Category Archives: Uncategorized

On Becoming a Learning Organization

Posted on by

by Jill Crawley-Low
Leslie and Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library and Veterinary Medicine Library, University of Saskatchewan

The concept of a learning organization is a model for dealing with complex systems and that is the environment in which most organizations, including libraries, operate these days. It is a model consisting of five disciplines, one of which is systems thinking. First, the individual is empowered and this positive energy flows on to become collective self-awareness which, in turn, profoundly affects the organizational culture. As management theorist Peter Senge explains, the people who contribute most to the organization are those who “… practice the disciplines for themselves – expanding their own capacity to seek and hold a vision, to reflect and inquire, to build collective capabilities, and to understand systems.”

The turbulent times in which we work in libraries are of a magnitude of complexity that requires not only individual action, but also collective action. The employees in a learning organization develop the ability to collectively learn and create new knowledge in the present and in the future to adapt and apply that knowledge to unforeseen conditions.

The University Library at the University of Saskatchewan has articulated in its vision statement the benefits it believes will be derived from becoming a learning organization. The vision remains a powerful statement that was first written in 2006 as part of the library’s strategic plan. The benefits of fostering a learning organization (with quotes from the library’s vision) include:

• an engaged and committed cohort of employees – “leaders and innovators”
• effectively operating in a complex environment – “a dynamic information environment”
• contributing skills and knowledge to the community – “collaborate with our community”
• effectively manage change – “create a positive experience”
• providing quality in a client-centred environment – “success in learning, scholarship and practice”
• looking to the future proactively.

The University Library has made a long term and continuing commitment and investment in its employees through leadership development. There is quantitative evidence that leadership learning has led to increased employee engagement scores. Qualitatively, library employees have identified the changes that they have observed in themselves and others as a result of being exposed to leadership learning. These observations include increased:

• self-awareness that leads to more open feedback and collaboration
• sense of accountability and freedom to ask questions and share opinions
• knowledge of self that is rooted in reality with a deeper understanding of the behaviour of colleagues
• independence in their work decisions

The library’s focus on leadership learning has created a culture of continuous learning that rewards engaged employees. The organization is moving towards the vision of a learning organization by:

• accurately responding to or anticipating environmental changes
• developing simpler processes and showing transparency in decision-making
• building on the self-leadership that employees show in times of transition
• examining its culture in a realistic way and making it easier for employees to understand the shared vision and values

The ideal of becoming a learning organization with a culture of continuous learning and developing applied knowledge is deeply embedded in the library’s vision as a way to meet present and future challenges.

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.

Reflecting on Our Biases

Posted on by

by Denise Koufogiannakis
University of Alberta Libraries

Reflection is an important part of evidence based practice. The principle has been embraced by those who aim to practice in an evidence-based manner because being an evidence based practitioner is not just about the evidence itself, but about the process of how and why we use that evidence. To date, reflection has generally been inserted into the evidence based process towards the end of the cycle, prompting one to look reflectively back on what was done in order to reach a decision. One reflects on such questions as: what evidence did I find and use; what evidence was lacking; what happened during the decision making process; did the chosen implementation work; what did I personally learn; what would I change next time? Reflection has also largely been considered an individual and private act that a professional undertakes for self-improvement.

I’d like to propose that we begin the process of reflection earlier in the process, specifically as it pertains to the biases we have in relation to a particular question or problem at hand. And, since library decisions are frequently made in groups, we should make reflection on our biases a shared act with colleagues who are also engaged in finding a solution to the problem. As we strive to incorporate evidence into our decision making, it is important to be aware of the biases that we all bring to finding, interpreting, weighing, and using evidence. We work in organizations, large or small, with others – we all have different perspectives, motivations, and desires. Decision making as part of a group is not easy! We need to be conscious of how the biases of each group member and the collective dynamic might influence the process. Through reflection and openness, we may be able to limit our biases and therefore make better decisions.

In practical terms, what this means is being upfront with our colleagues, and where a group has been tasked to make a decision or put forward recommendations on a specific new initiative or review of an existing area, that we have conversations about our biases from the very start. This requires that each person reflect on how they are considering and approaching the problem or question, what their initial reaction was, what they hope will be the outcome, and any other preconceived notions they have related to the issue. It also means that collectively, the group discusses and acknowledges the various biases, and consciously moves forward with the intent to address all biases so that they do not adversely affect the final decision. Doing this may be a bit risky for each individual, but it creates a climate in which trust can be built, and the group can proceed with an open and transparent approach to their decision making. It means that in all likelihood, more sources of evidence will be sought and considered, potential solutions will not be dismissed out of hand, and a sound approach will be chosen.

Here are some common biases people have, and without being aware of them, they may adversely affect our decision making:
• overconfidence bias – when people think they know more than they actually do
• confirmation bias – when people gather information selectively in order to confirm what they already think
• framing bias – when people make different decisions depending upon how information is presented
• representative bias – when people rely on stereotypes and predict outcomes based on past situations
• anchoring bias – when people rely too heavily on one piece of information
(Robbins, 2005; Greenberg and Baron, 2008)

For more on biases within the workplace, I recommend this brief overview by Rykersmith (2013) who provides a list of 5 biases in decision making, based on the research of Lovallo and Sibony (2010). While taken from business, the advice soundly applies to decision making within libraries, and provides ways for us to spot these biases and overcome them.

Recognizing your own biases or those within your group is important. Here are some questions to ask yourself and your group, in order to identify possible biases and discuss them.
• What is my natural inclination with respect to this problem? Do I already think I know the answer for what is best?
• Am I picking and choosing evidence that only suits my predetermined notion?
• If I have passionate feelings about this topic, why is that? Is there an important ethical or professional principle that needs to be considered within the decision?
• Are there other people with opposing views that I find difficult to discuss the problem with, and this is clouding my judgement?
• Am I reacting due to my own motivations/desires? Is a potential change going to impact me personally and therefore I am afraid of it?
• Am I easily influenced by one particular piece of evidence? Why might that be? Why did that piece of evidence impress me?
• Do I stand to gain or lose based on the outcome of this decision? Is this potential change influencing me?
• Have I gathered the types of evidence that would help, or just what was easy? Have all possibilities been considered? Have all perspectives been represented?
• Is the evidence sound or just based on anecdote and sentiment?

Once a bias has been brought to light, it is much easier to deal with and proceed with a higher level of consciousness. Such reflection is sure to bring us closer to better decision making.

References

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2010). The case for behavioral strategy. McKinsey Quarterly. Accessed 15 Feb. 2015
http://www.i3-invest.com/uploads/pdf_file/c850526fa6f572915c3645199db25297.pdf

Robbins, S. P. (2005). Essentials of organisational behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rykrsmith, E. (2013). 5 biases in decision making – Part 2. The Fast Track Blog. Accessed 15 Feb. 2015
http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2013/06/07/5-biases-in-decision-making-part-2/

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.

Paying for Publishing: A Reflection on One Approach to Opening Up Hybrid Journals

Posted on by

by Crystal Hampson
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

Sometimes I like to think “what if?” Lately, I’ve been thinking about a particular “what if” to do with open access, how it affects our institutions’ researchers as authors, and how could the publishing system make OA better (easier, more practical) for them. Basically, I don’t want researchers to have to put their time into administrative work like negotiating author rights, keeping track of embargo periods and article versions for each article for deposit into an IR, finding funding to pay OA article processing charges, keeping track of differing funding agency mandates, etc. etc. I want researchers to put their time into research. I also want them to be able to publish in whatever journal is best for them in terms of audience and timeliness. Researchers want that too (Solomon and Björk, Nariani and Fernandez). I also don’t want to see institutions deal with sorting out all these details for every individual article one-by-one. There are too many articles, too many variations, and ultimately too much administrative process. Keeping track of all the many varied results is impractical.

I’ve therefore been musing about “what if” we had a different model to cover OA publishing charges for currently hybrid journals, something other than a model that used details to calculate an offset to subscription cost, or some type of discount to OA APCs that still have to be paid, but a model that includes all author charges (why not include all types, while we’re at it: OA fees, page fees, etc.) so that our researchers can just publish articles OA, with no charge or administrative process for them and minimal process altogether.

In the course of my reading, I recently came across Jan Velterop’s notion of the “New Big Deal.” Velterop is the co-creator of the Big Deal model for selling journal packages. He theorizes a national approach to purchasing not only toll content but also what is essentially gold OA publishing services. Velterop notes that an individual library does not have enough leverage to negotiate such a deal well (and I would add that an individual researcher has even less leverage for any negotiation); such negotiation needs to be at a national level. I would argue that “open” is open to the world, so not only a national but internationally coordinated approach will ultimately be necessary, not necessarily one global license, but national licenses that amount to global access. Though Velterop discussed this idea in 2012, it is not in place today. I like the fundamental simplicity of this idea though, but I realize it is not simple to enact.

Would this approach save money? I recognize that publishers provide value to the scholarly communication system and I don’t object to a reasonable margin of profit for their services. It seems to me that trying to save, or make, a lot of money through the switch to OA is just holding up “open.” What if we made it open first, at current price and distribution among participants (institutions, journals and publisher)? What if then multiple publishers could ingest the open content and then truly compete, without monopoly over content, and costs could become lower over time through competition and reduced complexity? What if we started with current contribution levels and contributing institutions negotiated over time a fair distribution of costs among themselves?

I admit I usually see the good elements of a “what if” idea at first. The flaws appear to me later, like where such a model leaves independent OA journals. And certainly, “what if” only goes so far until we hit the political and business realities. On the other hand, a completely new model with too many unknowns becomes something that we can’t realistically, practically, and quickly implement, and further holds back the transition to open. Certainly models involving myriad micropayments and varied author rights terms are also not viable on a large scale. So the idea to take a model that presents less of an unknown, that has less financial uncertainty for the parties involved, and develop it from there has a certain appeal.

Nariani, Rajiv, and Leila Fernandez. “Open Access Publishing: What Authors Want.” College & Research Libraries 73.2 (2012): 182-95. HighWire Press. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

Solomon, David J., and Bo-Christer Björk. “Publication Fees in Open Access Publishing: Sources of Funding and Factors Influencing Choice of Journal.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63.1 (2012): 98-107. Wiley Online Library. Web. 24 Jul. 2013.

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.

Planning for a First-Time Sabbatical

Posted on by

by DeDe Dawson
Science Library, University of Saskatchewan

Happy New Year, Brain-Work readers!

2015 is shaping up to be an exciting year for me professionally. This is my sixth year as a tenure-track academic librarian at the University of Saskatchewan and, as I type these words, my tenure file is making its way through the various campus committees. If all goes well (i.e. my tenure is awarded!), I will be eligible for my first sabbatical as of July 1st, 2015.

Of course, administerial planning for such things has to happen many months in advance, so I was composing my sabbatical application back in September 2014. As it happens, I was working on the application the same day that Kristin Hoffmann’s Brain-Work blog post, Taking Time for Research, came out. The post described her recent sabbatical experiences and highly recommended the experience to all researching librarians lucky enough to have the opportunity. Well, the timing certainly felt auspicious!

I am happy to report that my sabbatical application has been approved and is also now working its way through the university administration. So, with the same caveat as above (if all goes well!), I will be a first-time sabbaticant for the 2015/16 year. Thinking about my upcoming leave I wondered what sage advice the Google oracle could provide. I have collected this short list of tips to share:

Sabbatical First Timer Tips

1. “The time to plan your sabbatical is well before it begins, up to a year or more prior in fact.” [Link]
This key bit of wisdom came from one of the first articles I stumbled across. Thanks to my application, I already have a broad outline of my sabbatical research project, and a smaller related project. However, I think I’ll also try to get some preliminary work underway this spring so that I waste no time and hit the ground running as of July 1st.

2. “The best tip a friend … got, while unemployed, was to get out of bed at a reasonably early hour, shower, shave and dress as though he had somewhere to go. He found this made him much more interested in using his time productively… Have a schedule, work every day, and feel great about your precious, precious sabbatical. You’ve earned it.” [Link]
This was #10 from a top ten list of sabbatical tips for junior faculty. Many of the other tips were useful too, but this one really resonated with me. I am not planning any extended travel and am hoping to get a workspace on campus during my sabbatical… but I know it is likely that I’ll also often work from home – because I can! And also, on the dark and frigid days of a Saskatchewan winter I know I will not want to leave the house if I don’t have to. So… how to stay motivated and productive from home? The thought of staying in my pajamas all day is appealing, but getting dressed and keeping to a schedule seems like a good strategy to maintain focus.

3. “Keep a daily research journal.”
This tip comes not from the Google oracle, but from an equally wise colleague of mine: Vicky Duncan. A research journal is useful for keeping track of your evolving research projects, insights and epiphanies, and any methodology decisions you make along the way…and why you made them! Seems to be a good idea for researchers in general (not just sabbaticants). However, I think a journal might be especially useful next year since I intend to spend a good portion of my sabbatical time reading deeply and simply thinking about what I’ve read. Lately, I often find myself just skimming research articles in a few spare minutes I have here and there during the day. So I am eagerly anticipating having the time and mental space to thoroughly immerse myself in scholarly literature. I can already anticipate the result of this though: an extended time period where I have no obvious products. Keeping a daily research journal of my reading, and the ideas that emerge, will be a nice reassurance to myself that I am making progress and have accomplished something.

4. “Don’t be under the illusion that you’ll get tons done. Be realistic and don’t beat yourself up.”
Actually this isn’t a direct quote, but my own summation from multiple sources! It seems many people have unrealistic expectations of what they can accomplish in this time frame, and also forget that one of the purposes of sabbaticals is to recharge your batteries. And that brings me to my final tip…

5. “My plea to my striving colleagues is to be true to the origins of the word. Don’t do nothing—but don’t focus on your usual activities either. Do not till the same soil; dare to do things differently for a year. You will be doing exactly what you are supposed to be doing— honoring your profession and the confidence placed in you— when you explore new areas, pursue projects that might fail, expand your mind with art or music or great literature, and generally upset your routine.” [Link]
A good tip to end on. A burnt-out academic cannot contribute much to their institution or discipline. I must admit that the first six years on the tenure-track, in a new profession, have left me just a little *tired*. This sabbatical leave is coming at an ideal time. A time when I am passing a significant hurdle in my professional life (if all goes well!), a time when I’m growing in confidence as a researcher and am eager to really concentrate on a substantial project, and a time when I feel I need a change of pace… to step back and take a breath.

Well, these are some of the best tips I’ve collected so far, I’m sure there is a lot more advice out there. If you have a nugget of wisdom to contribute to the list please leave a comment 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.

C-EBLIP Wishes You a Happy Holiday Season

Posted on by

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

Since the first post on July 15, 2014, Brain-Work, the blog of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP), has published 26 posts from a variety of librarians from the University of Saskatchewan and from across Canada. I’d like to extend a big THANK YOU to all the Brain-Work contributors. Your posts have been thought-provoking, interesting, and diverse, and we can look forward to more of the same in the New Year.

Brain-Work will be on a bit of hiatus for the holiday season, resuming publication on January 13, 2015. In the meantime, please have a lovely December break. C-EBLIP wishes you a very Happy New Year and all the best in 2015.

SnowManHappy Holidays!

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.

Conducting a Statistics Survey on Visible Minority Librarians in Canada

Posted on by

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

The Visible Minority Librarians of Canada (ViMLoC) Network was established with help from the Canadian Libraries Association (CLA) in December 2011. While working on a research project on leadership among minority librarians I needed to send out a survey to all Canadian minority librarians. There was no single forum or network through which I could do this. Unfortunately CLA does not, for understandable reasons, collect information on ethnic backgrounds of librarians to determine if they identify themselves as minority librarians; and unlike the American Library Association, CLA does not have various affiliates for its different minority groups. This meant sending out the survey through CLA and all the provincial library associations.

This situation prompted me to create a common forum for Canadian visible minority librarians. After consulting with CLA, I worked closely with them on creating a Network that would not only collect statistical information about minority librarians in Canada, but also serve as a common forum for this group to discuss their concerns, share ideas and success stories, have peer mentorship support, and in the future provide continuing education options tailored to this group. An email to the CLA listserv was sent in November 2011 calling for all librarians interested in this initiative to contact me and become founding members of this initiative.

11 librarians, not all visible minorities, from all over Canada became founding members of this initiative and after approval in December 2011, the Network started to function in January 2012. Heather Cai (McGill University) and I served as co-moderators of the Network for the first two years and have passed now it off to Norda Majekodumni (York University) and Kam Teo (Weyburn Public Library) for 2013-2015.

When invited for a round table conference at the Ontario Library Association Super Conference in January 2013 in Toronto, Ontario, attending conference members expressed an interest in ViMLoC undertaking two projects: gathering statistics on the number of visible minority librarians working for Canadian institutions (which was the motivation for creating this Network); and creating a mentorship program for minority librarians.

Heather and I worked on the statistics project. A short electronic questionnaire using Fluid Surveys was created with 12 questions – open ended, multiple choice, yes/no, qualitative response. After ethics approval from both institutions (for Maha and Heather), the survey was sent out through CLA, Canadian Medical Libraries and Special Libraries Association list servs. The survey was also posted on ViMLoCs listserv and website. It ran from December 9th, 2013 to January 31, 2014.

The opening question defined visible minorities as per the Canadian Employment Equity Act and asked if the participant was a minority librarian. If they answered no, they were thanked for their participation and logged out. The purpose of this survey was to gather statistical information on visible minority librarians and we needed to ensure that responses were only from minority librarians.

Of the 191 who attempted to fill out the survey, 120 completed it. The survey had many questions on ethnic backgrounds, educational background, current employment status, etc. There is rich qualitative data that is still being analyzed for future publication. In the survey responses, minority librarians have identified areas where they need help or support and have expressed gratitude for having ViMLoC as a common forum to discuss their concerns, find mentors or friends and fellow researchers to collaborate with.

Results from the survey are currently being analyzed and written as an article to be submitted to a library journal. Please stay tuned.

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 Value of Big Picture Trends in the Smaller Context

Posted on by

By Vicki Williamson
Dean, University Library, University of Saskatchewan

Library trend summaries and forecasts are becoming more prevalent in our professional literature. Maybe it just seems that way to me because more often I am thinking about the future of our profession and the role of libraries and therefore I am noticing such reports more often. One such report, which I think is one of the best, is Riding the Waves or Caught in the Tide? – an IFLA Trend Report. Visit here: http://trends.ifla.org/insights-document

What I like to do with such high levels reports is to take the key elements and think about them in a local (institutional and library specific context) and then extrapolate why and how the various factors might impact on our planning for the future.

The IFLA Trend Report is billed as ‘the global voice of the library and information profession.” It is the result of twelve months’ consultation with experts and stakeholders from a range of disciplines to explore and discuss emerging trends in our new information environment. It is more than a static report because it includes a dynamic and evolving set of online resources for library and information professionals to contribute to.

The IFLA Trend Report identifies five high level trends shaping the global information environment:

  • New technologies will both expand and limit who has access to information
  • Online education will democratise and disrupt global learning
  • The boundaries of privacy and data protection will be redefined
  • Hyper-connected societies will listen to and empower new voices and groups
  • The global information economy will be transformed by new technologies.

As I read and reflected on these trends they helped me to make sense of my local and institutional environment. For example, at the University of Saskatchewan we have come through some very demanding financial and leadership challenges over the last few years. When I reflect on how new technologies (especially social media) fed into and fueled those challenges over the summer months, it somehow helped to put events and players into some perspective. Not being a big user of social media, I had to rely on others to forward me postings, share information and assist me to become more confident in using social media tools. I think others had similar experiences as I heard from another senior colleague that he took the lead and tutoring from his daughter to access and use social media to follow the unfolding events at the university this last summer.

Returning to the IFLA Trend Report, what I really like about this report is that it focusses on the broader environment leaving the reader to place the world of libraries (individually and collectively) into that context and then to think and plan accordingly at both the local, national, and international level. I would encourage you to explore the report and the IFLA website to learn more and then to think about what the trend messages mean for your professional practice and that of your local library.

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.

Technological Disruption in Technical Services

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

In hearing discussions among technical services librarians at conferences, it is hard to deny that the majority are dealing with the impact of disruptive technical change within the field.

In his book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Christensen (1997) talks about how disruptive innovations typically “result in worse product performance, at least in the near term” and generally “underperform established products in mainstream markets” (p. xv) but eventually can come to dominate the market and surpass the established products because of a combination of characteristics. These characteristics include that the product appeals to a new significant audience and that the product is generally cheaper, simpler, smaller, and more convenient to use than previous products.

While it is easy to imagine an application of Christensen’s conceptualization of the disruptive innovation in the area of electronic gadgets including cell phones and other personal electronic devices, the connection with what has been happening in technical services in libraries in the past 5 years or so and the idea of disruptive innovation is less readily understood. The reality is that recently a number of technological developments in combination with the blooming of related theoretical frameworks has gradually moved both technical services theory and practice into a new realm where the old tried and true concepts and practices have been completely challenged and many have been overturned. Evidence that the innovations have had a disruptive impact are seen in the fact that many of the newer processes are judged by seasoned professionals to result in work of inferior quality relative to the past. However, the new practices offer library workers the ability to process large volumes of information and resources at a relatively low cost while offering new functionalities to users. As the demands on technical services staff increase and the rate at which libraries are expected to make the latest information available to users accelerates, so does the pressure increase on libraries to let go some of the older practices in favour of innovations which hold the potential for allowing rapid but informed and intelligent preparation and processing of information resources. A dilemma occurs when technical services librarians can see that to adopt the innovations some of the perfection and stability of the past is lost in favour of what, while functional, is hard to describe as anything less than a lower technical quality product. The question is why a library might even want to adopt a disruptive innovation if it is known in advance that the product will be of a lesser quality. My answer to that question is that the decision is made in the attempt to remain useful and relevant in the current information environment. A slightly reduced technical quality of product which is still highly functional and even offers some value added features is tremendously more valuable to users than creating a massive multi-year backlog of work which will eventually be completed to a hard-to-justify standard of perfection. In fact, when I have taken an objective look at what makes the outcomes of the newer processes lower-quality, the vast majority of what I have discovered to be “problematic” or “mistakes” consists of either cosmetic flaws, variations in style which don’t impact on function, and slight deviations from display conventions which are likely not even recognized as such by individuals besides library workers. The final conclusion in my mind is that if libraries can’t do it all, so to speak, the best approach is to try to remain useful and relevant to their patrons and, where the choice needs to be made, to prefer function over form.

So, what role might evidence-based practice take in helping libraries’ technical services functions successfully navigate from the past into a fast-paced, highly-demanding future? The reality is that a lot of choices will need to be made as libraries make the transition. In his book The Search for Survival: Lessons from Disruptive Technologies, Lucas (2012) has described eight signs that an organization is failing in the face of a disruption. The following lists those signs and explains how they might be observed in a library context:
1) Denial: This is a denial that a disruption has occurred or is important. It could take the form of denying the importance of the role of cloud computing information storage, discovery and access.
2) History: When libraries believe that they will always be the key provider of information to their patrons without having to adjust their approaches to changing realities, they have fallen into the trap of history.
3) Resistance to change
4) Mind-set: This is often displayed as “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” despite the growing evidence that the status quo is failing. It is denial that exists at the level of the individual.
5) Brand: When libraries assume that all of their patrons will automatically recognize the library as the superior source for reliable information and do nothing to continue to build the brand in the mind of their users, over-reliance on brand is evident.
6) Sunk costs: When libraries decide to not adopt changes because much has already been invested in older systems despite the fact that those systems are failing in critical ways, a problem with sunk costs is present.
7) Profitability: If libraries keep getting donations, grants, and other types of funding by maintaining the status quo and use this to justify their inertia, concerns for profitability may be overwhelming the bigger picture.
8) Lack of imagination

Reading through this list and reflecting on various other ways the signs might be present in libraries reinforced in my mind that the librarian who makes decisions based on evidence is significantly more likely to thrive in the face of disruptive change than the librarian who does not.

References:
Christensen, C. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lucas, H. 2012. The Search for Survival: Lessons from Disruptive Technologies. Denver: Praeger.

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.

Sometimes you just need a librarian. And sometimes, you just need a statistician.

Posted on by

by Christine Neilson
Information Specialist, St. Michael’s Hospital
Toronto, Ontario

Statistics has been on my mind for a variety of reasons lately. As a practitioner/researcher (emphasis on the practitioner part!) I dabble in library research when I can find the time, but I often feel inadequate when it comes to stats. Based on anecdotal evidence, I believe that I’m not alone. I’ve taken introductory stats classes and I know what a p value is, but I feel ill prepared to conduct statistical analysis beyond basic descriptive stats; averages, percentage, and that kind of thing.

The issue of different types of evidence aside, conducting meaningful statistical analysis – correctly – is a matter that has troubled me for a long time. There are a variety of statistical programs available but these tools can’t substitute for actually knowing what you’re doing, and thinking that they will can only lead to trouble. It’s similar to using bibliographic databases without knowing how searching works; thinking that a person should be able to sit down and immediately do an effective, efficient search when they don’t know what the process is, what the commands mean, and when it is appropriate to use which one. But the idea of contracting statistical analysis for a research project to someone else with serious statistical chops somehow seems like cheating. If I’m going to be a real researcher, my internal voice tells me, I should be able to do it myself. I want to be able to do it myself.

Unlike many of the contributors to the Brain-Work blog, I work in a hospital library rather than in academia, and one of my major roles is doing literature searches for health professionals who are conducting research. My colleagues and I provide consults for the do-it-yourselfers, but we encourage our clients to take advantage of our literature search services because we can search better and faster; this isn’t a slight against anyone, it’s simply a fact that we have different areas of expertise. As one of my colleagues likes to say, “Sometimes you just need a librarian”.

So what’s my problem then? We are asking our clients to let go a little bit and trust someone with a specialized skill set, shouldn’t I be able to do the same? If sometimes you just need a librarian, then sometimes you just need a statistician. I’ve been involved in a research team where statistical analysis was delegated to a research assistant with experience doing statistical analysis. A sensible division of labour? Sure. Am I a little relieved that someone who knows what they are doing is in charge of that piece? Honestly, yes. Deep down, do I still want to be able to do it all? You better believe it. But maybe – just maybe – striving for a moderate level of statistical literacy and letting people with more expertise do the heavy lifting might not be such a bad idea after all. I do need to be able to make sense of data analysis when I see it, but whether I like it or not, it is very unlikely that I will have the opportunity to develop real statistical expertise in the foreseeable future.

As I understand it, one of the barriers to librarians conducting research is the intimidation factor. I wonder if more librarians would feel better about the idea of doing research if we embraced the idea that one doesn’t necessarily have to handle every aspect of the endeavour by oneself. Because sometimes you just need a statistician.

This article gives the views of the author and not necessarily the views of St. Michael’s Hospital, the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

What I’ve Favourited on Twitter Lately, pt. 2

Posted on by

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

I first did a post of my Twitter faves back in on August 12, 2014. It was summer. There was no snow, no cold…there were birds and insects and warm soft breezes. Perhaps I just want to recapture those feelings here in frigid November but I figured I’d dip into my Twitter faves and see what I need to catch up on.

• August 28 saw the retirement of Carleton University Librarian, Margaret Haines. @CU_Discovery tweeted an awesome photo of Margaret living her final wish: to drive the library tunnel cart!
• @ALA_ACRL tweeted a press release for their new updated version of the ACRL Scholarly Communication toolkit. You can find the toolkit here: http://acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/
• @slwalter123 tweeted a link to a book review that looked at two books related to academic freedom. The first book is by Stanley Fish. In Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to Revolution (University of Chicago Press) Fish claims that faculty have been perpetuating “academic freedom creep” over the past decades and outlines his four academic freedoms. You can check out the review here
• One of my favourite blogs, The Impact Blog from the London School of Economics and Political Science blogged about how faculty learning communities are a positive way for libraries to engage academic staff in scholarly communication.
• @JMBurns99 tweeted a link entitled What is Critical Research? It goes to an interesting and informative page from the University of Strathclyde, Humanities and Social Sciences.

Here are a few of my favourite tweets that don’t include links. They’re helpful (and sometimes funny) all by themselves!
• @LitAtLeddy: At a great #UWindsor writing retreat where many of our best researchers model the secret to productivity: sit in your chair and do some work
• @GreatestQuotes: Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet. ~ Aristotle
• @NeinQuarterly: Mid-life Crisis: The sudden realization that you’ve been dying all along. #TheNihilisticDictionary
• October 15 saw the first annual C-EBLIP Fall Symposium: Librarians as Researchers. @tmmaddison tweeted: #ceblip2014 Throughout the day, I found it hard not to run out of the room and immediately start researching. So many interesting topics!

I continue to find Twitter useful for CPD, as well as interesting, informative, and fun! If you haven’t made a foray into the Twitterverse yet, try it! 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.