vye

An Essay of the LISNews Summer Series

Our libraries are full of books, journals and other materials that can help people understand the world and its problems. Being well informed about a problem is likely to lead to a more robust and lasting solution. So it is somewhat puzzling that even in libraries (where clarifying questions is fundamental to good reference interaction) there is a tendency to skip the information gathering and clarifying part of the problem-solving process and leap straight to a solution. If action is taken to implement a solution without a full understanding of the problem, it is unlikely that the resolution will be long lasting.

Exploring problems can be uncomfortable for some people because dwelling on a problem may feel negative. There is a general expectation these days that we should always have a positive attitude in our approach to work and life. Also, when a problem is being investigated some people may take this as criticism of their performance, so it is no wonder that people want to get out of the problem phase and onto solutions as soon as they can.

If we are not clear what the problem is, and more importantly, whose problem it is, we may end up confusing the cause of the problem with the ownership of it. To illustrate this, think about a baby throwing its food. The cause of the problem is the baby, but the baby doesn’t have a problem, rather the person who has the problem is the one cleaning up the mess.

For a library example, consider a scenario at a university, where attendance at library information literacy classes is low. In order to clarify the low-attendance problem the perspectives of key participants need to be considered:

• Faculty report that they are concerned at the number of references to Wikipedia or commercial webpages in students’ essays. They would like to see students use more scholarly resources and think more critically.
• Most students don’t consider information literacy (or their lack of it) a problem; they are quite happy not attending the library’s information literacy classes. They are probably pretty confident that they are literate or they wouldn’t be at University. But some are disappointed that their grades aren’t better, given the time they spent on their essays; others find searching library resources frustrating, complicated or confusing.
• Librarians recognize that they can help by teaching students more about finding quality resources, plus there are efficiencies to be gained for the library by encouraging users to become information literate: The more they can do themselves, or learn in a group, the less pressure there is on the reference desk to provide routine, basic help (leaving librarians with more time to provide expert, specialist help). Librarians also want students to attend classes for the students’ own good. (Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime).

‘Information literacy’ is a useful term for librarians as it describes a set of activities and knowledge that they consider essential in the information age. But like ‘OPAC‘, it is very much a librarian’s term. So while students’ poor information skills may be the cause of the problem that librarians are trying to solve through information literacy programmes, it is the librarians who own this problem, not the students. A full description of the problem will need to include these differing perspectives in order to identify an appropriate approach to the solution. In this case, the real problem may lie in the terminology or in how classes are marketed. A successful resolution of a problem is more likely if you can convince others that your problem is also their problem and to do this it is necessary to be able to see the issue from their viewpoint.

Once the problem has been clarified solutions can be considered. Just as having a problem can make librarians feel uncomfortable, action is what makes them feel effective. Often the action gets underway at the first hint of a possible solution, and it’s all hands to the pump to get rid of the problem. But if it is not a good solution to the problem then the action is wasted.

Devoting time to exploring ideas is important at this stage. Comparing the strengths and weakness of several options, even those that may not be possible (perhaps its cost is not affordable) will help pave the way to a strong decision. Working collaboratively with experts from other areas (e.g. IT or faculty) can give access to more options and viewpoints, but the problem needs to be shared with them, rather than just asking them to implement a specific solution.

Robust problem solving is time-consuming, but leaping to action too soon is not going to help, despite librarians’ eagerness to get to work fixing things. It is important to take time to gather information, ask questions and consult with others, so that we really can answer the question: What’s the problem?

###

Vye Perrone is Associate University Librarian, Collection Services at the University of Waikato Library in New Zealand. She was President of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) in 2007/2008 and has just finished her year as Immediate Past President. Vye completed her MLIS from Victoria University of Wellington in 1998.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

An Essay of the LISNews Summer Series

Every so often I hear someone remark that they didn’t learn anything in library school; that their real professional learning happened on the job, or worse, that they think that the need for a library qualification is just gate keeping and protectionism. This always causes me some concern because it ignores the important role that library and information science theory plays in the workplace.

It is true that when you start working in a library there is a wealth of on-the-job learning to do. There are process and practical skills to master, and local policies and procedures to absorb. The daily improvement as we gain hands-on experience brings an immediate sense of achievement and an obvious increase in knowledge. The relevance of this behavioral learning is clear because it is needed to do the job. In contrast, knowledge of theory and principles is about understanding why we are doing the procedure. This understanding is important when making decisions to change local policy or practices, or in deciding how to adjust local practices in response to the impact of external factors.

Practical processes and procedures are there to help the library achieve its goals. The theory of libraries (or cataloging, reference, etc) is what is taught (and hopefully learned) in the process of gaining a professional library qualification. And in turn, that theory informs the daily procedures and practices. Furthermore, this library school learning gives library professionals a shared theoretical basis and often a shared value system, on which to make decisions in the workplace; decisions about what the policies will be, and what practices are most appropriate for helping a library achieve its purpose.

Of course, such knowledge is not set in stone. Over time, the theories and principles will change as the professional body of knowledge changes to incorporate new understandings of the library and information world.

In for-profit organizations practical measure usually exist to judge performance. Did more widgets get sold? Are widgets being produced more cheaply? Did the company make more money as a result? The bottom line is more complex however, in not-for-profit organizations like libraries. How do we know that the library is achieving its purpose? More people through the door? More books issued? More information literacy classes taught? Such quantitative measures are useful but they seldom express the real value libraries contribute to their communities. And because there is not a clearly agreed, black and white measure of the bottom line for libraries, many staff make assumptions based on their own value system. That is, they may assume that the purpose of their work is defined in terms of their value systems.

Changes in processes, policy or practice can be particularly difficult for those who are comfortable with their daily routines and who are working hard in the belief that their actions are contributing to the greater good of the library. Principles, theories and values can be difficult to articulate because they are often deep-seated, intuitively known and taken for granted. As a consequence, some people may be protective of a given activity because it is representative of their values and beliefs about libraries. A threat to an activity becomes a threat to their values. Resistance or obstruction to change can easily result if those affected belief that a proposed change is going to have a negative impact on their library’s core purpose.

Library managers, or those leading change (even at the process level) may find it helps to take time to explore the commonly held beliefs and assumptions of their staff. Consider whether they are disagreeing with how things should be done, or if the conflict is at a more fundamental level. Do participants have differing theoretical perspectives on what sort of action adds value to the library’s community?

This is important because changing beliefs and value systems is a far more challenging proposition than changing daily routines. Yet all too often in libraries the focus is on the more tangible behavioral learning rather than on the intangible theory that underlies practice. Of course, it makes sense on a day-to-day basis to focus staff training on how things should be done, but when a significant change is needed, time needs to be given to talking about why the change is being made and how it fits into the theory and principles of libraries and librarianship.

It seems that this kind of talk is not that common in libraries. Perhaps there is a tendency to assume that we are all working from the same set of core principles and theories, because most of us are as a result of our library school learning. But problems arise when time or external changes make some of our theories obsolete or irrelevant.

In recent years libraries have faced a constant stream of change. Changes are occurring not just at the operational level (think of the impact of the Internet, the web or Google on our local practices); there has also been a paradigm shift in how libraries are perceived. For example, these days libraries are often seen as social spaces with a focus on customer needs, rather than the quiet, scholarly environments of the 20th Century. However, there is no doubt in my mind that this shift in thinking is not universally accepted. The rate and extent of change means that we should not assume that there is a shared understanding of the principles on which our practices and polices are based.

Talking about theory and principles may seem abstract, ‘wishy-washy’ and unnecessarily time-consuming to practically-oriented library staff who just want to get on with the task at hand. But without such discussions conflict and resentment over change can endure longer than necessary. Taking time to dwell in the theoretical area could serve to bring staff together with a better understanding of the value of library activities and services. It may also be that some people will discover that what they know is as important as what they do and this link between theory and practice means that their professional education was not a waste of time.

###

Vye Perrone is Associate University Librarian, Collection Services at the University of Waikato Library in New Zealand. She was President of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) in 2007/2008 and has just finished her year as Immediate Past President. Vye completed her MLIS from Victoria University of Wellington in 1998.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.