Citation Analysis: Measuring impact and delivering value to your organization

At many non-profit and for-profit companies, it is important to measure the reach, influence, and success of the organization’s efforts. This is not always easy and sometimes not even feasible, but when quantification is possible, it should be carried out to gauge the impact of a task on an audience. This is often done through media monitoring, but what about measuring your organizations other outputs?

An organization’s publications (e.g. reports, conference proceedings, authored works, etc.) are a good starting place where impact can be measured, and in organizations where an information professional is employed, the work is cut out for them. Tracking and measuring the impact of your organization’s output is a clear-cut way to demonstrate your value, contribute to department goals, and generate useful statistics that will benefit your employer.

Many information professionals will be familiar with the concept of citation analysis, and its application in the activities of scholarly research. Citation analysis is a method of bibliometrics that attempts to gauge the impact of an author’s work through the frequency of being cited in other works. The process of citing acknowledges previous works, and debatably, implies that a work is significant. The practice of measuring the number of cites is predominantly of interest to authors and stakeholders in the sciences, and some in economics, but is helpful in other fields as well. Citation analysis is also prevalent (and of greater interest) in academic environments where an author’s published research enhances their clout, and professional profile.

Because of its wide acceptance in academic settings, many of the tools available to analyze citations do not incorporate “non-scholarly” literature (often termed “grey literature” e.g. working papers), since they do not undergo the same scholarly publishing process. The majority of grey literature is not indexed in proprietary or free citation databases, because it is not controlled by commercial publishing. Consequently, the trickiest aspect of measuring the impact of your organization’s output is that citation indexes will often not include the publications you seek to evaluate.

With these obstacles is mind, I compiled a list of tools for conducting citation analysis, some are fee-based and others are free:

• Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science/Knowledge: (http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/web_of_science/) (subscription required)
  Web of Science (WoS) is the premier citation index and includes an extensive range of very impressive analysis tools. With a lofty price tag, not every organization will be able to afford this product (and unfortunately, they do not offer a non-profit rate). The indexed content is drawn almost exclusively from scholarly journals and conference proceedings, and its historical coverage is unmatched. Free 30-day trials are available, and you can select from seven subject database packages based on subject area. Thomson Reuters also provides access to “Highly Cited Research” (http://www.highlycited.com), a free resource to identify highly cited authors and works. WoS is tremendously useful for tracking cites in academic journals, but quite disappointing for measuring citations from grey literature.

• Elsevier’s Scopus: http://www.scopus.com/home.url (subscription required)
  Scopus is a slightly less expensive alternative to Web of Science, and boasts having “the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources.” Scopus has a free author/organization lookup tool, which I highly recommend testing. This will give you an idea of your organization’s cited works in the Scopus indexed content. Similar to WoS, grey literature is relatively absent from this database.

• Google Scholar: (http://scholar.google.ca/) (free)
  Using the advanced Google Scholar search option, you can perform searches by author name, or by affiliated organization to retrieve articles where either are mentioned or cited. This can be tricky however, as it is not possible to narrow search results to the bibliography or footnotes. Your search results might include many unwanted items. That said, Google does a much better job than WoS or Scopus of retrieving obscure and grey literature citation mentions.

• Publish or Perish: (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm) (free)
  Public or Perish (PoP) uses Google Scholar citations, and runs as standalone software that links to the web. You must first download PoP, then perform your citation queries to retrieve the analysis of an author or publisher’s works. It is less accurate than the fee-based products like Scopus or WoS, but PoP is also quite straightforward about its shortcomings. PoP performs much better than Google on the web, and as a free software, is worthwhile and effective.

• CiteSeerX: (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/) (free)
  CiteSeerX focuses on (but is not limited to) literature in the areas of computer and information-science. As an index database, CiteSeerX is unique for adding complex metadata to its contents, which enable a greater capacity for linking documents, and locating related materials. Documents are automatically harvested from the web, so indexed content is continuously up-to-date. Try this tool in combination with others, as depending on the field of your organization and its outputs, CiteSeerX’s subject specificity might not track your publications.

• Scirus: (http://www.scirus.com/) (free)
  Scirus is a science-specific index database encompassing a very wide range of web pages, government resources, academic articles, and special information sources (e.g. patent data from LexisNexis, technical reports from NASA, institutional digital repositories, etc.).  Scirus’ capabilities rival some fee-based indexes, and it also includes an impressive range of non-scholarly grey literature content.

• RePEc: (http://repec.org/) (free)
  Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) is a database of over one million items, largely in the social sciences, economics, finance, and computer sciences. The items in RePEc are unpublished papers, non-commercially published materials, and also pre-published versions of academic articles. RePEc is useful for many types of organizations that produce literature because it encourages free and open dissemination of these materials throughout a variety of outlets. It works by users (e.g. authors of works, or information professionals on behalf on their organization) uploading publications and providing the metadata and bibliographic information. To perform citation analyses, RePEc has an embedded system for tracking these uploaded items. With this, you can quantify how often your publications are downloaded, cited, and shared. RePEc is also a collaborative effort with many other repositories, such as EconLit, EDIRC, and IDEAS.

Although these options may not provide the complete picture of your organization’s impact, I found that using a combination of these tools can produce a rough, but useful solution. Optimistically, there are ongoing developments in this field, such as Google Scholar Citations (http://scholar.google.ca/intl/en/scholar/citations.html), and Open Grey (www.opengrey.eu), and the maturation of these products will benefit the efforts of citation analysis for grey literature.

If your organization produces publications for stakeholders or a general audience, consider tracking cites through the abovementioned means. It will strengthen your value to the organization, and provide them with a quantifiable source of evidence-based measurement for organizational outputs.

Listed below are additional sources that review and compare citation analysis tools:

1. Badia, Giovanna. “Google Scholar out-performs many subscription databases when keyword searching.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2010: 39-41. Available from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/8543
2. Bosman, J., et al. “Scopus reviewed and compared.” Utrecht University Library, 2006. Available from http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/DARLIN/2006-1220-200432/Scopus%20doorgelicht%20&%20vergeleken%20-%20translated.pdf
3. Connor, E. “Searching for science: a descriptive comparison of CiteSeer, FirstGov for Science, and Scirus.” Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2005: 35-47.
4. Pauly, D. And Stergiou K. I. “Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s Citation Index and Google’s Scholar service.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, December 22, 2005: 33-35.  Available from http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2005/E65.pdf
5. Science Intelligence and InfoPros. “Google Scholar Vs Web of Science: McDonalds Vs a Gourmet restaurant?!” December 7, 2010. Available from http://scienceintelligence.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/google-scholar-vs-web-of-science-macdonalds-vs-a-gourmet-restaurant/

Curating my Facebook profile

Facebook has been a household name for a few years, and by now, most people have their own profile. However, lately I’ve noticed that a growing number of users are choosing to deactivate or severely limit the content of their accounts. This got me thinking about my own Facebook presence…

I remember when I first learned about the social media site, during my undergrad in 2005. A friend attending the London School of Economics had sent me an email telling me that I just haaad to create a profile, because it was the coolest new thing. At that time, Facebook was only available to individuals attending universities and colleges, with a valid email address from that institution. It had only been large American schools and some overseas who could create a Facebook profile. When my small undergraduate university (Acadia) was added to the list of eligible universities, I thought “Why not?”, and in 2005, Facebook changed everything. At that time, there was no such thing as regional networks, e.g. Toronto, Ont., (I believe that occurred in 2007), and everyone in my network (Acadia) had the open permission to view strangers, add them as a friend, and know all about you without you knowing. Privacy settings were the last thing on anyone’s mind, maybe because there were no albums, tagged photos, or much to be private about (besides your contact information). The closest of strangers would request your friendship, merely because you attended the same lectures, or knew each other through a vague mutual contacts. Things escalated with the introduction of photo albums and tagging. People would create an album practically each weekend, highlighting the amounts of alcohol they had consumed, who their friends were, or how silly they looked on Halloween. For me, it was an age of no consequences, friend-count popularity, and online attention-seeking.

Fast forward to the present: 2011.

What’s changed? I finished a Masters degree, and am no longer in school. I’m a young professional with a great job. I still love my friends, my family, and my weekends, but… I haven’t removed anything from Facebook in six years: I have close to 30 photo albums, thousands of tagged photos of me, and have accumulated hundreds and hundreds of friends, all of whom have access to my past, bad or good. This got me thinking about what I want to put out there as a depiction of myself for others. I decided I had to curate my Facebook profile.

I’ve been using privacy settings for years, where non-friends can only see my profile picture, first and last name, and which networks I belong to. I’m aware of the different privacy settings for groups of contacts, but I don’t have time to go through each to establish if they’re my “acquaintance”, “friend”, “co-worker”, or which should only access my “limited profile”. Recently I sat down and went through all of my Facebook contacts to “unfriend” (not my words) close to 200 “friends”. It felt amazing. These were people like the aforementioned who’d added me for no reason other than that we crossed paths frequently. Others were friends of friends whom I’d met once during a weekend away somewhere, and will definitely never see again. Some were acquaintances from high school who I have no real desire to keep up with, or allow them to have access to my photos/life.

I also chose to hide every tagged photo of me. All of them. I’m the only person who can see them, and really, I think that’s a pretty good policy. I felt a vulnerability knowing I had so many photos out there. Especially because the majority of them were taken six years ago, and are of me partying at university. Until recently, I’d felt this pang of anxiety when I’d receive a friend request from anyone in my current professional network. My friends would say “Just add them to your limited profile” but really, that’s even more awkward, because it’s pretty obvious to someone when they’ve been put in that category…

Finally, I updated and modified my information page. Things that I thought were funny in 2008 might not be appropriate anymore.. (e.g. my favourite quotes), and it’s important to maintain/adjust contact information.

The purpose of this post was to reflect on the state of my own online presence, but I also encourage you (whoever you are) to consider doing the same. I’d been considering deactivating my Facebook account, but if I had done that, I would miss out on a lot of stuff I care about. So: update and curate your Facebook, rather than be discouraged by privacy scares, or a profile filled with your life from 5 years ago. Doing this made Facebook feel new again. A major weight has been lifted.

Librarians & online content

I read something online recently that made my heart beat faster, and I felt that I had to get this out of my system. There’s a popular idea that because things can (and increasingly do) exist electronically, that the need for classification (and in a way, librarians) are not required or are becoming unnecessary. Please, let me convince you that this is absolutely not the case…

• Digitization and digital books: People assume that with the advent of e-Publishing and scanning technology that libraries are going to digitize all of the print materials in the library. This is not the case, and would be illegal under copyright laws. Libraries do not own the rights to digitize and make published materials available online without consent of the publisher and sometimes the author(s), or other owners of the materials. There ARE many books that have been digitized because of their age, public domain, etc., but libraries are not, and I doubt will ever be, fully digitizing their collections.
• Misconception that electronic materials don’t need to be organized: Call numbers, classification systems (e.g. Dewy Decimal, Library of Congress, etc.), shelves, and signage are long-held systems to help people find print items in a library. The equivalent tools exist for electronic materials: hyperlinks and URLs, controlled subject vocabularies, tags and keywords, images, book covers, etc. These fields are in place to help people find materials in the easiest way possible. Just like their print counterparts, electronic stuff has its own access points, unique to its medium. Digital books have a classification and cataloguing system of their own, and they’re usually established by librarians.
• Librarians, search tools and the Internet: I heard there was a scene on Parks and Recreation where Amy Poehler’s character said to the librarian something about being unnecessary or replaced because of the Internet. I can’t stand this argument… It’s obviously a cinch to find basic information on Google, but not everything is indexed on search engines like Google. Information isn’t always free, and Libraries have the resources to pay to have them available for you through subscriptions. If you’re only looking for basic details about something, clearly a librarian isn’t required. If you’re looking for something substantial or specific… you might have to scroll through a shitload of Google results if you don’t know what you’re doing. The Internet holds an incomprehensible amount of information. While having made it quicker to find lots of cool stuff, it has also been made more challenging to find authoritative or quality information. Librarians and other information professionals are essential in organizing, processing and helping to make sense of it.
• Librarians as “gatekeepers”, not custodians of information:Librarians aren’t threatened by the Internet, or think that our jobs are in danger because of it. We use the Internet to make finding stuff easier, and we help people to use the Internet to make their lives and work easier. Heck, it makes our jobs easier too.

Learning from relatives: academic, school, and public libraries

Librarians and information professionals who work in special libraries often stick together. This makes sense, of course, as they tend to serve like-minded users, provide similar information services, and face challenges unique to special libraries. Librarians in corporate, non-profit, law and “non-traditional” information centres must rarely (if ever) consider some of the fundamental and everyday decisions of their distant relatives, the public and academic librarians. While public librarians debate the impediments of children’s literacy, or academic librarians struggle to teach undergrads how to find a peer-reviewed journal article, the special library community faces entirely different user-needs and information management concerns. Despite these inherent professional differences, I believe there is much that can be learned from one another.

The Ontario Library Association’s annual Super Conference takes place each Winter at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. This past January I attended the Super Conference with the hopes of reconnecting and networking with colleagues, liaising with vendors, and most importantly, learning from the experiences of other librarians.

Traditionally and informally, the OLA Super Conference is more or less a platform for library technicians, academic, school, and public librarians. There seem to be few special librarians in attendance at OLA. This year I pondered if librarians from special libraries could benefit from what the Super Conference has to offer. Coincidentally, the theme of this year’s conference was “The Power of C – Collaboration!” OLA President Mary Ann Mavrinac writes, “Collaboration makes us smarter. The power of collaboration is a catalyst for community engagement, communication, cooperation, connectivity, conversations, crowdsourcing, collectivism and collegiality” and further, “helps us make better choices for communal and collateral benefit” (source). I felt energized by this message of teamwork and camaraderie, and think that despite differences in the users we serve, that both groups can take away valuable and transferable lessons from each other’s major conferences.

When the Super Conference session schedule was released, I read some abstracts out of curiosity for what might be available. To my surprise, more than a handful stood out as innovative, interesting, and helpful in the context of my library’s current projects and workflow. Fully aware that I’m not the ideal audience for this conference, I registered reluctantly but excitedly.

Below are some sessions from the 2011 Super Conference that I enjoyed:

“Library Mashups: Exploring new ways to deliver library data” presented by Nicole Engard (Bywater Solutions): Highlighted various examples of how your library can incorporate the API (Application Programming Interface) from your current subscriptions (e.g. The New York Times) and embed that code within your library’s OPAC or website. Hypothetically then, you can present your users with seamless and immediate access to the latest content related to your organization’s focus. Additionally, introduce things like Google maps and other applications to your Library’s web page.

“Using Open Source Software in a shared integrated library system” presented by A. Rivers-Moore (Hanover PL), S. Leighton, (Grand Valley PL), W. Allen (Grey Highlands PL), and R. Dotten (Shelburne PL): Explored the challenges and successes of implementing the open source ILS, Koha. My library uses a number of open source platforms, Koha in particular. As the only librarian (and one with amateur open source abilities) it was a terrific opportunity to speak to others in the same situation about some of the obstacles and rewards involved in introducing free and open source software.

Overall, I was thoroughly impressed by the diversity and depth of most sessions, though disappointed by the elementary coverage of some others. I heartedly recommend browsing the list of sessions for the 2012 Super Conference. You may be surprised at what you find! As the leaders of access and information management within our organizations, we should actively keep abreast developments, technologies and projects throughout the wider profession of librarianship in order to anticipate and meet the needs of our users. There is much to be learned from our librarian relatives in the academic, school and public environments, and there is much that we can teach them as well.

Professional Profiles Series

Recently I was interviewed by the President of the SLA-Toronto Student Group, Zoe Cliff.  Zoe asked if we could meet to chat about my career in special libraries for for their blog’s professional profiles series. I thought it would be neat to share some insight into job hunting, my experiences in libraries, and landing a job.

Below is a transcript of the interview. To read other professional profiles, visit the SLA-Toronto Student Group Blog here: http://slatsg.blogspot.com/

1. Describe your current position
I’m a Research Librarian in a special library at CIGI, a non-profit research organization (“think tank”) that focuses on international governance concerns: energy and environment, economics, development and security. I provide a wide range of library and research services to the organization’s researchers and experts. These users have strong academic credentials, extensive international research experience, and a wide range of policy expertise. As a solo-librarian, I’m responsible for nearly all aspects of maintaining the library: acquisitions, cataloguing, collection development, subscriptions and serials management, research requests and support, special projects, outreach and communicating with the wider organization. It’s a lot of fun!

2. Describe your educational background

I have an honours Bachelor of Arts from Acadia University in history and sociology, and a Master of Information Studies (MISt) from the University of Toronto, with a focus on Library & Information Science.

3. Describe your first job as a librarian or information professional etc. and subsequent career path

This is my very first job as a librarian. After graduating from my MISt, I worked briefly at the Information Centre of De Beers Canada (the mining company), and then landed my current position. I also held a handful of library positions while at the iSchool: I worked part-time at the Robarts Reference & Research Services desk, and did some cataloguing and reference for the Data, Map & Government Information department. In addition to this, I worked at the Royal Ontario Museum Library & Archives.Regarding my current job, I was initially hired on a contract basis as the Collections Librarian, but after some restructuring, I was promoted and hired as a permanent full-time Research Librarian.

4. How did your information training and background prepare you for the job you now have?

I think that a combination of my experiences prepared me for the job I have now. Specifically, I owe a great deal to my work experiences while studying at U of T. I worked hard to get as much library experience as I could, because I felt that I would get more out of hands-on experience in libraries than I would in the classroom. I was very lucky, and landed some really terrific student jobs. In those roles I had the opportunity to assist with in-depth reference for a range of academic disciplines (humanities, social sciences, business, government documents, data and statistics), I performed original and copy-cataloguing, got involved with knowledge management and Web 2.0, and worked with archives. I was exposed to a diversity of information settings, user groups, and subject areas, and I think that a mixture of these experienced helped me to thrive in my current position where I handle most aspects of the Library. When I saw the job posting at CIGI, I thought to myself, “…this job description was written for your background and experience: apply.”

5. What advice would you give someone who is currently doing his or her Master in Information?

As a relatively new grad myself, I don’t think that I have a ton of wisdom to share, but here are some bits of advice that you might find helpful:

• I know it’s easy to get into doing this, but don’t just take soft skill “bird” courses. Especially if you’re looking for a job in special libraries, it’s crucial to have those practical, “hard skills”. For example: aspects of cataloguing; abilities with open source; knowing something about HTML, MySQL, or web design, data, etc. I think that employers are looking for people who can walk into a job with as little training as possible and who can make a real impact. Impress them with your knowledge, skills and innovative ideas!

• Speak to a few people in the field who have jobs that you want: inquire about how they got to where they are, ask them to critique your resume and/or CV, and in general, get your name and face out there. A similar suggestion is to request to speak to someone in Human Resources at a large library where you’d like to work. While I was job hunting, I met with the Head of Human Resources at UTL to have a mock interview and resume critique, and it was an invaluable experience. They see a lot of resumes, after all.

• Create an online presence! You should want to be found in a Google search on sites like LinkedIn, through your personal website, and on Twitter. It will show that you’re web-savvy, relevant, and have something to say. (N.B. At the same time, be vigilant about Facebook privacy settings… you don’t need potential employers to know too much about you.)

• Get experience. Realistically, everyone at the iSchool will graduate with the same degree. So what really counts (and what will make you stand out), is your experience. I think any experience is good for your resume and getting a job. If you can volunteer, great. If you can get part-time jobs, even better.

• In the end, I think that getting a job relies on the following: who you know, your experience, luck, and timing.

6. Any general advice for new information professionals?

Network with colleagues, collaborate and be nice. Sometimes I feel like there’s an aura of competition that exists within special libraries (but maybe it’s other places too), and I think it can make people uptight and insular. Participate in socials, activities, listservs, and collaborate. It would make our community even more pleasant than it already is.

7. What helpful lessons did you learn early in your career? Do any of them still apply today?

Don’t be overwhelmed, stay organized, and take it one day at a time. When I was at De Beers, I worked with the Manager of Information Services (it was just the two of us), and I was always impressed with her ability to stay calm under duress. The library was never in shambles, but there were some problem areas that I would have lost sleep over. I asked how she dealt with that kind of stress or pressure, and she said, “No library is perfect. You just have to deal with things in stride, and prioritize your time.” I sometimes feel overwhelmed when I think of all of the things that need to be done at my library, e.g. backlog of cataloguing, responding to requests, maintaining print collections, broken links on the digital library, etc.; but I try to stay organized and prioritize competing long-term tasks, one day at a time.

“less sane” core library services

This past week I attended the OLA’s annual Super Conference in Toronto. The sessions that I chose were kind of split between disappointing, and terrific. I never think that I’ll love everything I attend, so it was to be expected. Especially coming from a special library, I’m not exactly the target audience for the OLA conference, as it’s largely public and academic librarians, but I digress…

One session that I truly loved (and that still has me thinking) was delivered by Karen Calhoun (OCLC) and Rick Anderson (University of Utah Libraries). The subtitle of this session was “Let them eat… everything: embracing a patron-driven future.”

Session abstract:

The awesomeness of this session was due to Rick’s radical and forward-thinking ideas of how libraries should adapt to the times and trends by modifying library workflows, to “trim the fat” of long-standing and unquestioned core library services. The way he put it, there are many services that libraries provide that while not “insane”, are definitely “less sane”. For example, he spoke about Interlibrary Loan. When you think about it, ILL is… ridiculous and wasteful. Someone wants a book that isn’t available at your library, so it’s ordered from a library across the country for that person to use (an extreme instance I know, but stay with me…).

A second example of “less sane” core services is the academic reference desk. Rick argued that as a service model, the reference desk relies on the hope that only a fraction of students will use it. It is impossible and impractical for thousands of students to queue at the reference desk for research assistance. While it’s the intention of Reference Departments to provide reference and instruction to as many students as they can, feasibly it is an impossible goal. Further, an instruction session can usually contain 20-40 people, maximum? In-class library instruction is on the way out. He proposes that libraries should eliminate this core service and develop services based on ease of use. That is, improved information architecture on library websites and more online guides to ease discoverability and the flow of desired information. Information literacy and instruction on Youtube, anyone?

Librarians and libraries have gotten very good at doing these core services, which could (and as Rick would argue, should) be eliminated. He asserted that more sane services would include document delivery & purchasing articles as a solution to overspending on unused serial titles, using and perfecting Wikipedia, patron-driven acquisition (i.e. acquiring what’s demonstrably wanted rather than traditional collection development), and ease of use as an alternative philosophy to bibliographic instruction. I think for the most part, these are accurate, legitimate, and sensible recommendations.

Overall I’m impressed and refreshed by this kind of radical and unpopular thinking. It’s time for librarians to shake it up, think innovatively and outside the box about library procedures and service delivery. Beyond thinking differently, let’s start making changes to meet our users’ needs and put an end to the “less sane” services that, although we’ve gotten very good at doing, simply aren’t realistic or sustainable.

Solo Librarians & Twitter

Many libraries nowadays have Twitter to promote themselves to the public and their users, but what about how librarians are using Twitter for themselves. If you’re a librarian, I want to know: do you have a personal/professional Twitter account? If your answer is ‘yes’, then I also want to ask: do you ever use Tweets to connect with other librarians for assistance with job-related tasks?

Whether or not you Tweet, undoubtedly you are aware that Twitter is a powerful and increasingly ubiquitous online social tool to communicate and share information with others… in 140 characters. However, have you considered Twitter’s potential as a resource for helping you solve problems and frustrations while you’re at work? I’ve given this some thought lately, and have wanted to generate some discussion about Twitter-use amongst the solo librarian community. For many public and academic librarians, it’s typically listervs, their manager(s), and arm’s-length colleagues who serve as sources of assistance for job-related queries, but have you ever wondered how solo librarians fare with solving their unique workplace challenges?

Solos are usually the only staff member at their organization’s information centre. When faced with any kind of obstacle (e.g. tricky reference question, Director’s request for you to justify the library’s existence, or to evaluate new open source library software), solo librarians will very often reach out to other librarians and information professionals. More so than librarians in traditional library settings, solos rely heavily on listservs and close colleagues via email.
When I started my current job in a library at a think tank, I wanted to subscribe to some SLA listserv communities in case I ever needed support (plus, I felt a bit isolated from other librarians). From the start, I recognized that the librarians participating in the SLA’s Solo Librarians Division listserv (SLA-DSOL) are some of the most generous, kind, and helpful of librarians. SLA-DSOL includes a very wide range of issues (on shelving options, library policies, reference questions, article requests, best practices, etc!), and it seems that most requests for assistance are addressed and solved. A reoccurring criticism of SLA-DSOL is that messages aren’t always acknowledged or responded to quickly. The listserv is a great resource, but I wondered if any of the solo librarians on the list are using Twitter for the same kinds of issues.

One way for solos to do this is with the use of the hashtag (#). Twitter hashtags work to link tweets to one another when used consistently by others. Most Twitter-users apply hashtags sporadically and sometimes ironically, but when applied properly, they can have a very useful purpose. Here’s a scenario of how they can be successful: Recently I was having trouble with the open source ILS platform at my library (it’s called Koha), and was feeling frustrated with the lack of systems support. Overall Koha is an awesome system, but I couldn’t solve a weird bug related to the serials module. After sufficient frustration, I composed the following pathetic plea for help:
To my surprise I received a reply within minutes by a friendly Koha-savvy librarian. Via Tweets, she helped me to locate the appropriate documentation and set me up with a community wiki where I can go for future Koha support.

A second use for solos (and all users) on Twitter is the lists function. Create lists for Twitter users that you follow, such as Friends, News sources, Librarians, etc. When you follow someone on Twitter, you’re able to add them to these lists. My recommendation is to create a group of contacts in a list of solo librarians. When you check your Tweets, rather than scrolling through your entire feed, you can limit your new Tweets to those written by the solos who you follow.

Twitter is just one more way that soloists (can I call them that?) should reach out to each other. If there is a combined effort to use a consistent hashtag for the challenges of being a solo (e.g. #sololibrarians), then I think it would be a fantastic compliment to the existing listserv. Take a look at Catherine Trinkle’s article about the use of Twitter for creating a personal networks of professionals: “Twitter as a Professional Learning Community” (School Library Media Activities Monthly, December 2009).

Overall, I’m interested to know if and how solos are using Twitter. Yesterday I sent a message to SLA-DSOL to inquire about individual Twitter-use. Hopefully I’ll receive some encouraging responses, and maybe then pull solo librarianship into web 2.0

Access 2010 (i.e. #accesswpg)

Access, e.g. “the premier library technology conference in Canada”, was a hit this year in Winnipeg. From October 13-16, librarians, programmers, developers, technicians, and some eager job-seekers gathered in the sublime and historic Fort Garry Hotel to share ideas and experiences on functionality, open source alternatives, innovative service technologies, and most of all, access!

This was my first Access conference, and I have to admit, at first I was a bit anxious about attending because I am not a systems librarian. I was interested in attending Access 2010 because of my emerging interests in library technologies, open source, and the uses of mobile technologies in library settings. I was worried that the level of technical literacy and depth of systems-discussion would be over my head. I was relieved to learn that I was not alone in my amateur contribution to systems librarianship, but also, I found that I could relate and keep up with the content far better than I’d feared.

I would say that 65-70% of the sessions were of relevance to my current job and were of personal interest. The other 30-35% were either a bit too specific, or catered to niche library environments (e.g. GIS, bilingual considerations, linked data), and while these didn’t related to my current job, were still captivating presentation topics.

The biggest lesson that I took away from the conference is that people like me (i.e. non-systems librarians) should become as well-versed with information systems as they independently can. I don’t mean that every librarian should be writing code and developing applications for their library (although, that would be rad), I just mean that having an informed and basic understanding of the capabilities and possibilities of current technologies enhances library services.

The Access conference really encouraged me to explore areas of librarianship that many librarians are reluctant to embrace because we tell ourselves that “it’s too techy”, or that “it’s IT’s job, not mine.” This isn’t exactly a groundbreaking statement but something I’ve come to realize: collaborative creation and innovation in library services are achieved through the integration of emerging technologies with updated library service/access models. Not only is it a necessity for library services to stay current, but consider that working with open source (i.e. a customizable framework), Smart Phone capabilities (e.g. QR codes, handheld access, etc.), and metadata are all really fun!

Below were some of my favourite sessions from Access2010. You can also view the entire schedule (and some presentations) here.

“Usability testing and the Google generation” – Lisa Fast (NeoInsight)

“Mobile technologies: iRoam; Goin’ Mobile” – James MacDonald, Carolee Clyne (UNBC), Rob Zylstra (Grant McEwen University)

“A human library” – Randy Oldham, Janet Kaufman (University of Guelph)

“After launching search and discovery, who is mission control?” – William Denton, Adam Taves (York University)

“eXtensible Catalog: Take control of library metadata and websites” – David Lindahl (University of Rochester)

Re-evaluating knowing “too much about too little”

Are the most desirable reference and research librarians ones who are subject-experts, or those who have excellent broad knowledge in many areas (i.e. generalists)? Lately I’ve heard a number of opinions on the debatable impediments of subject specialization (see Pereyaslavska’s article in The Courier, re: “being overqualified”), along with the advantages of being a generalist reference librarian.  Both of these positions disagree with my longstanding view of the benefits of a second Masters degree.

I am quite interested in this “debate”, for I have often thought that being a “subject expert” is what made excellent librarians (among other qualities, of course). The abilities to discover, interpret, evaluate, acquire, and recommend relevant information resources are what reference and research librarians are trained to do, and fundamentally, it is what sets us apart from other research professionals. I respect any librarian with a subject-specific affiliation (i.e. a second Masters degree), because they are familiar with appropriate thesaurus terms for specific databases, have seasoned knowledge of research trends, and overall, have a uniquely sophisticated understanding of a subject area. Having experience and background in a particular field can increase the quality of reference and research by being value-added, intellectual, rigorous, and more thorough. In the previous issue of The Courier, Pereyaslavska expressed her uncertainties about being too specialized, revealing that perhaps some academic reference departments prefer a generalist librarian.  She wrote that “I have been repeatedly advised by a number of academic librarians that my graduate background is too specialized to provide proper breadth for reference services, which may be expected at a general academic reference desk. Have I shot myself in the foot by acquiring my M.A., and do I really know too much about too little?”

In response to Pereyaslavska’s doubts, I respectfully and encouragingly disagree. At many large academic institutions, librarians work together to staff a general reference desk, responding to a broad range of reference inquiries. While a librarian assists an undergraduate student with research for their paper on a Feminist critique of The Watchmen, the graduate student next in line might require in-depth reference assistance in locating rare British Parliamentary Papers. Having an advanced-subject expertise in one field should not limit your approach and response to reference questions outside your specialization. Obtaining graduate-level education on top of the practical education of an MISt/MLIS can position someone far better for academic librarianship. In practice, specialists have more experience executing varying levels of academic research, and have had greater exposure to academic processes. In addition, there is more to academic librarianship than assisting at an information desk. Collection development and information literacy are two tasks that, when performed by a librarian with related subject-specialization, are inherently and exponentially improved.

Moreover, attitudes toward generalists and subject specialists can differ from one academic library to the next. Some will value that their librarians hold a second Masters degree in the subject for which they have liaison responsibilities, while others might appreciate a general and holistic approach to academic research subjects and processes. It comes down to workplace culture (Mayer & Terrill, 2005): the librarians at University X may value professional development opportunities, workshops, courses, learning from each other, and long-term exposure to providing reference to obtain a level of “expert generalism”. University Z might require that their librarians hold a second masters degree. I do not think that Pereyaslavska has shot herself in the foot. There is a great interest (and need) for librarians with higher and specialized education. They can often be found in management roles, and at well established academic institutions.

Qualities that make a formidable generalist librarian include being adaptive, resourceful, a quick learner and creative problem-solver. So far, my honours Bachelor of Arts in history and sociology, in combination with formal library training have made me a skilled reference and research librarian. Although not a specialist (yet?) and therefore a generalist, I am one who recognizes the need for both, and a mixture of each. As a librarian, I plan to pursue professional development initiatives, and to continuously expand my knowledge and abilities. With increasing experience and training, it is my aspiration to grow into the type of librarian that exceeds the generalist, but does not quite meet the specialist… Something which Smith and Oliva (2010) have termed a “renaissance librarian”. A renaissance librarian is someone with accomplishments in diverse areas, who possesses knowledge in many subjects. They achieve this through “broadening their intellectual horizons by cross training informally with each other and obtaining formal training from their colleagues and from outside resources.” They attend and participate at conferences, pursue professional instruction courses, read professional literature, and collaborate with team members (p.144). Renaissance librarianship is the way for me.

References

Mayer, J. & L. J. Terrill.  “Academic librarians’ attitudes about advanced-subject degrees.”  College & Research Libraries, vol. 66, no. 1, January 2005: pp. 59-73.

Pereyaslavska, K. “How much is too much and how little is not enough.” The Courier, vol. 47, no. 3, Spring 2010. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://units.sla.org/chapter/ctor/newsletter/courier.asp?eid=24&aid=269

Smith, D. A. & V. T. Oliva. “Becoming a renaissance reference librarian in academe: attitudes toward generalist and subject specific reference and related profession development.” Reference Services Review, vol. 38, no. 1, 2010: pp. 125-151.

I <3 Veronica Mars

If you have never watched Veronica Mars… then you need to start! I’d heard of the show a few years ago, but it never really interested me because I thought it was just about a subversive girl with a catchy name, trudging through her high school years. Well, it kind of is like that.. but what I didn’t know, is that she is a detective! Stay with me here…

For any librarian who loves conducting research, helping others find what they’re seeking, and who really enjoys the problem-solving aspects of the profession, Veronica Mars will inspire and re-introduce how challenging and rewarding doing research can be. Librarians aren’t detectives, I know, but a lot of what research and reference librarians do is, in a way, detective work: Someone approaches you with a problem (e.g. reference question), you use the necessary reasoning to determine how to help them. You draw upon resources available to you, think of creative ways to find answers, and determine ways around obstacles to obtain valuable information. Veronica Mars uses databases, newspapers on microform, indexes, public search engines, personal contacts, libraries, police reports (classified information, but she has friends in important places), etc. She is a natural (and impeccable) librarian. Granted, Veronica Mars often uses unethical means to acquire information (trespassing, lying, disguising herself to mislead others, to name a few), her research tactics are brilliant, inventive, and almost always successful!

Plus, I love that she goes to the library. Give this show a chance. There are three seasons on DVD. You will be hooked.