See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241837422

The Community Engagement Model in Library and

Information Science Education: A Case Study of a Collection
Development and Management Course

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

12 385

2 authors, including:

Bharat Mehra
University of Alabama
83 PUBLICATIONS   799 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ASIST Publications View project

PLSB-TN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bharat Mehra on 09 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Community Engagement Model in Library and
Information Science Education: A Case Study of a
Collection Development and Management Course
Bharat Mehra and William C. Robinson
School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee, 425 Communications Building,
1345 Circle Park Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996. E-mail: bmehra@utk.edu, wtobinsi@gmaiLcom

This article presents the Community Engagement Model (CEM) in library and informa-
tion science (LIS) education based on a case study of a collection development and
management course taught during two semesters involving thirty graduate students.
Students partnered with self-selected community agencies to develop collections to
meet the needs of particular audiences in varied community-based settings. The arti-
cle also reviews the learning experiences from the perspectives of the instructor, stu-
dents, and collaborating community representatives, including discussion of the
course goals, assignments, methods, and community impact. Results show positive
gains for both LIS students and the collaborating community agencies. LIS students
gained an understanding of collection development variables at work in particular
community-based information organizations. Community representatives reported
that partnering with students made a positive difference in their agency owing to stu-
dents' practical and timely choices, levels of knowledge and range of selections, and
their consideration of financial and strategic factors relevant to the community. In a
professional school, learning in community engagement activities places students in
the field where they encounter challenges that make LIS work stimulating and fruitful.
Additional examples of how to make community engagement a more effective part of
the LIS curriculum are needed. The CEM presented in this article may help other LIS
educators conceptualize their courses towards this goal.
Keywords: Collection development and management, community engagement.
Community Engagement Model, course case study.

Introduction are intentionally connecting academic

work to public purposes through exten-

C ontemporary trends in library and in-

formation science (LIS) education
call for adopting a community (or civic)
engagement model to re-define tradi-
tional notions of outreach and service
that have been add-ons to LIS teaching,
instruction, and research agendas (Har-
ris, 2008; Riddle, 2003; Soska &
Butterfield, 2004). According to the
Higher Education Network for Commu-
nity Engagement (2007):
Increasingly, higher education institutions
sive partnerships that involve faculty and
students in aetive collaboration with
communities. This idea of 'community
engagement' is renewing the civic mis-
sion of higher education and transform-
ing aeademic culture in ways that are
both exciting and challenging. (^ I)
This does not imply that the community
concept has been under-represented in
LIS education as even a passing historical
glance at the profession will reveal numer-
ous examples and community-related

J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 50, No. 1—^Winter 2009
ISSN: 0748-5786 ©2009 AssociationforLibrary and Information Science Education 15
16 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
constructs, including: service learning,
community informatics, participatory re-
search, experiential learning, and commu-
nity-based action research, to name a few
(Ball, 2008; McCook, 2000a) integrated
into LIS theory and praxis (e.g., civic li-
brarianship) (McCabe, 2001) and com-
munity librarianship (Muddiman, 1999).
Each of these community-based concepts
and practices have their ardent supporters
and applicants of use in LIS education, as
well as their own specific contexts of ap-
plication, strengths, weaknesses, limita-
tions, challenges, and desired outcomes
(Durrance & Pettigrew, 2000; Slaymaker,
Christiansen, & Hemming, 2005), Com-
munity engagement, however, draws at-
tention to the progressive, collaborative,
and participatory elements of other com-
munity-based practices in LIS education
and captures a deeper library-community
spirit based on democratic ideals and hu-
manistic notions of equality, social eq-
uity, and justice (Chatman & Pendleton,
1995; Gibson, 2006; McCook, 2000b;
Mehra, in press).
The teaching and learning of informa-
tion creation, organization and dissemi-
nation processes in LIS education
provides significant opportunities for the
application of community engagement
principles and practices (Mehra, 2004),
These practices promote various kinds of
interaction between the students, instruc-
tors and community members in LIS re-
quired and elective courses, independent
study, practica, student participation in
community activities, and student in-
volvement in externally funded projects
(Grotzinger, 1971 ; Mehra & Sandusky, in
press; Monroe, 1981; Neill, 1975). This
article reports on the implementation of
community engagement in the collection
development education process based on
a case study of a course taught twice dur-
ing consecutive semesters that required
LIS students to partner with self-selected
community-based agencies (e.g. non-
profits, religious institutions, public and
academic libraries, school media centers.
etc) to develop meaningful collections.
The article also reviews the learning ex-
periences from the perspectives ofthe in-
structor, students, and collaborating
community representatives, including
discussion of the course goals, assign-
ments, methods, and community impact.
The student-community collaboration
resulted in benefit for both the students
and the community agencies. Students
gained an understanding of the chal-
lenges in applying collection develop-
ment principles to particular agencies
and communities. For example, commu-
nity wants were often different than ex-
pected. Existing collections were in fact
adequate, but there were problems in
physical and intellectual access. Reviews
were required for selection, but were ei-
ther not available or not useful. Financial
resources were much more limited than
expected. In responding to these circum-
stances students learned how to integrate
theory in practice, thereby effectively
meeting the community's needs, wants,
and aspirations (Roy, 2001; Yontz &
McCook, 2003), Community representa-
tives reported that collaborating with LIS
students during the course made a posi-
tive difference in the effectiveness of
their service in meeting the needs of vari-
ous constituencies in a timely, cost-effec-
tive, efficient, and practical manner. For
example, students had the energy, enthu-
siasm, and time to develop collections
otherwise undeveloped. Typically, stu-
dents had subject background experience
and knowledge that was lacking locally.
Students had access to a research-exten-
sive library with a wide variety of re-
sources useful for developing and
managing collections. Students were
more familiar with non-traditional re-
sources, including the use of Web 2,0 re-
sources. Finally, students had immediate
access to a faculty member with knowl-
edge and experience.
Socialization into the profession is an
integral part of career success. Working
with local information professionals.
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
seeing how and why they practice and the
challenges they face is a valuable learn-
ing experience. At the same time, local
professionals have an opportunity to
learn much more about contemporary
professional education as well as the val-
ues, interests, and skills ofthe next gener-
ation of professionals.
For the teacher, each development pro-
ject—interacting with the student—pro-
vided an opportunity to learn more about
challenges and solutions as well as par-
ticular problems, attitudes, and values in
the communities. This current awareness
sharpens the instructional focus and
makes it immediate.
The roles of an appropriate instructor,
student, and community representative,
as well as the dynamics of interaction be-
tween them, are central to the success of
community engagement efforts in LIS
courses. An LIS instructor must be able
to make decisions in conceptualizing and
determining the relevance of community
engagement between LIS students and
community representatives in their
courses. They must also be able to find
creative solutions to provide a structured
mechanism that may facilitate commu-
nity engagement activities. The role of
the student is to be dedicated to the task
and develop a willingness to draw con-
nections between LIS theory and prac-
tice-based, process-oriented facts in
collection development, based on the re-
alities and dynamics of the community
setting. An effective community repre-
sentative is one who is willing to work
with the student on an ongoing basis to
provide contextual details about the col-
lection and the agency. The interactions
between the three players are most impor-
tant to facilitate and make possible en-
hanced student learning and achievement
of community-based outcomes in collec-
tion development.
In a professional school, learning in
community engagement activities places
students in the field where they encounter
challenges that make LIS work stimulat-
17
ing and fruitful. Additional examples of
how to make community engagement a
more effective part ofthe LIS curriculum
are needed. For LIS educators to orches-
trate community-based activities in their
academic courses requires further appli-
cation of their skills and knowledge be-
yond those practiced in traditional
classrooms (Crandall & Gershenfeld,
2006; McCook, 2000b). Shared knowl-
edge of varied community-based experi-
ences builds a repertoire of effective
tools, strategies, and praxis that extend
each student's learning to achieve supe-
rior results. Based on course experiences
documented in this article, salient ele-
ments of a community engagement
model (CEM) are presented for future
testing and application in other LIS
courses that may contribute toward this
goal.
Representation of Community in
LIS Education
The term "community engagement"
has historical significance since it re-
flects ongoing efforts in LIS education,
and in the American academy—espe-
cially in land-grant educational institu-
tions—to show the impact of their
academic activities on the everyday expe-
riences of lay people who support local,
regional, and state colleges and universi-
ties via their tax contributions (Barker,
2008; Reardon, 1998). Rhetoric sur-
rounding a community engagement dis-
course in academia has recently drawn
some attention owing to political pres-
sures to convince legislative representa-
tives and decision-makers to continue (or
increase) funding for centers of higher
learning (Bender, 1997; Kezar, Cham-
bers, & Burkhardt, 2005). The concept is
believed, additionally, to challenge the
general public perception of colleges and
universities as isolated "ivory towers"
disconnected from routine day-to-day
pursuits (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt,
18 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
& Regina, 2000). Before discussing the
CEM and its elements, it is appropriate to
briefly trace the emergence of select the-
matic threads of community found spe-
cifically in the context of LIS education.
This will contextualize contemporary
trends of community engagement in LIS
education as they are connected to their
historical theoretical-and-praxis under-
pinnings in the American academy.
Historically, integration of commu-
nity-based efforts in LIS education has
been impacted by at least three signifi-
cant domains of influence (if not more):
• Broad trends in the American
academy;
• External developments from outside
the LIS professions including those
from other disciplines (e.g., education,
community development, community
networking, computer science,
business and organizational
management, etc.); and
• Internal developments within the LIS
professions (i.e., librarianship and
information science research).
An in-depth review of each commu-
nity-based concept and method is beyond
the scope of this discussion since each
topic has been extensively addressed on
its own terms; additionally, here the dis-
cussion is not meant to be all-encompass-
ing in its extent and inclusion of all
community-based concepts and methods.
The goal in this section is to provide rep-
resentational evidence to show the influ-
ence of various community-based
concepts and methods in the LIS profes-
sions, and thereby, on LIS education. The
article acknowledges that there have been
multiple sources and areas where some of
these community-based concepts and
methods may have been simultaneously
developed and practiced over the years.
The intention here is to present one mode
of analysis in discussing the origins of the
different community-based concepts and
methods and their influence on LIS edu-
cation.
Broad Trends in the American Academy
Service along with teaching and re-
search are considered the three tradi-
tional pursuits in the American academy
(Kruecken, 2003). Most colleges and uni-
versities in the United States have out-
reach programs that advance knowledge
in practical areas of concern such as agri-
culture, the environment, human health
and well-being, and community life by
supporting research, education, and ex-
tension activities (Baker, 1999; Kennedy,
1999). This mission has shaped service
learning practices in the classroom where
students partner with community repre-
sentatives throughout or for a portion of
the semester (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996;
Jacoby & Associates, 1996) to enhance
their professional skills and competen-
cies while helping communities address,
improve, and find solutions to their phys-
ical, social, cultural, political, civic, eco-
nomic, and moral problems (Boyer,
1990). Recent service learning efforts
provide more systematic, scientific, and
theory-based assessment beyond anec-
dotal evidence collected in the past
(Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Cone & Har-
ris, 1996; Giles & Eyler, 1998). Service
learning has two forms. First, students,
faculty, and university representatives
play a leadership role in taking action to
make improvements in local communi-
ties; and second, students partner with
community members as equals to facili-
tate changes together, leading to greater
capacity building in the community
(Claus & Ogden, 1999; Schneidewind &
Davidson, 1983; Wade, 1997).
LIS educators have been influenced by
the concept of service learning owing to
shared socio-humanistic, community
building, and service-related goals
(McCook, 2000c). Several LIS faculty
have documented their experiences in
service learning, thereby clarifying its
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
scope and relevance (Elmborg et al.,
2003; Peterson, 2003; Roy, 2001), and
have provided case studies of service
learning applications (Cuban & Hayes,
2001) in specific LIS courses (Becker,
2000; Witbooi, 2004). LIS practitioners
in academic, public and other library set-
tings have also shared perspectives while
partnering with faculty in implementing
service learning programs (Rhodes & Da-
vis, 2001 ; Sweeney, 2002) and courses in
information literacy, reference, collec-
tion development, user instruction, and
technology training.
External Developments from
Outside the LIS Professions
Various community-based concepts,
methods and approaches from outside the
LIS professions have influenced and
been integrated into LIS theory and prac-
tice. For example, LIS history in the
United States shows intertwining rela-
tions between library service and educa-
tional missions (Shores, 1935; Winsor,
1880) owing to their overlapping do-
mains (e.g., information literacy, quest
for knowledge and learning, critical
thinking, student instruction, classroom
involvement, and ties to the community;
see Färber, 1974; Hardesty, Scmitt, &
Tucker, 1986). Melville Dewey (1876)
wrote early on the view of the librarian as
that of an educator during his times
"when a library is a school, and the librar-
ian is in the highest sense a teacher" (p.
5). Educational philosophies of the prag-
matists (e.g., John, Dewey, Charles
Sanders Pierce, William James, and Jane
Adams) offered an important focus on ac-
tive and practical learning applications
and study of problems in context that
have developed into specific approaches
such as inquiry-based learning, experien-
tial learning, service learning, etc. (Billig
& Eyler, 2000; Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006). These have provided sev-
eral opportunities to incorporate commu-
nity into LIS activities (Bruce, 2008;
19
Mehra, 2005). They have also influenced
LIS educators and students to become
"reflective practitioners" (Schon, 1996)
and civically engaged professionals
(Saltmarsh, 2005) who develop a
"transformative link between the action of
serving and the ideas and understanding
of leaming" (Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede,
1996, p. 14). The shared growth in LIS and
education has contributed toward commu-
nity and civic engagement in libraries and
LIS education and expanded their role
from passive bystanders to active partici-
pants involved in reconnecting with local
communities and developing library-com-
munity convergences that further progres-
sive changes and democratic ideals
(Mehra & Srinivasan, 2007).
Participatory action research (PAR) is
another important community-based
concept that has extended learning in LIS
education and traditional research to pro-
vide social justice and social equity out-
comes at community-wide levels
(Bishop, Mehra, Bazzell, & Smith, 2003;
Mehra, Bishop, Bazzell, & Smith, 2002).
PAR has its origins in Paulo Freire's
philosophical and educational theories
that critically reflect on the role of indi-
viduals in society (Deans, 1999; Freiré,
1974; Gaventa, 1993) and has involved
the participation of socially disenfran-
chised community members as equal pro-
viders and beneficiaries in the process of
conducting research (Brown, 1985;
Fals-Borda, 1979). Applying principles
of decentralization, deregulation, and co-
operativeness in execution (Greenwood
& Levin, 1998; Stringer, 1999), PAR is
also practiced as action research that fo-
cuses on the "social practice and its trans-
formations, along with the changes that
occur in the social institutions and rela-
tionships that support it" (Kemmis &
McTaggart, 1988; Mehra, 2006, p. 205).
Both espouse developing assets in local
communities towards community build-
ing (Callaway, 1981; Maguire, 1987;
Stanley & Wise, 1983), community de-
velopment, and capacity-building out-
20 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
comes (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990;
Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). These
values are finding real-world relevancy in
the LIS professions to promote commu-
nity action and further social changes to
address the deep-rooted foundations of
prejudice and discrimination that under-
lie inequalities in the distribution of re-
sources and power in our society (Mehra,
2005; Sohng, 1995).
With the advent of computers in our
everyday life since the closing decades
of the last century, a number of terms
have been used in different contexts
(e.g., civic networking, community bul-
letin boards, community computing,
community information systems, com-
munity telecomputers and telecommunity
systems, FreeNets and CivicNets) to de-
fine community networks in terms of the
"use of computer network technology to
address the needs of the community" in
one form or another (Morino, 1994;
Schüler, 1995). In their efforts to address
community-wide inequities (Gurstein,
2000), community networks promote citi-
zen participation, capacity building, dem-
ocratic action, and intercommunity
cooperation (Schüler, 1996). Community
networks played a significant role in the
1990s in providing information and com-
munication technologies (ICTs) to
underserved populations and participating
in national and local policy implementa-
tion debates surrounding the issue of "dig-
ital divides" as the obvious and troubling
socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and
socio-technological gaps between the
haves and have-nots in computer owner-
ship, Internet access, and ICT use (Lenz,
Straubhaar, LaPastina, Main, & Taylor,
2000; National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, 1999;
Novak, Hoffman, & Venkatesh, 1998).
Owing to recent struggles for survival by
community networks that faced severe
economic cut-backs and limited financial
support, dwindling political backing, un-
reliability of a volunteer-based workforce,
lack of a permanent social and technical
infrastructure, and competing pressures
from commercial and business-oriented
enterprises (Bishop, Tidline, Shoemaker,
& Sálela, 1999; Virnoche, 1998), librar-
ies and information agencies have
adopted many of the functionalities and
roles that were previously provided by
these community networks, for example:
computer workstations in library set-
tings, provision of online community in-
formation via the library's website,
community information and referral ser-
vices, electronic bulletin boards with local
news announcements, electronic job
placement services, digital communica-
tion mechanisms, etc. (Pettigrew,
Durrance, & Unruh, 2002). With strong
ties to community networking, the recent
emergence of "community informatics"
as an interdisciplinary field of scholarship
and practice provides progressive princi-
ples and practices concerned with the use
of ICTs to enable and empower individu-
als and communities to meet their goals
and expectations (Bishop & Bruce, 2005;
Gurstein, 2004). Community informatics
is also gaining currency in LIS education
and other disciplines owing to its empha-
sis on ICT use for democracy, community
collaborations, and action for social
change in real-life and virtual environ-
ments (Bishop, Bruce, & Jones, 2006;
Bruce & Bishop, 2007; Day & Schüler,
2004).
Internal Developments within the
LIS Professions
Different trends and developments in li-
brarianship and information science re-
search have incrementally led to an
integration of community-based represen-
tations and practices in LIS education.
The deep historical ties in the western
world between libraries and their local
communities emerged as a result of ser-
vice-based ethics developed since the
eighteenth century to meet the informa-
tion needs of diverse users (Ranganathan,
1931 ; Shera, 1983). Initially, the library's
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
role was centered on information dissem-
ination, providing access to infot mation
for different user communities, and help-
ing them based on an understanding of
their needs by application and use of in-
formation organization, such as classifi-
cation, and representational systems such
as catalogs (Ray ward, 1994). The library
as a service-oriented information re-
source center that caters to the local com-
munity's needs and its role as a referral
agent to local community information
further cemented the library's purpose as
an information provider (Middleton &
Katz, 1988; Rodger, Jorgensen, &
D'Elia, 2005). This role has recently
been extended with a focus on profes-
sional values and ethics that place librari-
anship in the context of civic engagement
and outreach as a means to further de-
mocracy (Kranich, 2005; Westney,
2006). The need to integrate commu-
nity-based experiences in the LIS curricu-
lum has also found favor, thereby bridging
perceived gaps between theory and prac-
tice in LIS education and developing a fo-
cus on service-oriented fundamentals
beyond information technologies and ac-
cess to information (Dillon & Norris,
2005; Rothstein, 1967).
A focus on user-centered issues in in-
formation science research during the
1980s provided an unintentional trend
that has resulted in current attention to
community-based issues in the LIS pro-
fessions, including LIS education. The
emergence ofthe user-centered paradigm
as an alternative (or addition) to sys-
tem-focused research in developing more
effective and usable computer systems in
information sciences (Dervin & Nilan,
1986) provided impetus for more holistic
approaches, as exemplified by the infor-
mation seeking process model
(Kuhlthau, 2004). To understand infor-
mation problems, the first step in which
was to consider human factors, such as
information needs (Case, 2007; Dervin,
1992), cognition (Foreman-Weinet &
Launterbach, 2003), affect (Nahl, 2007),
21
and human information behavior (Belkin
& Vickery, 1992; Marchionini, 1995) in
information use environments (Taylor,
1991) as important in the assessment,
evaluation, and improvement of informa-
tion services (Dervin, 1982; Saracevic,
Mokros, & Su, 1990). Recognizing the
role of contextual factors, including cog-
nitive, social, cultural, organizational, af-
fective, and linguistic factors, in human
information behavior (Pettigrew, Fidel,
& Bruce, 2001) within specific informa-
tion environments, such as workplace,
home, and other public and private areas,
and situational dynamics in the processes
associated with people's interactions
with various information systems and
technologies (Schamber, Eisenberg, &
Nilan, 1990) provided the next (possibly
unintentional) step towards an expanded
vision of community acknowledgement
in information science research. It has
also led to a growth in specific sub-do-
mains of knowledge based on intersec-
tions and convergences between internal
user-centered developments in informa-
tion science research and external
changes in various disciplines, such as
human-computer interaction from the in-
tersection between psychology and com-
puter science (Preece, Rogers, & Sharp,
2002; Dix, Finlay, Abowd, & Beale,
2003; Sears & Jacko, 2007), computer
supported cooperative work in computer
science and organizational behavior
(Baecker, 1992; Harper, Palen, & Taylor,
2005; Randall, Harper, & Rouncefield,
2007), communities of practice in busi-
ness management and organizational set-
tings (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,
1999; Wenger, McDermott, & Synder,
2002), and others. Additionally, studies
on the information divides within and
across demographic groups in different
societies (Chatman, 1996; Mehra, Mer-
kel, & Bishop, 2004) have recently led to
an acknowledgement of commu-
nity-based dynamics in which
underserved populations, libraries, infor-
mation science research, and LIS educa-
22 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
tion are embedded (Hersberger, 2002;
Van Dijk, 2005).
A recent threat to libraries and infor-
mation agencies has been to stay relevant
and respond to the changing climate in
the 21st century. As Casey and
Savastinuk (2007) eloquently articulate:
Change is everywhere . . . the pace of
that change somehow feels faster than
ever before . . . because in many ways it
is faster. . . . Technology has played a
key role in this perception of change, but
it is by no means the only factor. Shift-
ing population centers, changing demo-
graphics, and the cyclical ups and downs
of the economic roller coaster all con-
tribute to the change with which libraries
must deal. (p. 1-2)
Business 2.0 trends from management
and organizational settings (Carter,
2007), and Web 2.0 technologies that al-
low participatory, collaborative, and so-
cial applications via the Internet
(Kalakota & Robinson, 2000), have
driven the development of a correspond-
ing Library 2.0 model for information
professionals to respond to constant con-
temporary changes by purposeful in-
volvement of users in the design and
evaluation of library and information ser-
vices (Crawford, 2006; Maness, 2006).
LIS educators are beginning to recognize
the potentials of involving commu-
nity-based agencies in their efforts to pro-
vide students with learning opportunities
in the application of Library 2.0 strate-
gies in their classroom environments and
beyond (Naslund & Giustini, 2008).
Only a few select community-based
concepts and methods have been incorpo-
rated in LIS research and education. In
the years to come, LIS professionals will
continue to promote community engage-
ment in ways that integrate positive di-
mensions from earlier community-based
approaches to create holistic, demo-
cratic, fair, equitable, and just informa-
tion systems and services that are
meaningful to all people, including those
on the margins of society, and empower
them to promote positive changes in their
everyday lives.
Course Description
This article reports on IS 560 (Devel-
opment and Management of Collec-
tions), which was initially developed by
Robinson in 1972 to provide LIS students
with best practice experience in develop-
ing and managing collections. Since
then, the same model has been used effec-
tively by four different faculty members,
including Mehra during the spring and
fall 2007 in the School of Inf'ormation
Sciences (SIS) at the University of Ten-
nessee (Mehra, 2007). During both se-
mesters IS 560 was taught as a
synchronous distance education course
using Saba Centra 7.6, "an online learn-
ing environment that combines a highly
interactive virtual classroom learning,
e-meeting, and web seminar platform
with a learning content management
system to deliver optimal blended learn-
ing" (Saba Centra Suite, n.d., f 2). In ad-
dition. Blackboard 7.0 (Blackboard,
n.d.) and e-mail provided asynchronous
communication and information-sharing
tools.
Students enrolled in this course lived in
a variety of communities and states with
some far from Tennessee. This variety of
experiences enriched class discussions
and added depth to student learning.
IS 560 is required for students in the
school media track and is recommended
for all students in the SIS program. IS 560
students are required to build a semes-
ter-long partnership with a community
organization or agency of their choice to
create or extend a professionally devel-
oped collection. Course content provides
students with knowledge of the collec-
tion development and management pro-
cess with an emphasis on its core
principles. Community-based projects
enhance students' skills in how to apply
collection development procedures in
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
different community and information or-
ganization contexts. Students document
details of their collection development
work (e.g., community analysis or devel-
oping an adoptable policy statement) in
the form of web modules. The use of the
Internet to share student work creates
community awareness of LIS students'
contributions while also encouraging stu-
dents to improve their technological abil-
ities and professional writing skills. The
website record also provides an archival
reference for future students in the
course, and a history of community en-
gagement in the program.
Thirty students (21 students during
spring 2007 and nine students during fall
2007) worked with a local community
agency to develop 28 collections (19 col-
lections were developed during spring
2007 and nine collections were devel-
oped during fall 2007). The collections
included a range of tangible and intangi-
ble items iri various formats. The collec-
tion development project formed 60% of
the final grade. In addition, students (1)
analyzed the effectiveness of published
reviews (15% of the final grade), (2) se-
lected the single best item from a pool of
similar items (15% of the final grade), (3)
participated in class discussion (five per-
cent of the final grade), and (4) submitted
an essay on the lessons learned in devel-
oping their collection with some empha-
sis on challenges and effective strategies
(five percent of the final grade).
The nature of course delivery played a
significant role in the instructor's deci-
sions regarding course content, structur-
ing the lectures and discussions,
organizing the assignments, and assess-
ing student work. For example, students
could select a community organization or
agency in their region based on their con-
venience, interests, professional net-
works, and their career development
objectives. The dispersed nature of the
student body in the course served as an
opportunity for students to respond to
their local realities, relate collection de-
23
velopment to a community context, and
share their regional experiences with
each other in the electronic classroom.
Table 1 summarizes the information
about the partnering community agencies
and the collections developed across the
two semesters. Since the students were
distance learners, their agencies were
geographically dispersed across Arkan-
sas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The following is a brief discussion of
two course activities: the use of "building
blocks" to teach the collection develop-
ment process, and student documentation
of their collection development work in
web modules. Both were particularly sig-
nificant in facilitating community en-
gagement and helping students develop
specific web-based competencies.
Building Blocks in the Collection
Development Process
The assignments in IS 560, done inde-
pendently or in pairs, guided the students
in the collection development process
through eight step-by-step activity mod-
ules, or building blocks. Students com-
pleted each activity module by an
assigned date. Six assignments each
earned nine percent of the final grade
while two assignments each earned three
percent of the final grade. The purpose of
these activity modules was to ensure that
students made adequate progress in de-
veloping their collections continuously
throughout the semester. Topics of these
activity modules included:
• Assessing the community agency and
its parent organization (as appropriate);
• Building a sound rationale for their
collection;
• Conducting needs assessment and
community analysis;
• Constructing a collection development
policy;
• Assessing agency strengths and
weaknesses;
• Evaluating the existing collection;
24 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND !NFORMATION SCIENCE

Table 1. Type of Community Agencies and the Subjects of the Collections.

IMo. Type Count Location Subjects of the Collection
1. School media 10 Tennessee Elementary school: paranormal
center/school (Chattanooga, Cordova, or supernatural; social sciences;
library Knoxville, Madisonville) sciences; guided reading books;
Virginia (Viginia Beach) childhood development;
weather.
Middle school: high interest
materials, science and social
studies.
High school: cookery, archival
materials.
2. Academic library 8 Arkansas (Searcy), Physical resource design; geol-
(college/university) Georgia (Atlanta), ogy; school safety management;
Tennessee (Knoxville). books on domestic birds; music
instruction materials; Memphis
music; English literature; Is-
lamic studies.
3. Public library 4 Tennessee Personal finance; science;
(Johnson City), Spanish language; children's
Virginia (Falls Church, non-fiction.
Newport News)
4. Religious 4 Tennessee (Knoxville, Free web resources on reli-
institution Memphis) gions; Ecumenism and religious
(e.g., church) studies; children/youth/adult in-
terests.
5. Bookseller 1 Tennessee (Nashville) Graphic novels for chil-
dren/young adults.
6. Non-profit 1 Tennessee (Nashville) Resources on helping with
organization grief/loss for adopted children.

• Selecting specific items for the
collection; and
• Promoting the collection.
Breaking down the collection develop-
ment process into these sequential build-
ing blocks provided students with a
conceptual and organizational frame-
work for their semester-long engagement
with the selected community agency. Fo-
cused building blocks or activity modules
made larger projects feasible by dividing
them into smaller do-able parts that were
more achievable. It also allowed for ef-
fective utilization of student time and ef-
forts in an outcome-oriented process
where the tangible products were directly
related to the needs of different commu-
nity agencies and their constituencies.
Students could build strong connections
between core collection development
principles and competencies and commu-
nity use outcomes that directly made a
real difference in people's lives.
Student Documentation of their Work in
Web Modules
In addition to the sequential collection
development assignments, IS 560 stu-
dents also learned technical skills by
building and uploading web modules of
their work on the class website (IS 560
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
Class Project, 2007a; IS 560 Class Pro-
ject, 2007b). Students completed their
building block assignments based on spe-
cific deadlines and deposited their work
via Blackboard. The instructor provided
students with comments, suggestions,
and grades based on the work completed
at this stage. Students had to revise their
work based on the instructor's comments
and upload it on an assigned server using
a web template provided by the instruc-
tor. Two percent of each grade was de-
ducted if its revised module was not
deposited on the website by the end of the
semester. The experience in electronic
social networking to develop the website
and sharing a notable electronic product
expanded the nature of learning. In order
to facilitate this process, some prepara-
tion tasks on the part of the instructor in-
volved: demarcating space on a secure
server for building the class website; cre-
ating a web page that explained the pro-
cess and listed the names of files for each
student's individual building block; de-
scribing and clarifying to students the se-
cure file transfer process and the use of
the SSH software via secure identifica-
tion and password-protected procedures.
Significant Leaming Experiences
This section discusses the role of com-
munity context in the collection develop-
ment process based on the perspectives of
the instructor, students, and partnering
community representatives. Community
engagement is discussed in terms of the
opportunities and challenges provided as
a result of incorporating community ex-
periences in the collection development
process.
Instructor Perspective
Based on the experiences in IS 560, Ta-
ble 2 lists opportunities and challenges in
incorporating community engagement
during each building block activity mod-
ule in the collection development pro-
25
cess. On the whole, working with com-
munity organizations or agencies in their
local environments provided students
with realistic and rewarding professional
experiences. Community-based projects
gave students opportunities to build and
extend their professional relationships,
LIS competencies, and management
skills. Since students shared their experi-
ences with one another through a
website, the breadth of learning was sub-
stantial. Opportunities varied. Some stu-
dents (40%) developed collections for
organizations where they had existing re-
lationships, including clerical or
paraprofessional responsibilities. Often,
these students had inside knowledge that
informed their collection development
decisions. This was shared with others.
Major challenges students noted in-
cluded: limited knowledge of the
agency's policies, politics, and practices
and difficulty in learning particulars; dif-
ficulty in identifying appropriate scope
of work within the semester's time-bound
course expectations; and, lack of skills in
developing community contacts and rela-
tionships.
Student Perspective
Students provided informal feedback
throughout the course and formal com-
ment at the end of the semester. The
course averaged 4.0/5.0 for the two se-
mesters using a standard course assess-
ment instrument. Statements regarding
the role of community engagement in
creating course opportunities and chal-
lenges taken from the 24 student re-
sponses to open-ended questions were
ranked.
Students identified opportunities fo-
cused on: the practical nature of working
with real and individually selected col-
lections (ranked first); the process of
breaking down collection development
into achievable and easily understood
steps (ranked second); connections be-
tween theory and practice (ranked third
26 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

0)
o 01 01 Ul 01 .t;
-o 00 c
ro
0) ï E 00 t j-
u
c c E O
01 OJ
J5 o -x:
•' o O 00 », u u
ro d3
u, . - ro dJ —
I/)
V
2 > Ê O 01 •— 7Z ''^
" 01 00 Q. O) _j-
8
BO u ^
.>
a SB O E - — 00 >.-'g u;
u u 01
Q. ro
d) 'Q_Si -~ ^
D. &I2 O
U
E
O
'5^ O 2
01
u .—
01 0)
*-' U c -
I ^2-
ro uî~
01 •
a;
-o
L)
ro o
c O uî
LJ

2 — _oj u 01
u~ "^ E
u Ul "5
1
in
*.Í3 0>
O) U
OJ

00 . -
ô 'Ë J"
Q. ro 01
E "-' 00 ' vË 0) c >
o g oi c 01
C ro •:5 T3 T3

CL
00
"O OJ c
01 c 0, a;
Ul C N E c
ro 'z;
"O .^ uT
c c c "O
ro a3 'i' ro
u O) 00 S • - .s 01 01
a ^ c: n 00
ro
"5 u "33 c S
U 00 ¿ CL d; c
^ 8 ro^ • ro
3 <« ^ 'tn o . —
•*^ Ul
o ' ^ 00 S
E Q.
00
"5. 01
§ . 2 ¿ -B •O
CD OL C
Dû u E
ns
O 'oo >- .Ë ro •- O ro
DO 01 u .-.,-, .¡2 ^ Ul oj E
c
ro ~^ o «T ro /... ^-i c
'•-' 00 ¡1

î •^ ro

1
. .3 û 03
c p N
> oO .S o1 2 dJ 01 "- >.
o
u ra c O 01
O 00
o u ro ï o E u ro 5 ro

O
mun
ent

v»—
01
u
_o E ro ro
c
0
00 o Q. Q.
u O ro
bO
r—
.•t: c ro C
0 ro 00
c T3 O 00 .^ c
c c
eol leei
zati

00 C ro
•x: 01 tj c
ro 00
c 01
Idir

00 Ul
Ul u 'c ^
^
(/l
(/l .t E
dJ c ro p Ul
Si
ul OJ 0 0 01 C
Ul 00 '3
O 0 ro
ro O CQ
U
U Ul

o
z
The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education 27

01
.T. DO

tor:
C

ith
OJ «
u $ OJ U c
ro o
c CL o
o E
> 3
tj o
u

era
tex
U) c
cu 0) d OJ
CL 00 c O
o 'c c
>
i_
01 (U u . OJ CL 01
ro
oc
o 3
o 01 01
the 1
ess

U
B u E
in
cOJ •tf
u c *^ 01
"o •o Í
01 -f5 01 ro
rovi
sho

tñ "^
war

o ^ ^ ^ in > O
c O 0) E OJ 0^
u
ro o CL OJ
c
cu -o
OJ DO U E DO .^^ 1-^
01 -D c
sses
imit

gen
win

OJ
E E ^ T3
Q. O ro ,5 Ol
_O
J
o ro ro
OJ
01
Q DO 01
DO
o
:tion
bitir

bud;

tisin
^
tion
the

'.t—i
u OJ
ro u
s: DÏ) iá o N DO
"5
(e.

c c '—- — • * - '
C C >
u •
C
^
qj
o ro -o
c
DO
O
7^
il fi
O OJ o ro U 01
GJD dJ 01 •— O û_ .— 01 OJ .^^ —
res
tuai acce ss.

ro ^. X >
E c c
attrac tiv
icilita tin

>- OJ
u > m
d relii
erials.

lequai

o
rketin
3velo[

trat egize
eview
îeeds

o
cess.

E c
0)
Dß k.
o
tuni

l U
c
O! ro ^_
"1
Oí
00
C
LU
Q.
O. '•w
c
—
1 u "S ^^ 1—
,E -Q
ro

•.;; n OJ c
o OJ
• ^

c "O 01
o ro
Q; in o
• ^
ro
> OJ
o
ro
c
DO
c 2_ — OJ o f— c ob ro o c i/l in
u (D o
O u ni d o (U ro c t / i
E ni U u ro >^ O m u >
. ro
c o
cal a
)ziu3

i pap
:, loc

)lle(ction
)ritat
ent ified

)ther

C .E DO
u
"5 01 ro ~ o
o
eeti

Kj
ave

o Ol u
ent

u >~ u u o .c
o 01 ro •U
cz ro w
.2 Q. o Si E ro U U

O
c
O
T3 DO
(U
C
E
u
X u 5u
C 01 O
"D
o 00 01
OJ u c
a. 01 ro
CN DO
col
ion

C DO
3
BQ ro 01
3
lec

OJ . , - 1

ro
"5 Ol o
< t;; ^ j j u en

O
Z
28 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
and fourth); representation of uniqueness
and flexibility in tailoring to each stu-
dent's needs (ranked fifth and sixth); de-
velopment of critical thinking and
writing skills (ranked seventh); learning
to strategize an approach for professional
development (ranked eighth and ninth);
and, learning from the experiences of
other students and guest speakers about
their collection development process
(ranked tenth). Categories of intellectu-
ally stimulating aspects that contributed
most to student learning included: per-
ceived beneficial outcomes owing to in-
tersections between course content
(theory), real community-based settings
(hands-on practice), and the use of build-
ing blocks via the course assignments
(structured mechanism to orchestrate
community engagement).
Students identified challenges in learn-
ing focused on: building a community
partnership (ranked first); difficulty in
finding an appropriate collection to de-
velop (ranked second); relating assign-
ment expectations to their project work
(ranked third); completing their assign-
ments (ranked fourth); and developing
their web modules (ranked fifth). De-
tracting course aspects that took away
from student learning involved: practical
issues of planning and time commitment
in building community relationships that
intruded into students' work and personal
life schedules; and, development of in-
formation competency skills that often
required making difficult and implicit
connections between theory and practice.
Students' suggestions for course im-
provement included enhanced student in-
teraction and involvement during class
time, better sharing of their project devel-
opment during break-out sessions and
group activities, and having guest speak-
ers on subject collections. Additionally,
students offered feedback especially rele-
vant in the context of delivering a dis-
tance education course. For example,
some students suggested the use of online
tools beyond applying them for informa-
tion sharing and communication pur-
poses. These students wanted electronic
classroom participation of the commu-
nity representatives they were working
with so that the community representa-
tives could share their community-based
experiences and provide feedback about
working with the students in collection
development activities.
Feedback received from students after
the course was over indicated that stu-
dents found the step-by-step process to
collection development very useful in
demonstrating how the principles they
learnt in class transferred to a "real life"
project. Additionally, students found that
developing small collections worked
within the time frame of 14-15 weeks in
the semester, especially since many of
them had no previous experience devel-
oping collection development policies.
Students indicated that they found the
process of developing a small collection
helpful, and that they expected to be able
to replicate the building blocks when
building larger collections in the future.
Some students who were in
paraprofessional roles while taking the
course reported that while engaging in
the collection development process for
their class project, they simultaneously
applied the process to other collections in
their work settings. Working on a smaller
collection in class made the task of apply-
ing principles and process to larger col-
lections much easier to manage.
Community Perspective
The authors contacted community rep-
resentatives by email at least six months
after the students were enrolled in the
course to provide feedback about IS 560
students' work for their agencies. Nine-
teen out of the 28 contacted provided de-
tailed feedback about the students'
efforts in the course. They included stu-
dents' supervisors, paraprofessional and
professional staff, patrons, primary, sec-
ondary, and/or tertiary audiences using
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Infonnation Science Education
the individual student's partnering li-
brary or information agency. Community
representatives expressed a high level of
satisfaction and gratitude for student in-
volvement in developing collections for
their various community agencies. Indi-
vidual students were commended for
their practical and timely choices, levels
of knowledge and range of selections,
and their consideration of various factors
relevant to the community while develop-
ing policies for the agencies, such as fi-
nancial constraints, lack of resources,
needs/wants of specific patrons, and stra-
tegic directions of the institution. For ex-
ample, one community representative
appreciated the informal (yet organized)
approach adopted by a student in working
with various audiences in the community
to query them about their information
needs to enrich, reinforce, and modify the
existing collection. Some students in
paraprofessional roles within the com-
munity agency where their projects were
completed were especially commended
regarding how they applied their knowl-
edge from the course to further their pro-
fessional careers, get job offers, and
subsequently improve their performance
in professional job responsibilities after
the class was over. All community repre-
sentatives reported that collaborating
with the student during the course had
made a positive difference in the life of
their agency and extended its role and ser-
vice provision in novel and enriching
ways. For example, one community rep-
resentative reported that the partnering
student's collection development efforts
on social science curriculum materials in
an elementary school setting resulted in
children's improved reading habits and
increased standardized test scores after
just one year. Some challenges that were
identified in the student-community
agency partnering process included time
constraints, rigor owing to the specific
collection's subject, and limited avail-
ability of resources. For example, one
community representative appreciated
29
the student's suggestions for her agency's
collection and lamented that the work had
to be "kept on the side" owing to a lack of
financial resources to purchase items rec-
ommended by the student. One commu-
nity representative perceived that the
small number of items (15-20 items or
more) that the students were assigned to
select was a limitation when a selector
might be expected to evaluate a collection
of thousands of books, and do so in a
short time.
A Community Engagement Model
The use of building blocks in the col-
lection development process proved to be
invaluable as a pedagogical tool in facili-
tating community engagement partner-
ships between the IS 560 students and the
different community agencies. Experi-
ences in this course case study provided
positive evidence to support the use of
building blocks as a structuring and
methodological tool in the teaching of
collection development and the manage-
ment of community engagement prac-
tices in the classroom. The instructor,
students and community representatives
found the use of building blocks worth-
while, especially in the enactment of
community engagement during the
teaching of a synchronous distance edu-
cation course where their application
made a big difference in overcoming per-
ceived limitations of electronic/online
classes.
Based on experiences documented in
this course, analysis of scholarly litera-
ture on related communitylbased topics,
and a critical reflection on our teaching
strategies and efforts over the years, we
present the CEM to initiât dialogue on
use and application of community-based
practices in the LIS currici lum.
The goal in adopting the CEM is to pro-
vide a broader philosophical point of
view that may replace service learning
and "service-based" ethics in LIS educa-
30 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

Table 3. Community Engagement Model in Collection Development.

Element "Building Block" Implementation

1. Critical and reflective
research training students
to question traditional LIS
values, practices,
ideologies, and processes
while immersed in
community-based
realities.
2. Contextualization of
students' course work in
the everyday experiences
of community members to
acknowledge imbalanced
circumstances.
3. Recognition of
traditionally identified
"users" as equals.
4. Emphasis on social justice
and social equity
outcomes via action to
change imbalances in
distribution of resources,
information, and power.
5. Application of change
agency and
empowerment to facilitate
people's own efforts for
making changes and
improvements in their
circumstances.
Assessing the Identified limitations and gaps
community agency in the existing collections;
and its parent Proposed collections to help
organization; Building agency achieve greater
a sound rationale for success.
the collection.
Building a sound Understood everyday practices
rationale for the to identify potential impact in
collection; the life of the patrons (and the
Conducting needs agency).
assessment and
community analysis.
Conducting needs Applied data-collection
assessment and methods to document user
community analysis. feedback about their
experiences in use of LIS
collections.
Constructing a Took action to propose change
collection via policy development;
development policy; Identified user-centered
Assessing agency facilitating/ inhabiting
strengths and variables to evaluate agency
weaknesses. strengths and weaknesses and
proposed changes.
Evaluating the Eacilitated analysis and
collection; Selecting compilation of users' feedback
specific items for the to evaluate and select
collection appropriate items.

tion and the American academy at large.
Traditional approaches to "service" and
"outreach" are inappropriate for the 21 st
century since they may be associated
with a missionary zeal that considers lo-
cal communities outside the realm of
mainstream discourse and practices, and
therefore, needy and impoverished re-
quiring service to uplift their downtrod-
den existences (Mehra, in press).
"Community engagement," on the other
hand, is both rhetorically neutral, and
combines and draws attention to the in-
tertwining of the concepts of collabora-
tion, ongoing action-oriented activities,
community building, and learning to-
gether, elements that other commu-
nity-based concepts—such as
experiential learning, action research,
and participatory action—may lack.
Community engagement implies a less
academic and focused approach than
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
community informatics or Library 2.0, in
favorof a more holistic and integrated ef-
fort that connects teaching, research,
conventional service, and student partici-
pation in community collaborations to
achieve socially-relevant outcomes.
The agenda in a CEM is to acknowl-
edge, represent, and further the applica-
tion of the concept of diversity in real,
tangible and meaningful ways via com-
munity-based activities that facilitate
collaborations between students and
community representatives to achieve
mutually-defined objectives and expecta-
tions. This requires recognizing the value
ofthe assets and skills of community par-
ticipants and taking into account the
change agency and efficacy power within
the capacity of each human being. The
proposed CEM incorporates the follow-
ing elements to demonstrate its demo-
cratic and participative ideology:
1. Critical and reflective research that
trains students to question traditional
LIS values, practices, ideologies, and
processes while immersed in commu-
nity-based realities (Habermas, 1993;
McClure & Hemon, 1991);
2. Contextualization of students' course
work in the everyday experiences of
community members to acknowledge
imbalanced circumstances;
3. Recognition of "users" (patrons or cus-
tomers) as equals who are experts in
their own ontologies, circumstances,
experiences, and practices since others
do not possess this knowledge (Mehra,
2005);
4. Emphasis on social justice and social
equity outcomes via action to change
imbalances in distribution of resources,
information, and power (Mehra, 2006);
and
5. Application of change agency and em-
powerment to facilitate people's own
efforts for making changes and im-
provements in their circumstances
(Mehra, Albright, & Rioux, 2006).
31
It is important to note that it may not be
possible to incorporate and apply the five
elements equally in each course. The
main objective is for LIS educators to
consider the elements of the CEM as they
begin thinking about community engage-
ment as an option while developing con-
tent in their LIS courses. Table 3
summarizes the application of the CEM
in IS 560. Each element of community
engagement is analyzed in terms of the
building block that most favored its ap-
plication and its implementation. Though
there are various opportunities in the LIS
classroom to integrate students' efforts in
community engagement, such as inde-
pendent study, practica, student partici-
pation in community-based initiatives,
and different forms of community-based
action research projects in elective and
required courses, this article analyzes the
CEM only in the context ofthe collection
development activities that formed part
of IS 560.
Teaching IS 560 provided the instruc-
tors with initial opportunities to explore
the application of elements from the
CEM with some degree of success. The
use of building blocks provided an effec-
tive strategy to streamline the community
engagement activities. These efforts can
be further strengthened in future teaching
iterations by incorporating greater de-
grees of additional and ongoing interac-
tions between the LIS students and
community agencies in terms of their
quantity, quality, intensity, and impact.
Immersed in their community-based
settings, IS 560 students were constantly
relating the course content and the collec-
tion development and management pro-
cess to their community-based
experiences and realities. First, students
regularly informed their community
agencies about applying lessons from the
classroom to address existing problems
they encountered in the real professional
work situations. Second, students' partic-
ipation in class during the course indi-
cates that their learning of theory was
32 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
also getting informed and modified by
their community-based experiences.
They critically reflected on their knowl-
edge/experiences in the classroom and
community-based environment to gain a
better understanding that ultimately re-
sulted in the development of a collection
that was meaningful and useful to the col-
laborating cotnmunity agencies and their
audiences. Students' critical reflections
on existing LIS values, practices, ideolo-
gies, and processes in their commu-
nity-based settings were most significant
in the early stages of project develop-
ment, when they were able to assess the
community agency in terms of its exist-
ing limitations and gaps in the collections
in order to propose changes that would
help the community agency achieve
greater success in service provision. Un-
derstanding and contextualizing their
collection development work in the ev-
eryday practices of the community
agency helped students develop a sound
rationale to justify their collections; the
needs assessment and community analy-
sis provided a deeper understanding of
users' everyday information seeking be-
haviors and collection use practices. Stu-
dents recognized the staff at the
community agency as peers and superi-
ors, while gathering user feedback helped
them to recognize that the patrons and au-
diences in the community agency were
also equals, since they were providing
students with information the students
did not have otherwise. Developing an
actual policy statement and listing vari-
ous strengths and weaknesses of the com-
munity agency from a user's perspective
provided action-oriented social justice
outcomes in the course. The role of the
student was that of a facilitator, analyzing
and compiling users' feedback, to evalu-
ate and select appropriate items and pro-
pose improvements to the collection.
Conclusion
This article highlighted community en-
gagement experiences in an LIS course
from the perspectives of its instructor,
students, and partnering community rep-
resentatives about the role of community
engagement in the collection develop-
ment process. There is a need for docu-
menting other LIS instructors' strategies
in incorporating community engagement
activities in their required or elective
courses to further understand the signifi-
cance and relationship of community in
the teaching and practice of library and
information work. The use of building
blocks in IS 560 proved to work well in
managing community engagement and
directing student learning of the collec-
tion development process. Building
blocks may be translatable to the contexts
of other LIS courses that have potential to
incorporate community engagement ac-
tivities.
Documenting socially-relevant out-
comes and community engagement in
LIS courses is a first and essential step in
gaining a critical self-reflective view of
the role of the profession in community
building and community development ef-
forts (Gupta, Koontz, Massisimo, &
Savard, 2006). Showcasing LIS teaching
and research involving communities is
important to address negative public per-
ceptions about the limited role LIS pro-
fessions play in society, and will also
promote a deepei" understanding of users'
interactions with knowledge, since users
are immersed in their specific commu-
nity's values and practices (Afzal, 2008;
Buckland, 2003). Adopting a CEM that
integrates connections between educat-
ing the next generation of information
professionals, best practice-oriented re-
search, and community-based activities
in the LIS curriculum will also help ex-
tend the profession beyond its traditional
roles as information organizers and
disseminators to information providers
engaged in making community-wide so-
cial changes (Freeman & Hovde, 2003).
Community engagement is important for
the survival of the LIS professions since
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
it can provide a competitive edge over
other information-related practitioners,
such as book manufacturers and publish-
ers, web designers, and computer and
software engineers (Landau, 2008).
Hence, proactive business practice calls
for a strategic marketing vision to pro-
mote the profession as a key player in
community building (Owens, 2003).
Given successful documentation of re-
search studying the impacts of commu-
nity engagement activities in LIS
courses, it is now an opportune time for
LIS professionals to get involved in ex-
tensive community action and commu-
nity engagement initiatives. To build
upon an old collection development
statement, providing the right content to
the right person at the right time can be a
dramatic and life-changing event. Com-
munities depend upon content availabil-
ity to make good social, economic and
political decisions.
Community engagement recognizes
these realities and presents a strategic ap-
proach that draws closer ties between
teaching, research and service missions
in the American academy. Community
engagement in the IS 560 classroom pro-
vided students with opportunities to learn
from their participation in real-life com-
munity-based projects that helped them
make stronger connections between theo-
retical constructs and everyday practice.
LIS has the opportunity to take a leader-
ship role to further community engage-
ment activities and discard outdated
service/outreach rhetoric that represents
ego-centric and imbalanced power reali-
ties.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the community repre-
sentatives and LIS students in the two
sections of the course reported in this ar-
ticle for sharing their experiences and
perspectives. The authors want to thank
Dr. Suzie Allard and Dr. Kimberly Black
for sharing their syllabi and experiences
33
in teaching this course. We thank Cindy
Lancaster (SIS Coordinator of Technol-
ogy Services) for her assistance in setting
up the technological infrastructure for
the class website. The authors would like
to thank the reviewers of an early version
of this article that was presented as a
juried paper at the Association for Li-
brary and Information Science Education
2008 Annual Conference. We also con-
vey our appreciation to the two anony-
mous reviewers for sharing their
comments that strengthened the content
and quality of this article.
References
At'zal, W. (2008). Community, identity, and knowl-
edge: A conceptual framework for LIS research.
Library and Information Science Research Elec-
tronic Joumal, I8(\). Retrieved November 2,
2008, from http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libresl8nl/
waseem_article_mbw2_Ess&Op_rev.pdf.
Baecker, R. M. (1992). Readings in groupware and
computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting
human-human collaboration (interactive technol-
ogies). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Ball, M. A. (2008). Practicums and service learning
in LIS education. Joumal of Educationfor Library
Science, 49(\),10-S2.
Baker, E. (1999). Principles of practice for aca-
demic/practice/community research partnerships.
American Joumal of Preventive Medicine, I6( 1 ),
86-93.
Barker, D. (2008). From service learning to the
scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of civic
renewal in American higher education. Paper pre-
sented at the Annttal Meeting of the American Po-
litical Science Association, Hilton Chicago and
the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, September 2,
2004. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http:
//www.allacademic.com/meta/p59505_index.
html.
Becker, N. J. (2000). Service learning in the curricu-
lum. Journal of Education for Library and Infor-
mation Science, 41(4), 285-293.
Belkin, N. J., & Vickery, A. (1985). Interaction in in-
formation systems (Library and Information Sys-
tems Research Report 35). London: British
Library.
Bender, T. ( 1997). Intellect and public life: Essays on
the social history of academic Intellectuals in the
United States. Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (Eds.) (2000). Deconstruct-
34 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
ing service-learning: Research exploring context,
participation, and impacts (Advances in Ser-
vice-Learning Research). Charlotte, NC: Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
Bishop, A. P., & Bruce, B. C. (2005). Community in-
formatics: Integrating action, research and learn-
ing. Bulletin of the American Society for
Infonnation Science and Technology, 31(6). Re-
trieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.asis.
org/Bulletin/Aug-05/bishopbruce.html.
Bishop, A. R, Bruce, B. C, & Jones, M. C. (2006).
Community inquiry and informatics: Collabora-
tive learning through ICT. Journal of Community
Informatics, 2(2). Retrieved November 2, 2008,
from http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/
view/349/25.3.
Bishop, A. P, Mehra, B., Bazzell, I. & Smith, C.
(2003). Participatory action research and digital
libraries: Reframing evaluation. In A. P. Bishop,
N. Van House, & B. Buttenfield (Eds.). Digital li-
brary use: Social practice in design and evalua-
tion (pp. 161-190). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bishop, A. P., Tidline, T., Shoemaker, S., & Sálela, P
(1999). Public libraries and networked informa-
tion services in low-income communities. Librar-
ies & Information Science Research, 21(3),
361-390.
Blackboard, (n.d.). Blackboard Worldwide. Re-
trieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.
blackboard.com.
Boyer, E. ( 1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priori-
ties of the professoriate. New York: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bringic, R. C , & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implement-
ing service leaming in higher education. Journal
of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Meaningful
measurement of theory-based service-learning
outcomes: Making the case with quantitative re-
search. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 7(Fall), 68-75.
Brown, L. D. (1985). People-centered development
and participatory research. Harvard Educational
Review, 55(\), 69-15.
Bruce, B. C. (2008). From Hull house to Paseo
Bodcua: The theory and practice of community
inquiry. In B. Dicher (Ed.), Philosophy ofpragma-
tism: Salient inquiries. Cluj-Napoca, Romania:
Babes-Bolyai University.
Bruce, B. C , & Bishop, A. P (2007). Community in-
quiry. In D. Schüler (Ed.), Liberating voices! A
pattern language for communication revolution.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buckland, M. K. (2003). Five grand challenges for li-
brary research. Library Trends. 51(1), 675-686.
Callaway, H. (1981). Women's perspectives: Re-
search as re-vision. In P. Reason & J. Rowan
(Eds.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook ofnew para-
digm research (pp. 457-471). New York: Wiley.
Carter, S. (2007). The new language of business:
SOA & Web 2.0. Lebanon, IN: IBM Press.
Case, D.O. (2007). Looking for Infonnation: A sur-
vey of research on information seeking, needs, and
beliavior. New York: Academic Press.
Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2007). Library
2.0: A guide to participatory library service.
Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Chatman, E. ( 1996). The impoverished life-world of
outsiders. Journal of the American Society for In-
formation Science, 47, 193-206.
Chatman, E. A., & Pendleton, V. E. M. (1995).
Knowledge gap, information seeking and the poor.
The Reference Librarian, 49/50, 135-145.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of
community in the urban environment: A catalyst
for participation and community development.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,
55-82.
Claus, J., & Ogden, C. (Eds.). ( 1999). Service learn-
ing for youth empowerment and social change
(Vol. 5). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Cone, D., & Harris, S. (1996). Service leaming prac-
tice: Developing a theoretical framework. Michi-
gan Joumal of Community Service Learning, 3,
31-43.
Crandall, M., & Gershenfeld, N. (September 15,
2006). How do we educate our future library lead-
ers and managers'? Library Leadership Network
Commons, (September/October). Retrieved May
22, 2008, from http://www.libraryleadership.net/
Crandall091206.asp.
Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and "Library 2.0."
Cites & Insights, 6(2). Retrieved November 2,
2008, from http://cites.boisestate.edu/civ6i2. pdf.
Cuban, S., & Hayes, E. (2001). Perspectives of five
library and information studies students involved
in service learning at a community-based literacy
program. Journal of Education for Library and In-
formation Science, 42(2), 86-95.
Day, R, & Schüler, D. (Eds.). (2004). Community
practice in the network society. New York:
Routledge.
Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two ways:
Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy in relation to John
Dewey's pragmatism. Michigan Journal of Com-
munity Service Learning, 6, 5-29.
Dervin, B. (1982). Useful theory for librarianship:
Communication, not information. Drexel Library
Quarterly, 13, 16-32.
Dervin, B. ( 1992). From the mind's eye of the "user".
In D. Glazier & R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative re-
search on information management. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Education
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs
and uses. Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). White Plains,
NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
Dewey, M. (1876). The profession. American Li-
brary Journal, I (September), 5-6.
Dillon, A., & Norris, A. (2005). Crying wolf: An ex-
amination and reconsideration of the perception of
crisis in LIS education. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 46(4), 280-298.
Dix. A., Finlay, J. E., Abowd, G. D., & Beale, R.
(2003). Human-computer interaction (3rd edi-
tion). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Durrance, J. C, & Pettigrew, K. E. (2000). Commu-
nity information: The technological touch. Li-
brary Journal, 125(2), 44-46.
Elmborg, J. K., Leighton. H., Huffman, H.,
Bradbury, J., Bryant, T. Britigan, D., et al. (2003).
Service learning in the library and information sci-
ence curriculum: The perspectives and experi-
ences of one multimedia/user education class.
Research Strategies, 18(4), 265-281.
Etzkowitz, H., V/ebster, A., Gebhardt, C , & Regina,
B. (2000). The future of the university and the uni-
versity of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to
entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2),
3I3-.3.3O.
Eyler, E. S., Giles, D. E., & Schmiede, A. (1996).
Practitioner's guide to reflection in service learn-
ing. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Fals-Borda, O. (1979). Investigating reality in order
to transform it: The Colombia experience. Dialec-
tical Anthropology, 4, 33-35.
Färber, E. I. (1974). College librarians and the uni-
versity-library syndrome. In E. I. Färber & R.
Walling (Eds.), The academic library: Essays in
honor of Guy Lyle (pp. 12-23). Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press.
Foreman-Wernet, L., & Launterbaeh, E. (Eds.).
(2003). Sense-making methodology reader: Se-
lected writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Freeman, R. S., & Hovde, M. S. (2003). Libraries to
the people: Histories of outreach. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Company.
Freiré, P. (1974). Education for critical conscious-
ness. New York: Seabury.
Gaventa, J. ( 1993). The powerful, the powerless, and
the experts: Knowledge struggles in an informa-
tion age. In P Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, &
T. Jackson (Eás,.), Voices of change (pp. 21-40).
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Gibson, C. (2006). Student engagement and infor-
mation literacy. Chicago, IL: Association of Col-
lege & Research Libraries, American Library
Association.
35
Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. ( 1998). A service learning re-
search agenda for the next five years. New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 65-72.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction
to action research: Social research for social
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grotzinger, L. (1971). The status of 'practicum' in
graduate library schools. Journal of Education for
Librarianship, 11(4), 332-339.
Gupta, D. K., Koontz, C , Massisimo, A., & Savard,
R. (2006). Marketing library and information ser-
vices: International perspectives. Berlin, Ger-
many: Walter de Gruyter.
Gurstein, M. B. (2000). Community informatics: En-
abling communities with information and commu-
nication technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Gurstein, M. B. (2004). Editorial: Welcome to the
Journal of Community Informatics. Journal of
Community Informatics, /(I). Retrieved April 24,
2005, from http://ci-joumal.net/viewarticle.php?
id=29&layout=html.
Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application:
Remarks on discourse ethics (C. P. Cronin,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hardesty, L. L., Scmitt, J. P, & Tucker, J. M. ( 1986).
User instruction in academic libraries: A century
of selected readings. Metuchen, NJ: The Scare-
crow Press.
Harper, R., Palen, L., & Taylor, A. (2005). The inside
text: Social, cultural and design perspectives on
SMS (computer supported cooperative work).
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Harris. B. R. (2008). Communities as necessity in in-
formation literacy development: Challenging the
standards. The Journal of Academic Librarian-
ship, 34(3), 248-255.
Hersberger, J. (2002). Are the economically poor in-
formation poor? Does the digital divide affect the
homeless and access to information? 77)« Cana-
dian Journal of Information and Librar)' Science,
27(3), 44-63.
Higher Education Network for Community Engage-
ment. (2007). HENCE. Retrieved November 2,
2008, from http://henceonline.org/.
IS 560 Class Project. (2007a). IS 560: Development
and Management of Collections, Class Project:
Develop a Collection Portfolio Spring 2007. Re-
trieved from http://athena.cci.utk.edu/bmehra/
IS56O/IS56OSpO7/.
IS 560 Class Project. (2007b). IS 560: Development
and Management of Collections, Class Project:
Develop a Collection Portfolio Fall 2007. Re-
trieved from http://athena.cei.utk.edu/is560/
IS56OFallO7/index.html.
Jaeoby, B. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in
36 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
today's higher education. In B. Jacoby & Associ-
ates (eds.). Service-learning in higher education:
Concepts and practices (pp. 3-25). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kalakota, R., & Robinson. M. (2000). e-Business
2.0: Roadmap for success (2nd ed.). Indianapolis.
IN: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Kemmis. S.. & McTaggart. R. (1988). The action re-
search planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin Uni-
versity.
Kennedy. E. M. (1999). University-community part-
nerships: A mutually beneficial effort to aid com-
munity development and improve academic
learning opportunities. Applied Developmental
Science, 3{4), 197-198.
Kezar. A.. Chambers. A. C , & Burkhardt, J. C.
(2005). Education for the public good: Emerging
voices from a national movement. San Francisco.
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kirschner. P A.. Sweller, J.. & Clark. R. E. (2006).
Why minimal guidance during instruction does
not work: An analysis of the failure of
constructivist. discovery, problem-based, experi-
ential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kranich, N. (2005). Civic partnerships: The role of
libraries in promoting civic engagement. Re-
source Sharing and Information Networks,
/«(I/2). 89-103.
Kretzmann, J. P. & McKnight. J. L. (1993). Building
communities from the inside out: A path toward
fmding and mobilizing community assets. Chi-
cago: ACTA.
Kruecken, G. (2003). Mission impossible? Institu-
tional barriers to the diffusion of the "third aca-
demic mission" at German universities.
International Journal of Technology Manage-
ment, 25(\-2), 18-33.
Kuhlthau. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process
approach to library and information services.
Westport. CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Landau. H. (2008). The small public library survival
guide: Thriving on less. Chicago. IL: ALA.
Lave, J.. & Wenger E. ( 1991 ). Situated learning: Le-
gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge.
MA: Cambridge university Press.
Lenz. B., Straubhaar. J.. LaPastina. A., Main. S.. &
Taylor. J. (2000). Structuring access: The role of
public access centers in the "Digital Divide."
Austin. TX: University of Texas. Retrieved No-
vember 2. 2008. from http://www.utexas.edu/ re-
search/tipi/reports/joe_lCA.pdf.
Maguire. P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A
feminist approach. Amherst. MA: University of
Massachusetts.
Maness. J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0
and its implications for libraries. Webology, .?(2).
Retrieved November 2. 2008, from http://www.
webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html.
Marchionini. G. ( 1995). Information seeking in elec-
tronic environments. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
McCabe. R. B. (2001). Civic librarianship: Renew-
ing the social mission of the public library.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
McCiure.C. R.. & Hemon, P (Eds.). (1991). Library
and information science research: Perspectives
and strategies for improvement. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
McCook, K. de la P. (2000a). Librarians and compre-
hensive community initiatives. Reference and
User Services Quarterly, 40(\), 24-26.
McCook, K. de la P (2000b). Reconnecting library
education and the mission of community. Library
Journal, 125(90), 164-165.
McCook, K. de la P (2000c). A place at the table:
Participating in community building. Chicago:
ALA.
Mehra. B. (2004). Service learning in library and in-
formation science (LIS) education: Connecting
research and practice to community. InterActions:
UCLA Journal of Information and Education
Studies, /(I). Article 3. Retrieved November 2.
2008. from http://repositories.edlib.org/gseis/in-
teractions/vol 1 /iss I /art3/.
Mehra. B. (2005). Library and information science
(LIS) and community development: Use of infor-
mation and communication technology (ICT) to
support a social equity agenda. Journal of the
Community Development Society, 36( 1 ), 28-40.
Mehra. B. (2006). An action research (AR) mani-
festo for cyberculture power to "marginalized"
cultures of difference. In D. Silver & A. Massanari
(Eds.), Critical cyber-culture studies (pp.
205-215). New York: New York University Press.
Mehra. B. (2007). Spring 2007 IS 560 Syllabus
[Word document]. Retrieved from IS 560: Devel-
opment and Management of Collections Spring
2007: ht tps://web. utk.edu/~bmehra/
Spring07IS560syl.doe.
Mehra. B. (in press). Integrating socially-relevant
projects and achieving meaningful community
outcomes in required library and information sci-
ence courses: From a service model to community
engagement. In L. Roy (Ed.), The service connec-
tion: Library and information science education
and service to communities. Chicago. IL: ALA.
Mehra. B.. Albright. K. S.. & Rioux. K. (2006. No-
vember 3-8. 2006). A practical framework for so-
cial justice research in the information
professions. Paper presented at the 69th Annual
Meeting of the American Society for Information
Science & Technology 2006: Information Reali-
 The Community Engagement Model in Library and Information Science Edtication
ties: Shapitig the Digital Future For All. Austin,
TX.
Mehra, B., Bishop, A. P, Bazzell, I., & Smith, C.
(2002). Scenarios in the Afya project as a partici-
patory action research (PAR) tool for studying in-
formation seeking and use across the "digital
divide." Journal ofthe American Society of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, 53(\4),
1259-1266.
Mehra, B., Merkel, C , & Bishop, A. P (2004).
Internet for empowerment of minority and
marginalized communities. New Media & Society,
6(5), 781-802.
Mehra, B., & Sandusky, R. J. (in press). Applications
of community-based action research in elective
courses: Partnering Library and Information Sci-
ence students with underserved populations to
meet their information technology needs. In L.
Roy (ed.). The service connection: Library and in-
formation science education and service to com-
munities. Chicago, IL: ALA.
Mehra, B., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). The li-
brary-community convergence framework for
community action: Libraries as catalysts of social
change, Libri: International Journal of Libraries
and Information Services, 57(3), 123-139.
Middleton, M. S., & Katz, B. (1988). Information
and referral in reference services. New York: The
Haworth Press.
Monroe, M. E. (1981). Issues in field experience as
an element in the library school curriculum. Jour-
nal of Education for Librarianship, 22(1-2),
57-73.
Morino, M. (1994, May 5, 1994). Assessment and
evolution of community networking. Paper pre-
sented at the Ties that Bind Conference on Build-
ing Community Computing Networks, Cupertino,
CA.
Muddiman, D. (1999). Public libraries and social
exclusion: The historical legacy (Public Library
Policy and Social Exclusion Working Paper 2).
Leeds, United Kingdom: Leeds Metropolitan Uni-
versity.
Nahl, D. (2007). The centrality ofthe affective in in-
formation behavior. In D. Nahl & D. Bilal (Eds.),
Infonnation and emotion: The emergent affective
paradigm in information behavior research and
theory (pp. 3-37). Medford, New Jersey: Informa-
tion Today, Inc.
Naslund, J., & Giustini, D. (2008). Towards school li-
brary 2.0: An introduction to social software tools
for teacher-librarians. School Libraries World-
wide. 14(2), 55-67. Retrieved November 2,2008,
from http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/
googlescholar/ naslund_giustini.pdf.
National Telecommunications and Information Ad-
ministration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Com-
37
merce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining
the digital divide. Washington, D.C: NTIA. Re-
trieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.
ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/.
Neill, S. D. (1975). The place of practice in a gradu-
ate library school. Libri, 25(2), 81-97.
Novak, T. P, Hoffman, D. L., & Venkatesh, A.
(1998). Diversity on the Internet: The relationship
of race to access and usage. In A. Garnier (Ed.), In-
vesting in diversity: Advaticing opportunities for
minorities and the media. Washington, D.C: As-
pen Institute.
Owens, I. (2003). Strategic marketing in library and
information science. NY: Routledge.
Peterson, L. (2003). Using a homeless shelter as a li-
brary education learning laboratory: Incorporat-
ing service-learning in a graduate-level
information sources and services in the social sci-
ences course. Reference & User Services Quar-
terly, 42(4), 301-3 \0.
Pettigrew, K. E., Durrance, J. C , & Unruh, K. T.
(2002). Facilitating community information seek-
ing using the Internet: Findings from three public
library-community network systems. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science &
Technology, 53(\ 1), 894-903.
Pettigrew, K., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001 ). Concep-
tual frameworks in information behavior. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology,
35, 43-78.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction
design: Beyond human-computer interaction.
New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007).
Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. Hei-
delberg, Germany: Springer.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). Theftve laws of library
science. Madras, India: Madras Library Associa-
tion.
Rayward, B. W. (1994). Some schemes for restruc-
turing and mobilizing information in documents:
A historical perspective. Infonnation Processing
and Management, 30, 163-175.
Reardon, K. M. (1998). Participatory action research
as service learning. In R. A. Rhoads and J. P. F.
Howard {Eà&.), Academic service learning: A ped-
agogy of action and reflection (pp. 57-64). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rhodes, N. J., & Davis, J. M. (2001). Using service
leaming to get positive reactions in the library.
Computers in Libraries, 2/(1), 32-35.
Riddle, J. S. (2003). Where's the library in service
leaming? Models for engaged library instruction.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 29(2),
71-81.
Rodger, E. J., Jorgensen, C , & D'Elia, G. (2005).
38 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Partnerships and collaboration among public li-
braries, public broadcast media, and museums:
Current context and future potential. The Library
Quarterly, 75(1), 42-66.
Rothstein, S. (1967). A forgotten issue: Practice
work in American library education. In W. A. Katz
& C. A. Bunge (Eds.), Rothstein on reference ...
With some help from friends (pp. 199-224). New
York: Haworth Press.
Roy, L. (2001). Diversity in the classroom: Incorpo-
rating service-learning experiences in the library
and information science curriculum. Journal of
Library Administration, 33(3-4), 213-228.
Saba Centra Suite, (n.d.). Saba Centra Suite: Over-
view. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://
www.saba.com/products/centra/.
Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service
learning. Liberal Education, 91(2), 50-55.
Saracevic, T., Mokros, H., & Su. L. ( 1990). Nature of
interaction between users and intermediaries in
online searching: A qualitative analysis. Proceed-
ings of the 53rd ASIS Annual Meeting 1990, 27,
47-54.
Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M., & Nilan, M. (1990). A
re-examination of relevance toward a dynamic,
situational definition. Information Processing and
Management, 26,155-116.
Schneidewind, N., & Davidson, E. (Eds.). (1983).
Open minds to equality: A sourcebook of learning
activities to promote race, sex, class and age eq-
uity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schon, Donald A. (1996). Educcuing the reflective
practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Schüler, D. (1995). Creating public space in
cyberspace: The rise of the new community net-
works. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://
www.scn.org/ip/commnet/i wdec.html
Schüler, D. ( 1996). New community networks: Wired
for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sears, A., & Jacko, J. A. (2007). The human-com-
puter interaction handbook: Fundamentals,
evolving technologies and emerging applications
(2nd ed.). Canberra, Australia: CRC.
Shera, J. H. (1983). Librarianship and information
science. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield (Eds.), The
study of information (pp. 379-388). New York:
Wiley.
Shores, L. (1935). The liberal arts college, a possibility
in \9(A1 School and Society, 4 IQmuasy), 110-14.
Slaymaker, T., Christiansen, K., & Hemming, I.
(2005). Community-based approaches and ser-
vice delivery: Issues and options in difficult envi-
ronments and partnerships. Retrieved November
2, 2008, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/27/
38498595.pdf.
Sohng, S. (1995). Participatory research and com-
munity organizing. Paper presented at The New
Social Movement and Community Organizing
Conference, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from
http://www.interweb-tech.com/nsmnet/docs/
sohng.htm.
Soska, T., & Butterfield, A. K. J. (2004). Univer-
sity-community partnerships: Universities in civic
engagement. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social
Work Practice Press.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Femi-
nist consciousness andfeminist research. London:
Routledge.
Stringer, Ernest T. (1999). Action research. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sweeney, I. (2002). Learning by doing: Engaged ser-
vice and the MLS. American Libraries, 33(2),
44-46.
Taylor, R. S. (1991). Information use environments.
In B. Dervin & M. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in Com-
munication Sciences (pp. 217-255). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality
in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Virnoche, M. E. (1998). The seamless web and com-
munications equity: The social shaping of a com-
munity network. Science, Technology and Human
Values, 23(2), 199-220.
Wade, R. C. (1997). Community service leaming: A
guide to including service in the public school cur-
riculum. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities ofpractice: Learn-
ing, meaning, & identity. Cambridge, MA: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Synder, W. M. (2002).
Cultivating communities ofpractice. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Westney, L. (2006). Conspicuous by their absence:
Academic librarians in the engaged university.
Reference & User Services Quarterly, 45(3),
200-203.
Winsor, J. (1880). College libraries as aids to instruc-
tion: The college library. In Circulars of informa-
tion of the Bureau of Education (Number I).
Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office, pp. 7-14.
Witbooi, S. L. (2004). Service learning in the library
and information studies curriculum at the Univer-
sity of the Westem Cape: An exploratory study.
Mousaion, 22(\),%9-\02.
Yontz, E., & McCook, K. de la P (2003). Ser-
vice-learning and LIS education. Joumal of Edu-
cationfor Library and Information Scietice, 44( 1 ),
58-68.
Copyright of Journal of Education for Library & Information Science is the property of Association for Library
& Information Science Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

View publication stats