Category Archives: Uncategorized

Happy Holidays from C-EBLIP!

Posted on by

by Virginia Wilson
Director, Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

The Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP) at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan would like to take this opportunity to wish you a very happy holiday season and all the best in 2016. Brain-Work will continue to feature stimulating blog posts from C-EBLIP members and adjunct members in the New Year.

Looking back on 2015, we were again pleased at the national response to the second C-EBLIP Fall Symposium: Librarians as Researchers, held on October 14, 2015. Librarians from across Canada gathered in Saskatoon to explore what it means to be librarians who are also researchers and to share research projects and experiences in a collaborative and collegial one-day event. This year, we were extremely pleased to have our Researcher in Residence, Selinda Berg from the University of Windsor, facilitate a pre-symposium workshop on the topic of turning an idea into a researchable question. Other activities in 2015 originating from C-EBLIP were the writing circle where U of S librarians meet for accountability and protected writing time and the C-EBLIP journal club, now into its second year.

2015 also saw the hiring of a full time Research Facilitator (RF). Previously, we had been sharing an RF with the College of Education, but the results of having such support (manifesting in successful grant applications, including a SSHRC!) led the University Library to commit resources to hire a full time RF. In addition to the grant and funding support for our librarian faculty members, the RF will provide assistance for sabbatical and ethics applications, coordinate the Research Mentorship Team program (new this year to C-EBLIP), and provide effective advice and assistance to librarians in many areas of the research enterprise including but not limited to: articulating and developing a program of scholarship; research project design; managing research projects; developing C.V.s; publishing and disseminating research. Carolyn Pytlyk was hired effective July 1, 2015 as the full time University Library Research Facilitator.

2016 will bring new challenges and new opportunities. The potential of a new year is always exciting. I hope to connect with many more librarians in the year ahead as C-EBLIP continues its mission of supporting librarians as researchers and promoting evidence based library and information practice. Happy New Year!

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.

I am a Qualitative Researcher

Posted on by

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

Had I known that in my role as an academic librarian I would be required to research and publish I would have taken in-depth research methods classes in library school – famous last words?

Although I wanted to be in an academic library setting, I wasn’t sure I would end up in one given that most of my experience was in public libraries. I didn’t think of conducting research and I certainly did not consider publishing when I finished library school. But I managed to co-author and publish two peer reviewed papers – one with my best friend in library school and another with a library colleague at the public library where I started my first librarian position. The latter research project was on exploring diverse populations in Saskatchewan and whether public libraries in the province are prepared/equipped to cater to these groups. Before this went into publication I moved to the University of Saskatchewan, where for tenure-track positions publishing was a requirement. Using my first two publishing experiences, I embarked on other research projects sometimes with colleagues and other times alone. Through this learning process I realized I was very much a qualitative researcher.

The fact that I am a qualitative researcher was once again confirmed after I enrolled in a qualitative research methods class at the College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. I don’t like numbers, I like stories. I like that I can talk to participants, interview them, survey them, observe them at work, gather information most relevant and important to them, and interpret all this for rest of the world.

There are various approaches to qualitative research such as narrative, phenomenology, case study, grounded theory, biographical, historical, ethnography, and numerous variations within them; the prospect of including poetry, pictures, photos, drawings, metaphors; the ability to be flexible with interview questions; the possibility of profound investigations into a situation based on conversations with participants especially when it is an interview are all exciting and seemingly endless. And then there is data analysis. Data can be in many forms and formats. It can be categorized, divided into themes, coded, concepts identified, refined, re-categorized, and authenticated conclusions arrived at. Personally, such data analysis is much more appealing than just quantifying information.

The whole process of qualitative research is as much an art as it is science, and contrary to assumptions that it allows for subjective interpretations, it is about consistencies and deeper meanings while allowing room for authors and/or participants to state their personal biases.

I am sure that I will explore quantitative research later in the future, but for now I have confirmed that my interests are slanted towards being a qualitative researcher. I have found my niche in evidence based practice.

If you are a qualitative researcher, I would love to hear what about it excites you.

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.

On Online Conferences

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

As I prepare my presentation for the Library 2.015 conference, I am reminded of recent comments about online conferences. These comments range from how some librarians enjoy the variety of topics and perspectives offered to those who felt that these conferences were amateurish and low-impact. The debates I have heard remind me somewhat of arguments I have heard about open access publishing. Given that I have attended free online conferences for five years in a row and presented at them four times, I feel that I can now confidently compare and contrast the different types.

I have presented at both “in person” and “online” conferences. There are some key differences between the two. These differences don’t necessarily make one type better or more important than the other. “In person” conferences do generally have a stricter vetting process for proposals, this makes sense for a conference which involves physical space, sessions which occur at a specific time and a limited number of attendees. It would be a waste to rent a room for a session which very few people attend. If the number of presentations is bloated out of proportion with the number of conference attendees, the “empty” room is likely. Careful selection of the most suitable proposals makes sense. With online conferences, presenters are required to submit proposals which are reviewed by a committee before being accepted but the criteria is not as strict and, as far as I understand, there is no official limit on the number of sessions.

My favourite in person conference is definitely ALA. Once a year I meet with colleagues and experts from within my specialization. I communicate with many of these librarians via email and social media during the year. I find it valuable to meet with them in person. There is nothing like being in the room when the Library of Congress discusses a controversial new standard change. Given that I often don’t have the chance to speak to those who have a deep understanding of or interest in the fine details of my work, I relish animated and energetic interest group talks. I have found it motivating to speak to those who have written the books and journal articles I have read. I wouldn’t suggest that it would be good for the ALA conferences to be replaced entirely with an online conference. To do so would truly be a loss.

But what about online conferences? I have to admit that the first time I gave a presentation to a blank computer screen was a strange and alienating experience. This is coming from a person who completed a master’s degree online! With the online conference, the magic often shows up after the fact. Maybe 20 or 30 people will be present in the virtual room while I give the presentation, but I have discovered people will continue to watch the recorded sessions two or three years after they were first given. My Library 2.0 presentations have led to many interesting email and social media discussions. Various doors have been opened to me and I have made some valuable professional connections. With the in person conferences where I have presented, I received some follow-up email but not anywhere near the volume I received for my online conferences.

In terms of being an attendee at an online conference, there are a few unpolished sessions but most are worth watching. I find the keynote speakers are generally well-known and respected librarians. Quality research and reports of highly interesting projects from around the world are common. One of the key issues is that some of the librarians who present at Library 2.0 are those who for one reason or another may not have the resources to travel to and present at the larger conferences. I find that the recordings are a definite strength because I can gradually work through the sessions which might be of interest for months after the conference. If I start watching a session which is not of interest, then I move on to the next one.

In summary, I think that online conferences play a significant role in leveling the playing field for ideas from libraries and librarians from around the world. It’s important to recognize the value of the opportunities to share ideas and experiences and not write the conferences off because they are free or because the diverse array of presenters include students and less experienced librarians.

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 Community: It takes a village

Posted on by

by Selinda Berg
Schulich School of Medicine – Windsor Program
Leddy Library, University of Windsor
University Library Researcher in Residence, University of Saskatchewan

At this time of year we often pause to express our gratitude for those things that can go unrecognized throughout our day-to-day routine. Because this post will be shared near the Canadian and American holiday of Thanksgiving, I want to share my gratitude for the research community that I have acquired through my participation in research and my involvement in various research support initiatives. I also want to urge others to make the effort to join and/or build a research community of their own—it is so worth it!

I was recently interviewed about my experience as a researcher, and when asked about what I have gained from research, I unequivocally stated “a sense community within librarianship.” Professional communities are a key part of the identities of librarians: There are communities based on subject specialization, technical specializations, social groups, and each of these communities offer their members a sense of belonging within the profession. It is within the community of librarian-researchers that I found my sense of belonging.

Five years ago, I published an article with Heidi Jacobs (Rethinking Conversations on Research Culture in Canadian Academic Libraries) and it made use of Walker et al.’s concept of Intellectual Communities. Walker et al. describe four qualities necessary for strong “intellectual communities”: shared purpose; diverse and multigenerational community; flexible and forgiving community; and respectful and generous community. I am so very appreciative of the fact that I am a member of an Intellectual Community that possesses those qualities. The members of my community cross geographic, professional, and disciplinary boundaries and my community is made up mentors, mentees, collaborators, and students. Each and every one of these people not only share their knowledge and wisdom with me, but also provides the inspiration, motivation, and perseverance I need to participate in research.

Finding and fostering a research community takes effort, but very small acts can make a big difference:
• Make yourself vulnerable: Research is personal. Sharing our experiences – the bad and the good – can make us feel vulnerable. However, by making ourselves vulnerable we are demonstrating our trust in and respect for others. It helps to demonstrate the safety and security within a community, and will help others to find the strength to make themselves vulnerable.
• Share your work: It is scary to share your research with your colleagues, but this is a part of community-building. Sharing our research with one another helps us to understand and support each other’s endeavours and encourages respect and empathy amongst members.
• Model the kind of community you want to belong to: Safe, strong, and healthy research communities can start by individuals modeling the behavior that they wish to receive from others. We want to belong to a community that possesses the qualities that Walker et al. describes in Intellectual Communities. If you are flexible and forgiving; and respectful and generous to your colleagues (and to yourself), those qualities are likely to be transmitted throughout the community.

We have a lot of work to do in building formalized research communities in Canada, but informal research communities are a great start! Take a first step in building the community of researchers you want!

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.

Jumping into the Deep End: Reflections of a Librarian Practitioner-Researcher

Posted on by

by Charlene Sorensen
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

I am always curious as to how people find their way to librarianship. I myself didn’t plan on becoming a librarian. But suddenly after I completed my undergrad a friend was going to this thing called “library school” and I was intrigued. A couple of years later I decided to obtain my Library Technician diploma as a way to ease into library work and find out if I liked it. I worked as a library technician for three years and then decided it was time to get my MLIS. I can’t exactly remember why or how I made that decision but I knew it was the next step for me. I quit my job, moved away, and hoped to find work when I was done. I enjoyed library school – though I’m glad I chose a 12-month program – and did get a job right away. I worked some contracts and my first longer term job was as a serials cataloguer and I have thoroughly enjoyed where this fairly accidental career path has taken me.
CSlibrary_SanAntonio
San Antonio Public Library (Central) – San Antonio, Texas

I find that being a librarian permeates my life and defines me in many ways, even though I didn’t plan for this to happen. It affects what I read, some of my activities, who I spend time with, and many of my values and beliefs. Being a cataloguer also colours some of my day-to-day activities, probably in fairly stereotypical ways such as wondering why the KD isn’t beside the rest of the pasta in my grocery store – should they not be classified together?
CSlibrary_classification
Public library classification system – Albufeira, Portugal

When I came to the University of Saskatchewan, I was following this path of working with serials but I had now started along another track that I had never imagined – I was now a researcher. Even though I love being a librarian – and even find myself seeking out and taking pictures of libraries when I travel – I didn’t know much about librarians as researchers until recently. When I accepted a position at the UofS, I suddenly had standards for tenure to fulfill and not a lot of time to fulfill them. It really was a matter of jumping into the deep end and discovering that I COULD swim.
CSlibrary_Nice
Bibliothèque Louis Nucéra – Nice, France

I have, however, been thinking more about what it means to be a practitioner-researcher librarian. I have an on and off relationship with this definition of myself and feel the need to embrace it more fully. Now that some time has passed, I’m hoping I can think more clearly about what I would like to do in this area of my work, and less about what I need to do to get tenure. I have the urge to wade more carefully into these waters and discover what’s there. And on a lighter note, I’m thinking about how this aspect of my career could/should be affecting my life like “librarian” and “cataloguer” already do.

And so I have questions for you, dear reader. How comfortable are you with defining yourself as a researcher? Do you see this aspect of your career come out in your personal life? Do we yet have stereotypical behaviours for librarian researchers, much like we have for other librarian roles?
CSlibrary_Tavira
Biblioteca Municipal Álvaro de Campos – Tavira, Portugal

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.

Promoting Your Scholarship: A Post-publication Checklist

Posted on by

by Lorie Kloda
Assessment Librarian, McGill University

As a researcher-practitioner, I spend a significant amount of time on scholarship – grant applications, research, journal editing, conference presentations and posters, journal articles, and everything else that comes with the territory. Like many people, I often consider the end result of this process to be the publication or presentation. And that’s true: the product of scholarship is typically a written report or verbal presentation delivered to an intended audience for consumption. But it’s not the last step in the cycle of scholarly communication. I’m not talking about other researchers referencing my work in their own publications (which – hopefully – comes much later), I’m talking about the promotion that comes post-publication that I have to do myself.

It’s no fun to have a paper published in a journal only to sit and wait for colleagues and peers to notice it. Over the years, I’ve developed a checklist of channels or venues in which to track and promote my scholarship. Some of these are institutional requirements, and I choose to tackle them immediately rather than update them all at once at the end of the year or before an important point in my career. Some of the items on the checklist are for promotional purposes, and vary depending on the accomplishment and who I think might be interested. Routinizing the documentation and promotion of my scholarship makes the process a little less of a chore, and ensures that I don’t accidentally forget something important.

What follows is a checklist, not meant to be exhaustive, of places to document and promote one’s scholarship. I have grouped the various options into categories that make sense to me, and included possible channels or venues that may be appropriate. I certainly don’t do all of these things every time I give a conference presentation or publish an article, although some of the items on the list are less optional than others. The items on the checklist are intended for traditional article or book publications, but can be adapted for presentations, workshops, grants awarded, or other achievements.

_________________________________________________________________________
1. Dossiers and curriculum vitae (cv)

  • Academic cv
  • Annual report or performance review (working copy)
  • Reappointment / tenure / promotion dossier (working copy)
  • Canadian Common cv

2. Repositories:

Make sure to check with your co-authors and author-publisher agreements before depositing a publication or presentation in an open access repository.

  • Subject repository (E-LiS)
  • Institutional repository

3. Professional Networking Websites:

4. Citation Managers:

5. Communications & Social Media:

Create a short URL (using Bit.ly or similar) to track clicks and use the altmetric bookmarklet to track social media engagement.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+

Contact your communications officer at the institution or department level to share the news. They may be able to help you promote your work.

_________________________________________________________________________

Having your article published is a cause for celebration! Taking an hour to go through a checklist can be a rewarding way to acknowledge it. For me, it is an enjoyable ritual to update my cv and let my colleagues know. What’s the first thing you do after getting published? What would you add to the post-publication checklist?

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.

There’s a New Research Support Group in Town (or at least in Canada)

Posted on by

by Virginia Wilson, Director
Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP)
University of Saskatchewan

It has been my experience as a librarian who has a mandate to conduct research (the tenure and promotion process as a faculty member at the University of Saskatchewan), who wants to conduct research (I’m curious, I want to learn!), and who has been at this for the past 10 years, that support for research endeavours is an important factor in the ability of librarian practitioner-researchers to move their research programs or projects forward. Organizational support and collegial, peer support are both valuable at every state of the research process. Some are lucky enough, like me, to work in an organization with a strong culture of research and the belief in the benefits of research for an academic career and for practice. Others perhaps do not have that kind of support readily available, working solo with no evident supports or working in an organization that does not support or value that type of work.

I recently found out about a new group in Nova Scotia, Canada, the LibrariesNS Research Support Group. This group was founded in June 2015, and its ultimate goal is to “increase the amount and quality of library research in Nova Scotia.” This group is targeted to all the librarians, library workers/technicians, and LIS academics working in Nova Scotia who are interested in research. The impetus for the group, according to the proposal that you can find on their part of the Libraries Nova Scotia webpage, came from a talk given by C-EBLIP Adjunct Member and University of Western Ontario librarian Kristin Hoffmann that was held at the Halifax Public Library in April 2015 entitled “Academic Librarians as Successful Researchers.” During the talk and the ensuing discussion, attending Nova Scotian librarians talked about research in their library community – its challenges and successes. The idea for a “work in progress” support group came out of that discussion and after a proposal to Libraries Nova Scotia, the group found a home and is now rolling out various supports to librarians from all sectors in Nova Scotia.

What a fabulous idea! While librarians spend a lot of time supporting researchers who work in our various organizations, we too need support for our research endeavours. Initiatives such as the CARL Librarian Research Institute on a national level and the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice at the local level help to create a supportive and engaging environment in which librarians as researchers can explore questions related to practice (and even not related to practice!), conduct rigorous and timely research, and disseminate that research in order to inform colleagues and to enhance the evidence base for librarianship.

I’m interested in various supports out there for librarians as researchers. If your group or organization is doing something formally or informally around supporting practicing librarians who also conduct research, I’d like to hear about it if you are willing to share. You can contact me at virginia.wilson@usask.ca.

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.

Thoughts on Conferencing

Posted on by

by Vicki Williamson
Dean, University Library, University of Saskatchewan

As summer fades, a new academic year is set to begin, and conference season has come to an end for another year, I have been reflecting upon the value of professional meetings and conferences in the electronic age.

As a side note, all reports from the IFLA World Library and Information Congress 2015 in Cape Town, South Africa indicate a very active contingent of 50 Canadians in attendance with the conference highpoint being the announcement of IFLA’s highest honour of an Honorary Fellow Award to Ingrid Parent, University Librarian at the University of British Columbia.

But back to the topic of the conferencing… According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, as a noun, ‘conference’ is defined as a formal meeting for discussion; and as a verb, to take part in a conference or conference call. Librarians have been conferencing as a major form of ongoing professional development for as long as I can remember. In the electronic age, however, are expectations around conferences changing? Sometimes these days I think some folks believe that if they come back from a conference with copies of PowerPoint slides and presentations then they must have learned something.

The business model for face-to-face conferencing has been with the Academy and the profession of librarianship for a long time. The rise of the internet, and new and emerging technologies and applications are challenging that business model, especially in terms of the cost to run a conference and the cost of ‘attendance’. Many professional associations, including the American Library Association (ALA), which runs not one, but two major conferences per year, are questioning the longer-term sustainability of the face-to-face conference model. Half way across the Pacific and well into my 27 hours of flying time to get to the 8th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8) in Brisbane, Australia in July, I too began to question the value of the face-to-face conference.

I’m delighted to say that by the end of the EBLIP8 conference my faith in the value of the face-to-face conference model had been restored. There does seem to be a time and place for technology to enrich the conference experience, but nothing quite matches the networking and learning experiences of a ‘live’ conference. So what was it that made EBLIP8 such a great experience and one well worth the cost, time, and effort to attend in person? Was it the amazing conference venue on the grounds of the Gardens Point Campus of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT)? Was it the Queensland’s sub-tropical winter weather with daily maximum temperatures ranging between 22˚ C and 24˚ C? Maybe it was the amazing catering, or, perhaps it was the cultural experience of things Australian that I had forgotten about after almost a decade of working overseas. Maybe it was the program content, or the outstanding quality of the speakers and/or the diversity of the participants who came from countries all over the world. Was it the conference size – that is, small enough that you could move around and speak with most people over the course of the three days? Or, was it simply that the topic of evidence based library and information practice is so applicable in every type of library setting (school, public, academic, etc.) and for every type of library function or specialization (technical, public, and/or corporate services). I’m sure all these factors played a part. I do know for me, it wasn’t the dancing at the conference dinner! Looking back on the whole EBLIP8 experience, it was for me simply having the time and space to listen, engage, and reflect; experience my Ah Ha! Moment during Dr. Neil Carrington’s keynote address on Creating and Sustaining a High Performance Team Culture, and return to my workplace professionally “reset and refocussed” on what’s important to me.

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.

Co-authoring Take 2: A co-authored blog post about co-authoring

Posted on by

by
Shannon Lucky, Library Systems & Information Technology, University of Saskatchewan Carolyn Hoessler, Program and Curriculum Development Specialist, Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness

This post is a follow-up to an article published on April 21, 2015 on Brain-Work about co-authoring. After that article went up I was delighted to receive an email from Carolyn wondering if I had plans to develop the co-authoring checklist I mentioned in my post. I hadn’t planned that far ahead, but I said that I would be interested if she wanted to collaborate on it – a perfect co-authoring opportunity!

Carolyn and I hadn’t had the opportunity to meet before, even though we work in the same building on the U Sask campus and, apparently, have some shared interests. We met up earlier this summer to talk through some of the issues that have come up for us during co-authoring projects and to share what we’ve learned in our respective positions. The following post was written by both of us and is based on the 5 Basic Elements of Cooperative Learning that Carolyn introduced me to. To see Carolyn’s description of our collaboration visit Educatus, the official blog of the GMCTE, where this article is cross-posted. 

-Shannon

Co-authoring and collaborative research can be personally rewarding and can strengthen a project by tapping into multiple perspectives and disciplines. It can also be difficult and frustrating at times but conflicts can be minimized, or avoided altogether, through  planning and clear communication.

The following checklist is based on the five basic elements of cooperative learning developed by Johnson, Johnson, & Johnson Holubec. Each element is defined and lists questions you should answer as a group and tips to keep in mind as your work progresses. These questions can feel uncomfortable or may lead to conflict, but it is better to have these hard conversations early and to sort out any impasses before it is too late. Sometimes collaborating with someone just doesn’t work and it can be better to identify these situations early and walk away on good terms rather than having a project fall apart mid-way through when lots of time, energy, and resources have already been invested.

Communicate early! Communicate often!

A good collaborative team needs:

  1. Positive Interdependence – having mutual goals, pursue mutual rewards, and need each other to be successful.

    Ask:
    • What are my goals for the project and what are my co-author’s goals?
      This can include the number of publications you will write, the venue and format of publication, and timelines.
    • What am I bringing to this project and what are other in the group bringing?
      Talk about your work style and preferences, personality, Myers-Briggs types, StrengthsFinders, what bugs you about working in groups – anything that will help your group get to know each others preferred work styles.
    • Can the project be easily divided so that everyone has a defined task?
      Doing the literature review, editing, analyzing, referencing, etc.
    • What will each of our roles on the project team be and will they be static or rotating?
      Note taking, coordinating meetings, synthesizing/pulling together ideas, etc.
    • What will the author order be or how else will author contribution be recognized?
      How is this determined and is everyone in agreement?

Tips:

  • Know thyself – figure out what has bothered you about past collaborations and what has worked well. Communicate this clearly to your team members and ask them what works and does not work for them. Be honest and upfront about your expectations.
  1. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction – reading each other’s expressions or tone and have positive interactions

Ask:

  • How can we meet face-to-face, in the same room or using technology?
    Especially important when working at a distance. We must interact with each other in ways that avoid misunderstandings or assumptions and build consensus/respected distinction?
  • How frequently should we meet and how will these meetings be arranged?
    Are all meetings planned at the start of the project? Who is required at the meetings and who will organize and lead them? When will they occur?
  • What will our meetings look like?
    Will they be for planning and checking in on individual progress, working meetings, or discussion and co-creation focused?
  • What is the length of our project?
    Confirm what collaborator and able and willing to commit to in advance. Situations can change, but having a rough expectation for required time and contribution to the group can help with contingency planning if need be.
  • How will we create a good rapport and welcoming environment for the group?
    Whose job is it to set the tone? The meeting host and the content lead for the discussion don’t have to be the same person.

Tips:

  • Pay attention to discussions happening over email and other non face-to-face interactions to ensure that positivity, respect, and encouragement is maintained.
  • Make sure everyone in the group is included in discussions so no one becomes isolated or siloed in their piece of the project. This recommendation does not preclude small task groups or subgroups, but communication should be forefront.
  1. Individual Accountability – each person knowing what they need to do, is able to do it, and does it on time.

Ask:

  • What are the deliverables?
  • What are realistic timelines for me?  For my co-author(s)?
  • What are our external deadlines?
    e.g., special issue deadlines, external reviewer, conferences, personal deadlines
  • What will we do if we fall behind or need to step back?
    Anticipate setbacks and plan contingencies.

Tips:

  • Make individuals accountable to the group and their collective goals, rather than to a single individual leader. Allow the weight of several people relying on and expecting each piece to prompt action. Also reduces the tracking and chasing of the leader.
  • Make sure there is an explicit link between author order and contribution to the project or ensure another type of recognition for all authors.
  1. Interpersonal And Small Group Skills – having the conflict-management, leadership, trust-building, and communication skills to build a well-functioning group

Ask:

  • What skills do we already have in our group for leadership, conflict-management, facilitation etc.? What gaps exist and how can we fill them?
    This can mean adding a person or finding external support such as hiring a copyeditor.
  • What roles do we all want to play on this project?
    Take care to consider each person’s workload and other projects they are involved with. You might not want to be the lead researcher or editor for multiple projects are the same time.
  • What is my bandwidth for contributing to this project?
    Note if this is likely to change during the lifecycle of the project and how this will impact the group.

Tips:

  • See what skill development opportunities are available in your area.
  • Co-authoring might be an opportunity to either observe or practice a new skill
  1. Group Processing – continuing to be a well-functioning group, checking in regularly and using the skills from element #4.

Ask:

  • What points of coherence and dissonance have we identified as a group?
    • How do our personalities in element #1 work together or against each other?
    • How will we deal with disagreements?
    • What is the plan when individuals do not fulfill their part of the project?

Tips:

  • Revisit your roles and decisions periodically as a group.
  • Build time to reflect and discuss the project into your meetings or schedule time specifically for this activity.  
  • Identify one next step or a change to improve your project and/or your work dynamic.
  • Celebrate your successes!

 

Sources:

Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Edythe Johnson Holubec.Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina: Interaction Book, 1991. Print.

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.

“Best Practices” …or “Good Practices”?

Posted on by

by DeDe Dawson
Science Library, University of Saskatchewan

Much of evidence-based library research is focused on our professional practice. We want to improve our services, better streamline our processes, or be more effective instructors. We often look to other libraries to learn from their experiences, and commonly try to determine best practices.

I’m embarking on just such a research project right now. I’m interested in determining best practices in the provision of scholarly communications support services. I hadn’t thought much about the term “best practices” until I came upon the Jisc R & D Project page: “Open Access Good Practice.” Wait a minute… “good practice”? Is this just another way of saying “best practice”? Or is there an important nuance that I’m missing here? Hmmm… (This is one of the things I love about being on sabbatical so far: the time to explore these tangents!).

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines best practice as “commercial or professional procedures that are accepted or prescribed as being correct or most effective.” And the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS) has a much wordier, but similar, definition:

“In the application of theory to real-life situations, procedures that, when properly applied, consistently yield superior results and are therefore used as reference points in evaluating the effectiveness of alternative methods of accomplishing the same task. Best practices are identified by examining empirical evidence of success.”

Interestingly though, neither the OED nor the ODLIS has a definition for “good practice.”

My random Internet searching seems to confirm that “best practices” is more commonly used, and in a wide variety of sectors. Some interesting insights from:

Finance: “Best practices are often set forth by an authority, such as a governing body or management…”

Technology: “A best practice is an industry-wide agreement that standardizes the most efficient and effective way to accomplish a desired outcome.”

The term “best practice” seems to imply that there is one known, empirically proven, or agreed-upon method/procedure that will work in every context… when properly applied (I enjoyed that caveat in the ODLIS definition. They may as well have said: “If it doesn’t work for you then you done it WRONG!”).

Best practice defined this way doesn’t fit very well with my experiences providing library services. So much depends on situation and culture and individual personalities of those involved. Context is everything. What works at one institution will not necessarily work well at another. Heck, it might not work well with another user group at the same institution!

When trying to find some discussion of “good practice” I came across this blog post, with this key sentence:

“Best Practice is what we aspire to but Good Practice is what we work with every day – today we do this activity this way but tomorrow we will adapt it to a new Good Practice on our way to a Best Practice if we ever get there.”

I think this is true. In much of our professional practice there may never be a “best practice.” But we can always strive to make our good practices better for the situations we find ourselves in.

By the way, the new title of my sabbatical research project is “Supporting Researchers in Complying with Funders’ Open Access Policies: Good Practices of Library Outreach and Awareness-Raising Programs.”

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.