OLA Super Conference 20061 Communities of Practice for Subject Librarians: Making Connections across...

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


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


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

http://lu.com/odlis/odlis_s.cfm


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


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


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.



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.



“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.


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.surveymonkey.com/


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%


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


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%


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


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”.


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%


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%


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)


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


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


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


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


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


“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.”


“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.”


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




New librarians with shared responsibility Serial socialization process – internal role models Colleagues “showed them the ropes” Less need to build network of external contacts


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.



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


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


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


“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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jeremiah-egan
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

OLA Super Conference 20061 Communities of Practice for Subject Librarians: Making Connections across...

Documents