Bibliotek i Endring

Final project seminar / Sluttsamling prosjekt

19.3.2015

Plan for the day

• Intro: 10.00 - 10.15

• Presentation/discussion: 10.15 - 11.45

• Lunsj: 11.45 - 12.45

• Planning session: 12.45 - 15.00

Introduction• This is the closing event of our project that started in June

2013

• We want to use it to give something back to you, our participants…

… and also to suggest directions for further work

“Changing Libraries”

• Context at HiB: 1) Reorganisation and moving to Kronstad

• 2) Focusing more on research support

• 3) Digital developments

• 4) Need for new competencies

• 5) Merger(s)

• and at UiS…. change of director (though we did not know this was coming at the start…)

Also several issues from the last slide are held in common

Methodology

• Our aim was to study change management — information management — and organisational learning…

• But not in a ‘top-down’ way, as diktats the librarians just have to respond to.

• Instead, viewing these as social processes that are collective, dialogic (Linell 2009) and “that underlie knowledge sharing between the different subunits of a single organisation” (Tagliaventi, Bertolotti and Macrì 2010, 332)

Co-operative inquiry

• ‘External’ research…

• + action research by the librarians themselves

• Data generated that was useful at both levels

• But: there might have been some tension between the two? e.g. — the question of revisiting old maps or creating fresh maps each time

Stewarding

• Core concept

• Wenger et al’s model

• Not just stewarding, but distributing the capacity to steward

• Expand idea out beyond ICT — to the whole information landscape

Mapping as a learning process

• Maps can summarise what is known about a landscape — provide information about it even if you have not been there

• But they can also tell you new things about somewhere familiar

• Mapping of information — relationships

• Sociograms and concept mapping used in the project

Types of data collected• Interview data — social network analysis; feedback

• Ketso sessions — quantitative, qualitative, relational, longitudinal

• Also recordings, observations as backup

(For more on the methodology see our paper: Whitworth, A., Torras I Calvo, M. C., Moss, B., Amlesom kifle, N., & Blåsternes, T. (2014). Changing Libraries: Facilitating Self-Reflection and Action Research on Organizational Change in Academic Libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(2), 251-274.)

Why social network analysis?

• Why we undertook this — an alternative ‘map’ of the relationships in each library

• What we hoped it would show us

• Change over the period of study?

Name

Coreness

Actions

Kirsty

0.444 7

Joanna*

0.422

14

Carol

0.36 5

Iris*

0.343 5

Gillian

0.307 7

Bill*

0.27

17

Henry*

0.264 1

Mary

0.258 7

Dawn

0.222 7

Susan

0.136 3

Fay

0.066 0

Ed

0.038 0

Pearson’s Correlation coefficient:

+0.577

Here there is a correlationbetween ‘coreness’ and changes to practice — butalso evidence of inclusiveness when it came to managing the change

However, we didn’t see the samecorrelation in library B, so itmay just be a coincidence

“Further research isrequired…”

Ketso• What the concept maps told us (as ‘external’ researchers)

• Highlighted issues with information management — issue of ‘territory’ and scrutiny over practices? [discussion?]

• Prioritisation and setting actions did not necessarily lead to change in maps — some areas ‘stagnant’ — or neglected

It must be stressed that the maps are representations.

Nevertheless there is evidence here, at least, of the perception ofblockages and/or stagnation.

Issues with library change management

• Impact of reorganisation at HiB?

• Evidence to suggest the reorganisation was perceived as successful — inclusive

• Staff retained a sense of ownership, that their contributions were valued and meaningful

• The Bie project as a whole promoted reflection and debate on the library’s values, best practices and goals

• External consultants’ role was important (both the Bie investigators and those helping with the reorganisation)

[core values] have changed but in a positive way. During the reorganisation we have been reflecting, planning, thinking a lot and we have revived things which were not emphasised in the past. We have talked a lot about what new best practices we can integrate into our library, we have learned from other people, consultants leading us in the reorganisation process.

[We have] more perception of changes in academic libraries in total. Before, the library was focused on subjects that it was serving and not so much on the institution as a whole, as something which offers education. Now the whole situation has to be considered. It is a more administrative thing, we are part of a bigger whole and we have to change the way we think about libraries.

Organisationally there have been many changes. We were in small places, there was less information, less going on. With fewer people you knew what you were doing more. Now there are a lot of people, maybe doing the same thing. All the ones teaching, say, are in one group. We have to deal with more colleagues, a lot more information. As a library we now have one management instead of several. The circulation desk has to communicate not just with their own unit but with everyone. I am expected to stretch myself much more, expected to know what is going on in other places much more.

Some quotes from interviews:

And at UiS?

• Ketso showed much lower volatility of the landscape at UiS, particularly prior to January 2014

• Activity peaked in session 4 (April 2014)

• Change of director was not a structural change to the same extent as at HiB

• Change in management style — changes in priorities — but not so much change in practices or roles

Impact on participants• Positive — space for reflection, seeing how things fit into the

bigger picture, helped organise actions

• Liked the visualisation. Record of a conversation that was more dynamic & less constrained than team meeting

• Negative — too many sessions?

• No new information?

• Generally though — Ketso can help with professional development for information stewarding

Role of facilitation• More active in §4 and §5 (April and June 2014)

• For discussion — could it be done ‘internally’ or must it be an ‘outsider’?

• How can this be developed — future work?

Concluding discussion

• Not a matter of engineering learning environments

• Chess analogy

• How to take it forward as research but also within the libraries?

Lunch break

Afternoon Ketso session

• Where do we want to be in 5 years’ time?

• What will it take to get there (generally, and in specific areas)?

• What blocks progress, and what blockages might be addressed by specific actions in the short- and medium-term?

• GREEN leaves [the shoots, the seeds]: ideas, aspirations, hopes, plans

• BROWN leaves [the soil, the ground]: existing strengths, structures, the basis for growth

• YELLOW leaves [the sun, energy]: drivers for change, fuelling growth

• GREY leaves [clouds, infertile areas]: blockages, problems, counter-forces