Passive Research

With the new gig, different groups of clients want different things.  Some groups actively ask me to investigate issues of interest to them.  Other groups I just kind of send case studies, research papers, news, etc. based on what I know about the individual (or team) and the work they’re engaged in. 

While it ebbs and flows, a lot of my day-to-day work seems to come from providing what I call “passive research.”  This is information I happen to see from blogs, news feeds, research organizations, other people in the department, etc.  Sounds simple?  It’s much less happenstance, of course.  I’ve spent the last two months learning what my clients are interested in and just listening to them in their natural habitat.  Based on what I’ve overheard them talk about in passing, at meetings, and from previous research requests, I’ve either established RSS feeds through specific sources or alerts through services like Lexis.  

I’ve also created a running list of who is interested in what topics.  If more than two people have expressed an interest in a topic, or if someone has specifically requested research on a topic, the name and topic goes on the list.  The topics need to have a bit of staying power, however.  Right now I’m going off my gut feeling with what topics have “staying power” although I’m guessing if I thought about it long enough certain factors would rise. 

Selfishly, I tend to like passive research for my own reasons.  It lets me move at my own pace without necessarily being on a deadline.  And it’s a great learning opportunity.  Essentially it gives me the excuse to read about things I’m already interested in.  (So admittedly there may be a bit of bias present in what topics have “staying power.”) 

More importantly, however, I wonder if this is a niche that will allow anyone working in the non-public sector of librarianship to continue into the next century.  It makes the librarian an “Information concierge” as one of my clients calls it.  At a certain level of modern society, information is plentiful. Too plentiful.  Acting as a human filter for a specific audience helps sort out the information from the good information. 

I sometimes wonder if I’m really adding value with this kind of service.  I kind of assume that because my clients are doing the hands-on work in the areas I’m only researching, they are already tied into the same resources I’m sending them.  But feedback from both employees and management suggests that’s not the case.  They really like getting the information I send along and it helps guide them.  A lot of my clients are so busy doing the real work they may not have time to seek out the information I’m sending them.  Delivering information specifically tailored to them provides them with context of the larger environment and helps them do their jobs better. 

In Defense of Seth Godin

Seth Godin, the marketing guru, published a blog this week entitled The Future of the Library.  As with all things that revolve around the profession, professionals are taking stands on both sides of the fence.  That's a good thing because it shows we give a shit what people are saying about us. 

I'm going to come down on Godin’s side.  I agree with a lot of his statements especially from the aspect of a corporate/special librarian.  As a colleague of mine said, many of the activities and philosophies he talks about for the next generation library are already being engaged in by special librarians. 

Godin pretty much described my job with the following: The librarian isn't a clerk who happens to work at a library. A librarian is a data hound, a guide, a sherpa and a teacher.  Damn straight!  I'm not a guy who just checks out books and magazines and processes paper work.  I'm a detective.  (When asked what I do by people, I often tell them I'm an "information broker" if I think they won't understand what the modern librarian does.)  I find information and I help make that information meaningful. 
 
Godin also talks about the plethora of access the majority of people have to information, rendering the library as a storehouse somewhat obsolete.  I think he's got this mostly correct, but is missing the point that most people miss.  He states: [Clients] need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all.  He also asks the question: Is there any doubt that online resources will get better and cheaper as the years go by?  I completely agree that the librarian can help people find and use data and that access to data is increasing (although I disagree with the cost part).  I also think, however, that the librarian plays a central role in managing a centralized repository of information.  Godin infers that the library is a storehouse for dead trees, and I'd agree with that in the present state.  But libraries are moving forward to becoming increasingly digital.  And while I love physical books for what they represent, most of my clients could care less either way. They are interested in the content of those books regardless of the format.  What's still important is a central, single, trusted location where clients can go to get that information, whether it’s physical or digital.  Additionally having that information organized and managed is critical.  So Godin gets the librarians-can-help-you-find-things aspect of the profession.  He misses, as most folks outside the profession do, the librarians-can-help-you-organize-things part of the profession.  That’s forgivable. 

In the end, I thought Godin's article was very flattering to librarians and their skill sets.  Check it out and see for yourself.  

Success Factors

I got the April/May issue of Information Outlook which has a great article in it about success factors for embedded librarian programs. 

The piece talks about a larger and ongoing study called “Models of Embedded Librarianship” from Mary Talley & Dave Shumaker.  Talley admits that all library & information service programs have a hard time measuring success and believes that embedded programs have it somewhat worse because they are more complex.  I’d add that they are also more difficult because they are less overt.  Embedded librarians, by their nature, kind of blend in. 

Talley and Shumaker theorize there are five measures of success for a practice:

1. Growth in the number of info professionals providing the service…
2. Increasing demand for services…
3. Development and delivery of new services (over time)…
4. Longevity of the practice…
5. And self-reported success.

While I think the measures are all dead on, I question the practicality of measures 1 and 5 in the environment most embedded librarians find themselves in.  Even using the other success measures won’t necessarily allow staff to grow in a “do-more-with-less environment.”  And at least in my own organization, you can have as much self-reported success as you want, but it’s not going to influence the people with the purse strings unless it affects something they are interested in. 

Talley and Shumaker talk about the two aspects they found that made embedded librarians successful: relationship building and complexity of products.

While I knew that building and maintaining relationships was going to be a bigger part of this job, seeing it here was a good wake up call for me.  While I think I hide it well, I’m pretty introverted, so the relationship piece is hard for me.  I’m good at it, but it’s definitely the most psychologically draining aspect of the job.  Because of that I have to be mindful of not slacking on that aspect of the practice. 

The authors also state that a “complex, value added work product” is key to success.  The product has to be more than just providing ready reference and really moves more into analysis and information organization skills.  That started me thinking again about whether or not embedded librarians are just a glorified superpowered “analyst” or whether there is something special about us.  (See my post on Existential Crisis.)

While it’s a short article, it’s packed with info and you should really go take a look at it yourself.  You can find the article, entitled “Success and the Embedded Librarian” in the April/May (2011) issue of Information Outlook.  Or online here if you have an SLA membership.  And you can find slides from the presentation at SLA’s annual convention here.

Does Membership have a Privilege?

My annual ALA and SLA dues are coming up.  Ironic that SLA recently published a post about the value of professional memberships. 

Being outside what I feel is the normal library world, I’m questioning whether or not to renew either membership.  For nearly the last decade, my company has been generous enough to fund memberships in both organizations.  I’m not sure my new masters will see the value since I’m outside of the traditional setting.  So I’m asking myself if I value each membership enough to shell roughly $500 out of my own pocket.   (The price point of a new iPad for comparison.)

I think the real benefit of SLA (or maybe any professional organization) is access to a network of other librarians who I can tap in moments of desperation to help me get to get the information I need to my clients.  The publications are “alright” and the annual conference is “ok.”  I don’t use too many of the online courses because I feel like they’re overpriced for what I get.  So at this point in my career, the real value I get for my membership fees is the connections. 

That probably sounds a bit shallower than I’m meaning to because I’ve made friends across the organization.  And in turn I try to help those friends in their moments of information desperation.  That said the fact that I can ping a peer at another company for assistance when I need it is damn near invaluable. 

So will I renew my memberships?  If I’m forced to choose between the two organizations, I’d probably renew SLA for the reasons above.  ALA is a great source of general information about the profession, but doesn’t help me out on a daily basis.  SLA isn’t as good about what’s going on in the general world of libraries, but the people and relationships I’ve made are priceless. 

And what if I have to pay for it out of my own pocket… Eh… I might get more use out of the iPad. 

End Note: This post is certainly not meant to be a shot at the folks at SLA and ALA.  These guys & gals put in an amazing amount of time and effort at their own expense and do a great job at it.  I know from experience that the staff, officers, and volunteers at SLA are trying to cater to an incredibly diverse populace.  Anyone who has ever volunteered to help organize a conference or edit a publication knows how much a pain this can be. 

Setting Up a New Practice

The area I jumped into is only about six months old, and as I’ve mentioned before isn’t staffed by people with a professional background in search or research (save one).  Additionally my team was established to do a particular task, but the focus has now changed.  This means we’re kind of setting up a new practice from scratch. 

This situation has its ups and downs…  The downside is we don’t necessarily have a lot of direction.  We don’t (or didn’t – we’re better now) know what information people want, how they want to consume/integrate it, and in some cases what sources to consult.  This also means we don’t have any idea if we’re doing our work “right.” And while I’m used to working this way (as I think many librarians are) I find the lack of boundaries a bit uncomfortable.

The upside is we don’t have lot of baggage.  We can define the services and offerings (within reason) however we want, without needing to worry about a lot of the political issues that come from having to convince the “old guard” on staff of new ways of doing things.  This has made the position a lot of fun because I came from a position where the “old guard” had a certain way of doing things, whether it was the best way or not. 

Some of the functions my new partner and I have had to establish over the last two months have been… 

• Defining the services we would provide.
• Defining the audience for our services. 
• Defining the sources we would use or need to procure for the work we were doing.
• Training each other in sources the other doesn’t know about.
• Figuring out where each other’s strengths lie and how to split out the work.
• Defining what the marketing and outreach message would be.
• Branding for the marketing and outreach efforts.  (We’re still working on this one.)
• Branding for research results.  (We’re still working on this one too.)
• Setting expectations with clients about what we can and can’t provide.  (We’re struggling with this.)
• Setting expectations on turnaround times. (I think this is going to be an ongoing issue… more on this later.)
• Defining measures of success.  (How do we know we’re getting the right information to the right people at the right time?)

Of course, the list above makes it sound like there was a lot more structure to the process than there was.  To some extent, we’re kind of making it up as we go and as needs arise.  Probably not the best way to go about establishing a new practice, but…