Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Sound of Music: What do you listen to when you write?

Posted on by

by Jaclyn McLean
Collection Services, University Library
University of Saskatchewan

Creating the right environment when you need to fully engage your brain, whether you’re reading some difficult theory, writing a research article, or learning something new, is important, and different for everyone. As a new tenure-track librarian embarking on the adventure of conducting research and writing about what I learn, I am interested in how others shape their audio environment for success. So I threw the question out to my social media networks and colleagues the last couple of weeks, and was surprised by some of the results.

First, the data:

  • 24 respondents
  • 18 of them librarians

Some people gave multiple responses, as their preferences are changeable. Here’s how the responses broke down:

  • 12 – Instrumental/classical/jazz
  • 8 – Silence
  • 6 – Music with words
  • 5 – Ambient
  • 1 – Cars, the movie

As I expected, ambient background noise or music with no words (classical, jazz, nature sounds with orchestra) were near the top, but as someone who almost constantly has some kind of music playing, I was surprised by how many people say their ideal state is silence. Clearly, this is a very personal choice, and you, dear reader, probably have your own preferences.

If you’re interested in reading more about the link between music and productivity, this (http://www.sparringmind.com/music-productivity/) is worth a read (and also has some great online playlists if you want to try something different). If you want to know what the New York Times thinks about listening to music while you’re working, then check this out (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/jobs/how-music-can-improve-worker-productivity-workstation.html). If you want to see some of the research that’s been done, then this is the one for you (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665048). In a very timely coincidence, this article about musical preferences and cognitive styles (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131151) was published on July 22 in PLOS ONE, and the national media is already picking it up (http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2015/7/Your-musical-tastes-reveal-how-you-think-a-new-study).

My best takeaway from this informal survey is some new music to listen to as I try to find my own preferences in this new kind of work. I know what I prefer when I’m at my desk, librarianing at my usual tasks, but am not sure what my sweet spot will be during those research activities. If you, too, are looking for some new suggestions, why not try these artists/playlists recommended by some of the interesting folks I know:

Instrumental/Classical:

Ambient

And, of course, you can always try putting on the movie Cars, and seeing if it works for you too, especially if you have a toddler running around who needs distraction. What do you listen to while you’re writing or otherwise engaged in deep concentration tasks?

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.

Tips on How to Give a Good Presentation

Posted on by

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

I’ve seen a fair number of conference presentations over the past 11 years and I’ve given my share of presentations as well. I’ve been thinking lately about sessions that I’ve really enjoyed and times where I feel I’ve really nailed it in terms of my own sessions. So, based on this bit of reflection, I’ve put together some ideas on what makes a good presentation. Hopefully, you’ll find a nugget or two that might speak to you, so to speak!

Content is only half the battle

Content is the solid foundation upon which your presentation must necessarily rest. If you don’t have something interesting or important to say, why are you up there? But content alone is not enough. A good presentation is equal parts content and the ability to convey that content in a way that’s thought-provoking, comprehensible, and meaningful. The best content in the world is worthless if your audience zones out during delivery.

What do I mean by a “good presentation”? I mean a presentation where people walk away with a useful understanding of what it is you were trying to tell them. A good presentation has three components:
1. Strong content
2. Purposeful roadmap
3. Engaging delivery

Strong Content

The underpinning of the presentation is the substance that you have to convey. Why might you present a session? You might have done some research and have new knowledge to share. Perhaps you want to share something that has worked in your organization and others might find it useful, too. You might have gone through a complex thought process and come out with a profound realization. As you approach, as well as during, the creation of a session, ask yourself the question “so what?” You can be sure your audience will implicitly ask this and answering it for yourself at many steps along the way will serve to strengthen the impact of your content.

Purposeful Roadmap

Your audience will want to know where you are taking them. In fact, if they are unsure of where you are going or if they get lost along the way, you’ll lose them altogether. A clear outline at the beginning of the session and clearly marked signposts as you move through your presentation will help to keep everyone together during the session and will stop people from wondering “are we there yet?” or worse “are we never going to get there?!” Such thoughts can distract audience members from your message.

Engaging Delivery

Not everyone is a born public speaker, but luckily, such skills can be learned, practiced, and enhanced. Beginning the session with an anecdote, cartoon, or image is a good way to let your audience see who you are before diving straight into the main points. If you feel a bit shaky with humour, you can still begin with a thought-provoking or attention-grabbing vignette. When you grab your audience early on, they’ll want to find out what happens next. Talk to the audience, not at them. Even if you’re reading from a prepared script, make sure to look up, look around the room, and make eye contact.

Presenting can be nerve-wracking but try to keep in mind that your audience wants to be there to hear what you have to say. Don’t forget about them while you’re dealing with other aspects of the presentation. Some preliminary thought about all the pieces of a good presentation can help to make the experience meaningful and memorable for the audience and for 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.

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.

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.

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.

What I’ve Favourited on Twitter Lately, pt. 3

Posted on by

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

This is the third in my series (and I use that term loosely) of posts dedicated to what I’ve favourited on Twitter lately. Wow, that title up there is self-explanatory, isn’t it?! You can also check out part one and part two. I find Twitter to be one excellent way to keep up professionally while networking at the same time. And when I favourite a tweet it’s usually because I’d like to go back and read the link in more depth or I think it’s a brilliant small piece of narrative.

Here’s what spoke to me the last while:

@facetpublishing released a new book edited by @benshowers – Library Analytics and Metrics: Using Data to Drive Decisions and Services. That’s on my list for when ordering opens up again as I select for our LIS collection here at the University of Saskatchewan.

@ESRC, the UK’s main organization for funding research and training in economic and social sciences (from their Twitter bio) tweeted a link to their guidance for researchers which could help to build your Twitter presence: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/impact-toolkit/tools/interactive-media/twitter/index.aspx

@Write4Research (an awesome Twitter account, btw), tweeted a blog post from the @LSEImpactBlog. Jenny Lewis writes about collaboration and how it “holds great promise for social science disciplines” but we must be wary of just doing what STEM does. An interesting read! http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/04/02/collaborate-or-die-disciplinary-differences-in-the-social-sciences/

@ThomsonPat has some timely advice as we head into conference season, linking to Mark Carrigan for how to live tweet effectively at academic conferences: http://markcarrigan.net/2015/04/24/how-to-live-tweet-effectively-at-academic-conferences/

@acrystelle: [@zaana and I are published!] Exploring the use of evidence in practice by Aust special librarians – http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-1/paper657.html#.VUE37Cezo7t #eblip #lis

Here are a few of my favourite tweets that don’t include links. They can be thought provoking and/or hilarious all on their own!

@kayla_hollatz: “Please stop waiting for a map. We reward those who draw maps, not those who follow them.” – Seth Godin

@thiagi: Have passion for your topic. Display this passion and conviction during your presentation.

@DonnaLanclos: Thinking about how vague I can be in the abstract so that what I produce in 4-6 months matches what I said it would be.

@USASKCOWS: There’s a tall man in the parking lot across College smoking cigarettes & watching Captain Kangaroo. Now don’t tell us there’s nothing to do.

@GreatestQuotes: Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, I will try again tomorrow. – MA Radmacher

And my absolute favourite tweet of the last while is this one from @Cmdr_Hadfield. I know he is travelling in the States, but I pretended he was greeting me: Hello Virginia! I am giving a talk and signing books tomorrow evening, 7PM at Tysons Corner Center in McLean http://chrishadfield.ca/events/

If you haven’t explored Twitter yet, I can personally recommend this particular bandwagon. I tweet as @VirginiaPrimary and I also tweet for the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice @CEBLIP.

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.

The 8Rs Redux: How National Trends Can Inform Local Responses

Posted on by

by Vicki Williamson
Dean, University Library, University of Saskatchewan

Last December, I blogged about the value of big picture library trend reports in the smaller context of your local library. In this blog, I continue that same theme.

Over a decade ago, ground-breaking research into the Canadian library workforce was published. The original study of the Canadian library workforce (The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries, 2006, is also known as the “8Rs Study”) was widely disseminated; marked the first time that human resources issues were so thoroughly and widely examined across Canada; and, was always intended to be used as a baseline from which future research would be compared. Follow-up research for the research libraries sector across Canada is now a reality with the recently completed (and soon to be released) report from the 8Rs Redux CARL Libraries Human Resource Study, 2015.

The 8Rs Redux, for libraries that are members of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), has delivered a quantitative mapping (within a 10-year timeframe) of the many ways in which CARL libraries and their staffing requirements have changed, as well as how they have responded to changes in their operating environment. I am very pleased to have been a co-investigator with the 8Rs Redux Study, led by Kathleen DeLong, Principal Investigator, and Marianne Sorensen, Co-Investigator, as it provides a strong body of evidence to inform future workforce planning locally and nationally.

The 8Rs Redux Study tells us many things, but overall it shows that: “Retirements, alongside the hiring of younger librarians and the restructuring of some roles and the attrition of others, has resulted in a noteworthy turnover of CARL library staff and a slightly larger and younger librarian workforce, many of whom are learning more new tasks in challenging and interesting roles that increasingly encompass specialised skills and that engender comparatively high levels of job satisfaction.”

The soon to be released final report will provide many other insights into the current make-up of the CARL workforce around the themes of staff characteristics; organizational context of change; recruitment; retirement; professional and paraprofessional population and role change; librarian competency and competency change; education and training; and, quality of work life and job satisfaction. The 2015 study shows that 8Rs have grown to be 9Rs, with role change joining the 2005 identified workforce themes of recruitment, retirement, retention, remuneration, repatriation, rejuvenation, re-accreditation, and restructuring.

But to get to that local library-specific context, what does this national longitudinal data have to do with workforce planning at the local level? Well for a start, it provides the opportunities to review whether our local cohort characteristics reflect those at the national level. If they do, then what does that mean in terms of workforce planning, recruitment, and training and development? If not, then what local factors impact our library, and why are those national trends not obvious in our environment?

A welcome addition to the 8Rs Redux Report (2015) is the inclusion of a strategic human resources planning implication section for each of the major report categories. This section should be helpful to deans/directors, human resource managers, and others involved with library human resources planning. For example, the section within the retirement theme poses questions about succession planning that may need action both the local and national levels.

Overall, the final report from the 8Rs Redux CARL Libraries Human Resources Study (2015) contains a wealth of evidence-based data and information to help inform the ongoing development of the CARL workforce.

Co-authoring: Shared Work ≠ Less Work

Posted on by

by Shannon Lucky
Library Systems & Information Technology, University of Saskatchewan

Writing is hard.
Collaborative writing is really hard.
editnicmcphee
image by nicmcphee https://flic.kr/p/5czKHV

I recently co-authored a paper with two colleagues based on a library project we had worked on together. It made perfect sense to collaborate on a paper about the project. We brought our different roles and perspectives to the writing process and were each able to contribute in our area of expertise while letting the others complete the full picture. Personally, I couldn’t imagine writing about the project alone. It doesn’t belong to me and I felt would have been presumptuous to speak for the group. Because we had successfully worked on the project as a group I imagined it would be a breeze to write it up.

I was wrong.

I wasn’t wrong because any of us were controlling, egotistic, lazy, or unwilling to compromise. Far from it. I was wrong because we were all intellectually (and perhaps a bit emotionally) invested in the work. We each had our own clear (in our own minds) interpretation of what the article should look like, but we didn’t want to dictate it to the group.

In the end, I learned a lot and I am proud of our project. It isn’t the article that I would have written on my own, and that is a good thing. It’s about a collaborative project and the article benefited from the diverse perspectives of the team. However, there are some things I will do differently the next time I work on a co-authored project.

  1. Communicate early, communicate often. Having discussions about author order, citation managers, file naming standards, sharing notes or drafts, and timelines are not my favourite parts of researching on a team. However, making assumptions about these basic issues can create tension if you don’t talk about it early on. It might seem obvious, but it’s worth it to spell this stuff out – particularly if one person isn’t taking on the task of pulling everything together into a final draft.
    If your paper is being written by consensus, have these discussions right away.
    If your paper isn’t being written by consensus, have these discussions right away. Maybe we should develop a checklist for co-authors (like a pre-marital counselling checklist)?
  2. Writing styles are like snowflakes – no two are alike and too many piled up will make you miserable.
    SONY DSC
    image by timo https://flic.kr/p/8ZDM8n
    Disciplinary differences in style are to be expected in library groups. Most of us come from another academic discipline prior to librarianship or serve users in a particular academic discipline as a liaison. We all use different citations styles, vocabularies, and writing styles depending on our own areas of expertise, and an interdisciplinary team is almost certain to have some stylistic conflict. Writing style is subjective but it can really slow down a project if there are big differences of opinion. If you and your co-authors don’t have compatible styles it might be easier to pick one person to put the paper together. Have everyone write sections but hand it over to the editor to make it flow. Swallow your pride and pick the person with the most appropriate writing style for the journal you are targeting.
  3. Realize that technology will (probably) cause trouble. Decide on how you are going to write and share your work (Google Docs, spreadsheets, Dropbox, a shared drive, emailing drafts, telekinesis, whatever) and if you want to use a citation manager. Make sure everyone has access to whatever technology you pick and is comfortable with it. There are so many options out there, but using a bunch of non-compatible systems is a recipe for disaster and data loss. Also, back up your work and use a versioning system – good advice for life.
  4. Meet face-to-face. This is something we did right from the beginning and I think it helped us deal with the issues that did come up before they became serious problems. Meeting every other week, even just to check in briefly, gave us the opportunity to talk through ideas we had, change the flow of the paper when necessary, and keep everyone on the same page. It also helped to hold us to our timeline because we knew we needed to do something for the next meeting, even if it was the night before. It was during these in person meetings that we addressed the problems we had and worked out our best solutions.
  5. Get an independent and impartial third party to read your final draft. You likely have a lot of eyes on the paper, which is great, but having someone unfamiliar with the material read it is important. After working over the content repeatedly it can take a fresh perspective to see that you accidentally edited out some critical information somewhere between version 12 and 13.

In the weeks since we submitted the article I have had many conversations with people about their experiences co-authoring (good and bad) and read some entertaining articles about co-authoring gone wrong. I am curious to see if the Brain-Work readers have advice, success stories, or cautionary tales to share.