Stakeholder Co-creation in Academic Library Knowledge-Service Model Development: A Multi-stage Qualitative Case Study in China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/d4d9vp85Keywords:
Academic Library, Knowledge Services, Stakeholder Engagement, Co-creation, Co-design, Organizational Capacity, Qualitative Case StudyAbstract
Academic libraries increasingly combine learning support, research assistance, and specialized information services, but the route from user demand to a workable service model is seldom documented. This article revisits the development of the knowledge-service model at the Library of North China University of Science and Technology (NCUST) to examine that route. The underlying doctoral study assembled evidence in five stages: an internal diagnosis, comparison with three provincial university libraries, a first round of stakeholder interviews, revision and a second interview round, and final version comparison. Seventeen purposively selected participants - six librarians, four faculty members, and seven students - took part. Rather than re-code the original interview transcripts, the present analysis follows documented changes across model versions and compares how stakeholder groups assessed value and feasibility. The first interview round did more than alter service labels: it led to the addition of an operating-process module and a supporting-elements module. Resource sharing was moved from the service list to the enabling layer, reading promotion was added to learning support, and capacity constraints changed how scientific novelty-search and research-topic tracking were positioned for implementation. These changes support a constrained co-creation account in which needs are expressed and negotiated, translated into professional terms, screened against organizational capacity, and then configured and revalidated. The findings show that stakeholder participation can shape model architecture, while staffing, qualifications, resources, platforms, and institutional priorities set practical limits. The study concerns model development rather than post-implementation effectiveness.
Downloads
References
[1] Harland, F., Stewart, G., & Bruce, C. (2019). Leading the academic library in strategic engagement with stakeholders: A constructivist grounded theory. College & Research Libraries, 80(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.3.319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.3.319
[2] Appleton, L. (2020). Academic libraries and student engagement: A literature review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 26(2 4), 189–213. https://doi.org/10. 1080/ 13614533. 2020.1784762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1784762
[3] Halliday, K., Courage, K., Matthews, C., & Globerson, N. (2024). Decolonising and diversifying the library through student partnerships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 30(2 3), 153–167. https://doi.org/10. 1080/ 13614533. 2023. 2287470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2023.2287470
[4] Appleton, L. (2018). Qualitative methods for engaging students in performance measurement. Information and Learning Sciences, 119(1 2), 64–76. https://doi.org/10. 1108/ ILS 09 2017 0093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-09-2017-0093
[5] Haddow, G., & Mamtora, J. (2017). Research support in Australian academic libraries: Services, resources, and relationships. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 23(2 3), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1318765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2017.1318765
[6] Howlett, A., Colla, E., & Joyce, R. (2024). Toward redefining library research support services in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: An evidence based practice approach. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 30(1), 24–51. https://doi. org/ 10.1080/13614533.2024.2306360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2024.2306360
[7] Otike, F., Barát, Á. H., & Kiszl, P. (2022). Innovation strategies in academic libraries using business entrepreneurial theories: Analysis of competing values framework and disruptive innovation theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 102537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102537
[8] Harland, F., Stewart, G., & Bruce, C. (2018). Aligning library and university strategic directions: A constructivist grounded theory study of academic library leadership in Australia and the U.S.A. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 24(3 4), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2018.1498797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2018.1498797
[9] Seale, M., Hicks, A., & Nicholson, K. P. (2022). Toward a critical turn in library UX. College & Research Libraries, 83(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.1.6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.1.6
[10] Cox, A. (2023). Factors shaping future use and design of academic library space. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 29(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 1361 4533. 2022.2039244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2039244
[11] Zhang, H. (2025). Development of knowledge services model for North China University of Science and Technology Library [Doctoral dissertation]. St. Paul University Manila, Philippines.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

