What is a librarian?

There seems to be little argument that the stereotypical kind older matron with the white hair in a bun is no longer staffing the public library.  In addition, depending on your school district, you are less and less likely to see a public school with a full time librarian staffing the desk when your children come by for reading time.  It may even be true that Katherine Hepburn’s days in the classic film Desk Set depicting a corporate librarian are long gone.  Indeed, with the advent of the Internet and search engines such as Google, who needs a librarian?  I am here to tell you, you do.  You need a librarian, and mostly because you have no idea what a librarian does.

A colleague recently sent me a copy of the WSJ’s article, In Age of Google, Librarians Get Shelved.  While I generally enjoy a provocative editorial from the WSJ, I cannot fail to see how far off the mark this particular article fell.  In the Age of Google, librarians are needed more now than ever.  I am not here to proclaim that things must go on as they are.  I am here to tell you that you cannot go on without your librarian, and your librarian is your ticket to the future.  As my experience is focused in the legal arena, my comments and examples will draw from that industry.

Let’s set aside the fact that there is still a vast section of the population that does not know how to utilize the fantastic tools of the Internet, such as Google.  I am not just referring to those who are older in years.  My dear husband is terrified of technology.  He won’t admit it, but he conveniently can’t find any electronic device to Google even the most basic of questions when the need arises. I am his search engine.  Even a group text sends him into fits.  He is not alone.  While iPhones and Android phones are ubiquitous, it does not mean that everyone in our society knows how to research online.  And even more important to the seekers of accurate information, being published online does not make a fact true.  “I pulled this up on Wikipedia” might as well be, “I closed my eyes and threw a dart at the wall”.  I was recently asked to verify a piece of research material found online.  The truth was, there was absolutely no way to verify the material.  It came from a dubious website, and had no citations or any scholarly backing.  In fact, the only thing it did have were words stating exactly what the requestor was looking for.  Well if that isn’t the Bible truth, then I don’t know what is.

I return to my original question.  What is a librarian?   Some of the best librarians I have met and had the privilege of working with could be described with a few of the following characteristics:

• Organized
• An attention to detail
• Naturally grouping and organizing like things
• An inquisitive mind
• The ability to break down problems
• The ability to rely on a vast amount of knowledge to recall where information is located (in print, electronically, or real tangible matter.
• A detective like mind, working to find each piece of the puzzle

A librarian researches, organizes and presents information.  A librarian is aware of their area of expertise.  As a legal librarian I work with the law, and more specifically I work with Labor and Employment law.  On my team the librarians understand the basics of Labor and Employment Law. They watch new developments and explore trends in our particular area of law and indeed in the practice of law.  This expertise allows them to provide our attorneys with excellent research distilled down to the information required to best respond to the clients’ need.

What about all of the administrative work that is done in a library?  Does it take a Master’s Degree to put a book on a shelf?  No, it does not and that is precisely why most institutions utilize para-professionals.  I dislike this term as it implies that a library assistant is not a professional, however; the term does indicate that the person in question has library skills and works in a library but does not have a MILS and does not perform high level research.  In my particular organization we use library assistants to do a host of tasks that help free up time for any number of professionals including our librarians and our attorneys.  Someone does have to open the invoices, shelve the books, manage IDs, maintain databases , manipulate spreadsheets, route the newsletters, and deliver requests for copies of court documents.  None of these tasks should be confused with the in depth specialized research performed by highly skilled librarians.  A librarian is not, and may I assert never has been the person who reads and checks out books.  True these tasks must be done, and often a librarian might have done them. But in that same vein an attorney uses the copier, answers the telephone, and knows how to make coffee in the office.  Does that make the attorney a clerk?

One might be tempted to ask, why can’t the attorneys (or any professional) do this research themselves?  Well they could, just like you can remodel your house by yourself.  The work will get done, but without the special skills needed. It will take longer, be lower quality, and in the end could cost you more than hiring a professional.  If you are an attorney in a large firm with a billing requirement and a cost conscious client, you certainly do not want to waste your time, firm resources, or the client’s money.

The Wall Street journal probably did get one thing correct.  That very kind white haired lady behind the reference desk at the public library is likely going to retire soon, and very likely she will not be replaced.  However, the state of public libraries and local government finances is light years away from the conclusion asserted in the article that all librarians are now useless.  Librarianship as a profession is not dead.  If anything, this is the best time to become a librarian.  Maybe we need to rename the librarian something more appropriate, such as Research and Information professional, to take away the stigma.  With the VAST amount of data and information flooding the Internet someone has to be available to sort it out, organize it, decipher truth from fiction, and get you a fully formatted client ready report before your noon meeting on Tuesday.  Good luck pulling that off using Google.

Is Your Company Encouraging Employees to Share What They Know?

Many of the things we need to know to be successful – to innovate, collaborate, solve problems, and identify new opportunities – aren’t learned simply through schooling, training, or personal experience. Especially for today’s knowledge-based work, much of what we need to know we learn from others’ experiences, through what’s called vicarious learning.

Organizations know this learning is important, which is why they invest significant resources in handbooks, protocols, formal mentoring programs, and knowledge management systems to share employees’ experiences. Yet analyst estimates suggest that the companies in the Fortune 500 still lose a combined$31.5 billion per year from employees failing to share knowledge effectively. By trying to recreate the wheel, repeating others’ mistakes, or wasting time searching for specialized information or expertise, employees incurproductivity costs and opportunity costs for the organization. Because while formal systems might help communicate established best practices (the what), they often don’t explain how an individual should apply them to their own work. As a manager for Bain & Co. summarized in Nancy Dixon’s book Common Knowledge, this approach to knowledge management offers only “a picture of a cake without giving out the recipe.”

As a result, employees rely on informal learning practices, such as shadowing or observing senior colleagues to “watch and learn” what they need to know. For instance, in a study of mobile phone manufacturing lines in China, Harvard Business School’s Ethan Bernstein discovered that line workers often showed“tips and tricks” that others could copy in order to assemble phones more effectively than could be done using the official methods. (They were especially more likely to share these informal lessons when they weren’t worried about over-scrutiny from managers.)

While this informal (and intuitive) approach can be effective, it is no longer reasonable to expect employees to simply “watch and learn” in many workplaces. Organizations across a variety of industries are moving away from work that is easily observed and replicated to work that is more nuanced, specialized, and adaptive. More and more of today’s work is knowledge-based and done by people who are geographically dispersed. And success in this work requires being able to adapt knowledge to complex, changing environments. Yet our approach to vicarious learning has not kept pace; our ways of learning from others often assume that work is still watchable and that unobtrusively imitating others is enough.

Coactive vicarious learning

My research has explored an alternative to this “watch and learn” approach. Rather than one person shouldering the burden of absorbing knowledge by passively observing others, I posit that people can more effectively learn through collaborative, two-way interactions with others at work. Throughcoactive vicarious learning, the person learning and the person sharing knowledge work together to construct an understanding of an experience, which better equips the learner to apply it in their own work.

Instead of simply relying on visible results, interactive conversation and questioning allows the learner to understand the underlying reasons behind someone else’s actions, making it easier to adapt what’s learned to a new situation or task. For example, one study found that pharmaceutical development teams were better able to translate and learn from another team’s past experience when they invited members of the other team — the “sharers” of knowledge — to actively participate in their discussion and problem-solving (vs. a “learner” team simply identifying the “sharer” team’s knowledge and then trying to replicate it on their own).

Coactive vicarious learning breaks down the one-way nature of observational learning, so both parties — not just the observer — can benefit. The learner’s questions and reactions can lead the sharer to rethink an assumption or understand an experience in a new way. It can even prompt a role reversal, where the learner contributes unique experience or knowledge that might help the sharer learn. In studies of MBA consulting project teams, I’ve found that when individuals engage in this more reciprocal vicarious learning, sharing past experiences and expertise with each other in turn (vs. only an expert sharing with a novice), they consistently receive higher client ratings on their performance.

Putting it into practice

While many teams probably engage in some degree of interactive learning already, there are several key steps leaders can take to help institutionalize coactive vicarious learning at work, so that people don’t fall back solely on formal learning methods.

Leaders tend to place a disproportionate emphasis on tools like training materials or knowledge portals partly because they are easier to manage and control. It is less clear how to manage amorphous, interactive learning processes; you can’t simply force coworkers to interact and share experiences. However, more often than not, leaders simply need to remove obstacles that discourage people from seeking or sharing knowledge and learning vicariously. They can create a structure that allows these interactions to take place organically by focusing on three steps:

Create a designated space for vicarious learning. Our environments directly affect how we interact. So it’s important to consider how physical space (or virtual space for geographically dispersed teams) can facilitate vicarious learning. For instance, it might be more difficult to have a reciprocal, two-way sharing of experience in stuffy offices where one person is seated behind a big desk in the “more powerful” chair. Creating a common space that individuals recognize as the gathering place for sharing ideas and experiences lays the foundation for these interactions to unfold.

For example, members of air medical transport teams have to learn from each other’s experiences to know how to transport a wide range of critically ill patients. In researching how they learn, I found that a disproportionate number of informal learning interactions took place in one physical space: near the helipad door. Despite having plenty of office space, this 10×15 ft. area became the unofficial, mutually-agreed-upon space for members to share and ask about prior experiences. (This space was a frequent stop during every shift, since it was near the supply room for restocking the aircraft.) Since everyone recognized this space was “in bounds” for these conversations, team members showed they were willing to either share or learn something simply by choosing to stand there.

Similarly, in pursuit of this type of designated space, when Google was designing its new corporate campus, it set out to encourage these learning conversations by planning for lots of small kitchen spaces, because they had discovered that people liked to mingle in these areas and share ideas.

License and endorse vicarious learning. Leaders should be encouraging employees to seek and share experiences often. This gives individuals license to seek out what they need to learn, without fear that they’re being intrusive or bothersome — or that it will make them look bad. People often hesitate to ask others for help or advice because it requires admitting they don’t know something important. So instead they work in isolation, redoing something that their colleagues may have already done or making similar mistakes.

Leaders can license vicarious learning by acknowledging and rewarding instances when people engage in interactive learning and recycle (rather than reinvent) a “wheel.” For instance, managers at Siemens implemented a systemof “points” for sharing knowledge and learning vicariously, similar to an airline mileage reward program. Managers can also encourage an open-door environment that welcomes employees to seek or share information — and helps dispel the notion that such behavior is bothersome.

Plant starter seeds of vicarious learning. Beyond creating the space and license for vicarious learning, leaders can encourage greater learning by jump-starting the process. This means leading by example: proactively sharing experiences with team members and setting aside time at the beginning of meetings for people to discuss challenges and problem solve together. Even one-off efforts, such as a team breakfast or “happy hour,” can plant the seed for vicarious learning that can then grow into a more consistent practice.

Vicarious learning interactions are not a panacea for an organization’s learning challenges. But it is an effective piece of the workplace learning portfolio, alongside formal efforts like training programs, feedback sessions, and knowledge management systems, and informal practices like mentoring and “trial-and-error” exercises. All of these approaches reinforce each other and promote greater learning. In fact, sequencing vicarious learning and experiential learning strategies together has been shown to improve performance compared to experiential learning alone, across a range of different tasks.

Whatever the sequence or strategy, this type of learning is critical for many organizations, and leaders play an important role in making it more systematic, frequent, and easier to deploy. Companies are sitting on far more knowledge and expertise than they realize. Creating the conditions that enable coactive vicarious learning is a central way to bring out the best a team or organization has to offer. As Lew Platt, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard (HP) famously lamented, “if only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive.”

Source | https://hbr.org/2015/

Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices

Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices

Exasperated by rising subscription costs charged by academic publishers, Harvard University has encouraged its faculty members to make their research freely available through open access journals and to resign from publications that keep articles behind paywalls.

A memo from Harvard Library to the university's 2,100 teaching and research staff called for action after warning it could no longer afford the price hikes imposed by many large journal publishers, which bill the library around $3.5m a year.

The extraordinary move thrusts one of the world's wealthiest and most prestigious institutions into the centre of an increasingly fraught debate over access to the results of academic research, much of which is funded by the taxpayer.

The outcome of Harvard's decision to take on the publishers will be watched closely by major universities around the world and is likely to prompt others to follow suit.

The memo from Harvard's faculty advisory council said major publishers had created an "untenable situation" at the university by making scholarly interaction "fiscally unsustainable" and "academically restrictive", whiledrawing profits of 35% or more. Prices for online access to articles from two major publishers have increased 145% over the past six years, with some journals costing as much as $40,000, the memo said.

More than 10,000 academics have already joined a boycott of Elsevier, the huge Dutch publisher, in protest at its journal pricing and access policies. Many university libraries pay more than half of their journal budgets to the publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley.

Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: "I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices......

Read complete article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices