An exploration of shared services types in higher education

The emerging global Higher Education (HE) market challenges all universities to reconsider their mission, in order to function effectively and efficiently, and to be responsive to changing marketplace demands. Universities are considering cooperating or sharing in a wide range of areas, in order to achieve sought after cost savings and improvements in performance.Studies suggest that a wide range of services could potentially be shared across Higher Education Institutions (HEIs),offering several potential benefits. While there are many individual documented examples of how shared services have been applied in the Higher Education sector, there has been little synthesis, conceptualization or discussion (in general or in the HE sector) around the different types of possible shared services options and how they are structured. A deeper understanding of potential types of sharing arrangements will be of value to those universities considering shared services, implementing shared services, and managing shared services. Through analysis of 36 documented case studies of shared services in HE, this study sought to synthesize a typology of sharing arrangements. An inductive approach was used to identify the core differentiating dimensions. The findings present eight types of sharing arrangements that occur in the HE sector, with descriptions and examples from the case studies observed.

Contribution of take-out food consumption to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake : a mediation analysis

Lower fruit and vegetable intake among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups has been well documented, and may be a consequence of a higher consumption of take-out foods. This study examined whether, and to what extent, take-out food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and fruit and vegetable intake. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged 25–64 years in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (response rate = 63.7%, N = 903). A food frequency questionnaire assessed usual daily servings of fruits and vegetables (0 to 6), overall take-out consumption (times/week) and the consumption of 22 specific take-out items (never to ≥once/day). These specific take-out items were grouped into “less healthy” and “healthy” choices and indices were created for each type of choice (0 to 100). Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education. The analyses were performed using linear regression, and a bootstrap re-sampling approach estimated the statistical significance of the mediated effects. Mean daily serves of fruits and vegetables was 1.89 (SD 1.05) and 2.47 (SD 1.12) respectively. The least educated group were more likely to consume fewer serves of fruit (B= –0.39, p<0.001) and vegetables (B= –0.43, p<0.001) compared with the highest educated. The consumption of “less healthy” take-out food partly explained (mediated) education differences in fruit and vegetable intake; however, no mediating effects were observed for overall and “healthy” take-out consumption. Regular consumption of “less healthy” take-out items may contribute to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake, possibly by displacing these foods.

Knowledge and attitudes of paediatric nurses related to breastfeeding

Introduction: Almost 90% of Australian mothers are exclusively breastfeeding when they discharge from maternity hospitals but by six months of age breastfeeding infants have reduced to 32% nationally and 19% in Queensland, far below the national target of 80%. Many factors influence the choice to breastfeed, including health care provision, therefore the knowledge and attitudes of paediatric nurses have the potential to affect breastfeeding duration. Aims: To assess current breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes of paediatric nurses in metropolitan and regional Queensland settings. Method: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. The tool was developed from several documented health professional questionnaires about breastfeeding, with permission from authors. Survey items relating breastfeeding physiology, factors relating to breastfeeding success, and local, national and international policies were also included. Ethics approval was granted from the appropriate Ethics Committees to conduct the survey through tertiary metropolitan and regional hospital settings. Results: A total of 241 surveys were returned, achieving a response rate of 53%. Nurses acknowledged breastmilk as the best source of nutrition for infants (99%, n=238) and that mothers should be encouraged to breastfeed (92%, n=221). However, many respondents considered infant formula a nutritional equivalent (44%, n=105) and (47%, n=113) were unaware that supplemental formulas interfered with successful breastfeeding. Most nurses recognised that stress (e.g. infant hospitalisation) impacts on the success of breastfeeding (90%, n=216). Knowledge of breastfeeding anatomy and physiology was poor and a substantial number of nurses did not identify correct attachment in response to two diagrammatic representations (76%, n=183 and 45%, n=109). Survey results demonstrated deficiencies in knowledge that would impact on support provided to breastfeeding mothers. Knowledge deficits were also identified relating to local, national and international policies and protocols concerning breastfeeding and breastmilk substitutes. Conclusion: Breastfeeding knowledge and attitudes were exceptional in areas related to general breastfeeding knowledge. However, in areas directly related to nursing practice, considerable deficits in paediatric nurses' knowledge and attitudes were identified. Lack of appropriate skills, knowledge and varying attitudes amongst paediatric nurses has the potential to negatively impact on the education, advice and support provided to breastfeeding mothers and their families whilst their infant is in hospital. These study findings will guide future research and strategies to improve knowledge and policy statements to assist paediatric nurses in fulfilling their role.

Health Librarianship Workforce and Education : Research to plan the future. Final Report.

In late 2009, Health Libraries Australia (HLA) received a small grant to undertake a national research project to determine the future requirements for health librarians in the workforce in Australia and develop a structured, modular education framework (post-graduate qualification and continuing professional development structure) to meet these requirements. The main objective was to consider the education and professional development framework that would ensure that health librarians have a clearly defined scope of practice and the specific competency based knowledge and skills that enable them to contribute to the design and delivery of high quality health services in this country. The final report presents a detailed discussion of the changing Australian healthcare environment and the resulting impact on the health library sector, as well as an overview of international trends in health libraries and the implications for Australian health librarianship education. The research methodology is outlined, followed by an analysis of the findings from the two surveys with health librarians and health library managers and the semi-structured interviews conducted with employers. The Medical Library Association (MLA) in the United States had developed a policy document detailing the competencies required by health librarians. It was found that the MLA competencies represented an accepted professional framework of skills which could be used objectively in the survey instrument to measure the areas of professional knowledge and responsibilities that were relevant in the current workplace, and to identify how these requirements might change in the next three to five years. The research results underscore the imperative for health librarians to engage in regular, relevant professional development activities that will enable them to stay abreast with the rapid contextual changes impacting on their practice. In order to be accepted as key members of the multi-disciplinary health professional team, it is strongly believed that health librarians should commit to establishing the mechanisms for specialist certification maintained through compulsory CPD in an ongoing three-year cycle of revalidation. This development would align ALIA and health librarians with other health sector professional associations which are responsible for the self regulation of entry to and continuation in their profession.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Hilary Hughes.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Lyn Hay.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Roy Crotty.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Mary Anne Kennan.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Huan Vo-Tran.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice ALTC Fellowship Report

This ALTC Teaching Fellowship aimed to establish Guiding Principles for Library and Information Science Education 2.0. The aim was achieved by (i) identifying the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of web 2.0 (and beyond), (ii) establishing the current state of LIS education in Australia in supporting the development of librarian 2.0, and in doing so, identify models of best practice. The fellowship has contributed to curriculum renewal in the LIS profession. It has helped to ensure that LIS education in Australia continues to meet the changing skills and knowledge requirements of the profession it supports. It has also provided a vehicle through which LIS professionals and LIS educators may find opportunities for greater collaboration and more open communication. This will help bridge the gap between LIS theory and practice and will foster more authentic engagement between LIS education and other parts of the LIS industry in the education of the next generation of professionals. Through this fellowship the LIS discipline has become a role model for other disciplines who will be facing similar issues in the coming years. Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups exploring the current and anticipated skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in the web 2.0 world and beyond. Whilst each focus group tended to draw on specific themes of interest to that particular group of people, there was a great deal of common ground. Eight key themes emerged: technology, learning and education, research or evidence-based practice, communication, collaboration and team work, user focus, business savvy and personal traits. It was acknowledged that the need for successful LIS professionals to possess transferable skills and interpersonal attributes was not new. It was noted however that the speed with which things are changing in the web 2.0 world was having a significant impact and that this faster pace is placing a new and unexpected emphasis on the transferable skills and knowledge. It was also acknowledged that all librarians need to possess these skills, knowledge and attributes and not just the one or two role models who lead the way. The most interesting finding however was that web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 represented a ‘watershed’ for the LIS profession. Almost all the focus groups spoke about how they are seeing and experiencing a culture change in the profession. Librarian 2.0 requires a ‘different mindset or attitude’. The Levels of Perspective model by Daniel Kim provides one lens by which to view this finding. The focus group findings suggest that we are witnessing a re-awaking of the Australian LIS profession as it begins to move towards the higher levels of Kim’s model (ie mental models, vision). Thirty-six LIS educators participated in telephone interviews aimed at exploring the current state of LIS education in supporting the development of librarian 2.0. Skills and knowledge of LIS professionals in a web 2.0 world that were identified and discussed by the LIS educators mirrored those highlighted in the focus group discussions with LIS professionals. Similarly it was noted that librarian 2.0 needed a focus less on skills and knowledge and more on attitude. However, whilst LIS professionals felt that there was a paradigm shift within the profession. LIS educators did not speak with one voice on this matter with quite a number of the educators suggesting that this might be ‘overstating it a bit’. This study provides evidence for “disparate viewpoints” (Hallam, 2007) between LIS educators and LIS professionals that can have a significant implications for the future of not just LIS professional education specifically but for the profession generally. Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice 1 Inviting the LIS academics to discuss how their teaching and learning activities support the development of librarian 2.0 was a core part of the interviews conducted. The strategies used and the challenges faced by LIS educators in developing their teaching and learning approaches to support the formation of librarian 2.0 are identified and discussed. A core part of the fellowship was the identification of best practice examples on how LIS educators were developing librarian 2.0. Twelve best practice examples were identified. Each educator was recorded discussing his or her approach to teaching and learning. Videos of these interviews are available via the Fellowship blog at .The LIS educators involved in making the videos felt uncomfortable with the term ‘best practice’. Many acknowledged that there simply seeking to do the best by their students and that there was always room for improvement. For this reason these videos are offered as examples of “great practice”. The videos are a tool for other educators to use, regardless of discipline, in developing their teaching and learning approaches to supporting web 2.0 professionals. It has been argued that the main purpose of professional education is transformation (Dall’ Alba, 2009; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). As such professional education should focus not just on skills and knowledge acquisition but also on helping students to develop ways of being the professionals in question (ie LIS professionals, teachers, lawyers, engineers).The aim of this fellowship was to establish Guidelines for Library and Information Science Education 2.0 it has however become apparent that at this point in time it is not yet possible to fulfil this aim. The fellowship has clearly identified skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in web 2.0 world (and beyond). It has also identified examples of ‘great practice’ by LIS educators as they endeavour to develop LIS professionals who will be successful in a web 20 world. The fellowship however has also shown that the LIS profession is currently undergoing significant attitudinal and conceptual change. Consequently, before a philosophy of LIS education 2.0 can be expressed, the Australian LIS profession must first explore and articulate what it means to be an LIS professional in the 21st century (ie a world of web 2.0 and beyond). In short, the LIS profession in Australia must take stock not of “what we know and can do” but on “who we are becoming” (Dall’Alba, 2009, p 34).

Multiculturalism, education for sustainable development (ESD) and the shifting discursive landscape of social inclusion

Australia has a long and sometimes turbulent relationship with the migrant Other. This paper examines a component of this relationship via the window of contemporary multicultural policy. The paper begins with an analysis of the political and social conditions that enabled a national and bipartisan policy of multiculturalism to emerge as formalised federal policy during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The paper re-problematises the influences that helped shape Australia's articulation of race and ethnicity and argues that multiculturalism, within a post-September 11 environment, can no longer be framed solely within its traditional framework of social justice. The paper positions education for sustainable development (ESD) as an emerging discursive field that provides educators with an alternative road map for critiquing Australia's fluid relationship with the migrant Other. By linking the tenets of multiculturalism with ESD, this paper suggests pre-service teacher educators are presented with a productive, and at the same time politically palatable, means for regaining pedagogical traction for a semi-dormant agenda of social inclusion.

Responding to rapid change in higher education : enabling university departments responsible for work related programs through boundary spanning

Boundary spanning links organisations to one another in order to create mutually beneficial relationships; it is a concept developed and used in organisational theory but rarely used to understand organisational structures in higher education (Pruitt & Schwartz, 1999). Yet understanding boundary spanning activity has the capacity to help universities respond to demands for continuous quality improvement, and to increase capacity to react to environmental uncertainty. At a time of rapid change characterised by a fluctuating economic environment, globalisation, increased mobility, and ecological issues, boundary spanning could be viewed as a key element in assisting institutions in effectively understanding and responding to such change. The literature suggests that effective boundary spanning could help universities improve organisational performance, use of infrastructure and resources, intergroup relations, leadership styles, performance and levels of job satisfaction, technology transfer, knowledge creation, and feedback processes, amongst other things. Our research aims to put a face on boundary spanning (Miller, 2008) by contextualising it within organisational systems and structures in university departments responsible for work related programs i.e. Work Integrated Learning (WIL) and Co-operative Education (Co-op). In this paper these approaches are referred to collectively as work related programs. The authors formed a research team in Victoria, British Columbia in 2009 at a sponsored international research forum, Two Days in June. The purpose of the invitation-only forum was to investigate commonalities and differences across programs and to formulate an international research agenda for work related programs over the next five to ten years. Researchers from Queensland University of Technology, University of Cincinnati, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University, University of Ottawa,and Dublin City University agreed that further research was needed into the impact stakeholders, organisational systems, structures, policies, and practices have on departments delivering work related programs. This paper illustrates how policy and practice across the five institutions can be better understood through the lens of boundary spanning. It is argued that boundary spanning is an area of theory and practice with great applicability to a better understanding of the activity of these departments. The paper concludes by proposing topics for future research to examine how boundary spanning can be used to better understand practice and change in work related programs.