Bakker's Blog

Vision

Still here at Harvard living in the dorms while I solve all my leadership issues, and I have had some serious reflection time.  (Yes, i am supposed to be disconnected.  shh...don't tell anyone i'm posting). The framework we are learning about has 4 frames from which to approach any situation, and one of them is Symbolic, or vision.  I have always strongly felt that vision is a key element of leadership for me.  Vision has played strongly in my leading and being led, and assessments this week confirmed that.  Okay - so it's important.  And my point is??
I have been having conversations about my last post on my vision for the future of libraries and IT, and I have been again asked an interesting question - Why don't I leave libraries for IT?  Well, there are a lot of reasons, but what I am finding is one of them is vision.  IT so often lacks a deep shared vision.  It is easy for us to have a big hairy vision of what we do in libraries and frame it in this beautiful, meaningful context.   Now, all we need to do is act on it....

You know my vision, and I truly think libraries are in a fantastic position - we have the opportunity to transform ourselves to be centers of Information and Knowledge Management by shifting our focus away from our traditional role as collectors of information towards a hub of information dissemination and knowledge transfer.  This is what I see as the future I want for us.  I see the future as an intimate integration of what is now IT and libraries to form a new force that actively reaches out and enables innovation among our constituency. 

What form does this take?  I think that depends on the context - and that means it might be different for each library and it also means it will absolutely be different throughout the future for all of us, a constantly moving target.  Yes - it probably means less books. Yes - it means our needed skills and knowledge will change.  Yes - our comfort zones are gone.  Yes - it means we need to do our research to know what this should look like, and then act on it!  and Yes - it means we will bring significant, deep and unique value. 

Off to my last day of classes at Harvard.  I've almost got the accent down. 

Off to Harvard

This week I am attending the ACRL/Harvard Institute Leadership Institute for Academic Librarians courtesy of an AAHSL Leadership Scholarship.  I am very much looking forward to spending a week looking at the big picture of libraries with a group of enthusiastic librarians committed to the future of libraries.  In preparation, we are reading Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal, and I am starting to get excited about the week's lectures and discussions.  It is going to be a very intense week, but I hope to come back from it as enthusiastic about my profession as I am after MLA. 
There is such tremendous opportunity in librarianship right now, and one of the things I hope to get out of this week is a better grasp on how I can help maximize some of those opportunities from my current place in the profession.  With leadership on the mind this week, I had a discussion with a good friend about the potential for the future of libraries, particularly within the larger world of information technology and knowledge management.  Some institutions have the library and IT positioned in such a way that the two groups can work together to create the kind of information systems that not only create new mutually beneficial relationships between the groups, but also fulfill each discipline's mission of creating, providing and disseminating information more completely, thus enabling deeper knowledge and better innovation in their institution.  Social softwares, institutional repositories and other such systems are only the tip of the iceberg of the ways that IT and libraries can work together in new and exciting ways.  I think now is the time for libraries to grab this opportunity and lead the charge to better information systems and knowledge management, and this week I hope to learn more about leading libraries in that direction. 

Being Analog in a Digital World

Those who know me know that I love the tech stuff, I love working in a field where investigating and using advances in technology is a daily affair, not something we do if we have time.  I love finding ways to make my life easier and more interesting through social software.  But when it comes down to it, it just doesn't replace the good ol' analog world of face to face relationships. I was recently talking to a friend of mine about our approaches to doing daily business; we both often prefer to deal with issues by talking to the person (instead of going back and forth with a string of emails).  We have found that a simple question or miscommunication can be solved in no time with a little face to face time (oh - and yes, with a follow up email with action items and take away points).  Further, I think the face to face relationship is an integral part of creating new working relationships (check out this post from How to Change the World).  This got me thinking about the integration of technology in our relationships. 

Work applications of social software is a hot topic right now, and deservedly so.  There is so much potential for  adding transparency to our work and idea development, propelling innovation, and bringing together a more diverse group of people to enhance whatever we do.  What's more, social software can create better solutions for less perfect methodologies.  Michelle Boule (a.k.a Jane) has a post on the agony of meetings and replacing face to face with web meetings.  She thinks that face to face meetings lack transparency, keeps the oligarchy in power and is not the most productive way to work.  Well, I agree and disagree.  Yes, there is a lack of transparency in much that goes on in the workplace and in our profession, and many times I think it is to our detriment (check out T. Scott's post on transparency).  And yes, I have sat through countless meetings that were -at best- not productive, and meetings that keep decision making in the hands of the few without the valuable influence or insights of the many [now - got to say, there is a time and place for everything, including decisions being made without getting weeks of input, and I might not always know when those times are].  But I think that face to face meetings are still an essential part of what we do.  When you have the right group of people working together, being in the same space can produce fantastic results.  We are social creatures by nature and feeding off each other's energy, enthusiasm and ideas can produce something that might not occur in an asynchronous environment.  Still, there is a time and place for all meeting types, and often a place for combining them.  I like to combine face to face with email, wikis, etc. to provide that crumb trail of the process, refine the brainstorming and hopefully enhance whatever it is we are seeking to accomplish. Technology is most often a tool to reach our goals, not the goal itself. 

Mark Funk, the MLA President, has made his theme Only Connect! and social software is naturally a big part of this year's buzz.  This is fantastic.  I think we are no where near maximizing the possibilities of technology for connecting with each other, with potential partners in other disciplines, our customers, and those people we want to be our customers.  And what is more - I am very excited to work on maximizing the possibilities not only in my own workplace but throughout the profession.  But I am not approaching this year's mounting fervor for Web 2.0 by casting off the analog connections of personal relationships to find greener pastures (heck I live in NYC - green pastures are hard to come by); rather I am seeking to enhance the relationships I have and continue to make new ones using all the tools we have around us as well as those to come.  What is that balance?  I don't know, but I am looking forward to trying it all out. 

The Nature of the Academy

My Science Blogs feed recently had a post, 'Is the Academy Liberal?' and my gut reaction was, "No!  Just look at the tenure process or the faculty salary and distribution by gender."  Tenure is often about knowing the right people and publishing in the right journals (something that I think has had a real influence on the success of the Open Access movement), and I have often heard the Academy referred to as the old boys club.  But that was not what this post was about - it was about the political views of the Academy, which is overwhelmingly liberal/Democrat (no surprise there).  One commenter to the post goes on to say, "I think these associations reflect the fact that the adherents of some disciplines tend to be more ideological than others for historical, pedagogical, and other reasons." 

When I read this post I stopped for a moment to ponder the difference between my initial reaction from reading the title and the content of the post.  If most of the Academy is liberal, and particularly if it is due to their inherent idealism, why is the Academy so locked down with very conservative and biased methods for letting people into the Club?  To me, it seems a contradiction that borders on hypocrisy.   How can this widespread contradiction exist? 

Library as Place - creationism vs. evolution

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently had a story on the enormous Ohio State Library renovation ($108 million renovation and new construction).  "Library as Place" has been a hot topic in libraries in general and in Health Sciences libraries as well.  The story was like so many others, a library renovation geared towards creating more user space and less collection space - nothing remarkably different.  What struck me was the comment to the story:

"a library with fewer books??? sounds like fighting for peace or screwing for virginiity — makes no freaking sense!!"

Were libraries created a few thousand years ago just as they are now, and to mess with that would be sacrilegious?   Were libraries created in fully formed perfection?  Umm - I like the idea that libraries are about information and knowledge - and if that comes in the form of books - great, audio - great, the Internet and computers - great, pantomime and interpretive dance - less great, but still.  Sure, I still see a place for the hallowed halls of books, but I think there's room for all of it.  Survival of the fittest - libraries (and librarians!)  must evolve to survive. 

Infoporn - does information explosion = knowledge?

As I was wandering through my Wired feeds, the titillating title 'Infoporn' caught my attention;  the story, Info porn: Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed, describes a short survey of the change in Americans' knowledge of politics since the Internet became prevalent.  The results are not encouraging - Americans are "less able to correctly answer questions about current events than they were in 1989."  This sad story is a timely one for me, as I have been embroiled in a discussion of the current state of the country with a very conservative but even-so, good friend of mine (I know, I know - but I hope to turn another conservative soul away from the dark side).  My brilliant yet misguided friend, Ricky Bobby,* has gone past discontent and has reached outrage at the current state of affairs, and like so many Americans, wants the government to just leave us all alone.  But Ricky Bobby also laments that our fellow Americans are not rising up in their disgust, and that we are all becoming single-minded, uneducated and unaware of what is really going on around us.  As a librarian, I am naturally inclined to pounce on a discussion of the state of information dissemination and knowledge, and further with a political philosopher for a brother, must pounce yet again on any discussion of the nature of the State. 

Here! Here! Ricky Bobby!  We have found our common ground.  I too see that we have become polarized and extremists.  Neither side wants listen to the other, never mind engage in debate of the issues.  Sharing knowledge, listening to the different points and debating the issues is an essential element of a democratic state, is it not?  In fact, don't the citizens have an obligation to be knowledgeable and involved?  So - what happened? Why are the mud-slinging extremists taken as prophets of truth?  How is it that in a time of war, only 21% of Americans can name the secretary of defense, 68% know if we have a trade deficit, and 66% know the name of their governor (all figures are from the Wired article linked above).  Why have we fallen so far?  And how - in the Age of Information, can we know so little? 

Update on deprogramming: after many hours, it seems as though Ricky Bobby - aside from hankering for the days of the Monroe doctrine - is actually quite a little modern liberal on most issues, including the need for the state to provide significant living infrastructure.  However, he still listens to Michael Savage.  (This is going to take a while).   

*Names have been changed to protect those undergoing mainstream middle America Republican deprogramming. 

New York's loss

My good friends Marcus and Helen are leaving New York.  In the last two weekends, I have been able to spend a fair amount of time with them, and it is only making their parting that much more sad for me.  I have been 'stalking' Marcus and Helen for years now, but I think this is the end of that road and they will be making this trip without me following (while I love to visit San Francisco, if I'm going to live in an incredibly expensive city - i think this is the one.  I mean really- San Francisco isn't even on the map).  It has been great having such wonderful friends and getting to meet such an interesting group of people through them.  I will miss them greatly, and New York is a little worse off for their departure.  Bon Voyage to them on their long trek across our country (they'll be spending a night in my hometown Peoria, Illinois!) and I look forward to keeping in touch virtually, and missing our non-virtual visits.  The Bay area is lucky to get you both. 

Inspiring Innovation

The 'inspiring' in this title is meant both as an adjective and a gerund - let me explain. 
The adjective version of Inspiring Innovation is referring to the Phoenix, Arizona library that abandoned Dewey in favor of a more bookstore-like approach, grouping books by topics or areas of interest.  The NYTimes had a story on this on the 14th,*  which again had the library blogosphere buzzing.  In the article, the editor-in-chief of the Dewey Classification System, Joan Mitchell is quoted, "Perhaps he [the Phoenix library director] knows his library’s clientele and he’s meeting their needs. Libraries are always experimenting to meet the needs of its patrons."  The library is doing something fantastic - innovating to meet user needs, and further Ms. Mitchell's comment bespeaks a big-picture perspective and indicates (to me) that such a forward thinking mind at the helm of the DDC can continue to make Dewey relevant. I think it is a great idea.  It's a proven concept in bookstores, and I think it can have real merit in libraries - particularly those where browsing is still such an important part of how people want to use the resources.  It is so easy to lose sight of the point of it all.  Is the mission of the library to house and organize information [full stop]? Or, to house and organize information in order to disseminate information, foster learning and share knowledge (and all that jazz)? [yes - where your library fits on that spectrum can vary]  In this age of computer-aided searching, tagging and all that goes with it, maybe it is time to move on from those traditional tools.   I hope the Phoenix library will keep us informed on how their approach works.   

The gerund version of Inspiring Innovation is referring to Jane's post on this story.  What I'm talking about is something that I find increasingly essential in a director/leader - the ability to inspire innovation by not only innovating as a leader but also through recognizing, encouraging and supporting innovation even when the results are not necessarily known and success guaranteed.  It is amazing how much trying something completely new (even with reservations) can inspire, and even more stunning how routinely saying no and always having project-halting reservations is uninspiring.  I'm a huge fan of 'failure' and a big part of that is because I think it goes hand in hand with inspiring innovation - a new idea doesn't always have to work, but we can always look to see where it can take us and what we can learn from it.  Three cheers for a director supporting daring and resource-intensive innovation.

* 2 NYTimes stories about libraries/librarians in a week?  So...what librarian just joined the ranks of the NYT feature writers??  Or, what librarian makes enough money to bribe the NYT??

Scholarly Communications again - self-archiving

Marcus had a good point in his comment from my last post - many publishers allow authors to self-archive. 
Many publishers do allow self-archiving, and it is a fact that many of us don't fully utilize.  The  giant in STM publishing,  Elsevier has a self-archiving policy  that allows for authors to use and distribute their articles for a variety of uses.  Peter Suber posted an excerpt on Open Access News on July 14th. 

With the right to post a manuscript version of an article (with peer-review changes) on the author's website or author's institutional website, it wouldn't be such a great leap to allow the manuscripts to be posted on PubMed Central (the funding institution's website).  Hmmm....maybe we are all closer than we realize to agreeing on this NIH policy. 

Scholarly Communications - Open Access legislation

In February 2005, NIH announced a new policy for published findings from publicly funded research to be made publicly available - basically making the information resulting from federally funded research available to the taxpayers.* 
Naturally, news of this new NIH policy sparked a lot of talk in academia (especially libraries) and among the publishers. By the time of the 2005 announcement, the NIH had backed off from requiring this new policy, and just strongly recommended it. This year, legislation on this topic made its way to Congress and the issue is once again on the table - should we have free access to the published findings of publicly funded research?  The issue is not as simple as it might seem.  Researchers live and die by their funding and the resulting publications - if they cannot publish in the most prestigious journals (if the best journals refuse to allow authors to make their articles freely available in compliance with the policy), it can severely, negatively affect their careers.  And the publishers, many of whom currently make unbelievable profits (by the way - there is a rapid and dramatic consolidation of academic scientific publishers underway, with only a couple of major players out there and almost exclusively all non-U.S. companies), could be significantly financially impacted if people do not need to buy subscriptions to get the research (remember, publishers are not in it for the greater good - these are profit-based companies or those who at least need to be cost neutral).  So, what to do? 
Now, most librarians are of the 'all information should be free' mentality, and while that's great, I cannot help but think it is not realistic and sticking to it as the only solution will continue to polarize both sides and potentially fail to make progress on an important issue.  But back to the NIH policy.  The voluntary policy from 2005 yielded a lot of interest, but a less than 5% rate of compliance - and that just isn't enough.  Sometimes you have to require something to make it happen.  I think the policy is good, logical and feasible for both the publishers and the researchers, and great for the public.  With an approximately $30 billion annual budget, the NIH has the ability to make people play their game - and I agree with the rules of this game; and so do 26 Nobel Laureates who signed a letter of support for the policy.   
ALA has saved me the job of explaining the details with a summary, FAQs and an action alert all rolled into one.  The House vote was supposed to be yesterday...let's wait and see.  In the mean time, check out the ALA site and hopefully you will like what you see and add your name to the list of support (it takes a few seconds and you can do it right from that page). 

*Those not in academia might say, "well, duh. of course" but that isn't an 'of course' statement - academic research publications have long been accessible only through subscriptions to the journals where the information is published.  The articles are not the property of the researchers, the NIH, or the taxpayers - by publishing them, they become the property of the publication.