I’ve totally noticed this myself, and it’s always bothered me. I listen to CBC radio and podcasts a lot and librarians are on the air to talk about events at the public library, but little else. It’s too bad, because there’s such robust conversations going on within the profession, but we aren’t talking to the broader community.We don’t have a real presence within the broad civic conversations taking place in the media.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say, “Well who cares? The public doesn’t decide my collections budgets for next year, or care if I executed an awesome workshop on academic integrity”. Catherine acknowledges that librarians are, “consumed with day-to-day talks… [and] focusing our energies on our key stakeholders” but that overall, this is a terrible PR strategy. By engaging with the general public, librarians can help amass support for issues that affect us — budgets for public libraries and universities; concern around things like copyright, information literacy, and the stewardship of special collections; and of course breaking down the librarian stereotype that we all love to hate.

The only way to do this is to go where people are listening, and talking, and to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all those other experts to voice our opinions. Yesterday Jian Ghomeshi had a segment on Q about banning books — with the tagline, “what’s a librarian to do?”…. but without a librarian being present among the interviewees. Those sorts of missed opportunities prevent librarians from becoming a part of the established community of experts that the media draws from to get authoritative, informed insights about pertinent issues. And it’s a cryin’ shame because we have a lot to offer to those conversations.

Image from the Library Juice Press website, libraryjuicepress.com.

An interesting read awaits me! Once I figure out how to buy a book that I am QUITE CERTAIN will not be at Chapters anytime soon I am buying The Politics of Professionalism: A Retro-Progressive Proposal for Librarianship by Juris Dilevko. He is a professor at the Faculty of Information (and from whom I took a fantastic class called “Literature of the Social Sciences and Humanities”), and has published a most controversial book on the shortcomings of library education. A shortcoming, he argues, that has resulted in a profession distracted by fleeting technologies, preoccupied with professional advancement,and unconcerned with “the possession of meaningful knowledge that can be turned toward social good.”

WELL.

The first chapter is online (Merci a Monica for sharing that information), and is an enticing read for those among us who care about library education. Which is me. Why? I dunno. But I’ve blogged about the issue before. And I’m NOT EVEN IN LIBRARY SCHOOL ANYMORE.

I think I agree with some of what he says regarding subject knowledge, and the need for more reflective thinking in our profession. But I wonder about where many of my colleagues fit into his vision of librarianship, i.e. Librarians who work with eLearning, or digital initiatives, or information systems. I’ve seen what happens when those arenas are left to non-librarian technical teams, and it ain’t pretty. Or those who manage the libraries, and worry about glamorous things like who’s going to cover the desk when everyone is on vacation, or where we’re going to get the money for more computers. I wonder about where they fit in. But perhaps those questioned will be answered in Chapters 2 through 6.

It’s always nice meeting new people in the field – yay libraryland!

The particular section I’m reading is an anecdote about a company called Gore – as in GoreTex, though they also make tons of stuff for the electronics industry, health care and the military (and here I thought they only made rain jackets). Gore never has more than 150 people at a single plant; if a plant grows beyond that, they buy a new plant and split the group in half. The founder, Bill Gore, noticed that things get clumsy at a hundred and fifty, and that in small plants every part of the process for designing and making and marketing a given product is subject to the same group scrutiny to ensure a constant climate of innovation and sharing, and a holistic understanding of production. There is a common relationship among workers so that they are constantly moving forward and a sort of “peer-pressure” develops which ensures everyone is working toward a unified goal.

I don’t really care about making billions of dollars in the armaments business (I’m in library school so that’s obvious). But what I found really interesting about this story is its obvious connection to notions of knowledge management (KM, if you will).

I wrote a paper on knowledge management for a class this past year, and I found the topic very interesting; When Gore talks about the need to foster small, close-knit teams of employees, what he is essentially concerning himself with is the successful sharing of tacit knowledge. Formally speaking, tacit knowledge is defined as knowledge that cannot be codified but is paramount to the mastery of a particular skill. How do you create instructions on how to enjoy a play, or win a baseball game? It’s difficult for us to express because it can’t be clearly verbalized as a cohesive set of rules. There are heaps of neat examples of how companies have created particular environments for their employees to foster and cultivate knowledge sharing. I read a book called “The Knowledge-Creating Company” by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi – a KM classic – for my paper, and liked the following passage about Japan’s big auto companies’ approach to knowledge sharing:

“Japanese companies… recognize that the knowledge expressed in words and numbers represents only the tip of the iceberg. They view knowledge as being primarily “tacit” – something not easily visible and expressible. Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate or to share with others. Subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches fall into this category of knowledge. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual’s action and experience, as well as in ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces.”

Companies like Honda have tea rooms where employees are obligated to sit with members of other divisions and chat. Just sip tea and talk to one another. The assumption is that engineers and marketers and designers sharing information about work ensures that everyone knows what the other is doing; the money flows because the product is a well-orchestrated, focused effort from the entire group; a coordination of all their perspectives… And we all know how Japanese automakers are doing.

Here’s an example of how to ignore tacit knowledge sharing, ultimately to your company’s detriment:

When IBM entered a time of needed innovation to ensure their future success in the IT market, the chairman of the company circulated a memo telling employees to “stay way from the water coolers and get back to work” (Doesn’t he sound like a gem). The cultural norm of being at one’s desk doing productive tasks was trying to be imposed on a group of workers who were attempting to collaboratively discuss potential solutions to IBM’s trouble. This casual exchange could have been of much greater benefit to the company than formal work tasks, but in a company with a narrow understanding of what productivity and work look like, management couldn’t recognize the positive outcomes of informal discussion.

You see this type of problem all the time; my boyfriend just changed jobs and his(now) former employer admitted that his entire project has been somewhat derailed because nobody bothered to have him share his knowledge – his tacit understanding of how to do things and do them efficiently, only came about from trial and error, and when he left, his knowledge went with him. Or on student council, where we discovered that a giant document we had drafted had already been written by the student council of a few years ago… and that we knew the people who’d written it! Hours of effort and time could have been saved if there had been better efforts at knowledge transfer and knowledge management. I’d be really interesting in learning how to cut down on these information silos in a workplace, particularly in a library – I hope to learn more about it at FIS and hopefully in my professional career as well!

If you’re interested in reading up on KM, here are some good reads (and they’re easy, not hard!):

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

]]> http://meghanecclestone.com/2008/06/01/km-and-the-tipping-point/feed/ 2 mjecclestone http://meghanecclestone.com/2007/10/18/posting-less-than-two-hours-before-class/ http://meghanecclestone.com/2007/10/18/posting-less-than-two-hours-before-class/#comments Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:15:48 +0000 mjecclestone http://meghan1311.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/posting-less-than-two-hours-before-class/ Continue reading →]]> This is an article review I wrote for our Information Technology class. This article is drawn from Ariadne, which is a great online magazine: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue55/. It’s a UK magazine which is nice – I find everything I read from the library world is North American, so it’s good to get off the continent once in awhile. The language is a bit technical, but not too much; certain articles will push you out of your comfort zone, but since the content is entirely focused on technology in libraries and information centres, it’s never too far from home.

I can’t remember what the original assignment told us to do, but I basically turned it into a literature review of how people interact with wikis (a sparse topic, to be sure). This is a topic that is near and dear to me – people always get excited about implementing new technologies, but of course you have to win over people’s hearts and minds if you ever want that technology to be used. I’m facing this challenge in my work at the Library of Parliament this summer. I am creating a large e-resource that will be used by all the parliamentary librarians, and hopefully by the public as well. I’m acutely aware however, that I must conscientiously ensure that the technology is usable, but also that I show people how to use it and why they should use it. I’ll have to draw on information literacy principles to ensure that my work doesn’t go to waste simply because I ignored the most important part of it: The people using it!!

Guy, M. (2006). Wiki or won’t he? A tale of public sector wikis. [Electronic version]. Ariadne, October (49). Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/guy/

In the article, “Wiki or Won’t He? A Tale of Public Sector Wikis”, author Marieke Guy discusses wiki technology and its applicability in the public sector. As a member of the Interoperability Focus team at UKOLN, a centre for digital information management, Guy has written many articles concerning issues of web services in the library environment for online periodicals such as Adriane and d-lib. The aim of this article is to assess wiki use in the public sector, and suggest the means to extend and improve its application.

Guy assesses the existence of wikis in the public sector – voluntary and government wikis, library wikis, and higher and further education wikis – and argues that few exhibit high levels of activity or collaboration. Despite the media hype surrounding web 2.0 applications, there is still a lack of successful usage of wikis in these professions. An article by Steven Andrew Mathieson in the Guardian Unlimited discusses increased usage of wikis in many UK state-sector organizations; however Guy’s own research suggested that in fact, most have yet to develop into significant communities of collaboration. (Mathieson 2006, Guy 2006) Despite this, she explains how wikis can be successful, warns against technical and cultural barriers, and explores two case examples of successful wikis in the public sector. Guy ends with a look to the future of wikis in libraries and e-learning.

This article’s strength lies in Guy’s discussion of possible applications for wikis in the public sector, particularly libraries. A weakness however, is the lack of greater attention to the full spectrum of challenges in implementing wiki use among non-technical users. This weakness is further exhibited by Guy’s choice of case examples which exemplify successful collaborative use among technological support departments within public institutions. For wikis to garner more support among information professionals, they must be embraced by technical and non-technical users alike. I will discuss these strengths and weaknesses, and will include further examples of implementation barriers drawn from literature regarding wiki use in public institutions.

A strong element of this article is Guy’s work regarding wikis’ varying applications. As an article featured in Ariadne, a publication aimed at information professionals, it is beneficial to have a clearer picture of wiki functions and potentiality in a library setting. (Waller, 2007) Many are used for staff development, while others function as a collaborative webpage for staff to communicate with library users. Discussion regarding the potential for wikis in information centres is also helpful for professionals seeking creative ways to utilize emerging “web 2.0” technologies; book reviews, a suggestion box and catalogue annotations are possible applications for wikis in the library environment, and Guy’s exploration of these options is important for those wanting to keep abreast of technological developments in the field.

However the study of wikis in the public sector is not complete without more discussion around the technical proficiency of public sector employees. Guy approaches this technical barrier in saying, “…there remains the fact that many people are not completely technically savvy and are still daunted by the prospect of using a tool that they are not even sure if they are pronouncing correctly”. (Guy 2006) She builds on the work of Emma Tonkin, whose article, “Making the case for a Wiki” gives a technical explanation for the various uses of wikis, the contending wiki implementations, their features and deployment issues. (Guy 2006, Tonkin 2005) However more work on the inaccessibility of technical processes and language might shed greater light on the challenges of implementing wiki technologies in the public sector. Issues around the training of employees in the functions and benefits of wikis need greater attention if they are to become an important part of collaborative tool in any professional setting.

Other work regarding the study of wiki implementation in the workplace – including publications by Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo, Davies, Fichter, and Wiebrands to name a few – discusses technical and social barriers in depth, and presents a more comprehensive picture of the dynamics that effect wiki use. A common challenge Guy fails to acknowledge is a user’s ability to learn the interface and syntax of a wiki. (Wiebrands 2006) There is a need for better aesthetic and usability with the wiki interface, and there still exists a difficulty on the part of users to understand the markup and to feel comfortable using it effectively. (Davies 2006) People are generally resistant to learning the fundamentals of this (and other) emerging technology, and will often fall back onto external programs they already use. (Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo 2005) This issue is further provoked by the fact that, to share or present information outside the wiki context, users must convert their work from the wiki syntax to a more traditional format, creating another boundary for use. (Wiebrands 2006)

Where content creation and maintenance are concerned, Guy skims some issues, but does not effectively explore the barriers users face when they are trying to write or read wiki content. There is a need, according to the body of literature, for a wiki “gardener” who will maintain and clean-up the wiki content. Without this, the wiki becomes a “confusing mess of information and ideas”. (Wiebrands 2006) However beyond content maintenance, users are hesitant to edit wiki content for fear of offending the original authors and conversely, criticism from others regarding their own work. Users have expressed frustration when what they perceived to be undesirable changes are made to their work and reluctance to write anonymously, particularly in a professional setting where credit for work can affect your professional reputation and ability to ascend a corporate hierarchy. (Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo, 2005) Guy touches on these issues by arguing that the notion of ownership runs deep in our society, and many find it difficult to change the work of others. However to ensure wikis’ success in the public sphere, the gamut of social, cultural and technical barriers must first be addressed in their entirety.

Guy’s wiki case studies are an even further testament to the need for an investigation into the technical proficiency of public sector workers. The former example uses UKOLN’s Interoperability Focus Community wiki and the later is the WebDevWiki at Bath University’s Computing Services. Both cases are drawn from technical services departments, so those involved with the wiki already benefit from a high level of technological proficiency. Those without professional experience in using these types of online tools have yet to embrace the benefits of wiki technology as fully as their tech-savvy counterparts. Guy acknowledges that, “non-technical users who want to take the initiative on creation of a wiki will usually need to do so through their systems team. Sometimes pursuing a new technology that has yet to demonstrate its worth conclusively can be difficult.” (Guy 2006) Perhaps more difficult than convincing the systems team of the benefits of wiki use, however, is the challenge of convincing other non-technical users of these benefits.

The study of wiki implementation is still in its formative stages, and research regarding the social and cultural barriers of collaborative technologies remains largely anecdotal. While Guy’s work does little to advance discussions around usability among non-technical users in the public sector, content that discusses current and potential use of wiki technologies is beneficial to an information professional seeking to implement this emerging technology in the library setting.

References

Da Lio, L., Fraboni, E., Leo T. (2005, October 18). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic community of practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, California. Retrieved October 16 2007, from http://portal.acm.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/citation.cfm?id=1104982

Davies, J. (2006). Wiki brainstorming and problems with wiki based collaboration. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of York, York, England. Retrieved from http://stu.hyes.tyc.edu.tw/plog/get/1/wiki_collaboration_and_brainstorming.pdf

Fichter, D. (2005). Intranets, wikis, blikis, and collaborative working [Electronic version]. Online, 29(5), 47-50.

Guy, M. (2006). Wiki or won’t he? A tale of public sector wikis. [Electronic version]. Ariadne, October (49). Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/guy/

Mathieson, S. A. (2006, 22 February 2006). Public sector catches wikimania. [Electronic version]. Guardian Unlimited, Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,,1714618,00.html

Tonkin, E. (2005). Making the case for a wiki. Ariadne, January (42) Retrieved October 18 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/tonkin/

Waller, R. (2007). Ariadne: A web magazine on internet issues for librarians and information specialists. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/information/#about

Wiebrands, C. (2006). Collaboration and communication via wiki: The experience of curtin university library and information service. Paper presented at the Proceedings Australian Library and Information Association 2006 Biennial Conference, Perth, Australia. Retrieved October 16 2007, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007481/

]]> http://meghanecclestone.com/2007/10/18/posting-less-than-two-hours-before-class/feed/ 2 mjecclestone