Facing the Challenges Together: A Collaborative Approach to Understanding Contemporary Government Library and Information Services

ABSTRACT

The Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review was commissioned by the Executive Committee of the Australian Government Library and Information Network (AGLIN). The review sought to identify how government libraries might best meet the needs of Commonwealth employees by delivering efficient, cost-effective and equitable information services. While a primarily quantitative survey was used in Stage 1 to collect detailed data about individual agency libraries, this article focuses on the qualitative data gathered in a series of focus groups. Library and information professionals discussed the valuable aspects of their work, as well as identifying the range of issues and challenges they faced. In Stage 2, interviews with senior executives and policy managers validated the findings, with the complex mix of positive and negative factors associated with the roles played by librarians acknowledged. The research highlights the urgent imperative for librarians to take advantage of the changing government information environment to reposition their roles. Initiative, leadership and strategic vision are required to ensure that their professional skills are recognised. The project activities themselves demonstrate how collaboration has the potential to develop and support a culture of research into practice in the field of library science.

KEYWORDS:

• Special libraries
• government libraries
• collaborative research
• special libraries
• Australia

Introduction

A common characteristic of special library and information services is their strong client focus. The management and staff of government libraries in Australia are committed to designing and delivering efficient, cost-effective and equitable programs and services to meet the information and research needs of public service staff in the performance of their work (Hallam, 2010b, 2016, 2017; Vilkins, 2014). The provision of access to relevant and authoritative information resources to support the agencies’ specific business requirements and to ensure the government develops informed, evidence-based policy is a critical dimension of the librarians’ professional activities.

However, over the past few years, ongoing financial, administrative and technological changes which permeate the current government environment have presented library staff with significant challenges. Factors impacting on library and information services include frequent changes to public service administrative arrangements, escalating budgetary pressures, the rapidly increasing availability of electronic information resources and the reduced need for physical information repositories in individual agencies. The distinctiveness of individual government agencies adds a further dimension of complexity for the library and information profession: the agencies themselves are far from homogenous as they encompass the spectrum of government functions (United Nations, 2011), including policy agencies, research organisations and regulatory bodies.

Notwithstanding the contemporary context of heightened interest in the critical role of information and data across the business and government sectors, the growing imperative of evidence-based policy making and the awareness of the dangers and risks associated with ‘fake news’ in politics, it is apparent that many senior people in government are oblivious to the value of the quality information services provided by librarians. Following reports about the closure of some government libraries and the retrenchment of senior library staff, the Executive Committee of the Australian Government Library Information Network (AGLIN) believed it was timely to review the current Commonwealth government library landscape. The objectives were to identify the areas of strength and the difficulties faced by library and information services and to investigate possible alternative models for service delivery. AGLIN is a membership-based organisation for information professionals working in government, providing a collaborative forum for discussion, ideas and resource sharing. The association’s constituency specifically covers those government libraries which support the work of Commonwealth government agencies.

The study commissioned by AGLIN – the Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review – focused on identifying the advantages and disadvantages of the existing model of government library services and on examining the emerging trends which could inform future practice. Stage 1 of the review involved a literature review, the collection of quantitative data about the individual Commonwealth government library services through an extensive online survey and qualitative data through a series of focus groups with library staff. Stage 2 extended the qualitative dimensions of the study to capture the views of senior executives and policy managers about the roles played by library and information professionals in their specific agency. It was found that while the agency-centric model of service had great advantages for the clients, it could also lead to the isolation and vulnerability of the library staff. Immense benefits could be achieved through greater collaboration and coordination of their professional activities.

The work was guided by a Project Reference Group with representatives from the Executive Committee of AGLIN. The project team itself included an academic researcher, a practitioner with extensive experience in special libraries and a postgraduate library science student from Queensland University of Technology. The research project has been documented in two reports (Hallam, 2016, 2017). This article presents insights into the qualitative research data gathered in the focus groups with library staff and the interviews with senior public servants. It also highlights the ways in which the research activities have had broader outcomes beyond the immediate project itself, to demonstrate how the partnership between practitioners, researchers and students can help ensure that a culture of interdisciplinary research and teaching is nurtured in the information studies field.

Literature Review

As the academic requirements for the Library Science program at Queensland University of Technology included authentic project activities, there was the chance to include a postgraduate student in the project team. Applied research projects which focus on actual professional issues represent a rich opportunity to encourage both practitioners and students to learn more about the culture of research into practice. For this project, the student was keen to accept responsibility for the groundwork for the literature review, especially as he had recently commenced work with a government library. There was a convenient alignment between his academic and professional interests, with guidance and support from a mentor, and a documentary outcome for which he was awarded academic credit.

Very broadly, libraries are commonly classified into several different types: public, academic, school and special libraries. Vargha (as cited in Ralph & Sibthorpe, 2009) notes that special libraries are usually dedicated to specialised subjects and collections, while O’Connor (2007) states that the users are a correspondingly defined group with very particular requirements. The Special Libraries Association (SLA) defines special librarians as ‘information resource experts who collect, analyse, evaluate, package, and disseminate information to facilitate accurate decision-making in corporate, academic, and government settings’ (SLA, 2010). As government libraries represent a specific sub-group of special libraries, many issues relating to government libraries are common to special libraries. In Australia, government libraries operate at federal, state and territory levels. Australian government library and research services underpin important work conducted at all levels of public office, including policy development and analysis, communications, provision of tailored advice and delivery of health and legal services.

The literature review built on and updated an earlier literature review which had been prepared as part of a study of state government agency libraries (Hallam, 2010a). The primary topics were the developments in government administration, national and international trends in government library services, developments in contemporary special libraries and the skills and competencies required by special librarians today (Hallam & Faraker, 2016).

The key issues and challenges facing today’s government libraries and the information professionals working in the sector were presented and critically analysed. It found that governments were constantly changing and evolving in response to technological developments and financial pressures, as well as demands for more participatory policy development and whole-of-government service delivery strategies. It also revealed how government libraries across the developed world were beginning to leverage their attributes as potential leaders within government, as they adopt more streamlined and cooperative approaches to service which prove to be more effective, efficient and equitable, and which better utilise the skills of their staff.

It was evident that the issues impacting on government libraries were contextualised by government-wide challenges relating to service delivery (Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration, 2010; Blackman, Buick, O’Donnell, O’Flynn, & West, 2013; Dickinson & Sullivan, 2014; Shergold, 2013). Governments are essentially information-intensive organisations. Shergold reported that ‘good government is founded on good policy, and good policy depends on good advice… Good advice is factually accurate and backed by evidence’ (Shergold, 2015, p.iii). Good government therefore depends on access to high quality, authoritative information, which arguably requires the expertise of library and information professionals to manage the resources and to support policy makers as they develop and use their skills to ‘transform mountains of information into pinnacles of knowledge’ (Shergold, 2015, p.17).

A study by Lawrence, Houghton, Thomas, and Weldon (2014) articulated a range of concerns relating the development of government policy: ‘searching, sifting, evaluating and accessing information and research are time-consuming and often frustrating tasks occupying a large portion of the day for those engaged in policy work’ (Lawrence et al., 2014, p.3). Two key concerns raised in the report were that, firstly, policy makers and practitioners struggle to find and evaluate relevant resources, and secondly, the lack of digital curation is compounded by outdated legislation that fails to support the effective management of non-print information resources. Problems associated with legal deposit have been highlighted by the Attorney-General’s Department (2012), whereby ‘national and most state libraries are not able to collect copies of digital materials without permission from the copyright holder’ (Lawrence et al., 2014, p.7). Meanwhile, the complexities of the Copyright Act itself have been acknowledged by the Australian Law Reform Commission (2014) to ‘hinder the use and preservation of materials for research and policy making in the public interest’ (Lawrence et al., 2014, p.7).

Beyond advocating for changes in the legislative framework, government library and information professionals can contribute significantly to the resolution of these issues within their organisations: they can support the development of information and digital literacy skills in the public service and ensure that effective information management policies and practices are introduced. Information resources are then findable and accessible, and library staff can draw on their professional networks to minimise duplication of curation activities. Shumaker emphasises the fact that library and information professionals are hardwired to manage the information dimensions of the working environment: ‘They’re best able to formulate the solutions that enable team members to use information effectively, and free up other members to do what they, in turn, do best’ (Shumaker, 2015, p.1).

It was acknowledged that government libraries are nested within a complex context of reform, change and innovation. As the peak body for the library sector, the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) has advocated for the critical role of government libraries: ‘government library and information professionals connect politicians and government employees to the essential information they need to make decisions based on facts, not fiction’ (ALIA, 2014a). This underscores the dangers of failing to comprehend the importance of high-quality information to effective, evidence-based decision-making, at all levels of government.

In government circles, there is also increasing interest in the economic role of information, data and data-driven products and services (Australia. Bureau of Communications Research, 2016). Digital transformation is high on the government agenda: ‘from funding to jobs, medicine, health and education, digitisation is completely transforming how the public service looks’ (KPMG, 2014). When the Digital Transformation Office (DTO) was established by the Commonwealth Government in 2015, the Prime Minister’s office highlighted the inconsistencies that prevailed across government. ‘Users expect to access information and services from one government, not dozens of government agencies operating as silos’ (Malcolm Turnbull, 2015).

At a forum hosted by the ALIA University and Research Librarians (ACT) group and AGLIN, Change, challenges and opportunities: Recasting your library skills (ALIA URL & AGLIN, 2015), the possibilities for collaboration between the DTO and government libraries were noted. The common commitment to the delivery of public services and the shared motivations to meet user needs were underscored. It was recognised that there would be opportunities for future planning to be undertaken jointly by government librarians and DTO staff. Beyond this, as increased emphasis is being placed on public participation in the policy making process, many voices are demanding access to information and data created by the government, which in turn makes the management of digital information resources a priority (Australia. Bureau of Communications Research, 2016; Fricker, 2016; National Archives of Australia, 2015; Shergold, 2015; Webb-Smart, 2016).

ALIA has expressed concern about the potential for Australian federal department libraries to be closed or outsourced as a result of cuts and reviews of services (ALIA, 2014b). The association is sensitive to the potentially negative implications of rapid technological change and has stressed the importance of ensuring that core principles are in place to ensure the effective creation, use and dissemination of government information (ALIA, 2009). ALIA has specifically highlighted the need for greater collaboration and centralisation of services in the special library sector to demonstrate their individual and collective value and to improve efficiencies by pooling resources (ALIA, 2014c).

The literature review also examined how the 21st century information environment is prompting government librarians to re-conceptualise their traditional competencies and to develop new skills – not only to remain central to their agency’s operations, but also to extend their reach across the agency. In this environment of rapid change, there are enormous opportunities for government agencies to design and create new and better service models. To achieve these goals, however, it is critical that senior managers in the public service have a clear understanding of the specialist skills of library and information professionals.

Two relevant skills frameworks include SLA’s Competencies for information professionals of the 21^st century (SLA, 2016) and the Federal Library and Information Center Committee’s (FLICC) Competencies for federal government librarians (2011). Together these frameworks set out the knowledge, skills and attributes considered vital for the profession. They consider both the generic and specialist skills required by information professionals in a special library context. Importantly, while the ‘traditional’ librarianship skillsets remain vital, they need to be conceptualised in business terms, rather than in the language of librarianship. Librarians need to demonstrate leadership to advocate for greater collaboration by proposing and actualising inter-agency and government-wide information and data initiatives. Shumaker (2015, p.1) believes that government libraries and librarians are ideally positioned to lead the way:

This is a far different level of service than the old model of the librarian at the reference desk. It’s active, not passive; engaged, not apart; customized, not generic. It gets librarians out of the library and into the life of the organization… where they can apply their skills to the maximum benefit.

The research undertaken in the literature review informed the development of the data collection tools: an extensive online questionnaire seeking factual details about the operations of the diverse Commonwealth Government agency library and information services, and the semi-structured qualitative questions to be explored by library staff in a series of focus groups and by senior executives and policy managers in one-on-one interviews.

Research Objectives and Methodology

The principal research question focused on how Commonwealth government agency libraries might deliver services which support their clients’ needs in the most efficient, cost-effective and equitable way. This question was then distilled into a several project objectives:

• To explore the issues and challenges relevant to contemporary government library and information services

• To examine the financial, administrative and technological context of contemporary Commonwealth Government library and information services.

• To capture the views and opinions of Commonwealth Government agency library managers and staff, as well as a wider range of stakeholders, relating to current and future models of service.

• To present and discuss potential models which could ensure the sustainable delivery of efficient, cost-effective and equitable library and information services to support the business requirements of Commonwealth Government agencies.

As noted in the Introduction, the project was undertaken in two stages: the research subjects in Stage 1 were the library managers; in Stage 2, the focus was on senior executives and policy managers.

Stage 1 Study

The Stage 1 study sought to collect the critical quantitative and qualitative data to permit the development of an informed understanding of the library and information services supporting the Commonwealth government. The project specifically aimed to gather a sound evidence base about the current state of the profile and performance of government library and information services, including budget, space, staffing, business models and service standards. The data were gathered via an extensive online survey, completed by library managers. It goes beyond the scope of this paper to examine the detailed findings from the survey work, but a comprehensive discussion is available in the research report (Hallam, 2016).

In terms of the qualitative dimensions of the study, the semi-structured questionnaires used for the focus groups were designed to capture the views and opinions of library managers and staff about the relevance of government agency library and information services today, about the most valuable attributes of the services and views about the difference these services made to the agency or department itself. Specific attention was given to the areas of evidence-based public policy, the government’s use of information and communications technologies (ICT) and information management strategies and human resources issues. Respondents were also asked to share their vision for government agency libraries.

Six face-to-face focus groups took place in Canberra in December 2015, with one additional focus group conducted by teleconference. A total of 27 people attended the sessions. All seven discussions were recorded and transcribed. The additional online questionnaire, with 14 respondents, was available from mid December 2015 until early February 2016.

To ensure objectivity in the analysis of the qualitative data, coding of the transcripts was undertaken by three individual coders. Each coder completed the process of identifying, arranging and systematising the key themes and ideas captured in the textual data of the transcripts. A coding frame was developed to articulate the principal concepts and their interpretation. Intercoder reliability was confirmed through an iterative process of comparing the different coders’ results, leading to refinements in the coding frame.

It should be noted that a second online survey was developed to seek the views of respondents within the executive branch of the government. A concise questionnaire, comprising just three questions, sought to examine the most important contribution made by the library service to the agency; views about the underlying perceptions of government libraries’ lack of traction or influence within their agencies; and the respondents’ vision for future library and information services. This short survey was open from mid December 2015 to early February 2016. However, only four valid responses were received; this very low level of interest contrasted strongly with the study of state government library services, which had attracted over 500 responses from senior managers and library clients (Hallam, 2010b).

Stage 2 Study

The Stage 2 project specifically sought to address the shortcomings of Stage 1 in order to collect meaningful data from senior government officers and policy managers. The value of the study lay in engaging the research subjects in personal discussions relating to the future of library and research services, specifically to ensure that government staff working in research and policy areas continued to be provided with equitable access to authoritative and relevant information resources to support the effective delivery of government services in a digital world.

The qualitative research approach was adopted for the Stage 2, with a number of senior executives and policy managers working in a range of Commonwealth government agencies identified as potential key informants. The target was to involve eight core agencies representing the diversity of government functions such as policy, research and regulatory activities, with two interviewees from each agency. The AGLIN members’ network was used to encourage library managers to provide the names and contact details for senior executives and/or policy managers who might be willing to contribute their views and opinions to the study.

The nominated interviewees were contacted by email, with an introduction to the aims, scope and value of the project. A link was provided to an online poll to allow the interviewees to select a convenient time for their interview, to be conducted by telephone or via an online meeting platform (e.g. Zoom or Skype). Once the date and time were confirmed, the interviewees received a copy of the interview schedule so that they could consider their responses to the questions prior to the online meeting. The interviews, which were recorded with the permission of the interviewees, were conducted over a three week period in July 2017. The interview questions were also made available as an online survey, to accommodate the needs of informants who were unable to participate in an interview. A total of 13 interviews were conducted, with three additional online survey responses received, meeting the target of 16 respondents across eight agencies.

The questions focused primarily on the extent to which LIS professionals supported the individual respondent’s work; the single most important contribution LIS professionals made to the agency, and the impact of this contribution; the perceived barriers to the role LIS professionals might play in supporting government strategy; and thoughts about the underlying causes relating to concerns about the current climate for government library services, with evidence of reduced representation and influence within the public service. Three questions were included about the strengths and weaknesses of an agency-centric model of service delivery and the perceived value of a ‘cluster’ model of service, similar to a university library providing services to a range of faculties and schools. All research activities were conducted in accordance with the principles of research ethics, with the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents ensured.

Research Findings

The research activities resulted in a wide range of perceptions, views and opinions about government library and information services. The ideas captured in the focus groups and interviews have been analysed and interpreted; the government library managers and staff identified a range of issues and challenges (Stage 1) which were subsequently discussed from the perspectives of the senior executive and policy managers (Stage 2).

Stage 1 Findings

An in-depth analysis of the quantitative and qualitative research findings from the initial study is presented in the final research report (Hallam, 2016). However, as the qualitative data collected through the focus groups with government library managers and staff is specifically relevant to the interviews subsequently conducted with senior executives and policy managers in the Stage 2 study, it is valuable to present a summary of the key points distilled from the focus group discussions.

While government library and information services in Australia undoubtedly faced a number of significant challenges, developments in the public service sector were opening up many new avenues to develop and deliver digital information services. The findings illustrated that some government agencies were characterised by a strong, vibrant information and knowledge culture, while other agencies were far less aware of the value of reliable, trustworthy information and the role it played in the development of public policy and the delivery of relevant, targeted government services. The libraries hosted by these agencies were particularly vulnerable to the impact of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes, being easy targets for cuts or even obsolescence. For the smaller services, the professional isolation of the librarians was a major concern, which increased the vulnerability of the services in times of fiscal uncertainty. The administrative complexities caused by MoG changes, frequently accompanied by reductions in funding and downsizing of staffing levels, had had a direct and negative impact on the provision of timely and relevant information and research services.

The findings revealed that government library and information services were far from homogeneous. Some information services supported regulatory bodies, some supported research-intensive agencies, while others were aligned with the policy portfolios of a particular government department. There was a considerable range of size – in terms of the number of staff, the allocation of space for the library, the extent of the collections and the technologies used – as well as covering significantly diverse subject foci for the individual information services. Despite the differences, respondents shared a passionate commitment to provide high-quality services and to ensure that the specific information needs of the users of the services were met.

The initial breaths of change were being felt: ideas relating to the importance of the digital agenda, innovation in the public service, open government, evidence-based policy making and strategic information management were all on the table for discussion. Across the government landscape, librarians needed to ‘make a fundamental shift from being isolated, technical experts to being multi-skilled team members who enable decisions and proactively integrate themselves into the organisation’ (Lord, 2014, p.265). Government library services needed to take full advantage of developments in ICT and the emerging trends in other library sectors to consider new, collaborative approaches to service delivery.

Stage 2 Findings

Stage 2 of the project validated the findings of the Stage 1 study. Overall, although senior public servants were very supportive of the library and information services within their agencies, they acknowledged the challenges faced by library services in times of budgetary constraint across the public service. They appreciated the commitment of the library staff and admired the skills they used in supporting their clients, with whom they had developed strong relationships. Nevertheless, there was a clear awareness that only a small proportion of their colleagues made use of the information services and that many of them had no understanding of the ways in which the library staff might contribute to the quality of their own work. The respondents presented some considered suggestions for value-adding: library staff should aggregate and synthesise the information they retrieve and help clients interpret the outputs of the synthesised information. The presentation of information in different ways for diverse audiences to be more easily understood by others, e.g. visualisations and dashboards, would also have valuable potential.

There seemed to be a disconnect, however, in the minds of many of the respondents, between the management of print information and the management of digital information. There was a comfortable association of library staff with the ‘bricks and mortar’ of the library and an acknowledgement of the skills they used to locate hard-to-find print and historical materials, yet it did not appear that librarians, in their clients’ eyes, had put their stamp on digital information, even though their roles would naturally include organising the management of and access to electronic resources.

On the one hand, senior executives and policy managers realised that the digital world presented major challenges for library and information professionals; on the other hand, they were also aware that it offered new opportunities for librarians to reconceptualise their work. The re-awakening of a commitment to evidence-based policy across the public service offered the potential for increased support for the provision of access to high quality, authoritative information sources and the development of well-honed information retrievals skills through the education and training roles within the agencies. Although many government agencies were seen to lag behind the corporate sector in terms of ICT implementation and effective information management practices, there was immense scope for library and information professionals to demonstrate their specialist knowledge and expertise.

Some respondents criticised management decisions to reduce the number of information professionals in the various agencies. There was a strong emphasis on the need for good internal information management practices in all agencies. The presumption that information skills were ‘generic’ was viewed as short-sighted as it was believed that there was no depth of understanding about the value of internal documents or about the need for strategies to curate and archive key resources for future reference. Respondents respected the librarians’ ability to monitor the information environment on behalf of the agency and thus alert them to relevant resources to support them in their work. In response to the perceptions that the average public servant’s information skills were underdeveloped, it was commonly felt that library staff should do more to offer guidance and training, not only to search the various subscription databases, but also to use the Internet, especially Google, more effectively.

The need to move into the world of data management was seen as a new imperative. Some of the interviewees were concerned about the implications of the lack of rigour in the ways in which data and data sets were currently managed in their agencies. They felt that, while library and information professionals had a significant role to play in improving data management practices, IT departments and data scientists had already taken the lead in this area.

Those working in research-intensive agencies felt that the research agenda in Australia had created an uneven playing field: academic colleagues were placed at a greater advantage through the research support services and data management activities available in the higher education sector, with librarians playing central roles. The push for research collaboration had alleviated some of the problems, but where library services had been curtailed and database and journal subscriptions cancelled, many government research staff were left with the inefficient options of paywalls and the need to contact authors directly for copies of papers.

Discussion

One of the critical outcomes from the study of Commonwealth government libraries was the imperative for increased coordination of professional activities and the reduction in administrative tasks to enable the silos to be broken down and professional practice to improve. A series of recommendations was made to AGLIN, encouraging the Executive Committee and the membership to review the findings and to collaboratively determine a future path that would build the capacity of the professional body. By securing a strong and relevant future for the association, there could be, by extension, significant benefits for the library services and the library and information professionals themselves.

Interestingly, in the interviews with senior executives and policy managers, there was little discussion about the agencies’ own future directions. The theme of new ICT-driven models of service delivery, driven by the Commonwealth Government’s Digital Transformation Agenda (DTA), was discussed in the literature review (Hallam & Faraker, 2016) and explored in the library staff focus groups (Hallam, 2016). In contrast, it was found that senior executives and policy managers did not consider the external implications of the digital environment in the same way. Only one respondent mentioned that he had heard of the DTA, ‘but it has no impact on my little patch yet’.

The perspective presented in the interviews was predominantly that of the public servants’ immediate work environment, rather than the whole-of-agency context. When discussing access to resources in the external environment, respondents really valued the inter-organisational connections their library staff had established and nurtured. They regarded this as a real strength of the agency-centric model of service: the library and information service represented an advantageous window of access to the outside world of information.

Library staff and senior managers alike lamented the low levels of engagement with information resource management in government agencies, despite the fact that ‘we live in an information age’ (The Mandarin, March 30, 2016). It was noted that the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) had introduced a framework to help build staff capabilities in the digital information environment (Easton, 2015), but several managers expressed concerns about the librarians’ slow response to demonstrate leadership in this area. One manager highlighted these shortcomings:

As an information profession they could support and manage statistical data, metadata… This data needs managing as well as records and archives. After digital disruption, they should be managing digital information… They should also be managing the information policies in the organisation, not just books and articles. You think they are experts in information management, but they still manage paper…

Many of the senior managers believed that library and information professionals should be leading the campaign for improved practice, agreeing with the ideas presented in the Stage 1 report that ‘library and information professionals must step out from the shadows to stake their claim in this space, to emphasise the value of the qualifications they hold and to demonstrate their potential for active leadership roles’ (Hallam, 2016, p.40). Significantly, however, it was recognised that they were not living up to this potential. The legacy of management decisions made over recent years, particularly in terms of funding and space, had already led to downsizing and retrenchments in many agencies. There was a sense that a transactional cul-de-sac had ensnared some library staff, with an associated loss of strategic direction and leadership.

The senior executives and policy managers interviewed openly expressed their personal interest in libraries and were strong supporters of the librarians’ work, underscoring that the quality of their own work would be impaired if any decisions were made to close the service. They emphasised the imperative for library and information professionals to focus on communication: they needed to sell their skillsets, to raise their profile in the agency and to advocate for higher level representation in the organisation. While librarians should seek out the champions who could provide active support within the agency, most significantly they needed to be self-motivated and committed to face the challenges and to develop their own strategies for success. This inevitably required librarians to identify ways to create a strong collective voice, to coordinate much of the background work undertaken in all the individual agencies and to collaborate on projects which would help build a sound and secure future within the government’s own agenda.

Limitations of the Study

The researchers acknowledge a number of limitations of this study. Whereas the review of government libraries undertaken in Queensland was jointly sponsored by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Works (Hallam, 2010b), the focus on Commonwealth government libraries was the initiative of the professional body, AGLIN. As all agency library managers in Queensland were required to contribute to the data collection, the response rate was 100%. However, not all members of AGLIN accepted the invitation to participate in the project; the response rate for the major online survey of library services was 53%. This means that there were clearly gaps in the evidence relating to Commonwealth government library and information services: the findings can therefore only be regarded as indicative, and as far as developing a roadmap for the future of the profession, the Executive Committee did not have a mandate to determine the directions to be taken. Accordingly, the options for alternative models of service delivery were presented to stimulate discussion amongst the stakeholder groups and to consider the opportunities to coordinate key activities across the government library sector and to foster new opportunities for collaboration to minimise the risks of professional isolation.

It is acknowledged that the timing of the initial study proved problematic: the data collection activities stretched into December 2015, immediately prior to the Christmas break and long summer holidays in Australia. This undoubtedly contributed to the lack of engagement on the part of senior members of the public service, but the decision to undertake Stage 2 of the study resulted, ultimately, in far richer interview data.

Summary

This study has provided fresh evidence of the immense challenges facing library and information services in government agencies. Conclusions drawn from the rich body of qualitative research data highlight the critical need for library and information professionals to be forward thinking, proactive and strategic in their understanding of technology solutions to safeguard their roles and to enhance the government’s access to, use of and creation of information assets. The recommendations to AGLIN proposed a coordinated approach to addressing the issues the sector faced, with the establishment of a Future Directions Taskforce to review the research reports and to use the findings to inform the discussion about and development of future strategic directions for government library services. The Taskforce could be charged with the responsibility to host a sector-wide forum to identify and prioritise the areas for worthwhile, effective collaboration across and beyond government information services.

As the research findings revealed a widespread lack of awareness about information services within government agencies, there should be a strong focus on advocacy to promote the current and potential roles of library and information professionals, the value of high-quality information and research services to government stakeholders and the benefits to be achieved by adopting a new model of service delivery. The strategy should be underpinned by a clear media and communications plan to ensure AGLIN members committed to and participated in the advocacy activities, both individually and collectively. The research also revealed that, at the individual level, many librarians felt isolated and relatively powerless. It was therefore important for opportunities for increased engagement and motivation to be made available through a future-focused professional development program designed to enhance their professional skillsets, with the highly specialised nature of their expertise promoted through the advocacy activities.

The study has revealed the vulnerability resulting from professional isolation and underscores the imperative for collaboration: ‘Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much’ (Helen Keller). Beyond recognising the need for coordination and connectedness amongst government librarians, the project also demonstrated the value of the collaboration between practitioners and researchers. Librarians – especially special librarians – are time-poor, with little opportunity and few incentives to undertake research into their own practice. By partnering with researchers, as modelled in the Commonwealth Government Agency Libraries Review, the potential for librarians to present senior management with meaningful evidence to support decision-making can be realised. The next crucial step in determining their future strategic directions lies with the government librarians and their professional body. As one senior executive concluded at the end of his interview, quoting Alan Kay: ‘the best way to predict the future is to invent it’ (Financial Times, 1 November 1982).

Acknowledgement

The ideas presented in this article were originally discussed in a presentation delivered at the Research Applications, Information and Library Studies (RAILS) Conference, Creating and learning together: Interdisciplinary teaching and research, held in Adelaide, 28–30 November 2017.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The research work was undertaken as  part of a paid consultancy, not a research grant per se. AGLIN Is not a funder in the sense of ARC.

Notes on contributors

Gillian Hallam

Gillian Hallam is a freelance consultant to the library and higher education sectors and an adjunct professor with Queensland University of Technology. She is a Fellow of the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (U.K.).

Julie Sibthorpe

Julie Sibthorpe was a business librarian and manager in special libraries and fee-based information research services in both New Zealand and Australia. She is a Fellow of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand/Aotearoa (LIANZA). In 2008, Julie was awarded the LIANZA Paul Szentirmay Special Librarianship Scholarship (jointly with Gillian Ralph). Their 2009 report Emerging trends in New Zealand special libraries reviewed the special library situation in New Zealand. She is retired and lives in Queensland, Australia.