Introduction

The University of Sheffield opened a new undergraduate study facility called the Information Commons (IC) in 2007, which was to be jointly run by library and computer service staff (the latter are referred to as CiCS: the Corporate Information and Computer Service department). The author of this dissertation was appointed as a weekend customer service coordinator at the IC, having worked in the University Library for two years previously. This study will explicate the author’s interpretation of the interactions and behaviour of the staff of the IC using ethnographic methods.

1.1 Motivation

This dissertation is motivated partly by a significant gap in the literature, and partly by the author’s early experiences in the IC. There is a great deal written about converged library and computer services. Some of it concerns the motivations for convergence (Brewer, 2003), some of it concerns the optimum organisational or structural decisions concerning converged services (Collier, 1996), some it concerns the technical challenges presented by converged services (from a staffing point of view (Sutton, 2000a) or from an technical infrastructure point of view (Brindley, 1988)), and yet more of it concerns models of best practice for converged services (Field, 2001). However, none of it describes the working differences between these groups from the uniquely powerful, proximate and highly interpretive point of view that an ethnography can offer. There are comparisons of the ‘culture’ of library and computer service staff (for example, Garten and Williams, 2000), but these mostly use what Barley would call ‘ideal-type images’ of these professions (Barley, 1996), without showing how the characterisations of these groups were arrived at. Thus, a study is called for which records, analyses and compares what library and computer service staff actually do whilst at work.

The other motivation was the author’s observation of a divide between the library and computer service staff in the IC. From the opening of this new facility, key differences struck the author in the ways that CiCS and Library staff approached various tasks, behaved towards colleagues and dealt with queries. It is important to note that this motivation concerns the author’s own interpretation of events that he witnessed, and thus, from its genesis, this dissertation had the author’s construal of events that he was part of at its core, which is a hallmark of ethnographic research. So, the fact that the literature lacked an ethnographic study of a converged service, and the fact that the original idea for this study was of a distinctly ethnographic nature, conspired to define ethnography as the methodology and fundamental theme in this dissertation.

1.2 Structural Overview

Ethnography is a method that emphasises the holistic nature of the research process, and so as is discussed below, any linear representation of what this study involved will be to some extent artificial. However, for the sake of clarity, this dissertation will be divided into sections and structured so as to honestly reflect the way that this project progressed, and to constantly reinforce the important place of ethnographic principles in this research. Since ethnographic principles form the basis of the two key motivations behind this dissertation, it will begin with an explanation of what ethnography is, from both a theoretical perspective, and in terms of what it practically involves. Some pertinent examples of ethnographies are introduced and the reasons for the use of this method are then reiterated and expanded. Ethical and epistemic issues raised by the way this research was conducted are then discussed, and the research procedure is detailed.

This thorough introduction to the relevant methodology is followed by a narrative account of the observations taken during the field work stage of the research. A selection of relevant resources that were then gathered and used to analyse and provide a theoretical framework through which to discuss these findings is then introduced. The Discussion section brings together the relevant literature and the findings, and these three sections (the Findings, the Theoretical Literature and the Discussion of Findings) can be seen as the ‘write-up’ stage of this ethnography, and should not be viewed as genuinely independent from one another because each relies for its contents on others. The degree to which ethnographic methods were used successfully will then be discussed, and this section will lead into conclusions as to the success of the dissertation as a whole and some recommendations for further study.

1.3 Aims and Objectives

The central aim of this dissertation is to conduct an ethnography of the staff of the Information Commons. The brief nature of this aim is not an attempt to reduce expectations as to what can be achieved by this dissertation, but rather, a reflection of the degree to which a genuine ethnography should be conducted by a researcher who is entirely disponible, or available to whatever findings may present themselves during the process of research and the writing up of that research. However, although it may be inconsistent with a purist reading of the principles of ethnography to present other, more detailed research objectives early in the study, several key areas of interest did present themselves to the author before any formal observations began. ‘Expertise’ was identified as a key differentiating concept within the IC, and so the way the staff demonstrate their expertise is something that was examined in detail. In addition, the fact that two historically separate occupational groups were working within the same physical space on essentially the same tasks suggested the relevance of Andrew Abbott’s model of professional conflict, and so this dissertation can also be seen as an attempt to identify how task jurisdiction within the IC has been divided between CiCS and Library staff. The objectives of this study are summarised below.

1.3.1 Objectives:

• To conduct an honest and methodologically sound ethnography of the staff of the Information Commons

• To explore the extent to which expertise is demonstrated differently by library and computer service technicians

• To identify the nature of the jurisdictional settlement in the Information Commons