Finding a position in an academic library can be challenging for recent Library and Information Science (LIS) graduates. While LIS students are often encouraged to seek out experience, network, and improve upon their technology skills in hopes of better improving their odds in the job market, little research exists to support this anecdotal advice. This study quantifies the academic and work experiences of recent LIS graduates in order to provide a better understanding of what factors most significantly influence the outcome of their academic library job searches. The survey results demonstrate that the job outlook is most positive for candidates who applied early, obtained academic library experience (preferably employment), participated in professional conferences, and gained familiarity with committee work.

Thirty years ago, education conference panelists shared concerns regarding collaboration between education faculty and librarians and they presented ideas for expanding these partnerships. A review of their ideas raises an important question: In what ways have their ideas for collaboration and partnership been realized? To answer this question, the authors conducted a review of the literature regarding education faculty-librarian collaboration. Findings indicate that when collaborating with education faculty, there are three roles librarians have embodied: librarian-as-reference, librarian-as-consultant, and librarian-as-instructor. These roles contribute to the realization of the panelists' proposed ideas and offer suggestions for future collaboration and research possibilities.

No abstract

The context: This activity was developed for lower-level undergraduate students in an introductory religious studies course.The pedagogical purpose: Many students, particularly lower-level undergraduates, struggle with identifying appropriate academic articles in their research. This "spot the difference" activity moves beyond an oversimplified dichotomy between the internet and the library. It facilitates a discussion about why the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly sources exists, and how this impacts where sources are located.Description of the strategy: Students examine a "spot the difference" puzzle featuring two seemingly identical pictures with tiny differences (see www.spotthedifference.com). We discuss how the pictures seemed identical at first, but looking closely, once differences are noticed, they become glaring. I then display two online articles on a similar topic: one from the Journal of the American Academy of Religion and one from Christianity Today. I emphasize that while at first glance these might seem to be the same type of source, once students know what to look for they will be able to spot the differences between scholarly and non-scholarly sources.In small groups, students mark up the articles and compile lists of the differences they spot. Once students look closely they notice contrasts in appearance (whether images are used, type of prose), content (whether there is a focus on religious practice or religious study), and formatting (whether there is a reference list, type of author credentials).After fifteen minutes, the groups report and we generate a list of differences on the board. Then we discuss why these differences exist, focusing on intended audiences and how peer review factors in scholarly publishing. While the list provides helpful evaluative criteria, I emphasize that there is no single key difference to rely on; multiple factors play roles. If an article is long or includes an image it does not necessarily indicate if it is scholarly or not. Now that students are able to identify scholarly sources, they next learn how to find them. Expanding on our discussion of peer review, I highlight how financial forces make scholarship available through library subscriptions and databases. Students then practice searching for articles using these databases.Why it is effective: The "spot the difference" puzzle captures student interest, and looking for differences is reinforced throughout. The activity reaches a higher level of thinking in Bloom's Taxonomy as it requires students to compare and analyze in order to create the list of differences, rather than having the instructor provide a predetermined set of evaluative criteria.