Linda Lowry (B.Com MLS MA) Business & Economics Librarian
description
Transcript of Linda Lowry (B.Com MLS MA) Business & Economics Librarian
OLA Super Conference 2006 1
Communities of Practice for Subject Librarians:
Making Connections across the Profession to Enhance Interaction and
Knowledge Sharing
Linda Lowry (B.Com MLS MA)Business & Economics Librarian
James A. Gibson Library, Brock UniversitySt. Catharines, ON
OLA Super Conference 2006 2
Presentation Outline
What is a Subject (Specialist) Librarian? What are Communities of Practice? Purpose of Study & Methodology Phase One Results: Background, Workplace, CPE
& Professional Communication Phase Two Results: Socialization and Information
Seeking Applying the Framework of Communities of Practice Distributed Communities of Practice for Subject
Librarians
OLA Super Conference 2006 3
What is a Subject (Specialist) Librarian?
“A librarian qualified by virtue of specialized knowledge and experience to select materials and provide bibliographic instruction and reference services to users in a specific subject area or academic discipline (or subdiscipline). In academic libraries, subject specialists often hold a second master's degree in their field of specialization. Also refers to a librarian trained in subject analysis”.
Reitz, Joan M. (2004). Subject specialist. In ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Retrieved December 12, 2005 from: http://lu.com/odlis/odlis_s.cfm
OLA Super Conference 2006 4
Subject Librarians: Examples from Academic Librarianship
Business Science & Engineering Humanities Social Sciences
Medical Legal
• Centralized Libraries or Branch/Divisional Libraries
• Sole Responsibility or Shared Responsibility
• Separate Branch Libraries
• Shared Responsibility
OLA Super Conference 2006 5
Academic Business Librarians
Accidental business librarians Few (15-20%) have an academic background in
Business Some may have corporate library experience
Varied organizational models Branch vs. centralized
Roles & responsibilities Sole vs. shared
OLA Super Conference 2006 6
What are Communities of Practice?
Social theory of learning Situated or contextual
nature Legitimate peripheral
participation: the process by which newcomers become included in a community of practiceLave, Jean & Wenger,
Etienne. Situated Learning. London: Oxford University Press, 1991.
OLA Super Conference 2006 7
What are Communities of Practice?
Meaning: Learning as experience
Practice: Learning as doing Community: Learning as
belonging Identity: Learning as
becoming
Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice. London: Oxford University Press, 1998.
OLA Super Conference 2006 8
What are Communities of Practice?
“Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis”.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
OLA Super Conference 2006 9
Community of Interest vs. Community of Practice vs. Network of Practice
Community of Interest Purpose is to be informed Members share an interest in a topic (e.g. Japanese
Anime)
Community of Practice Purpose is to create, expand, and exchange
knowledge and develop individual capabilities Members are practitioners who develop a shared
practice (e.g. Insurance Claims Processors) Are subsections of larger Networks of Practice
OLA Super Conference 2006 10
Community of Interest vs. Community of Practice vs. Network of Practice
Network of Practice Work-related network linking people together who
share occupational or work-related practice and knowledge in common
Members are loosely connected, may never meet face-to-face, and rely on indirect links or third parties to keep in touch
Allows professional or disciplinary knowledge to flow across organizational boundaries via conferences, newsletters, discussion lists and web pages
OLA Super Conference 2006 11
Purpose of Study
To investigate the communication, information seeking and continuing professional education activities of a community of academic business librarians to better understand how they acquire and share knowledge related to their professional practice
To determine the extent to which this population can be characterized as a Community of Practice
OLA Super Conference 2006 12
Population
Criterion-based purposeful sampling strategy 20 Ontario universities
Must offer business (or related) degrees Must use the Subject Specialist model of library
service Individuals were identified based on job title
Population: 25 individual academic business librarians employed at 15 different universities in Ontario
OLA Super Conference 2006 13
Methodology
Two-phase multi-method research design Phase One: web-based questionnaire
23 closed and open-ended questions Designed to elicit information on the communication,
information seeking, and professional development of academic business librarians
www.surveymonkey.com used to create and administer the questionnaire
Phase Two: In-depth 1 hour interviews with 8 librarians
OLA Super Conference 2006 14
Phase One Results: Demographic Profile
Response rate: 84% Gender: 14.3% male 85.7% female Age distribution:
< 30: 9.5% 30-39: 42.9% 40-49: 14.3% 50-59: 23.8% 60 +: 9.5%
OLA Super Conference 2006 15
Educational Background
Undergraduate Background English, History most often cited Only 3 of 21 had studied Business or Economics
Date MLIS degree obtained Prior to 1989: 28.5% 1990 – 1999: 23.8% 2000 or later: 33.3% No MLIS: 14.3%
Comparative Years of Experience
Min Max Mean Median Number of Respondents
As a librarian 0.75 40 13.75 8 21
As an academic business librarian
0.5 28 6.46 3 19
At your current institution
0.5 30.5 7.04 2.5 19
In your current position
0.5 28 3.75 1.5 19
OLA Super Conference 2006 17
Workplace and Current Position
Size of university 1500 – 67,000 FTE students Mean: 23, 776 FTE students
Type of library Branch: 43% vs. centralized: 57%
Nature of responsibility Reference, collection development, instruction,
liaison Sole: 29% vs. shared: 71%
Current LIS Association Memberships
Association Name Yes No No Answer
Canadian Library Association (CLA) 7 9 5
CLA’s Business Information Interest Group
1 10 9
American Library Association (ALA) 7 8 6
ALA’s Business Reference and Services Section
4 9 8
Special Libraries Association (SLA) 8 5 8
SLA’s Business & Finance Division 7 6 8
Ontario Library Association (OLA) 13 5 3
OLA’s Ontario College and University Libraries Association
11 5 5
Overlap of LIS Association Memberships
Associations Number Percent
CLA, ALA, SLA, OLA 1 4.8%
ALA, SLA, OLA 2 9.5%
CLA, ALA, OLA 1 4.8%
CLA, OLA 3 14.3%
ALA, OLA 3 14.3%
SLA, OLA 1 4.8%
CLA only 2 9.5%
ALA only 0 0%
SLA only 4 19%
OLA only 2 9.5%
Did not belong to any of these 2 9.5%
Total 21 100%
OLA Super Conference 2006 20
Continuing Professional Education Activities
LIS conference attendance within last year Yes: 19 of 21
Which conferences do they attend? OLA – 13 WILU – 4 CLA – 3; ALA Midwinter – 3
Conference presentations Yes: 10 of 21
Continuing Professional Education Activities by Type of Information ProviderType of Information Provider Example Activities
Professional Association or Library Organizations
Library Management Workshop (ARL); Data training (CAPDU/DLI); Choosing and using government documents (OLA Institute online course); RefWorks (OCUL); Visioning libraries of the future (ACRL)
Internal (within own library, business school, or university)
Leadership & supervisor training (university); active learning (library); what MBA students think about teaching (business school)
Database vendors Database demonstrations and training sessions for: Business Source Premier, Datastream, Factiva, Mergent etc.
College or University Continuing Education courses
Canadian Securities Course; Dreamweaver; Excel
OLA Super Conference 2006 22
Professional Communication Habits
BUSLIB-L subscriptions Yes: 11 of 21
5 of 11 read it daily No: 10 of 21
Comments “I used to monitor BUSLIB, but the value of the
interactions declined quickly” “I find it less useful as an academic librarian than
when I was in corporate”.
OLA Super Conference 2006 23
Other LIS e-mail list subscriptions Lists sponsored by professional associations Lists on specific topics Restricted lists Data-related lists ABEL-O (not a real “listserve”)
Professional Communication Habits
How often do you post queries to LIS-related email discussion lists?
Frequency Number Percent
Often (several times / month) 0 0%
Sometimes (several times / year) 6 28.6%
Rarely (once a year or less) 9 42.9%
Never 5 23.8%
Other 1 4.8%
Total 21
How often do you respond to queries from LIS-related email discussion lists?
Frequency Number Percent
Often (several times / month) 2 9.5%
Sometimes (several times / year) 8 38.1%
Rarely (once / year or less) 9 42.9%
Never 2 9.5%
Other 0 0%
Total 21
How often do you communicate directly with other business librarians outside of your own institution?Frequency Number Percent
Often (several times / month) 4 19%
Sometimes (several times / year) 15 71.4%
Rarely (once / year or less) 1 4.8%
Never 1 4.8%
Other 0 0%
Total 21
How frequently do you use the following communication methods when communicating with other business librarians?
Method Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Chat (e.g., MSN Messenger
0 0 1 15
Email 14 6 0 0
Face-to-face 3 10 6 0
Fax 0 2 3 12
Mail 0 0 7 10
Telephone 5 11 4 0N=20 (rows do not total 20 because respondents skipped part of the question)
OLA Super Conference 2006 28
Communication Media Choice
Media selection framework (Lengel & Daft, 1988) Rich media (face-to-face or telephone): for non-routine
messages, convey cues of personal interest, caring and trust
Lean media (mail or email): for routine messages, maintain and strengthen weak ties
Other factors: proximity, recipient availability, desire for task closure (Straub & Karahanna, 1998)
Social & occupational norms
OLA Super Conference 2006 29
Phase Two: Methodology
In-depth 1 hour qualitative interviews with 8 individuals (7 female, 1 male) that explored information seeking behavior Information seeking: “a conscious effort to acquire
information in response to a need or gap in your knowledge” (Case, 2002, p.5)
Background (educational and work experiences) If recently hired (<4 years): reflect back on how
they learned their job All respondents: discuss problems related to
business librarianship that required them to seek out information
OLA Super Conference 2006 30
Phase Two Results: Information Seeking Frequency
Frequency varied according to: Individual background factors
Educational background Career stage
Organizational contextual factors Type of Library: centralized or branch Nature of Responsibility: sole or shared
OLA Super Conference 2006 31
Information Seeking Incidents
Core themes Socialization strategies: learning the job as a
newcomer to the position
Role-related information seeking: information needs arising out of the daily practice of business librarianship
OLA Super Conference 2006 32
Socialization Strategies
Organizational socialization theory (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) 6 tactical dimensions:
Collective vs. individual Formal vs. informal Sequential vs. random Fixed vs. variable Investiture vs. divestiture Serial vs. disjunctive
OLA Super Conference 2006 33
“When I first came here, number one thing I noticed was there was nobody who could train me. Because whoever did it before took her expertise with her. There was no one else doing joint work or shared work so that someone else could teach me how to do it. I was dropped right into the position but there was nobody to ask for help and so I was on my own to begin with.”
OLA Super Conference 2006 34
“Business librarianship in academic libraries… my impression is that nobody wants to do it. At least in Canada or in a lot of places where there is a general library. [In my library] this portfolio gets passed around to the newest librarian. Nobody wants it. [My predecessor] was so happy when I got here so she could get rid of it.”
OLA Super Conference 2006 35
New librarians with sole responsibility Disjunctive socialization process – no role models Tactics to overcome professional isolation and
uncertainty proactive information seeking behaviour use of third parties (external information sources),
direct questioning, observing
Socialization Strategies
OLA Super Conference 2006 36
Socialization Strategies
New librarians with shared responsibility Serial socialization process – internal role models Colleagues “showed them the ropes” Less need to build network of external contacts
OLA Super Conference 2006 37
Advice for employers and future subject librarians!
Training sessions for new academic librarians Should facilitate relationships with external
contacts including introductions to subject librarian peers at other institutions
Such contacts are very important for solo subject librarians who experience a disjunctive socialization process
See Oud, J. (2005). Jumping into the deep end: training for new academic librarians. Feliciter, 51(2), 86-88.
OLA Super Conference 2006 38
Socialization Strategies
Job transitions in later career stages Serial socialization – smoother transitions
because they were internal job transfers Less uncertainty, greater role clarity Shared responsibility – trained by colleagues Sole responsibility – was already familiar with the
requirements of the position and knew how to proceed
OLA Super Conference 2006 39
Role-related information seeking
Roles: Reference services Collection development Instructional & liaison Continuing professional education
Frequency of information seeking Impact of shared vs. sole responsibility Impact of lack of subject background
OLA Super Conference 2006 40
Reference Services Role
Information needs Complex business reference questions Data & government documents questions
Information sources Internal colleagues Data experts Business database vendors Email discussion lists
OLA Super Conference 2006 41
“The problem with collections, the major problem is the collecting of databases. Because there is so much overlap from one to the next. And yet … each one is unique in its own way. They are extremely expensive. The major obstacle I came across, not having used these tools myself as a student or in research, I don’t really know how they are used. I can only make an educated guess. I can only get as much information from students or faculty as I can dredge out of them. …It is frustrating…”
Collection Development Role
OLA Super Conference 2006 42
Collection Development Role
Information needs Challenge of making business database
recommendations Sole vs. shared responsibility
Information sources Database demos and trials Benchmarking against other libraries’ holdings
OLA Super Conference 2006 43
Instructional Role
Sole vs. shared responsibility Solos lack internal mentors for teaching business
resources – sought advice and mentoring from external sources
Shared responsibility – team teaching, act as sounding boards
Collaboration and consultation with data or government documents experts
OLA Super Conference 2006 44
Continuing Professional Education Role
Barriers to participation Lack of time / no backup coverage Lack of relevant offerings
Vendor training Attend multiple sessions Barrier: lack of facilities to host training sessions
Acquiring subject matter expertise MBA vs. other approaches
OLA Super Conference 2006 45
Applying the Framework of Communities of Practice
Wenger’s indicators that a Community of Practice has formed:
Sustained mutual relationships Shared ways of engaging in doing
things together Rapid flow of information and
propagation of innovation Absence of introductory
preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process
Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed
Substantial overlap in participants descriptions of who belongs
Knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise
Mutually defining identities Ability to assess the
appropriateness of actions and products
Specific tools, representations, and other artifacts
Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter
Jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones
Certain styles recognized as displaying membership
Shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world
Comparison of Community of Practice and Network of Practice Concepts
Dimension Community of Practice (Wenger)
Network of Practice (Brown & Duguid)
Membership Practitioners Practitioners
Nature of Links - Direct (face-to-face)- Know each other and work together
- More indirect than direct (through third parties) - Unknown to one another
Nature of Knowledge Being Communicated
Tacit / Implicit Explicit
Reach of Network Limited Extended
Degree of Reciprocity or Interaction
Strong Weak
Nature of Network Tight-knit groups Loosely-coupled system
OLA Super Conference 2006 47
Communities of Practice: Wenger, McDermott & Snyder
Size (small or large) Duration (short-lived or long-lived) Location (colocated or distributed) Composition (homogeneous or
heterogeneous) Development (spontaneous or
intentional) Organizational relationships
(unrecognized to institutionalized)
OLA Super Conference 2006 48
What are Distributed Communities of Practice (DCoP)?
Communities that cannot rely on face-to-face interaction as its primary vehicle for connecting members.
Such communities often cross multiple boundaries (organizational or geographical)
There must be regular interaction via other means (web site, discussion lists, teleconferencing)
Is this population a DCoP? No Is there potential to cultivate a DCoP? Yes
OLA Super Conference 2006 49
Cultivating a Distributed Community of Practice
Identify an extant loose network with potential Find common ground Challenges - Need to devote more time and
effort to: Reconciling multiple agendas to define domain Building personal relationships and trust Developing a strong sense of craft intimacy
OLA Super Conference 2006 50
Cultivating a Distributed Community of Practice
4 key development activities (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder) Achieving stakeholder alignment Creating a structure that promotes both local
variations and global connections Building a rhythm strong enough to maintain
community visibility Developing the private space of the community
more systematically
OLA Super Conference 2006 51
Benefits and Costs of Distributed Communities of Practice
Organizational benefits Decreasing the learning curve of new employees Responding more rapidly to customer needs & inquiries Reducing rework and preventing “reinvention of the wheel” Spawning new ideas for products & services
Organizational costs Cost of participation time for members Meeting expenses for travel or teleconferencing Technology costs associated with group messaging or web
site hosting Content publishing and promotional expenses
OLA Super Conference 2006 52
Benefits of Distributed Communities of Practice
For individual subject librarians Ability to share expertise to solve problems and to
coordinate activities Develop a sense of belonging and stronger sense
of professional identity as a subject librarian Socialization agent for new subject librarians
through legitimate peripheral participation Foster professional development among
community members
OLA Super Conference 2006 53
Benefits of Distributed Communities of Practice
Benefits to Library consortia Enable organizations to pool resources to access outside
expertise, learn from other’s experience, develop common training material, assess the merits of different practices, build a common baseline of knowledge
Benefits to Library profession LIS students interested in becoming subject librarians
could ‘lurk’ in the community LIS instructors interested in subject librarianship could join
communities to better inform their knowledge base and develop stronger ties with practitioners
OLA Super Conference 2006 54
Thank You!
For More Information:
Linda Lowry
Business & Economics Librarian
James A. Gibson Library
Brock University
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 905-688-5550 ext. 4650