Note: the comments in square brackets below indicate the sources
which provided the basis or inspiration for the questions - these
were not communicated to the interviewees unless they enquired
about them. The interviews were all performed face-to-face, with
the interviewers reading out the questions (unless interviewees
requested to read a question themselves).
- What do you understand by the term 'cultural change' in the
eLib context? To what extent and for whom do you think eLib should
be effecting cultural change? What's the point?
- The main stated aim of eLib is "to engage the HE community
in developing and shaping the implementation of the electronic
library" [from the programme info pack], with one of the
chief sub-aims being "cultural - in terms of shifts in attitudes
and skills among librarians and their user communities" [Policy
Mapping doc, p. 15]. Is this aim being fulfilled, in your opinion?
- (Looking at our list of causal factors for cultural change)
- which of these factors, and/or which others, are important in
causing cultural change in the eLib context?
- (Looking at our revised draft model) - where do you think
eLib is, and isn't, having an effect within this framework? Where
should it be making a difference? Do you think there are any effects
which you would call 'cultural change' which are missing from
this model?
- What (if any) cultural change do you think would be happening
anyway, without eLib?
- To what extent do you think eLib-type initiatives can succeed
in effecting cultural change without other parallel changes in
the organisational context within which people work? What context
changes would you expect/recommend? Which ones do you think are
actually happening in HE (with or without eLib)? [Policy Mapping
doc, p.3]
- Do you think any factors in the way that eLib is managed by
JISC, and/or JISC's relationship with HEFC and with HE institutions,
make a difference to eLib's cultural change impact? [Policy Mapping
doc, p.4]
- The 'Let a hundred flowers bloom' policy of eLib, as opposed
to US DLI projects, was supposed to help the whole of HE to get
involved in learning and so-called 'mobilisation' (including cultural
change). Do you think it's actually been more effective than the
US model? Were and are there any other possible models? [Policy
mapping doc, p.8]
- Which specific programme areas or projects, to your knowledge,
seem to be making a difference regarding cultural change? Why
are they? [Eval framework doc]
- How seriously have the eLib projects you know well taken cultural
change within their planning and evaluation activities? If not
very, why not, and what could have helped them to consider it
more carefully? [Eval framework doc]
- In the projects you know well, what strategy (if any) has
been followed for achieving cultural change? [Call for Proposals
for Supporting Study]
- Does the collaboration between institutions with different
cultures & expectations help or hinder effective cultural
change within them? [JK's Ariadne interview]
- Does technical 'failure' of a project make it harder for it
to cause any useful cultural change? [JK's Ariadne interview]
- Do you feel that linkage with other, non-eLib-funded, projects
or developments has made a difference to the 'cultural' impact
of any of the projects you know well? In what way(s)? [Policy
Mapping doc, p. 40]
- Looking at the eLib projects you are familiar with, can you
think of some examples of other major innovations which were taking
place, which an eLib project did/didn't take account of? (e.g.
the WWW, or other relevant innovations) What do you think could
be done in future programmes to encourage projects to keep up
with relevant and potentially useful innovations like this? [Policy
Mapping doc, p. 40]
- How do you see the link between dissemination, which has been
discussed a lot lately on lis-elib, and cultural change? Is one
largely external and the other internal within institutions, or
can they overlap so that one encourages the other? [lis-elib]
- The Tavistock [Policy Mapping doc, p. 21] suggests that collaboration
under the consortium structure encourages links between HE institutions,
but "it also appears that some projects will be limited in
their ability to exercise leverage upon their own institutions".
They go on to say that projects don't seem to aim at the wider
Follett objectives or feed into their institutions' information
strategy (required by HEFC from each HEI). Is this true for the
projects you know well? What's missing? (Tavistock blame small
sizes and brevity of projects, partly)
- It's been suggested [Policy Mapping doc, pp 42-3] that the
Training and Awareness activities should be more closely linked
to specific programme areas/projects, rather than running separately.
What do you think?
- A suggestion for future projects, made by the Tavistock [Policy
Mapping doc, p.42] is to put central funding into a few 'Institutional
Change Projects'. They envisage a project where 'root and branch'
organisational change is undertaken right through a single HEI,
to fit its teaching, learning, research and information supply
around electronic resources. Can you see this working? Any examples
of institutions already radically restructuring like this? Alternatively,
the Tavistock suggest a similar exercise across a discipline,
again with central funding since everyone would learn from the
experience of these 'pioneers' - could this work?
- What other suggestions would you offer for the future, for
making the HE culture change to maximise the effectiveness of
electronic resource developments like eLib?
Back to contents
Previous section: References
[ Top of Page ]
- [ Up ]
The Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) was funded
by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
Page version: 1;
Web page maintained by
UKOLN Systems Team
and hosted by
UKOLN
- feedback to
systems@ukoln.ac.uk
.
Site last revised on: Tuesday, 24-Nov-1998 14:21:08 UTC
DC Metadata