Issues in the the development of competencies: motivation?

I have been busy navel gazing about what constitutes an academic librarian. Based on the variability in possible responses and lack of capacity to benchmark to one standard, this led me to the concept of competencies and the ultimate (?) question: why are competencies developed (and for whom)?

There is the organizational perspective: Alvesson and Willmott (2002, 619) look at “how employees are enjoined to develop self-images and work orientations that are deemed congruent with managerially defined objectives.” These authors cite Tompkins and Cheney (1985, cited in Barker, 1998, p.262) stating “’Organizational identification’, they note, effectively acts to ‘reduce the range of decision’ as choice is, in principle, confined to alternatives that are assessed to be compatible with affirming such identification (Alvesson and Willmott 2002, 620).” Scarey. Someone is telling me who I can be, professionally?

Let’s see how some people expands on this, just because for me, it is so interesting in how it takes the debate on competencies to a more visceral level [and life is all about me]. Finch-Lees et al cite Alvesson and Wilmott (Finch-Lees, Mabey, and Liefooghe 2005, 1190) saying these authors “present a triadic/dialectic model of nine distinct ways in which discursive practices may be used, intentionally or otherwise, in an attempt to accomplish organizational control via practices of identity regulation. The nine practices are: 1) defining the person directly; 2) defining a person by defining others; 3) providing a specific vocabulary of motives; 4) explicating morals and values; 5) constructing knowledge and skills; 6) group categorization and affiliation; 7) hierarchical location; 8) establishing distinct rules of the game; and 9) defining the context. The model is triadic/dialectic in the sense that the above practices of identity regulation both prompt and are informed by identity work (i.e. agential interpretive activity) which in turn both re-works and is induced by self-identities (i.e. precariously positioned narratives of the self) which in turn are accomplished through, but also responsive and/or resistant to, identity regulation.” The authors attempt to present a comprehensive list of motivations from an organizational perspective.

So how about perspectives on motivation that are not generated by management? For example, how does one explain SLA’s development of competencies? They themselves state “[SLA], an organization of dynamic and change-oriented IPs [information professionals], has long been interested in the knowledge requirements of the field. The Association’s members have explored and shared their vision of the competencies and skills required for specialized information management in many forums over the years. The first edition of the competencies document published in 1997 attempted to synthesize and build on earlier work in the light of ongoing social, technological and workplace change (2003, p. 1).” This implies a groundswell of need they finally encapsulated in a working document.

Also, note the statement about change and the need to deal with change. Also note that Special Librarians tend to be “solo” librarians, making benchmarking yourself difficult unless you have a consensual document against which to measure your performance, to make sure you are meeting your professional obligations [and I assume here their need was one of benchmarks]. I suspect it is the “solo” aspect of special librarians and teacher librarians that has resulted in numerous articles on their competency. Academic articles, mostly on Information Literacy, are now becoming more prevalent as change and the impact of change becomes more difficult to define.

My impression is competencies, regardless of their genesis, are ultimately designed to define a path for a specified category of individuals or person(s) to follow.

And who actually gets to define these competencies, as applied in academic libraries??

Alvesson, Mats, and Hugh Willmott. 2002. IDENTITY REGULATION AS ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL: PRODUCING THE APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL. Journal of Management Studies 39, (5) (07//): 619-644.

Finch-Lees, T., C. Mabey, and A. Liefooghe. 2005. 'In the name of capability': A critical discursive evaluation of competency-based management development. Human Relations 58, (9) (SEP): 1185-1222.

Special Committee on Competencies for Special Librarians. Competencies for Information Professionals of the 21st Century. Revised edition. S.l.: Special Libraries Association, 2003. Accessed 22 February, 2006: http://www.sla.org/content/learn/comp2003/index.cfm

Tagged: MEME of 4

OK, that Art guy tagged me. I don't know that there is anyone out there in the library world that I read that hasn't yet been tagged.

I've done my own editing to the list. I was somewhat surprised that I do not have 4 favourite books, though I can name 4 favourite authors. Also, I'm too young to complete the book section, there are just too many darn books out there I have yet to devour.

4 Jobs I’ve had in my life:

• Daughter/sister/cousin
• worm picker […on a golf course, late at night, moonlight and the sound of a train passing by, lights on hard hats sweeping searchlights across the dew…]
• sign painter
• librarian

More than 4 TV Shows I love to watch:

• Stargate/Stargate: Atlantis
• All CSI shows incl. NCIS (4 total)
• Law & Order: CI

4 Places I have lived:

• Edinburgh, Scotland
• Boston, MA
• Castries, St. Lucia
• Wellington, Ontario

4 best decisions I’ve ever made:

• Moving to Scotland
• Moving to Boston
• Moving back to Canada
• Never allowing others, including naysayers, to dictate my path

4 of my favorite books:

• Flint by Louis L’Amour
• Oxford English Dictionary online (my bible)
• a book on designing knits back on my bookshelf
• … ok, so I’m still working on this list
  

Why have Librarians' enthusiasm for new ideas waned or died?

When did we start avoiding new ideas or become afraid of new ideas in libraries? You float an idea these days and people start responding “No, we don’t need to do that,” or “We know what the xx need” along with the implied “and that’s not it.” And what is the motivation behind this almost universal response – no - to new ideas? When did the enthusiasm for ideas wane and even die? Why has it happened?

I think the crisis facing new ideas in our libraries is the same as the one facing human resources in libraries and education in library schools. Workload. Having enough time to learn everything you need to learn, and do everything you need to do. Project management and time management skills will only take you so far, and, even worse, these are not being formally taught in library schools based on my quick perusal of those Canadian websites.

The 8Rs study(1) highlights the top ten most important and difficult to fulfil competencies. These include leadership potential (#1), flexibility (#2), can handle high volume workload (#3) and innovative (#4). So we have pinpointed some of the competencies we want to see in our librarians. Now how do we get them? We can train or encourage them in library schools, we can send our current librarians on courses dealing with leadership and project management, among others, but does it really help us with our workload? I’d say no, this approach just adds to our workload. So how do we relieve the workload?

There are two factors involved. Libraries are in a time of rapid change and our rendering of jobs within libraries (and what is being taught about what constitutes an “academic librarian” for example, in library schools) is not changing. You hear the words I want to be an academic librarian, I want to be a school librarian, etc. from library school students.

The most flexible “type” or categorization of librarian I have noted to date is the concept of a “special” librarian. I suspect this is because they are not wedded to the concept of themselves as objects directing traffic but themselves as an integral part of the traffic, as process. Their conception of what it meant to be a special librarian was formally presented in 1997 (2) and they used words such as “uses, assesses, provides, develops, creates, flexible, provides leadership, committed” to describe what they did, and focussed on delivery. They have spent the most time thinking outside the box.

This trend expanded to include other librarians who reconceptualized the 1997 document and gave it a new title “Competencies for Information Professionals of the 21st Century” (3) thus reflecting a change in traditional thinking patterns. This change offers hope to those in a state of rapid change in libraries. Traditional roles are being challenged by the need to deal with new technologies, from awareness to management and implementation. These needs cross traditional hierarchical structures and challenge traditional job descriptions. There are just not enough people out there capable of or willing to handle the non-traditional aspects of our work, or are capable or willing to reconceptualize themselves as librarians. But it has started.

It is also a workload issue as we fumble within the “fog” trying to figure out how we deal with change in libraries and our field. We are only now beginning to perceive the outline of forms within our “fog.” We have been in the “black box” long enough to perceive some new trends in our field and thus are beginning the obvious – rebuilding job descriptions, reconceptualizing what it means to be a librarian and reframing our field. As we start coming out of the “fog” our workload issues may begin to settle because we shall be clearer about where we are going and where we wish to be, and as more people begin to see the same and sign on.

1. 8Rs Research Team. The Future of Human Resources in Canadian Libraries, Table D.3, p.59.
2. Special Committee on Competencies for Special Librarians, Competencies for Special Librarians of the 21st Century (S.l.: Special Libraries Association, 1997), www.sla.org/content/learn/comp2003/97comp.cfm
(accessed February 18, 2006).
3. Special Committee on Competencies for Special Librarians, Competencies for Information Professionals of the 21st Century (S.l.: Special Libraries Association, 2003), www.sla.org/content/learn/comp2003/index.cfm
(accessed February 18, 2006).

Technology and Library Schools: Are we doing enough?

In the Library world, a Librarian’s knowledge (of use and the organization of resources) is based on the past xx years of experience, a relatively homogeneous experience until advent of the internet and web. We, both Librarians and our users, all knew what we meant when we spoke of books, newspaper clippings, etc. because we experienced the use of these resources together.

With the advent of the web and internet access, our past experience as Librarians using resources has become a subset of the experience now available to us, with respect to data and information. We had a well-defined field with respect to format - format was defined before it showed up on our doorstep and everyone knew how to use it. Now, organizationally, we deal with multiple content formats (such as print, various forms of electronic and digital) AND we have to cope with the delivery mechanisms for content (pre-packaged, repackaged, repurposed) and the intellectual organization (and storage) of that content AND we must deal with our users’ preferences for this content (timeliness, capacity to manipulate, reorganize, recreate, etc). If we are to continue to remain relevant to our users, we have no choice but to grapple with all of this and thus we have no choice but to grapple with user technology.

When are we going to rejoin our users in experiencing the world of information together? Librarians perhaps know (to varying degrees) about the fact that wikis, blogs, RSS and other social networking tools exist and that these can be used to facilitate the needs of our users BUT have we experienced it for ourselves? There is a difference between knowing of the need with potential solutions and experiencing them to bring better understanding regarding potential new barriers to information access and better methods of delivery. Knowing is one thing, experiencing it is another.

My suggestion, I guess, is that Library Schools need to make their students experience user-based technology as much as humanly possible in order to give them the greatest flexibility to respond to the user experience. The pertinent question is: as Librarians are we mediators, brokers and facilitators for information and our users? If yes, we’d better start using the tools.

I did not present at this OLA Superconference 2006 session. Michael Stephens of Tame the Web, Jenny Levine of the Shifted Librarian and Mary Cavanaugh spoke. My comments for this topic on Jenny's blog (Feb. 3, 2006) are signed JenS.

OLA Superconference 2006

Just got back from OLA and am very pleased with the sessions. Even though attendance was minimal for

Technology and Education: Are Library Schools Doing An Adequate Job?

interest was quite high. Not as many attended as I'd hoped but it was successful as an idea and for me, the conference was all about ideas. Jenny Levine presented and has blogged it at http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/ . It has started a conversation that I hope will continue. Michael Stephens posted his presentation at http://tametheweb.com/.
I wonder if this will be a trend of investigation and/or openness regarding what else library schools aren't responding to as well as we feel they should.

Stephen Abram's plenary on

Are Libraries Innovative Enough?

consolidated a number of thoughts I'd had into one presentation. He drew attention to many itches I had been vainly trying to scratch, including one of my favourites: using teams in libraries to drive agendas.

I applauded Michael Stephen's talk on

The Blog People: Librarians Generating Content and Communication

as he tried to get librarians to face up to the fact that our users are now content generators and want to organize their own work, just as we are now content generators and do organize our own work. And yes, we are content generators, and yes, most of the audience had not blogged, had not podcasted (me), didn't use an RSS aggregator (me again), etc. What is cluetrain?