Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Models of Successful Embedded Librarianship
Ähnlich wie Models of Successful Embedded Librarianship (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Models of Successful Embedded Librarianship
- 1. Models of Embedded Librarianship Prepared and Presented by David Shumaker and Mary Talley And Friends Washington, DC June 16, 2009
- 2. Funded by a Research Grant from the Special Libraries Association 2 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 3. Acknowledgements We wish to thank: The SLA Research Committee and its chair, Dr. Eileen Abels John Latham, SLA Information Center Director We would not be able to make this presentation without the essential contributions of: Wendy Miervaldis, Part-time Lecturer in Mathematics, Catholic University of America (Statistical Consultant) Carla Miller and Acacia Reed, graduate students, Catholic University of America, Research Assistants 3 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 6. What Is Embedded Librarianship? What Are We Talking About? It goes by many names: clinical librarian, specialist librarian, informationist, liaison, … 6 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 7. Sometimesthelibrarian moves out of the library into a customer space … Sometimesthecustomer grouppays the librarian’s salary … Always, a special relationship is created … Themes in the literature include: Specialization; specialized knowledge, roles, and functions Co-location with information users, away from a library Funding by a user group Shared responsibility for achieving user group’s goals 7 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 9. Located in their Workplace notOur Workplace
- 10. Focused on Small Groups notEntire Populations
- 11. Composed of Specialists not Generalists
- 12. Dependent on Domain Knowledge not onlyLibrary Skills
- 13. Aiming for Analysis and Synthesis not simply Delivery
- 14. In Context not Out of Context
- 15. Built on Trusted Advice not Service Delivery8 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 16. Why Study Embedded Librarianship? The traditional library service model is in decline: “Business leaders think Google is all they need.” --SLA Alignment Project “46% of students believe they are “very skilled at using the Internet to effectively and efficiently search for information; 33% believe they are “expert” in this regard” --ECAR Study of Undergrad Students and IT, 2008 “The Internet and Google have changed the information landscape. Libraries now compete for a share of the information market.” --E. Stewart Saunders, Reference & User Services Quarterly ...many libraries report a decline in demand for reference services 9 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 17. The embedded model offers a way forward to: Improve“the quality of information, the efficiency of dissemination, and level of analysis which IPs uniquely provide” Reinforce “emphasis on relevance, access and timeliness vs. the packaging and format of distribution” “[R]eframethe skill sets of IPs in terms of better end-products and bottom-line results” --SLA Alignment Project 10 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 18. Why Study Embedded Librarianship? And one more thing: Broad, analytical research on successful implementations is lacking Somebody needed to do it! 11 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 19. Research Goals Definecriteria of “embeddedness” for library and information service programs Define indicators of success and identify successful (model) programs Collect data about the practices followed by model programs in initiating, operating, and evaluating their services Develop recommendations for other librarians 12 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 20. Research Plan: Overview and Timeline Notification of award Final report Phase 3 interviews: Gain in-depth understanding from a small number of successful librarians, their managers and customers Phase 2 Survey: Follow-up with embedded librarians from Phase 1 Phase 1 Survey: Identify embedded librarians Jan. 08 July 08 Nov. 08 Apr. 09 June 09 Literature content analysis continued throughout 13 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 21. Survey 1: Design Survey 1 Overview 19 Questions Survey Sample 3 Eligibility Questions 10,000: SLA Members 278 Embedded 3000: Random Sample 28% of Survey Responses 1001 Responses 30% Response Rate 14 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 22. Survey 1 & 2 Populations 15 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 23. Overview of Findings Embedded library service programs are alive and healthy in SLA’S organizations. 16 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 24. Organization and Industry Types Organization Type Industry Type (5 Largest) 17 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 25. Organization and Industry Types 61% of Academic Respondents provide specialized services (61:39 ratio) 6 of the 17 Industry Types have a larger percentage of special service providers than non-special service providers 18 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 26. Longevity 75%of Respondents are in programs initiated 7 or more years ago 19 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 27. Organization Size Large institutions are more likely to offer Specialized Services 20 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 28. Describing Embedded Librarians: Knowledge Embedded Librarians acquire domain knowledge through continuous learning, but not always through formal degrees in a related subject. 21 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 29. Knowledge Mostrespondents did not have a degree in progress and most rated the delivery of services as very successful. Survey 2, Q13, 14 22 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 30. Building Relationships Embedded Librarians’ build strong relationships with their customer groups, generating services and feeding demand. 23 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 31. Building Relationships The Big Seven Meet with senior group members Train group members Regular customer meetings re info needs Collaborate with group on work Attend group’s work-related meetings Attend domain-related class or conference Collaborate on e-workspace 24 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 32. Services Embedded librarians combine their expertise in information services with their domain knowledge to provide sophisticated contributions to their customer groups’ work. Customer Groups reward them with increased demand for services. 25 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 33. Services Survey 2, Q18, 19, 20 26 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 34. Organizational Models Implementation of embedded library services programs differs widely among organization types. 27 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 35. Organizational Models Building Relationships 28 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 36. Organizational Models Building Relationships 29 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 37. Organizational Models Provision of Services 30 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 38. Overview of Findings Success FactorsModels of Embedded Librarianship 31 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 40. Growth
- 41. Longevity32 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 42. Self Evaluations 116 responses Survey 2, Q 37 33 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 47. Staffing over timehave all remained flat or declined: Not so sure … 34 © Shumaker & Talley 2009 11 respondents 16 respondents
- 50. Instructional Responsibility shared with faculty
- 51. Data Analysis
- 54. Formal Orientations35 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 61. Anecdotes to evaluate services36 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 63. Customer manager facilitated integration
- 64. Customer manager provides input to performance review
- 65. Written agreement with Customer
- 66. Customer manager refers new group members to the librarian
- 67. Management authorization not required to initiate specialized services37 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 69. CE required
- 70. CE supported38 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 71. Bottom Line: What Matters Most… Promotion of Services (word of mouth, print, orientation sessions) Measurement and Evaluation of Services (financial measures, research projects, anecdotes, documents delivered, reference, training attendance) Management Support and Communication (justifying the services to customer management, customer feedback to performance review, written agreement) Delivering the Right Services (in-depth research, data analysis, document delivery, shared instructional responsibility 39 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 74. Consistent two-way management communication40 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 77. Consistent two-way management communication1. Hire staff who can build relationships 41 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
- 78. Thank You! David Shumaker shumaker@cua.edu Mary Talley mary.talleygarcia@gmail.com 42 © Shumaker & Talley 2009
Hinweis der Redaktion
- I would not bring in all the detail about response rate until later.Phase 1: mention pilot test of survey and adjustment
- 3000: size of random sample sufficient to represent the SLA populationResponse rate provides a confidence level of 95% +/-3.2%
- Use the data to present a profile of an embedded services program and an embedded librarianWe found that programs are on the whole: AdaptableWidespreadWell Established
- The embedded library model is widespread (perhaps a testament to its flexibility), represented in all 17 of the industry types in our survey. Chart on the right shows the top 5 industries in which embedded librarians are found. largest proportion are in Educational Institutions, followed by legal, financial, professional With the Exception of Education – at 28% - Numbers didn’t clump in any one industry,. Otherwise numbers are spread fairly evenly across the remaining 16 industry types. We found that there is no correlation between providing specialized services and industry type. In other words, you’re not more likely to find embedded librarians in one industry category than an another.[Embedded Librarians Survey 1 Analysis, 8/22/09, pg8]This indicates that an embedded library services model can be (and is) implemented in any industry category – not specific to one or another
- Flexible, widespread, and established are signs of a strong and vital programs.
- 75% are in programs that have been existence for 7 or more years. [Survey 2 Crosstabs, pg.2]The majority of embedded librarians are in long-lived, stable programs and most have been in their positions in a equal amount of time. Mildly surprised to discovery that Most of our embeddeds are in programs that have been in existence for 10 years or more44% in positions and programs 7+ yearsMildly surprising finding: most programs and positions have been around much longer than we had thought: 56% said specialized information services provided within organization 10+ years; [Survey Monkey, Survey 2, Q40, filtered results, completed]Growth – not set up to measure change over time. Did ask about change within last 2 years (Note surveys took place before and just as economy soured. Findings may not reflect thisCan’t tell from survey data whether Els in new positions and old programs are in positions, new to the program or are filling existing positionsOnly evidence for growth is: new to position/new programsModest growth: : Survey 2 CrossTabs, 5/20/09, pg.2Embedded Librarians staying in their positions: Most have been in position long timeNot a lot of new positions
- Embedded librarians are known for their depth of knowledgeable in their customer groups’ domains. Our survey bears that out. One question: How much knowledge is necessary to be successful in these positions and how do they acquire it? We suspected we would find a high occurrence of degrees in related areas and a significant relationship between subject degrees and success factors. We didn’t. We did find was that 80% are professionals with masters degrees in library and information science (not usually the other way around) who learned on the job (50% have 5+ years of related work experience). Take advantage of learning opportunities and 80% reported by taking classes, attending conferences in customers domain (80%).Seeing a strong relationship between longevity of programs (either within the org or to individual customer groups) and longevity of positions and educational and training support and of CE - the longer the specialized services have been provided , the more likely the respondent is to receive remuneration: release time, conferences in a related field, tuition. The longer the # of years in a position, the more likely an embedded is to receive a certification in a related field. [Embedded Librarians Survey 2 Analysis, pgs 6-9]; [Response to questions on Phase II draft: Measures of Success vsEduction, pg1] We don’t know why – there are so many correlations that something is going on. Hypothesis: self-reinforcing – prove the value of having knowledgable librarians Slightly less than half have (44%) have an undergraduate degree in a related field, and less than a quarter have a post-bachelor’s degree. We didn’t find any correlation between our specific success factors and education. [Embedded Librarians Survey 2 Analysis, pgs 6-9]; [Response to questions on Phase II draft: Measures of Success vsEduction, pg1]In fact, we did find a strong negative correlation between how successful the respondent rated the delivery of services and whether they had a degree in progress: most didn’t have a degree in progress and still rated the service as very successful[Embedded Librarians Survey 2 Analysis, pgs 6-7, r=0.24523, p=0.0084]
- 10 categories of interactions with customersRanged from – 4 categories re meeting with customer group members and leaders to inform themselves re customers work , share information, learn about information needs3 categories re service-related interactions : training, collaborating on work2 categories re social interactions, lunch or other social events 1 question re management interactionsWhat we learned: Embedded librarians interact with customers to understand information needs, contribute to work product, and to stay abreast of current work/projects, learn about their domain [Embedded Librarians Survey 1 Results, Draft, 8/22/08, pg 30 – 31]
- Interactions - # and level – top 5 categories with the highest frequency of responses [Embedded Librarians Survey 1 Results, Draft, 8/22/08, pg 30 – 31]Interactions that happen with some frequency - what’s noticeable: 4 out 5 are reciprocal interactions (EL is not delivering a service), typical of any group/team member, and are the kind of interactions that are as likely to be initiated by the embedded as by the customer. Number type and frequency indicate strong, collegial relationships with customer groups. nteractions and effects on other areas – found a number of correlations between these connections b0th Survey 1 and 2 and other areas: A number of success markers related to interactions (Dave will talk)
- Survey 2: respondents reported an increase in demand for services that has a significant correlation with type of work/services offered. The demand – service correlation is centered around value-added work, such as evaluating, synthesizng literature and data analysis.
- Mix of Sophisticated service Top 5: In-depth topical research, information resource development, current awareness – doing high-value and routine work; Service type related [not strongly] with increase in demand: Correlation (but not strong) between in increase in demand for service and In-depth Topical Research and information resource development[Correlations between S1Q2:Organization Type and S2, Q18 and 21, pg3, r=0.21160, p=0.0245). Not establishing cause and effect here, but noting that there is a relationship existent. Type of connection/interactions related to demandConnections and Services: Self generating work: demand increases, services increase Survey 2: Positive relationship between an increase in the # of libns serving a single customer group and increase in demand (decrease in both) but demand goes up faster than the numbers increase [Embedded Librarianship Research Project – Phase II, date, pg.2]
- While For-Profit organizations outweigh Academic orgs in all of these relationship building activities; Other org types also outweigh Academic in a number of these individual activities. Example: collaborate on or contribute to your customer group’s work, all 3 org types outweigh Academic in the likelhood that they will perform this activity)
- While For-Profit organizations outweigh Academic orgs in all of these relationship building activities; Other org types also outweigh Academic in a number of these individual activities. Example: collaborate on or contribute to your customer group’s work, all 3 org types outweigh Academic in the likelhood that they will perform this activity)