Author Archives: vew908

Preparing for a Study/Research/Sabbatical Leave

Posted on by

by Marjorie Mitchell
Librarian, Learning and Research Services
UBC Okanagan Library

Ah, sabbatical. The term can conjure up many images to many people. Maybe yours is a vision of a quiet office at home with the whole day ahead to read some scholarly articles, wrestle with the mound of data you’ve been meaning to get to for months, and, perhaps, to write. Maybe you have plans to travel and present at a number of conferences. Maybe you want to spend some quality time with your collaborator and put the finishing touches on a project you’ve worked on for the better part of the past two years. Whatever your ideal there is a certain amount of planning that needs to take place before it can happen.

I am on the cusp of my leave. At my institution, the University of British Columbia, it is called Study Leave and it “permits a member of faculty to pursue study or research, of benefit to the individual and the University…” (UBC/UBCFA, 2014). Planning has taken most of a year and had some unexpected twists and turns. I outline here some of the steps I took and hope it assists others planning their leaves. Different people will have different requirements and different goals. This only reflects my experience.

My first step to securing leave was a conversation with my supervisor. This discussion had the dual purpose of notifying my supervisor I was thinking seriously about this request, but also of testing the waters with them. Would they be supportive of my request? Was this a good time, institutionally, for me to take leave, or could we negotiate a time that would be better? Was the topic I wanted to investigate one that not only interested me but one that would have benefit to the University when I returned? This wasn’t the only conversation, but it started the process in a very systematic way. It also started to identify the long (much, much longer) list of questions I would work through over the year.

Planning covered the logistical requirements of being away from not only the workplace, but also leaving the country for a year, as well as beginning to develop the intended intellectual content of the leave (the real work of the leave). There were a few areas where these meld together, but, for the most part they occupied different streams of planning.

Many people work at institutions where librarians have a long and established history of taking sabbatical or study leaves, and, because of this, the procedure is, if not clearer and simpler, then at least documented and standardized. My institution is 10 years old, and I am only the second librarian to take a leave, and the first librarian to take a 12 month leave in a completely different location. Because of this institutional youthfulness, it took effort to find the required forms, to determine whether I was completing them thoroughly enough, to track down the written confirmation of my leave (verbal confirmation arrived quite speedily), and to gather all the information I needed for the academic visitor visa application.

On the intellectual content side of this equation my topic was clear to me right from the start: research data management. Here in Canada, libraries have been working on research data management supports for faculty and the intensity of the conversations on this topic have only been increasing. Libraries in the UK have been supporting their researchers systematically for some time because a number of their grant funding bodies have made research data management a condition to be met by researchers receiving funding. So not only did I have a topic (Research Data Management), but also a location (the UK).

In preparation to delve more deeply into this I took two steps that laid a solid groundwork for my leave. The first was to attend the Canadian Association of Research Libraries Librarians’ Research Institute in late June. The Institute gathers 28 participants and five mentors for a focused and intense look at doing the work of research from developing a research problem through methods, theory, data, writing and, finally, dissemination. I now have a set of great tools along with a supportive group of peers as I head into my leave. The second step I took was to contact librarians at my destination who have already been researching aspects of my topic to arrange for one-on-one meetings with them. All the people I approached responded positively and I am looking forward to some interesting and informed conversations after I get to the UK.

The kernels of wisdom I hope you take away are to start planning early, be persistent and patient in equal measures, and develop a network of people outside of your workplace to sustain your momentum. I’m looking forward to a wonderful research adventure this year.

References

University of British Columbia & The Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia. (2014). Collective agreement between the University of British Columbia and the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia, July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Writing for Scholarly Publication: How I Learned to Relax and Accept the “Singular They”

Posted on by

by David Fox
Librarian Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan

I’m old-fashioned. I was taught that pronouns and their antecedents should agree. Sentences like “James Keelaghan updated their Facebook status” drive me crazy. And so, until recently, I disdained the practice in the popular media and everyday speech of using the pronoun “they” (and its variants: their, them, themselves), to refer to a single individual, wherever that person’s sex is indeterminate. As an editor at Partnership, I assiduously stamped out any and all instances of this usage in the belief that it is not appropriate in academic writing. However, lately I’ve come to accept that use of the “singular they”, as it’s known in the grammatical literature, is okay in certain circumstances – mostly when there’s no other better option.

This year, Sweden officially adopted the pronoun “hen” as an alternative to “han” (he) or “hon” (she) for use in contexts where a person’s gender is unknown or immaterial (Sweden…). Unfortunately, there is no gender-neutral third person singular pronoun in English. Recognition of the need for such a pronoun is nothing new. Over the years, a multitude of alternative pronouns have been suggested (Gender…), but none have received widespread acceptance.

To our grandparents’ generation, the accepted generic singular pronoun was “he”. Also in our grandparents’ day, married women were often referred to by their husband’s name, e.g., Mrs. Edward Humdihoodle. Today both of these practices seem quaint and sexist – the feminist movement has rendered them obsolete. Adding to the pressure for a gender-neutral pronoun is the tricky question of how to refer to persons undergoing gender transition. Such individuals would likely appreciate the availability of a gender-neutral pronoun.

So what is the alternative to using “he” as the default third person singular pronoun? Using “he or she” is awkward. Some have suggested alternating between “he” and “she”. For librarianship, nursing, and other occupations where the large majority of practitioners are female, the argument could be made that, on purely statistical grounds, the default singular pronoun should be “she”. None of these solutions seems ideal. Consider also the following sentences where neither “his” nor “her” is appropriate:

I support the right of every mother or father to educate her children as she desires.

Is it your brother or your sister who can hold his breath for four minutes?
(adapted from Pinker 257)

This brings us to consideration of the singular they. Christine Neilson, in her February 2015 Brain-Work post, recommended Steven Pinker’s book: The Sense of Style: the Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. It’s not the sort of book you can sit down and read from cover to cover, but it contains much common sense advice for the modern writer. Pinker challenges traditional thinking and practice on a number of grammatical issues, always with thoroughly reasoned and frequently witty arguments. Pinker points out that the singular they has a long history and was used by Shakespeare, Austen, Chaucer, the King James Bible, Swift, Byron, Thackery, Wharton, Shaw, and Auden (258).

The singular they seems most natural when used with non-specific antecedents such as “no ____”, “any ____”, someone, “anyone”, “everyone”, etc. Pinker gives an example from a 2013 press release by U.S. President Obama: “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like” (255).

A singular they/their would also resolve the gender conflict in the sentences quoted above:

I support the right of every mother or father to educate their children as they desire.

Is it your brother or your sister who can hold their breath for four minutes?

Achieving Pronoun/Antecedent Agreement
If you know the subject’s gender, then use the appropriate pronoun. Write “The bride addressed her wedding party” rather than “The bride addressed their wedding party.”

If you can make the pronoun and its antecedent agree by making the antecedent plural, without significantly altering the meaning of the sentence, then do so:

While the chief librarian advocates for the library, they can also often see more clearly, and with less bias, the larger university picture.

would become:

While chief librarians advocate for the library, they can also often see more clearly, and with less bias, the larger university picture.

If all else fails, it’s acceptable to use a singular they now and then, but don’t overdo it. While not ideal, until the English equivalent of “hen” emerges, I suspect that use of the singular they will become increasingly widespread and may eventually become more common in academic writing. Pinker says, “The main danger in using these forms [of the singular they] is that a more-grammatical-than-thou reader may falsely accuse you of making an error. If they do, tell them that Jane Austen and I think it’s fine” (261).

Works Cited
Pinker, Steven. The Sense of Style: the Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Viking, 2014. Print.

“Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns

“Sweden adds gender-neutral pronoun to dictionary.” Theguardian 24 March 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/sweden-adds-gender-neutral-pronoun-to-dictionary

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Action Research: Keeping Research Real and Relevant to Practice

Posted on by

by Karim Tharani
Library Systems & Information Technology, University of Saskatchewan

I recently took an online course on Research Methods as part of my postgraduate studies in educational technology. I was delighted to discover the title of the required text for the course: Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry! At that moment I remember thinking that I might finally be able to make some headway in making evidence-based inquiry real and relevant to my profession as an academic librarian. Allow me to elaborate. As a member of the C-EBLIP, I have been on an on-going quest to internalize the notion of evidence-based research and practice to the extent that when asked, I should be able to explain it unhesitatingly based on my own experience, and not just by repeating someone else’s definition. Now being a member of the C-EBLIP for couple of years, I feel a bit embarrassed to still be on this quest, but at moments like these, I typically seek comfort in aspirational and motivational sayings such as: It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all, in which case you have failed by default (J.K. Rowling).

Education and librarianship are both practice-based professions where the tradition of research to inform practice is relatively new. In my opinion this dual responsibility of being practitioner-researchers makes us more open to finding new ways of researching and transcending the traditional and binary world of qualitative and quantitative research. And as I have learned in this course that the notion of evidence-based inquiry is a fundamental enabler for practitioner-researchers to continue to inform their practice through innovative research approaches:

The term evidence-based does not refer to ritualization and using narrow forms of investigation, nor does it necessarily refer to following formal procedures. A study is evidence-based when investigators have anticipated the traditional questions that are pertinent and instituted techniques to avoid bias at each step of data collection and reasoning. (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010)

It was not until I learned about the concept of action research in this course that I truly started connecting the dots and questioning why and how I do research. I also realized that my initial understanding of research (as an intellectual exercise that is undertaken to identify, investigate, and analyze issues that matter to as many people as possible) was very narrow. With action research, it seems possible for me to integrate my research and practice as a practitioner-researcher within the profession of academic librarianship.

[A]ction research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their communities. (Reason & Bradbury, 2010)

Personally, the notion of action research came as a great relief to me as a practitioner-researcher. Since I am more comfortable working on projects to resolve practical issues, I find the notion of action research to be more compatible with the principle of evidence-based inquiry. The action research paradigm also embraces local context as a perfectly valid and acceptable setting for research as long as the underlying research design is valid. In other words, I can focus on the impact of my research on a single community, organization or department without the burden of justifying my research’s applicability or extensibility to other more broader or generic contexts. And last but not least, I find that action research welcomes research collaborations and partnerships, which I greatly appreciate.

While, my quest may not be over yet, this course has helped me internalize the notion of evidence-based inquiry. I remain curious about how others have come to apply the notion of evidence-based inquiry in their research and practice. This is where you (the readers of this blog) come in. Yes, you! The Brain-Work blog is a way for us to learn from each other, so please drop in a line or two and share your thoughts on this or other ideas with your fellow practitioner-researchers. 🙂

References
Rowling, J.K. (n.d.) In Famous Quotes and Quotations at BrainyQuote. Retrieved from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/j_k_rowling.html

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Assessment and evidence based library and information practice

Posted on by

by Lorie Kloda
Assessment Librarian, McGill University

I have held the position of Assessment Librarian for almost three years, and been involved in the evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) movement for over a decade. Since taking on this position, I have been trying to make sense of EBLIP in my job – trying to understand how these two concepts complement each other, overlap, or even contradict one another.

In a 2006 article, “EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes?” Pam Ryan, then the Assessment Librarian at the University of Alberta, asked the question regarding assessment and EBLIP, “Are these separate movements within librarianship forming theoretical bridges? Is some sort of merger, fusion, or takeover in the future?” It’s almost 10 years later, and I think this question still remains unanswered. I think that part of the answer lies in the way in which assessment and EBLIP relate to one another, not just on a theoretical level, but on a practical level.

In my work, I see assessment as having two (not mutually exclusive) goals: one, to inform decision-making for quality improvement to anticipate and meet users’ needs, and two, to demonstrate impact or value. There are, however, some occasions (OK, there are a lot of occasions) when one cannot conduct assessment. Hurdles to assessment include a lack of time, data, resource, experience, and skills. In cases where one cannot conduct assessment, whatever the reason, one can make use of evidence: credible, transferable findings from published research, to inform decision making.

One of the roles of an assessment librarian, or really, any librarian working in assessment and evaluation, is to foster a culture of assessment in the organization in which they work. According to Lakos and Phipps,

“A culture of assessment is an organizational environment in which decisions are based on facts, research, and analysis, and where services are planned and delivered in ways that maximize positive outcomes for customers and stakeholders.”

I understand the above quote to mean that librarians need research, analysis of local data, and facts in order to plan and make decisions to best serve library users. A culture of assessment, then, is also one that is evidence-based. I find this idea encouraging and I plan to spend some time thinking more about how the steps in EBLIP and assessment overlap. While I think the realm of library and information practice is still far from a takeover or merger when it comes to assessment and EBLIP, I think the two will continue to mingle and hopefully foster a culture which leads to increasingly improved services.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Collaborating for Research – Experiences and Lessons Learnt

Posted on by

by Maha Kumaran
Leslie and Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library, University of Saskatchewan

True collaboration does not happen unless all involved researchers invest time and energy towards every step of the project. Depending on the project, grants may need to be applied for and funding secured, ethics cleared from all required institutions, research assistants interviewed and hired, research participants contacted, interviews or forums set up, survey questionnaire prepared, tested, sent, and data gathered and analyzed, and a literature review conducted. Then the article needs to be written, the journal chosen and seen through the peer-review process, and the order of authors for publication established. Accomplishing all of this takes time, teamwork, communication, and a willingness accept and finish assigned tasks in a timely fashion.

In my most recent project I worked with one collaborator. Our project involved surveying and interviewing internationally educated nurses (IENs) employed at health regions in Saskatchewan. I needed to secure ethics clearance or operational approval from all 13 health regions in the province. My collaborator and I also sought ethics clearance from our own institutions which was a straightforward process. Securing ethics clearance from health regions was a little more complicated and time consuming. In some of the health regions, the contact information for ethics personnel was not clearly stated. In a few health regions, we had to wait for the health region’s board meeting where our ethics clearance request was placed on the agenda. In one case, they did not have time to discuss this at the scheduled board meeting, so we had to wait for the next meeting before we could get clearance. Many reminders had to be sent and finally ethics was cleared over a period of 3 months.

Our project was divided into 2 phases. In phase 1, I learnt to use FluidSurvey to create a survey. We hired a student from the U of S’s Social Sciences Research Laboratories (SSRL) to analyze the survey data. In Phase 2, interviews were set up for IENs with the SSRL researcher. Later we learnt to use NVivo to analyze the interview results.

Once all the research was completed I learnt to use NLM citation format to publish our paper in the journal of our choice. Unfortunately we hadn’t decided on the journal beforehand, so this stage also involved some learning. Throughout our research project, we planned for conference presentations and worked on posters in PowerPoint. This involved learning or re-learning many features of Excel and PowerPoint to create charts, graphs, and tables to present data.

Our project ran over a period of 3 years and this also meant a lot of communication – between collaborators, participants, SSRL, ethics and grant personnel, our journal editor and finance personnel to have our conference expenses reimbursed.

Lessons Learnt:
When seeking a collaborator, remember to find someone who is as invested and significantly engaged in the topic. This will be a huge motivating factor in accomplishing all the required work and seeing the project to finish. Be prepared to invest time and energy towards communications, learning new technologies and skills, writing the article and seeing it through the peer-review process. If collaborators are geographically apart, virtual meetings may need to be set up. Since my collaborator and I were in two different cities, we set up phone, Zoom, and Skype sessions. Initially, we set up agendas and took notes of what needed to be done after each meeting. As time progressed and our work lives got busier we were less industrious about such meetings and tried to accomplish everything through email. There were miscommunications or misunderstandings along the way, but we were both professional and mature enough to get past these hurdles. Be patient and understand that collaborators also have other priorities. There were many occasions when I felt overwhelmed with amount of work involved. On such occasions, I took a short break, made lists, prioritized the work, assigned tasks, and set deadlines.

Collaborative research when done well can be a rich and rewarding experience. Researchers learn to problem solve, gain new knowledge and skills, and ultimately have a strong project published in a high impact journal.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

MOOCs as Professional Development

Posted on by

by Kathleen Reed
Assessment and Data Librarian, Vancouver Island University

With bright sun and shorts weather arriving on the BC coast, my thoughts have turned to summer plans. With fall and winter terms being way too hectic to put much sustained attention to professional development (PD), spring and summer is the time to take a few days and learn new skills.

Aside from the conference circuit and catching up on recent publications, one of my favourite ways to spend PD time is doing massive open online courses (MOOCs). I love MOOCs because 1) they allow me to learn about a wide range of topics, 2) they’re free, and 3) they’re low commitment – if I don’t like the course I just drop it and find another, or only take the part of the course I’m interested in.

For this blog entry, I thought I’d review some free courses relevant to librarians engaged in evidence-based practice.

I Heart Stats: Learning to Love Statistics
edX (Notre Dame)

I’ve searched far and wide for a stats course that doesn’t scare the hell out of me, and this one is it. It’s a very gentle introduction (or refresher) to basic statistical concepts: inferential stats, chi squares, T-tests, ANOVA, regression, and correlation. If any of those words strike fear into your heart, this is the course for you! Taught by a sociology prof, the emphasis is on helping non-math majors get comfortable with basic stats. The only prior knowledge required is how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. This was the first course I ever took where I thought “wow, stats can be fun!”

Social Psychology
Coursera (Wesleyan University)

A psychology course might seem an odd choice for librarian PD at first, but I found this one particularly useful to understand why people do what they do, which has implications for everything from library space design to designing effective assessment activities. Taught by Dr. Scott Plous, this is an engaging introduction to social psych.

Project Management: The Basics for Success
Coursera (University of California, Irvine)

Project management skills are seriously helpful in a library environment. If you’ve never taken a course in project management, consider this one. It’s free and available on-demand (i.e. no start/end dates, no deadlines).

Introduction to Marketing
Coursera (Wharton School of Business, U. of Pennsylvania)

Once you’ve got evidence of good stuff happening in your library, the next step is to communicate your awesomeness to your stakeholders. Good marketing skills really help. Wharton is known for their marketing expertise, so why not learn from the best? This course started June 1.

Psychological First Aid
Coursera (John Hopkins)

Lots of people have training in giving First Aid for physical injuries, but what about people who need immediate psychological assistance? This course doesn’t qualify you as a psychological first responder, but it does give an introduction to the subject.

The five courses above are ones I see a direct, useful connection to my job as an Assessment Librarian. There are plenty of MOOCs out there for people who want to learn about a whole variety of subjects. If you’re looking for a PD opportunity this summer, why not check out a MOOC? My favourite MOOC sites are Coursera, FutureLearn, and edX.

Have you found a great MOOC? Have you tried MOOCs before? What do you do for PD? Please share in the comments below.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers: Limiting Label

Posted on by

by Selinda Berg
Schulich School of Medicine – Windsor Program
Leddy Library, University of Windsor

This is a complementary post to Kristin Hoffmann’s post, Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers: Constructive Concept. Kristin and I are both deeply interested in the development of research culture in academic libraries, and together we have discussed the possibilities of framing academic librarians as practitioner-researchers. We have taken diverging approaches in our posts, but we have many points of convergence as well.

I would like to suggest that the term “practitioner-researcher” has the potential to also be a limiting label. I agree with much of Kristin’s argument: We are both researchers and practitioners and we want to embrace the distinctive knowledge about research and practice that can only come from our unique vantage point. My concern is that this label will not only inform our identity as researchers, but also dictate our image as researchers. It is not only about the way we view ourselves from the inside, but also how we are viewed from the outside. Ultimately, naming is a not only a personal issue, but also a political one.

One of the primary texts on the practitioner-researcher identity is Peter Jarvis’s The Practitioner-Researcher published in 1999. There are multiple examples in Jarvis’s book where the research of professionals and practitioners is presented as second class. One such example is:

[Practitioners] often are not recognized a researchers. They certainly do not have the traditional image of the researcher, and they may not always be in a position to conduct their research in a most satisfactory way, nor do they necessarily meet the stringent demands of some members of the traditional research community. Nevertheless this does not mean that they should not be viewed as practitioner-researchers, because that is what they are. (Jarvis, 1999, p.9)

This description of practitioner research as low quality and sub-standard is disheartening, but not necessarily rare. The library community of researchers to which I belong strives to produce high quality and valuable research. (At the same time, we recognize that there is always lots to learn and ways to grow as a researcher). No researcher wants their output to be viewed as unsatisfactory or low quality, but this may be the reality of how the practitioner-researcher’s work is perceived. It has been suggested that we need to reclaim and redefine the term practitioner-researcher and make it into what we desire. It is likely, however, that we can only reclaim and redefine this term for ourselves. The ways those on the “outside” view the practitioner-researcher will likely be quite different, and I fear that their perceptions will be more aligned with Jarvis than what we desire. This image of practitioner-researcher is limiting and will continue to limit where we, as librarians, are able to take our research.

I would like to provide one concrete example of how this inaccurate view of our research could be limiting—funding. I have heard on three occasions about academic librarians applying for SSHRC[1] grants, and being told (either from within the formal feedback process or from outside of the formal process) that academic librarians should not be applying for these grants, because these grants are “not for them, but for faculty researchers.” I do understand the magnitude and significance of the SSHRC grant. However, if it is not our research itself, but rather our image or even identity, that is precluding us from such opportunities, I see this as deeply problematic. In the future more and more librarians will have the credentials, supports, and research programs that meet SSHRC’s criteria: They should not be limited by their image. While a SSHRC grant may not be of interest to all, these same kinds of limitations may play out in the type of journals we publish in; the conferences we are comfortable at; the institutional funding we have access to; and our overall position in the research community.

I recognize the importance of the interplay between our professional work and our research; yet I also believe that before we embrace the term ‘practitioner-researcher,’ there must be acknowledgement and recognition that labels and naming are not only personal issues, they are also political issues.

Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory from practice. Josey-Bass: San Francisco.
____________________
1. SSHRC: Social Science and Humanities Research Council is Canada’s federal research funding agency that promotes and supports postsecondary-based research and training in the humanities and social sciences.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Change Management: Bring on the Tea!

Posted on by

by Charlene Sorensen
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

I like to think I’m okay with change. The introduction of new and more efficient technical services processes – I’m there. The library needs to put some journals into storage to make room for more student-oriented space – I’ll gladly work on that. Coffee makes my heart race – bring on the tea.

These three changes actually have something crucial in common that allowed me to embrace them – I clearly understood WHY the change was necessary.

I recently learned quite a lot about change during a change management certification course. The methodology was robust and there were many tools available to participants to help us bring about effective change. The most interesting aspect to me was that the methodology focuses on the people side of change. This of course makes perfect sense in hindsight – in order to streamline a workflow, update an IT system, or implement a new service – each person involved needs to change something.

I have had varying degrees of success in trying to effect change in my area of the library over the years. I am hoping to put some new skills into practice in order to have my change efforts produce more successes than failures. Reflecting on this course and some of the work I see in my future, I have decided to focus on a few elements from my learning. I have summarized my thoughts into five areas that I think provide a decent starting point for bringing about more effective change:

There is a human need to know “why”
I think there no worse feeling than being asked to do something differently without knowing the reason behind it. Think about the last time this happened to you. Were you a “good soldier” and participate somewhat grudgingly? Or perhaps you even resisted the change, talking with your colleagues about how little administration actually understands your work? The next time you have some control over how a project (large or small) is implemented, try to be clear about why the change is important and the benefit people will gain by participating. This is a crucial first step to any successful change.

Change management is not a one-size-fits-all approach
Each person you work with will have different skills, knowledge, background, ability, adaptability, resilience, and attitude towards change. So when you are communicating about a change effort and why it is important (see above), remember to talk with people one-on-one to discover their concerns. You won’t know if your message is understood if you just send it by email or share it at group meetings.

Evidence isn’t enough to convince people
You know those times when something just seems so darn logical, or you even have the data in your hands to prove it, but still that change in policy or procedure just doesn’t catch on? At the risk of sounding repetitive, even the most logical change will have a hard time getting implemented unless people understand “why”. It is great to have evidence, but it will not be effective on its own. The awareness of the need for change and the risks of not changing really need to be communicated clearly.

Resistance is normal
Even if you do your best to communicate the need for change and talk with people individually about the change, there may still be resistance. The good news is that resistance is normal. At some point everyone will go through some questioning of the process and this may drain your energy and wonder if this whole thing was really such a great idea anyway… but don’t give up! Your leadership and persistence will bring people along, and for most the resistance will be a brief phase.

Not everyone will get on the bus
Despite your best efforts to implement a change at your institution, some people may continue to resist the change. I encourage you to not be side-tracked by the few people that actively resist your change efforts. In the long run, not one wants to be left behind, so continue your good communication and leaderly efforts and show everyone what a successful change looks like. There is a chance that the people actively resisting the change have not seen change happen in a positive way in the past. Your persistence and follow-through will provide a good foundation for more successful change in the future.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Research and navigating the changing cataloging environment

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

The nature of a technological disruption is that it interrupts the continuity between past and present. Traditions and tried and true methods may lose their effectiveness or even begin to fail outright. In disrupted environments, practitioners may find themselves lacking both the theory and experience to feel confident in making decisions and taking action. As I meet with the Copy Cataloging Group at the University Library each week, I am reminded of this reality as cataloguers bring the cataloging conundrums they encounter to the meeting.

In the environment of traditional cataloguing, the mental model of a catalogue record is that of a flat and linear container for descriptive information. The cataloging process was well-supported by a set of relatively concrete cataloging rules. However, in today’s environment where the mental model is multidimensional and characterized by the expression of various relationships among resources and resource characteristics, the old “rules” simply aren’t relevant anymore. Conundrums soon begin to arise as it becomes apparent that we are attempting to create complex multidimensional metadata in the MARC metadata container which only accommodates flat, linear records. Further difficulty is added to the situation when it is realized that not only do the new “guidelines” for creating metadata fail to address many day-to-day challenges, but searches of listserv archives and the posting questions to these lists reveals that neither the “experts” nor librarianship in general have viable solutions for many of these problems either. So then, how does the practice of metadata creation avoid being mired by unanswered questions and seemingly unresolvable challenges?

Ultimately, those involved with what is sometimes called the “reinvention of cataloguing” need a solid base of theory upon which to make decisions. Up until recently, cataloguers have been struggling with the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records), including the new RDA descriptive standard, and the concept of linked data. The gap between the conceptual models and the day to day practice of cataloguing is often experienced as being impossibly wide for many who have been trained in traditional cataloguing. Fortunately, IFLA (2015) has recently released their latest draft of the “Statement of International Cataloguing Principles” which will help bridge the existing gap by providing specific principles upon which decisions can be made. While the principles help to alleviate some of the abstraction created by the theoretical models, cataloguers face the day to day challenges of working in an “in-between land” where the theory and practice has begun to take root but the actual systems in which we create and use metadata is still largely based on concepts from the late 1960s. In addition to shifting our mental models, cataloguers are also charged with informing and sometimes re-educating other library workers about the morphing reality of the metadata. This metadata is central to many library processes ranging from discovery of and access to resources and information to functions such as acquisitions and interlibrary loan. Finding a way to effectively inform non-cataloguers about the new reality in a relevant and meaningful way remains one more challenge which has yet to be effectively addressed.

As I concluded a recent research project on the very topic of how to effectively communicate information about the new cataloging models and standards, I was reminded of the importance of research and evidence in professional practice. One measure of the effectiveness of training I was using in my study was to track changes in the volume and frequency of cataloguing questions asked over time. My hypothesis was that the introduction of training would lead to a reduction in questions but the reality was that a steady increase was observed. Puzzled by the results, I did an examination of the actual content of the questions to reveal an increasing complexity and thoughtfulness of questions over time. While in the past there were “cataloguing rules” which could be learned and mastered, in this new environment training didn’t actually lead to mastery. Instead training lead to a new and deeper level of understanding. The evidence suggests an ongoing learning process where the issue of mastery many not be relevant. Without purposely undertaking research and learning from the evidence, the nature of the impact of the disruption on the process of learning the new cataloguing models would likely not have been discovered. In fact, the lack of mastery and the ever-increasing number of questions would likely have been a source of frustration. This is a highly valuable finding both for the training of cataloguers and library staff in general and will inform the creation of positive and effective future learning experiences.

References
IFLA (2015). Statement of International Cataloguing Principles ICP Haag: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved from: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2015_worldwide_review.pdf

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Altmetrics: what does it measure? Is there a role in research assessment? C-EBLIP Journal Club April 6, 2015

Posted on by

by Li Zhang
Science and Engineering Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

Finally, I had the opportunity to lead the C-EBLIP Journal Club on April 6, 2015! This was originally scheduled for January, but was cancelled due to my injury. The article I chose was:

How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. By Zohreh Zahedi, Rodrigo, Costas, and Paul Wouters. Scientometrics, 2014, Vol.101(2), pp.1491-1513.

There are several reasons why I chose this article on altmetrics. First, in the University of Saskatchewan Library, research is part of our assignment of duties. Inevitably, how to evaluate librarians’ research outputs has been a topic of discussion in the collegium. Citation indicators are probably the most widely used tool for evaluation of publications. But with the advancement of technology and different modes of communications, how to capture the impact of scholarly activities from those alternative venues? Altmetrics seems to be a timely addition to the discussion. Second, altmetrics is an area I am interested in developing my expertise. My research interests encompass bibliometrics and its application in research evaluation; therefore, it is natural to extend my interests to this new emerging field. Third, this paper not only presents detailed information on the methods used in this research but also provides a balanced view about altmetrics, thus helping us to understand how altmetric analysis is conducted and to be aware of the issues around this new metrics as well.

We briefly discussed the methodology and main findings in the article. Some of the interesting findings include: Mendeley readership was probably the most useful source for altmetrics, while the mentioning of the publications in other types of media (such as twitter, delicious, and Wikipedia) was very low; Mendeley readership counts also had a moderate positive correlation to citation counts; in some fields of social sciences and humanities, altmetric counts were actually higher than citation counts, suggesting altmetrics could be a potentially useful tool for capturing impact of scholarly publications from different sources in these fields, in addition to citation indicators.

Later in the session, we discussed a couple of issues related to altmetrics. Although measuring the impact of scholarly publications in alternative sources has gained notice, it is not yet clear why publications are mentioned in these sources. What kind of impact does Altmetrics measure? In traditional citation indicators, at least we know that the cited articles stimulated or informed the current research in some way (either positive or negative). In contrast, a paper appearing in Mendeley does not necessarily mean it is read. Similarly, a paper mentioned in Twitter could be just self-promotion (there is nothing wrong with it!). From here, we extended our discussion to publishing behaviours and promotion strategies. Are social scientists more likely to use social media to promote their research and publications than natural scientists? The award criteria and merit system in academia will also play a role. If altmetrics is counted as an indication of the quality of the publications, we may see a sudden surge of social media use by researchers. Further, it is much easier to manipulate altmetrics than citation metrics. Care needs to be taken before we can confidently use altmetrics as a reliable tool to measure scholarly activities.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.