Presentation from the final project seminar for the 'Bibliotek i endring' (Changing Libraries) project, held at Høgskolen i Bergen, 19/3/15. The seminar presented the methodology and findings of the project, which considered information management, change management and professional development in the workplace, with a focus on mapping as a technique to raise awareness of issues.

1. Bibliotek i Endring
Final project seminar / Sluttsamling prosjekt
19.3.2015

2. Plan for the day
• Intro: 10.00 - 10.15
• Presentation/discussion: 10.15 - 11.45
• Lunsj: 11.45 - 12.45
• Planning session: 12.45 - 15.00

3. Introduction
• This is the closing event of our project that started in June
2013
• We want to use it to give something back to you, our
participants…
… and also to suggest
directions for further work

4. “Changing Libraries”
• Context at HiB: 1) Reorganisation and moving to Kronstad
• 2) Focusing more on research support
• 3) Digital developments
• 4) Need for new competencies
• 5) Merger(s)

5. • and at UiS…. change of director (though we did not know
this was coming at the start…)
Also several issues from the last slide are held in
common

6. Methodology
• Our aim was to study change management — information
management — and organisational learning…
• But not in a ‘top-down’ way, as diktats the librarians just
have to respond to.
• Instead, viewing these as social processes that are
collective, dialogic (Linell 2009) and “that underlie
knowledge sharing between the different subunits of a
single organisation” (Tagliaventi, Bertolotti and Macrì
2010, 332)

7. Co-operative inquiry
• ‘External’ research…
• + action research by the librarians themselves
• Data generated that was useful at both levels
• But: there might have been some tension between the two?
e.g. — the question of revisiting old maps or creating fresh
maps each time

8. Stewarding
• Core concept
• Wenger et al’s model
• Not just stewarding, but distributing the capacity to
steward
• Expand idea out beyond ICT — to the whole information
landscape

9. Mapping as a learning process
• Maps can summarise what is known about a landscape —
provide information about it even if you have not been
there
• But they can also tell you new things about somewhere
familiar
• Mapping of information — relationships
• Sociograms and concept mapping used in the project

10. Types of data collected
• Interview data — social network analysis; feedback
• Ketso sessions — quantitative, qualitative, relational,
longitudinal
• Also recordings, observations as backup
(For more on the methodology see our paper: Whitworth, A., Torras I Calvo, M. C., Moss, B.,
Amlesom kifle, N., & Blåsternes, T. (2014). Changing Libraries: Facilitating Self-Reflection and
Action Research on Organizational Change in Academic Libraries. New Review of Academic
Librarianship, 20(2), 251-274.)

11. Why social network analysis?
• Why we undertook this — an alternative ‘map’ of the
relationships in each library
• What we hoped it would show us
• Change over the period of study?

12. N
ame
C
oreness
A
ctions
K
irsty
0.
444 7
J
oanna*
0.
422
1
4
C
arol
0.
36 5
I
ris*
0.
343 5
G
illian
0.
307 7
B
ill*
0.
27
1
7
H
enry*
0.
264 1
M
ary
0.
258 7
D
awn
0.
222 7
S
usan
0.
136 3
F
ay
0.
066 0
E
d
0.
038 0
P
earson’s
Correlation
coefficient:
+0
.577
Here there is a correlation
between ‘coreness’ and
changes to practice — but
also evidence of
inclusiveness when it
came to managing the
change

13. However, we didn’t see the same
correlation in library B, so it
may just be a coincidence
“Further research is
required…”

14. Ketso
• What the concept maps told us (as ‘external’ researchers)
• Highlighted issues with information management — issue
of ‘territory’ and scrutiny over practices? [discussion?]

15. • Prioritisation and setting actions did not necessarily lead
to change in maps — some areas ‘stagnant’ — or neglected
It must be stressed that the maps are representations.
Nevertheless there is evidence here, at least, of the perception of
blockages and/or stagnation.

16. Issues with library change
management
• Impact of reorganisation at HiB?
• Evidence to suggest the reorganisation was perceived as successful —
inclusive
• Staff retained a sense of ownership, that their contributions were
valued and meaningful
• The Bie project as a whole promoted reflection and debate on the
library’s values, best practices and goals
• External consultants’ role was important (both the Bie investigators
and those helping with the reorganisation)

17. [core values] have changed but in a positive way. During the reorganisation we have been
reflecting, planning, thinking a lot and we have revived things which were not emphasised in the
past. We have talked a lot about what new best practices we can integrate into our library, we have
learned from other people, consultants leading us in the reorganisation process.
[We have] more perception of changes in academic libraries in total. Before, the library was focused
on subjects that it was serving and not so much on the institution as a whole, as something which
offers education. Now the whole situation has to be considered. It is a more administrative thing,
we are part of a bigger whole and we have to change the way we think about libraries.
Organisationally there have been many changes. We were in small places, there was less
information, less going on. With fewer people you knew what you were doing more. Now there are
a lot of people, maybe doing the same thing. All the ones teaching, say, are in one group. We have
to deal with more colleagues, a lot more information. As a library we now have one management
instead of several. The circulation desk has to communicate not just with their own unit but with
everyone. I am expected to stretch myself much more, expected to know what is going on in other
places much more.
Some quotes from interviews:

18. And at UiS?
• Ketso showed much lower volatility of the landscape at
UiS, particularly prior to January 2014
• Activity peaked in session 4 (April 2014)
• Change of director was not a structural change to the same
extent as at HiB
• Change in management style — changes in priorities —
but not so much change in practices or roles

19. Impact on participants
• Positive — space for reflection, seeing how things fit into the
bigger picture, helped organise actions
• Liked the visualisation. Record of a conversation that was
more dynamic & less constrained than team meeting
• Negative — too many sessions?
• No new information?
• Generally though — Ketso can help with professional
development for information stewarding

20. Role of facilitation
• More active in §4 and §5 (April and June 2014)
• For discussion — could it be done ‘internally’ or must it be an
‘outsider’?
• How can this be developed — future work?

21. Concluding discussion
• Not a matter of engineering
learning environments
• Chess analogy
• How to take it forward as research
but also within the libraries?

22. Lunch break

23. Afternoon Ketso session
• Where do we want to be in 5 years’ time?
• What will it take to get there (generally, and in specific
areas)?
• What blocks progress, and what blockages might be
addressed by specific actions in the short- and medium-
term?

24. • GREEN leaves [the shoots, the seeds]: ideas, aspirations,
hopes, plans
• BROWN leaves [the soil, the ground]: existing strengths,
structures, the basis for growth
• YELLOW leaves [the sun, energy]: drivers for change,
fuelling growth
• GREY leaves [clouds, infertile areas]: blockages, problems,
counter-forces