I’ve just learned that my article, “Who Let the Librarians Out?”, from the Spring 2009 issue of Reference & User Services Quarterly is now available on the open web at: http://www.rusq.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/48n3/pdf/RUSQ48n3_management.pdf .
So, for anyone who didn’t have access to the print issue of the journal, Ihope you enjoy it and welcome your comments!
Not long ago, I had a conversation with a very successful colleague — something of a role model for me — who is a bit skeptical about embedded librarianship.
I sketched out my vision of embedded librarians as members of teams, groups, units — organizations — indistinguishable in status or value to the group from any other members, except for the fact that they bring a unique awareness of the importance of information and knowledge, and skill in applying information and knowledge to improve group performance. Indeed, it’s that focus on information and knowledge that makes them specially valuable to the team.
At that point, she asked, “but are they still librarians?”
I think they are. I think that the skills and values they bring from the profession of librarianship are critically important in an embedded role. I think that with all the diversity of roles and institutional settings that librarians wind up in, there’s still a common core to the profession, that gives them (us!) a unique identity. I think the ALA-accredited Master’s degree is still the shortest road to acquiring these values and competencies (but not the only one). I’m reminded of one of my favorite Stephen Abram statements — that librarians don’t have to work in libraries, and that they don’t all have to have the job title “Librarian”. Plus, when I re-read John Cotton Dana and S.R. Ranganathan, I like to think that they would agree.
So I’m a bit worried when I sense that some in both the nontraditional “information management analyst” or “knowledge management specialist” camp and the traditional Librarian camp want to go their separate ways. I hope that doesn’t happen. I’d like to see more and more librarians get out of the library, and adopt elements of the embedded services model. I think it will be good for them, the organizations they work for, and the profession of librarianship. But I hope that as they do so, we won’t lose the sense of professional identity that we have.
What do you think? If you’re an embedded librarian, do you feel that the word “librarian” covers what you do? Do you identify with the profession of Librarianship?
If you’re attending the SLA Conference next month, there are 2 programs on embedded library services that you won’t want to miss.
First is a panel presentation, “New Face of the Special Librarian: Embedded Librarians”, on Monday, June 15, from 3:30 to 5:o0 p.m. It will feature Josh Duberman, Informationist from the National Institutes of Health; Barb Zinter, Corporate Librarian from Suncor Energy; and consultant and co-Embeddedlibrarian blogger Mary Talley.
Second is the presentation of Mary’s and my research project, Models of Embedded Librarianship. We’re scheduled for Tuesday, the 16th, from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. We’ve invited a panel of embedded librarians to join us, so you’ll hear not only the highlights of our survey and research findings, but the experiences of 4 exemplary embedded librarians.
We hope to see you at both programs!
I’m happy to report that Mary Talley has accepted my invitation to co-author the EmbeddedLibrarian blog. Mary is co-investigator with me on the Special Libraries Association “Models of Embedded Librarianship” research project. She is also an experienced consultant in special library strategic planning, management, and operations.
Mary has lots of insights on embedded librarianship to share, and her participation will contribute to turning this blog into a more dynamic and valuable resource for those interested in this important topic.
Welcome, Mary!
Wednesday, I had the honor of spending Earth Day at the Agriculture Network Information Center Annual Meeting, where i spoke on “Who Let the Librarians Out? — The Promise of Embedded Librarianship.”
I’m attaching a copy here: http://embeddedlibrarian.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/agnickeynotefinal.pdf.
Hope you enjoy it — I’m looking forward to your feedback.
I’m pleased to report that my guest column, “Who Let the Librarians Out? Embedded Librarianship and the Library Manager” has been published in the Spring 2009 issue of Reference & User Services Quarterly (pp. 239-242, 257). For those who don’t have access to the print version, I think it will be available on the RUSQ website sometime in the future (see http://www.rusq.org/about-2/ ), and I’ll be able to post it here at the end of April.
I’d welcome feedback and suggestions. I’ll be giving a keynote address at the Agriculture Network Information Center conference next week (title is “Who Let the Librarians Out? The Promise of Embedded Librarianship”) so if you get a chance to read and comment in the near future, your input can help me improve the presentation. Thanks!
On January 30, the Catholic University School of Library and Information Science sponsored a symposium, “Bridging the Spectrum”, which featured research presentations by faculty, students, and local information professionals. My co-investigator, Mary Talley, and I gave a progress report on our SLA-funded research, Models of Embedded Librarianship. You can see it at http://slis.cua.edu/symposium/presentations/TalleyModels_of_Embedded_Librarianship.ppt.
I seem to be having a run of wonderful, thought provoking conversations lately. Today, it was a conversation with my research project co-investigator, Mary Talley, that led to the theme for this post.
We were talking about the value of the embedded librarian, about our hypothesis that intimate knowledge of the customer group’s work enables the embedded librarian to communicate well, to understand a question without requiring a lot of background explanation, and to deliver highly targeted, highly relevant, and important answers to the questions that customers ask.
All true — but we proceeded to discuss how the response to the unasked question, the unrecognized need, may be even more valuable.
In library and information science, our classic models of information seeking (e.g. Belkin and Oddy) start something like this: “1. Recognize information need”. They go on with things like “articulate need”, “select source”, “develop search strategy” etc. etc. But wait, back up, hold on there. “Recognize need” is a big hurdle to get over. I don’t know about anyone else, but I know there are many times when with 20/20 hindsight I’ve thought, “… if I had only thought to ask; I wish I had realized that information was available…”. So, I hope it’s not just me, and that recognizing when we have an information need is a problem for a lot of us.
When we don’t recognize we need information, or that the librarian could supply it, we don’t go to the library. The question never gets asked. The information isn’t found, isn’t used, doesn’t affect the outcome of what we’re doing — and most likely, the outcome is poorer as a result.
But what if the librarian is right there when the need arises, perceives the need and the possibility of satisfying it, doesn’t have to wait for the question to be asked, the need to be expressed, can interject into the meeting, ‘hey wait, we need information to help us resolve that issue.’ And then can get it, maybe even right there on the spot. The question doesn’t have to be asked, the librarian doesn’t have to wait in the library or by the phone or the computer — the librarian sees the need and formulates the question, then answers it.
Maybe this is the greatest value of the embedded librarianship model.
p.s. I’ve used the example of a specific information need above, but I think the same case could be made for other information services — like organizing the documents in a collaboration webspace, or anticipating the need for a taxonomy, etc.
In a recent email exchange, the question came up whether embedded librarians would be better off losing the “librarian” label. After all, if you’re an embedded librarian you’re almost certainly spending most, if not all, of your time away from a “library”. And the term “librarian” still carries a lot of baggage for many people: shy, retiring, risk-averse, reads all the time, hair in a bun — you know.
This debate has been going on for longer than the 30-some years I’ve been in the profession, and I’ve held opinions on all sides of it. A few years ago, my views crystallized, and I have to thank Stephen Abram, now immediate past president of SLA, for the insight.
In an article in Information Outlook, Stephen pointed out that librarians do not have to work in a library, and they don’t have to have the job title “Librarian”. He used the analogy of accountants. Accounting is a recognized profession. Its members share a common educational background and professional skills. And they have jobs like “Manager of Accounts Receivable” or “Chief Financial Officer”.
So it is, or should be, with librarians. Librarianship is a profession. Its members share a common educational background, and skills like information organization, information services, knowledge of information resources, ability to manage information systems and information-related organizations. They can hold jobs with titles like “Information Analyst”, “Knowledge Manager”, or “Chief Information Officer”.
Seems to me this is a much more satisfying definition of “librarian” than “someone who works in a library”.
What we take with us as embedded librarians, when we leave the library, are our skill set and professional values that distinguish us as Librarians, and which we can put to work anywhere we go, anywhere we are embedded.
Happy New Year!
I’m using the holidays to catch up on my reading. An item in American Libraries Direct, Aug. 13 was entitled “12 Tools That Will Go the Way of the Fax and CDs”. It cited the author as Dave Pollard, who was a well received speaker at the SLA Conference in 2007, so I followed the link to Dave’s blog and his 12 predictions. It’s at http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2008/08/05.html#a2212 .
It turns out that Dave’s prediction no. 7 is “Corporate Libraries and Purchased Content.”
The good news is, Dave actually has a prescription for corporate librarians to succeed. He says, “With luck, they’ll learn the employer’s business and morph into subject matter specialists, producing real research and analysis and adding meaning and value to information.”
That’s exactly what I believe that successful corporate embedded librarians are doing! So, while I don’t fully agree with Dave’s prediction (see my comment on his blog), I think that he’s got part of the answer. I think that the embedded services model is one that enables librarians to overcome the barriers that have sometimes existed between them and their customers and to make their services truly and directly valuable.
