Now that my ALA Emerging Leaders tenure is done, I plan to try and get more professional reading in as a matter of course. Below are some recent articles of interest. All are available full text in Wilson’s Library Literature and Information Science Full Text unless otherwise notes.
This conference paper attempts to solve the “ooh shiny” syndrome that leaves libraries with more new tools than they really need, offering up a workplan for “planned abandonment.” Much like the “for every new piece of clothing you buy, discard one you no longer wear” (or is it just me that does this?), planned abandonment allows the library to critically and carefully look at new tools and services in careful, critical light of the library’s mission and its user population. Sounds simple enough – but for various and sundry reasons (the “anxiety of endings” and a healthy skepticism of any school of thought originating from management or business circles) libraries do not want to get rid of things…but have no problem adding something new. The researchers, two librarians from very similar colleges in Pennsylvania, use the planned abandonment practice in phasing out their old ILL systems to implement new ones. Their plans led them to develop two best practices for any planned abandonment plan: reliance on communication and commitment to active follow-up work with analysis (“analysis and examination is not a static affair….it must be accompanied by constant upkeep and improvement.”)
I’m not surprised by this paper. Substitute “weeding” for “planned abandonment” and you have a critical issue facing collection development librarians. What differs this from other literature on weeding is the care and detail given to why libraries do not abandon services and the best practices that arose from the research. A fascinating study into librarian psychology.
Huwe, Terence K.. “How to Craft Social Media for Graduate Study.” Computers in Libraries 31.5 (2011): 25-7.
Can social media and academia play hand in hand, or never the twain shall meet? There are academic-based social networking sites, like Quora and Academia.edu, but they don’t have the zeitgeist penetration of Facebook or Twitter. Terence Huwe says yes, the two can walk hand in hand – with a little bit of tailoring first. He calls for recognition that social media needs to fit into the existing academic model of “fellowship – direct, one-to-one, and person-to-person” – the advisor-apprentice model of communication, as well as the resources that academics and graduate students use. Don’t build the academics’ equivalent of Facebook – make what is out there already, what students use for personal communication, part of the academic community (with a few tweaks to cater to the unique user needs). It’s design thinking, plain and simple. He offers some tips to make this integration happen in the academic library: simply dive in and connect, documenting the academic journey with Web 2.0 tools (Evernote? Zotero?), and sharing the wealth selectively.
A good example, albeit outside of higher ed, is the knitting/crocheting social networking site Ravelry. Slate’s recent piece on what Ravelry does right (and why it’s better than Facebook) cites ways that the social network notes the fiber community’s wants, needs, and preferred resources – and in turn, builds their network around those resources. The introduction of Google Plus and promises of integration with other Google services leads me to hope that we will see this on a more mainstream level very soon.
I’m very keen on Huwe’s idea of “sharing the wealth selectively,” particularly with the analogy of conferences. Librarians are heavy social networking users at conferences (I note that the number of librarians joining Twitter spikes a few weeks before ALA Midwinter and ALA Annual), and the official ALA Annual and Midwinter Twitter accounts do great jobs of sharing information and responding to attendee issues. If I had a question about a session or just needed to tell someone the wifi was down or that the printer in the Internet cafe needs paper, I tweeted the message – with the confidence I would receive a response or at the very least, my need would be read and recognized. Clearly we’re adopters of this tenet, and if academics want an example of effective social media in the conference setting, they only need go and talk to their academic librarian…who just might have been tweeting his/her favorite ALA Annual conference sessions and library service updates.
Abram, Stephen. “Recognizing Innovation.” Computers in Libraries 31.5 (2011): 12.
There’s no guidebook for spotting innovation; the practice of trend watching is highly subjective. Developing a toolkit appears futile, but Stephen Abram takes this on, and offers suggestions for finding The Next Big Thing. Trend spotting requires a healthy dose of trusting your gut, frequent scanning of what is out there, and careful examination of potential trends. He cautions the trend spotters to look for that change that incites argument, comes from outside the industry bubble (echo chamber, if you prefer), solves problems, spurs transformation on a global scale, and spurs human rather than technological change (among others, Abram provides about ten questions to ask oneself when looking for innovation).
Of all the tips and tricks presented in this very short piece, it was the third one in my list (spurring transformation on a global scale) that I find most important. Librarians have a bad habit of sticking in their silos, only going to certain conferences and certain conference presentations under the guise of “it’s closest to where I live” or “it’s the most relevant to my work.” One of the best conference tips I read was to attend a session out of your comfort zone – if you’re a school librarian, go to a session at ALA geared for academic librarians. If you’re an academic librarian, attend something for public librarians. You might discover a Next Big Thing that works in your library.
I put this in low-key practice at the ALA Annual Meeting in New Orleans last month. While looking to fill an hour, a fellow librarian suggested I attend the ALA Learning Round Table Training Showcase. I’m not in any position to do staff training now or in the near term, but as he was a friend and colleague with an opinion I respect (hi Maurice!) and I really couldn’t think of anything else, I decided to attend. It was worth the effort! I had the chance to talk to two Emerging Leaders from my cohort about their projects related to training and staff development, and learn about succession planning in libraries. I wasn’t specifically in trend-spotting mode (in fact, Abram might caution me against trend-spotting at a session like that, where the information presented is more for internal than external use), but for stepping out of my comfort zone and only sticking to things I wanted to hear, it was a good start.
Badke, William. “Google Scholar and the Researcher.” Online (Weston, Conn.) 33.3 (2009): 47-9.
Before reading the last article in this list on Google Scholar user behavior, I found it wise to get a good primer on Google Scholar itself, and this article fit the bill. I had basic knowledge of how Scholar worked, but never dug deep into details, preferring to conduct research in library databases. Google Scholar looks like a library database with a Google logo slapped on it, but it’s vastly different. It has some useful tools, such as “Library Links” (connection to a local library catalog via proxy), a rough citation counter and some bibliographic management. Yet it is far from an ideal database. Most results are not open access full text (you can search full text, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get access to full text!), formats are limited and not easy to distinguish and users cannot sort/filter results. These limitations make it a difficult source for teaching and learning, but it does provide teachable moments. Scholar works well for “citation hopping,” finding citations from other articles, teaching recognition of format from citation and the use of good search terms, and tends to be a good backup source when other library sources failed. A fine overview of Google Scholar (and how to teach it) for librarians looking for more information on Scholar.
With some familiarity of how Google Scholar works, I was well prepared to review and comment on this University of Mississippi review of library user behavior with Google Scholar. The librarians used a combination of proxy server access, ILL record review, keyword analysis and click through link analysis to find out the following about their users’ behavior in Scholar:
- Sciences and Social Sciences were disciplines most searched for in Scholar, in both keyword analysis and click through reports. Keyword analysis showed the preference for Scholar’s currency over other resources, as popular keywords turned up in business and health science disciplines. (The analysis was done in 2009 when health care reform and business/economic reform were hot topics. Humanities ranked lowest in many categories, but this is indicative of the behavior of humanists – reluctant to embrace change (perhaps they should skim the planned abandonment article I reviewed first?) and content with books and print resources.
- Graduate students and faculty use Google Scholar the most, and subject areas trend the same as above. Undergraduate students had low usage – unless they were off campus (as discovered when the library added click through access via proxy. However, these were often one time users.
- Google Scholar users considered it the “resource of last resort” – 76 percent of ILL/GS users were also using library resources, and 52% used it after checking another library resource.
Information literacy researchers should be pleased with that last finding; the fears of over-reliance on Google for library research may be just that – fears. There is recognition that Google Scholar is not to be the be-all end-all for library research. I would like to see more work on Google Scholar user behavior in undergraduates; graduate students and faculty tend to have strong research skills, so they would know the power and limitations of Scholar. And bringing this back to Google Plus…assuming that Plus integration with Google services fully comes to pass, will Scholar use increase or decrease? Will there be changes in user behavior demographics? These are worthy of future investigation.
