On May 12, 2008, Steven Bell, moderator of ACRLog and Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services at Temple University, posted a survey on the blog seeking to determine what his readers believe are the most important topics in a course on academic librarianship. ACRLog, whose primary purpose, according to its mission statement, is "to discuss the issues of the day in the field of academic and research librarianship" (Association of College and Research Libraries, n.d.), seems an appropriate place for this survey. Bell, who teaches such a course, received over 100 responses. The survey asked readers to classify thirty subjects as essential, important, or marginal for inclusion in the course and to suggest additional subjects. About a month later, Bell posted a summary of the responses he received. Among the subjects most frequently cited as essential (see Table 1) were higher education, academic freedom/tenure, standards, public services, information literacy, collection management, and scholarly communication. Important topics included accreditation, organization, faculty status for librarians, technical services, the library as place, e-resources, faculty issues, and career advice. Topics considered marginal were leadership, management and budgeting (Bell, 2008, June 10).

In his summary of the results, Bell asserted that, "We are all stakeholders in the LIS education of our future academic librarians" (Bell, 2008, June 10). Although Bell's survey appears to be the only study focusing specifically on the recommended content of academic librarianship courses, there have been numerous studies of the skills, proficiencies, and personal qualities considered necessary for successful academic librarians. To date, however, there has been no examination of the actual content of courses to determine how closely that content matches both Bell's list and the proficiencies identified in the literature. The study reported in this paper is a first attempt at such an examination.

[TABLE 1 OMITTED]

Literature Review

Content Analyses

Although no published study of the content of courses in academic librarianship was identified, there have been many content analyses of LIS courses in other subjects. These were reviewed primarily to identify an appropriate methodology for the current study. Three general methodologies were identified: an examination of course catalogs and class schedules; a questionnaire sent to LIS deans or to faculty identified as teaching the relevant course; and examination of course syllabi. The first method has been used primarily to determine which programs offer a particular course and how often. Obviously, little actual information on course content can be obtained this way. The latter two methods have both been used to examine actual course content and pedagogy.

Examples of research based solely on examination of catalogs and course schedules include Westbrook's (1999) study of user education courses, which determined that 26 of 48 accredited schools offered "full, regular, focused courses" (p. 94) on the subject. A paper presented at the fourth annual ACRL conference in 1986 reported that, based on a study of course catalogs, 58% of LIS schools offered courses in research (Anderson & Landrum, 1986). He (1999) reported on a longitudinal study of IT-oriented courses at four selected LIS schools over a fifteen-year period, which determined (not surprisingly) that the number of such courses had increased significantly. The latter two studies made some limited attempt to discern course content from the catalog descriptions, but the emphasis was on determining whether or not a course was offered.

Several articles reported questionnaire-based research. Grotzinger (1977) sent a questionnaire to the dean of every ALA accredited program, asking that it be referred to the person primarily responsible for teaching research methods courses. The questions focused on the course description, objectives, textbooks, teaching methods, evaluation, number of students and grading. Adkins and Erdelez (2006) examined LIS school websites to identify instructors of reference courses and sent them a questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions, focusing primarily on pedagogical methods. Neither of these studies concentrated on course content. An early study by Shuman ( 1 978) of courses on intellectual freedom, also questionnaire-based, did include a list of potential topics and asked instructors to indicate which were covered in their course.

The most extensive examinations of actual course content were found in research based on analyses of course syllabi. Larson and Meltzer (1987) conducted a three-part survey of courses in library instruction. In 1983, they looked at syllabi for separate instruction courses; in 1984, at other courses that included an instruction component. In 1986, they updated their study with a new survey. Their major finding was that most courses dealt primarily with the mechanics of instruction, with significantly less emphasis on theory. Buchanan's (2004) study of courses in information ethics examined syllabi solicited from faculty identified through a search of LIS school course schedules. The resulting article focused on listing course titles and assigned texts but also discussed the subjects covered and pedagogical methods.

The study whose methodology provided the most useful guidance for the one reported here examined courses in business information. White (2004) reviewed LIS course catalogs and web sites to determine which schools offered such courses. Syllabi were acquired from the instructor or directly from the web. Information about the instructors was acquired from the syllabi or from school websites. Syllabi were then examined:

. . . to gather information on the course content, including both general topics and specific business subjects; characteristics of the instructor; textbooks and other materials read; course assignments; projects and examinations; and the use of guest lecturers and tours, (p. 6)

Studies of Academic Librarian Competencies

Although there have been no previous studies of the content of courses in academic librarianship, a large body of literature focuses on the skills and competencies required of academic librarians that may provide information useful to those teaching such courses. Much of this literature is based on content analysis of job announcements and most frequently examines a specific competency or set of competencies or a specific job category. A few studies take a more general approach. Beile and Adams (2000) reviewed all announcements for academic librarians appearing in 1996 in the Chronicle of Higher Education, College & Research Libraries News, American Libraries, and Library Journal. They divided the listings into three categories: public services, technical services, and electronic services. They found that slightly less than one quarter included administrative responsibilities and over two thirds required computer skills. About one third of the public service positions mentioned a second language; the figure was much lower for technical and electronic services positions. Lynch and Smith (2001) analyzed 220 announcements appearing in College & Research Libraries News between 1973 and 1998, seeking to identify trends in the types of proficiencies sought. Of the listings examined, 80 indicated a requirement or a preference for a second master's degree. Over 40% offered faculty status. Although there were no ads from 1973 mentioning instruction, all reference positions posted in the 1990s included instruction responsibilities. Computer skills were also much more frequently mentioned in the later listings.

The increasing need for computer skills has been reported in several other, more focused studies. In a frequently cited article, Zhou (1996) analyzed 2,883 advertisements appearing in American Libraries at five-year intervals between 1974 and 1994. He looked for any mention of computer skills as required, preferred or desired and found that the demand increased dramatically over the twenty-year span. By 1994, the most sought after skill was "knowledge of or experience with library automated systems" (p. 270). Other skills mentioned were experience with bibliographic utilities, online searching, microcomputer applications, and, in later ads, Internet searching and media. A recent study by Mathews and Pardue (2009) examined all announcements appearing in the ALA Jobline between October 1, 2007 and March 22, 2008 that required an MLS or equivalent. After omitting ads with an administrative focus, they found the most frequently sought technology skills were web development, project management, systems development and systems applications.

Some studies have examined the need for skills other than the specifically technological. Kinkus (2007) reviewed announcements in College & Research Libraries News from 1993, 2003 and 2004 seeking ones desiring project management skills. She found that the ads tended to ask for project management or project "involvement." The number of such ads rose from 8.9% in 1993 to 16.2% in 2003 but declined to 10% in 2004. Winston and Dunkley (2002) sought to study the importance of development and fund raising skills for academic librarians. However, because very few librarian job announcements specifically mention these skills, they examined listings for institutional development personnel in the Chronicle of Higher Education for the first six months of 2000. They found that the primary job responsibilities were cultivating donors, planning, and strategizing. Written and oral communications skills were necessary, as were interpersonal and management skills. The authors argue that although few job listings specifically mention them, academic librarians need fund-raising and development skills.

Among those studies analyzing competencies required for specific positions, Croneis and Henderson (2002) looked at announcements in College & Research Libraries News between 1990 and 2000 that contained the words electronic or digital in the job title. They found that, in the early 1990s, these jobs tended to be in public services and focused on website design, instruction and collection development. Digital positions increased in the latter half of the decade and tended to involve digital projects and initiatives. Fisher (2001) examined core competencies for acquisitions librarians by examining announcements in American Libraries from 1975, 1987 and 1999. He found that only nine of 24 different competencies mentioned in the ads were specifically job related. Among the more general competencies frequently mentioned were management, communication, fiscal, and technological skills.

White (1999) studied advertisements in American Libraries, College & Research Libraries News, and the Chronicle of Higher Education from 1990 to 1998 for business, social science, and science specialist positions. He found that, for all three, the primary job responsibilities were reference, instruction, and collection development. Skills most frequently sought were communication, effectively working with others, computer proficiency, and service orientation. Shank (2006) reviewed announcements in College & Research Libraries News, American Libraries, and the Chronicle of Higher Education between 1999 and 2004 seeking ones for instructional design librarians and found only ten. The most frequently required or desired skills for this relatively new position, which Shank feels will become more common in the future, include web/multimedia applications, communication/interpersonal and project management skills, and coursework in instructional technology/design. Goetsch (2008) examined listings in College & Research Libraries News from 1995, 2000, and 2005 to trace changes in desired competencies for three specific positions: systems librarian, reference librarian, and subject librarian. She noted a growing demand for technology skills in all three positions and predicts an increasing need for four additional competencies: consulting services, information lifecycle management, collaborative print and electronic collection building, and information mediation and interpretation.

Not all the literature on librarian competencies is based on analysis of job announcements. A frequently cited study by the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (2000) examined the major forces affecting research libraries and sought to define the competencies required to deal with those forces. The competencies are grouped into five categories: development and management of effective service; support for cooperative endeavors; understanding of the library "within the context of higher education"; knowledge of "the structure, organization, creation, management, dissemination, use and preservation of information resources, new and existing, in all formats"; and commitment to traditional values of librarianship. Similarly, Stacy-Bates, Fryer, Kushowski, and Shonrock (2003) developed a set of competencies for bibliographers at the University of Iowa that included understanding of ethical and legal issues, effective planning, effective use of policies and procedures, subject knowledge, budgeting, working with other departments, effective communication, and assessment. Morgan (1996), a British librarian, identified and elaborated on four core skills which he believes all academic librarians should possess: "Credibility with academic staff (p. 43); "Teaching and training" (p.45); "IT-related skills" (p.46): and "Management skills" (p.48). A different approach was taken by Oud (2008) who surveyed new (hired within the previous three years) academic librarians to determine the most difficult adjustment problems they faced. She found that, with the exception of collection development, lack of professional knowledge was not the primary problem. Workplace politics, time management, local policies and faculty relations were areas where new librarians felt least well prepared.

Another source of standards and competencies for academic librarians is the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). On the ACRL website, these documents are grouped into seven categories: Access; College and University Libraries; Community, Junior and Technical Colleges; Education, Personnel and Academic Status; Information Literacy and Instruction; Rare Books, Manuscripts, Special Collections and Archives; and Special Topics (Curriculum Materials Centers, Distance Learning, and Media Resources). Although practicing librarians should be familiar with all of them, some are clearly of greater significance than others, particularly for new librarians. All prospective academic librarians should know the Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2004). Also important for new librarians are the statements related to status within the institution. These include standards for those with faculty status and guidelines for those with non-faculty status.

ACRL has been perhaps most influential in the area of instruction. The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000) have been translated into seven languages and have had an international impact. While these Standards address competencies that college students should possess, a parallel document, Standards for Proficiencies for Instructional Librarians and Coordinators (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007), focuses on librarian instructional competencies. Sproles, Johnson and Farison (2008) examined course descriptions and syllabi to determine how the instructional standards for librarians were addressed in LIS schools, in regular reference courses or in courses in information literacy. They found that 60% of reference courses include at least some mention of information literacy and that 85% of LIS programs offer a separate course in instruction. They compared the syllabi of the separate courses to the ACRL librarian proficiencies and found that the most commonly included proficiency was instructional design. Information literacy integration skills and teaching skills were also usually covered. However, presentation, planning, leadership, communication, and assessment skills were included "substantially less often" (p.204).

Methodology

The methodology for this study was largely adopted from White's (2004) analysis of LIS courses in business information. The web sites of 49 ALA accredited library schools in the United States were examined in an attempt to determine which programs offer a course in academic librarianship. No evidence of such a course was found at 12 schools. For those that did offer a course, class schedules were reviewed for an indication of how often the course is offered and the name of the instructor(s). Current syllabi were requested from all identified instructors via e-mail. Web sites were searched for syllabi posted online and when a current syllabus was not obtainable, a recent one found on the web was included on the assumption that course content would probably not change significantly in a few years. A total of 33 syllabi were obtained (16 directly from the professor and 17 from the web); two were from courses taught in 2004, five from 2006, 18 from 2007, and eight from 2008. In four cases, two syllabi from the same school, but for courses taught by different instructors, were included.

For all courses, the status (i.e., full or part-time) and institutional affiliation of the instructor was recorded. The name of the course, any required textbook(s) and whether it was taught face-to-face or online was noted. For syllabi detailed enough to include the information, course assignments and activities, methods of evaluation, and pedagogical methods were examined and recorded. A list of subjects covered was generated and sorted into categories. Where terminology differed, the most common term was chosen and similar terms included in the same category. No attempt was made initially to match terms to those used in Bell's weblog survey.

Limitations

The primary limitation on this research was the varying degrees of detail contained in the different syllabi collected. Some included extensive lists of topics covered, while others listed only broad subject headings. A few offered no topic list at all, providing only course objectives and general information on assignments and assessment methods. Some included reading lists offering additional clues to specific course content. Differences in terminology, particularly in the absence of contextual clues, made it difficult to compare content across all courses. An additional limitation was imposed by the informal nature of Bell's ACRLog survey. There is no way of determining who actually responded to the survey or whether their opinions on the appropriate content of courses accurately reflect that of most academic librarians and LIS faculty.

Findings and Discussion

General Characteristics

Of the courses examined, nine are offered completely online; the remainder are taught face-to-face, although many provide an online component through a course management system. The face-to-face courses all meet once per week, usually for 14 to 16 weeks, for approximately three hours. The majority are offered once a year although some appear to be offered every other year or intermittently. Full-time faculty members teach 19 of the courses; the others use a part-time instructor. Of the part-timers, 10 are current or former academic library directors; five are practicing academic librarians. There is considerable uniformity in the course titles: 14 are called Academic Libraries; six, The Academic Library; and five, College and University Libraries. Most of the rest are minor variations of these, e.g.,Academic Librarianship or Academic and Research Libraries. Several include the words Management or Administration in the title.

About half the courses surveyed require John Budd's (2005) book, The Changing Academic Library: Operations, Culture, Environments. No other book was required in more than one or two courses. Approximately one third have no required text; assigned readings in these courses are most often articles from standard library journals. As will be seen in the analysis of course subjects below, Budd's book has had a strong influence on many courses. A few are entirely organized around his chapter progression and many others adopt terminology from his chapter titles.

Subjects Covered

Five of the syllabi were insufficiently detailed to permit determination of the subjects covered in the course; that is, they included a description of the course, a list of objectives, standards for evaluation and, in some cases, a description of assignments but did not provide a class-by-class listing of topics covered. The remainder included a list of at least the major topic(s) covered each week. The fact that a subject was not listed does not mean it is totally ignored in the course, but it is assumed that the subjects mentioned in the syllabi are those the instructors consider most important. Although there was substantial uniformity in the terminology used in most syllabi some variation occurred, and it was often impossible to determine the extent to which a different term indicated a significant difference in content. This problem was most noticeable in the area of technology where some syllabi simply listed Technology while others focused on more specific subjects, such as electronic resources. Surprisingly few syllabi listed Technical Services as a separate topic, suggesting that this area of librarianship may have been subsumed under other headings or not significantly covered.

As indicated in Table 2, the most frequently listed subject is Collection Management, closely followed by Budgeting/Finance, Information Literacy/Instruction, Organization, and Personnel/Staffing/Human Resources. Budgeting/Finance and Organization are less likely than the others to be given a full class period. Organization is frequently combined with Management, possibly reflecting Budd's treatment of both subjects in a single chapter of his textbook. Similarly, issues related to the status of academic librarians are sometimes combined with other personnel topics but often receive separate treatment. Of the 20 syllabi mentioning Scholarly Communication, 16 devote a full class to it. This emphasis may, again, reflect the influence of Budd's book, which contains a fairly lengthy chapter on the subject.

A big difference in emphasis among the various courses is in their treatment of the subject of higher education. Here the focus is on the institutional environment in which academic libraries exist rather than on the libraries themselves. While some syllabi do not specifically mention the topic, many others devote a full class, often at the beginning of the course. A few spend two or three full classes on the subject and one allocates four, more than a quarter of the entire course. Several courses also address the history of higher education. Budd's influence may perhaps be detected here; three chapters of his book ("Organizational Culture and Higher Education," "Perceptions of the Academy," and "Governance") deal with academia in general. Alternatively, this emphasis may reflect a belief that one cannot understand fully academic libraries without a thorough understanding of the unique culture in which they exist. The professor who devotes four classes to the subject, for example, indicated that he and his students "are not talking so much about academic libraries as we are the modern institutions of higher education and how they work" (Carmichael, J., personal communication, October 19, 2007).

[TABLE 2 OMITTED]

Three additional topics were mentioned less frequently but listed on at least half the syllabi examined. Various terms were used to designate some aspect of assessment or evaluation. Some courses appear to deal with the subject broadly while others focus on specific topics such as accreditation or particular evaluation tools such as LibQUAL. The ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education receive frequent mention; one course is based on them. Assessment also appears as part of the coverage of topics such as instruction or collection development. Of the syllabi specifically mentioning the Library Building, variously referred to as Facilities or The Library as Place, ten devote a full class to the topic. Classes on the future of the academic library conclude many courses, but no syllabus mentions library commons or information commons, topics now receiving considerable attention in the library literature. Cooperation also appears to be handled in various ways. Some syllabi address it in connection with cooperative collection development; others focus on networks and/or consortia.

Particularly problematic for analysis was Reference. Only 1 1 syllabi use the term, but 17 include a full or partial class on Public Services or Services. In most cases it was not possible to determine whether the general terms refer primarily to reference or whether they include a broader range of library services. Perhaps many instructors assume all students will take a full reference course and do not need much additional coverage of the subject. If so, this assumption seems questionable, given the significant unique aspects of reference work in an academic environment.

Technical Services, (as mentioned above) does not receive as much attention as might have been expected. Only eight syllabi list the term and only three devote a full class to it. As already noted, Collection Management, which has traditionally been considered a part of technical services, appears to be extensively covered in nearly all courses. Also, 1 3 syllabi include separate coverage of Electronic/Digital Resources and nine list Technology. These classes can be assumed to cover some newer developments in technical services; however, it appears that traditional acquisitions, cataloging and processing may not receive much coverage. Governance, meaning the governance structure of higher education, is the subject of a full chapter in Budd and is used primarily in those courses heavily based on his book. Communities, also a chapter in Budd, refers to user groups, i.e., faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates.

Despite the substantial uniformity of coverage reflected in the previous discussion, there are other subjects listed on relatively few syllabi. It seems likely that most of these are touched on in many courses, but most syllabi do not give them prominent mention. These include Distance Education, Marketing/Public Relations/Outreach, Diversity, Ethics, Copyright and Intellectual Property, Privacy, Community College Libraries, Research Libraries, Branch Libraries, Publishing, Teams, Mission, Use Studies, and Disaster Planning.

Other Aspects

Excepting those courses organized around Budd's book, there is no discernible uniformity in the way classes are organized. Many courses begin by examining higher education and conclude by looking to the future. Between the first and last classes, however, the wide variety of topics covered in a course on academic librarianship can apparently be taught in almost any order. Course assignments also vary widely. More than half of the professors require a ten- to twenty-page term paper, most often on "a topic of current interest in academic librarianship." At least one visit to an academic library is required in 1 1 courses, and seven also require students to interview a librarian. In one case, students must interview a librarian and a director and compare their perceptions of academic libraries. In another, students must visit 10 different libraries, seeking unique or creative aspects of each. At least six courses require an analysis and evaluation of one or more library web sites. The importance of higher education in many courses is reflected in several assignments, including ones in which students are asked to review the Chronicle of Higher Education or subscribe to higher education listservs to identify significant issues and trends in academia, particularly those that might affect libraries.

Some unique assignments reflect even more creativity. One instructor requires students to read a work of fiction about higher education. In another course, students must identify four professional organizations that an academic librarian might benefit from joining. A couple of courses require students to locate a job posting and draft a resume and cover letter for the position. Another two require locating an actual course syllabus containing a research assignment and developing a guide to assist students in completing their research for that course. Another asks students to locate six different academic library mission statements and write a paper comparing them. At least one course requires students to examine higher education regional accrediting standards to determine what they say about libraries. In another course, students must develop a grant proposal. Comparison of current public services job announcements with those appearing ten years ago is required by one professor. Group exercises include using a list of sources supplied by the professor to select appropriate books and journals for an academic library and identifying services, staffing and collections needed to establish a new library.

Insofar as pedagogical methods could be determined from the syllabi, there appears to be considerable uniformity. All place a high premium on class discussion; none is described as a "lecture" course and at least three are referred to as seminars. For syllabi providing a percentage breakdown for evaluation purposes, the weight given to class participation ranged from 5% to 25%. Several syllabi indicate that some class time will be spent in group work and many require student presentations. Visiting lecturers are common and some classes include field trips to academic libraries. Only 10 courses have a final exam and three are "take-home."

Conclusion

Based on the results of this examination of syllabi, some conclusions can be drawn about how well courses in academic librarianship address the issues raised in Bell's informal study and the competencies identified in analyses of job announcements and ACRL standards. As Table 3 indicates, most of Bell's essential topics are among the most frequently listed on syllabi. These include higher education, standards, public services, information literacy, collection management, scholarly communication, and the future. Reference services, although less frequently listed, would presumably be covered under public services; academic freedom/tenure would likely be dealt with in a class on the professional librarian. It is unclear how, instruction/teaching (Bell's list) differs from information literacy; possibly the distinction is one of practice versus theory. If so, it appears that theory may be given greater emphasis in most courses. Student issues is a vague and undefined term, which might be addressed in a number of classes. The major difference between Bell's list and that generated through the syllabus analysis is in the marginal group. For Bell's respondents, this includes academic library leadership, human resources management, and budgeting - all areas given considerable emphasis in actual courses.

[TABLE 3 OMITTED]

To the extent that Bell's informal survey can be considered representative, there appears to be substantial agreement between practicing librarians' opinions on course content and the practice of faculty teaching courses in academic librarianship. When one examines the list of desirable skills and proficiencies identified in the recent library literature, however, the match is not as close. As noted in the literature review, technology skills are almost universally sought, although the level and type of skills vary widely. Although technology is frequently mentioned in the course syllabi, it is difficult to determine exactly what is included in this broad category. Similarly, the topic of management is covered to some extent in most of the courses examined, but there does not appear to be significant focus on the development of supervisory or management skills. Library instruction or information literacy is afforded significant coverage in most courses. However, there appears to be little emphasis on the development of instructional skills, with the exception of a few courses requiring students to develop study guides or prepare sample instruction classes. It was impossible to determine the extent to which other proficiencies mentioned in the literature, such as project management, fund raising or instructional design, might actually be covered in courses, but they are rarely mentioned in the syllabi.

In discussing the responses to his survey, Bell expressed surprise at the marginal rating given to leadership, management, and budgeting. Nevertheless, his opinion was that these topics "are better covered in those courses designated to give LIS students a primer on administrative [sic], leadership and management" (Bell, 2008, June 10). The same can probably be said of technology and instruction. Most LIS schools offer several courses focused on technological skills and many have a full course devoted to information literacy. These are the courses where aspiring academic librarians should be expected to acquire needed proficiencies. A single course in academic librarianship can probably do little more than introduce students to the history and philosophy of information literacy and the role of the library in enhancing it on campus; similarly, it can and should explore the impact of technology on library operations. It cannot be expected to develop pedagogical or technological competency.

More general competencies, and desirable personal characteristics, can also be addressed (if not fully developed) in all LIS courses. Oral and written communications skills can be enhanced through appropriate assignments. Bell, while agreeing that these skills are essential for academic librarians, feels he does not have sufficient time to focus on them in the course he teaches. He experimented with requiring students to give oral reports on their research papers, but gave up because presentations were "not well crafted or delivered" and were "painful for the students to sit through" (Bell, 2008, JunelO). He assigns papers, but he does not feel he can assume responsibility for improving his students' writing. While other faculty undoubtedly share some of his frustration, course syllabi suggest they continue to require oral and written work. The required people skills - "teamwork" or "getting along with colleagues" - can be addressed by assigning group projects. Planning and time management skills can be enhanced by establishing and adhering to deadlines for submitting assignments submission.

Some academic library administrators and experienced librarians undoubtedly will, as they have in the past, complain about the failure of LIS schools to prepare new hires for the rigors of life in academe. More could probably be done. For example, although this study did not focus on the issue, it appears that LIS schools may not do a good job of advising the course selection of students aspiring to work in academic libraries. Perhaps more schools should create an academic track with prescribed courses. That said, the present study suggests that most courses in academic librarianship cover the subjects they should while quite reasonably depending on other areas of the curriculum to develop needed proficiencies.

References

Adkins, D., & Erdelez, S. (2006). An exploratory survey of reference source instruction in LIS courses. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 46(2), 50-60.

Anderson, D. & Landrum, C. (1986). Resolved: Library schools do not meet their goals and objectives in training academic librarians to perform research. Paper prepared for the 4th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Baltimore, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED280461 .)

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved June 1 , 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency. cfm

Association of College and research Libraries. (2004). Standards for libraries in higher education. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standardslibraries. cfm

Association of College and Research Libraries (2007). Standards for proficiencies for instruction librarians and coordinators. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/ divs/acrl/standards/profstandards.cfm

Association of College and Research Libraries, (n.d.). WAy an ACRL blog? Message posted to http://acrlog.org/why-an-acrl-blog/

Association of Southeastern Research Libraries. (2000). Shaping the future: ASERL's competencies for research librarians. Retrieved June 1 , 2009, from http://www.aserl.org/statements/ competencies/competencies.htm

Beile, P., & Adams, M. (2000). Other duties as assigned: Emerging trends in the academic library job market. College & Research Libraries, 61(A), 336-348.

Bell, S. (2008, May 12). What matters in an academic librarianship course. Message posted to http://acrlog.org/2008/05/12/what-matters-inan-academic-librarianship-course/

Bell, S. (2008, June 10). What an academic librarianship course should offer. Message posted to http://acrlog.org/2008/06/10/what-an-academiclibrarianship-course-should-offer/

Buchanan, E. (2004). Ethics in library and information science: What are we teaching? Journal of Information Ethics, 13(1), 51-60.

Budd, J. (2005). The changing academic library: Operations, culture, environments. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

Croneis, K., & Henderson, P. (2002). Electronic and digital librarian positions: A content analysis of announcements from 1990 through 2000. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 232-237.

Fisher, W. (2001). Core competencies for the acquisitions librarian. Library Collections, Acquisitions A Technical Services, 25(2), 179-190.

Goetsch, L. (2008). Reinventing our work: New and emerging roles for academic librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 48(2), 157-172.

Grotzinger, L. (1977). Characteristics of research courses in masters' level curricula. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 17(2), 85-97.

He, S. (1999). A content analysis of IT-oriented courses in LIS curricula: Distribution, changing ratio, curricula topics and consensus among four American LIS schools. Journal of Information, Communication and Library Science, 6(2), 1-9.

Kinkus, J. (2007). Project management skills: A literature review and content analysis of librarian position announcements. College & Research Libraries, 68(4), 352-363.

Larson, M., & Meltzer, E. (1987). Education for bibliographic instruction. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, http://acrlog. org/2008/06/1 0/what-an-academic-librarianship-course-should-offer/28(l), 9-16.

Lynch, B., & Smith, K. (2001 ). The changing nature of work in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 62(5), 407-421.

Mathews, J,. & Pardue, H. (2009). The presence of IT skill sets in librarian position announcements. College & Research Libraries, 70(3), 250-257.

Morgan, S. (1996). Developing academic library skills for the future [Electronic version]. Library Review, 45(5), 41-53.

Oud, J. (2008). Adjusting to the workplace: Transitions faced by new academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 69(3), 252-267.

Shank, J. (2006). The blended librarian: A job announcement analysis of the newly emerging position of instructional design librarian. College & Research Libraries, 67(6), 514-524.

Shuman, B. (1978). Intellectual freedom courses in graduate library schools. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 18(2), 99-109.

Sproles, C, Johnson, A., & Farison, L. (2008). What the teachers are teaching: How MLIS programs are preparing academic librarians for instructional roles. Journal of Education for Library and information Science, 49(3), 195-209.

Stacy-Bates, K., Fryer, F., Kushkowski, J., & Shonrock, D. (2003). Competencies for bibliographers. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 42(3), 235-241.

Westbrook, L. (1999). Passing the halfway mark: LIS curricula incorporating user education courses. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 40(2), 92-98.

White, G. W. (1999). Academic subject specialist positions in the United States: A content analysis of announcements from 1990 through 1998. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(5), 372-382.

White, GW. (2004). Business information courses in LIS programs: A content analysis. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship, 10(2), 3-15.

Winston, M., & Dunkley, L. (2002). Leadership competencies for academic librarians: The importance of development and fund-raising. College & Research Libraries, 63(2), 1 7 1 -1 82.

Zhou, Y. (1996). Analysis of trends in demand for computer-related skills for academic librarians from 1974 to 1994. College & Research Libraries, 57(3), 259-273.

Author affiliation:

Edgar C. Bailey, Jr.

Phillips Memorial Library, Providence College, One Cunningham Square, Providence, RI 02918. E-mail: ebailey@providence.edu