  “The sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

4. Commonalities: Social Capital & Liaison Work  Items of exchange  Information: publication notices, copyright information, other marketing, recommendations  Resources embedded in network  Collection development  Library-services, esp. Information Literacy-related services  Faculty and librarian time  Mutual benefit  Student learning  Faculty research  Library support and advocacy

5. Review of Project  Social capital addresses aspects of the relationship that sit just beneath the surface  Trust, shared meaning, relationship and network dynamics  Phone interviews with up to 10 liaison librarians  Inductive content analysis via post-interview sorting and processing of transcripts to elucidate themes in the data

6. Highlights of Pilot  Participant #1 – “them as has, gets” inversion  Those who respond to liaison communications are those who receive when excess library resources are available  Participant #2 - personal contact may function to a different end than professional contact  A necessary relationship component for faculty to shift perspective to “What can I do for you, the librarian?”

7. Emerging Issues  Strong vs. weak networks/pockets  Trust & trustworthiness  Example: historical seeking of faculty approval vs. asking ourselves what we can get out of it  Shared meaning  1) Fulfilling faculty needs; 2) Student learning  Liaison programs as a mission-supporting mechanism for academic libraries  Contributes to libraries’ social capital

8. Emerging Issues Continued  Unmatched expectation fulfillment, unbalanced relationships  What are the dynamics and implications?  Substantiates librarians as faculty  Christiansen, Stombler, and Thaxton (2004): “Faculty do not see librarians as experts in faculty fields of expertise, and therefore not appropriate for consultation” (even if librarians are also experts).  Decouple personal vs. professional contact

9. Sources  Christiansen, L., Stombler, M., & Thaxton, L. (2004), “A report on librarian- faculty relations from a sociological perspective,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 116-121.  Chung, H. (2010), “Relationship building in entrepreneurship liaison work: one Business Librarian’s experience at North Carolina State University,” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, vol. 15, pp. 161-170.  Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,” Academy of Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242-266.  Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.  Shen, L. (2013), “There is no association between subject liaisons’ perception of their work and faculty satisfaction with their liaisons,” Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 142-144.

10. Social Capital & Liaison Librarianship QUESTIONS?