de Stricker

What's in a Name? Identity, that's What

Having recently had the privilege of giving a workshop at the 11th Internet Librarian International conference in London (http://www.internet-librarian.com/2009/), I was enjoying the company of my professional peers, discussing with them a wide variety of topics according to the wide variety of specializations represented among us when suddenly "it" began traveling the halls.  "It" was the announcement of a proposed new name for 100-year-old Special Libraries Association.

 

In the days since then, the discussions have billowed through the virtual halls of the social media, reflecting a level of engagement I haven't seen since … perhaps ever.  The posts have shone a sharp light on the fact that our work eludes description in a single association name with an elegant, easily pronounced acronym.  The domains in which holders of library and information science degrees are active have broadened in step with the introduction of technologies and tools - so much so that a unifying designation is beyond us.

 

John Cotton Dana got around the naming challenge when he founded SLA by choosing the word "Libraries" as opposed to "Librarians" (although it's interesting to note that the name was a compromise even then).  By now, it's clear our association name ought to focus on the individual's contribution rather than on any entity in which he or she is active … but that's where the consensus ends.

 

So who are we?  The name debate reveals that we may each have a strong sense of our own professional identity but that such personal definitions are just that.  Much of the sentiment bubbling to the surface touches on "that's not who I am", "the new name would be just as incomprehensible to decision makers as the old one was so I still can't use it", and similar versions of an opinion that the new name won't solve a problem that has dogged us for as long as we can remember: The opaqueness of our profession.  As an example of a profession without that challenge, physicians may occupy myriad specialty positions yet are comfortable with the collective name - and they rarely find themselves having to explain to anyone the nature of what they do for a living!  But here's the key for me:  Physicians enjoy a pervasive societal understanding of their role and the outcome of their work. We don't.

 

We will likely never solve the vocabulary puzzle, for the simple reason that the impacts we have are too difficult to characterize succinctly in any way to do them justice.  Judging from the many conversations I have had with fellow professionals for decades about our choice of vocation, many of us share the hindsight realization that whatever mental image we may have had when we signed up for graduate school was blown out of the water if not in our first job then certainly soon thereafter.  Never mind, we may have thought:  The work is too fascinating and our results too rewarding to worry about what labels we wear. 

 

The result of the upcoming membership vote is likely to set off another round in the discussion.  With our professional identities on the line, I fondly hope we will look back one day and conclude the debate in the end produced an outcome that was more than worth what we invested in it.

We can Count Them ... But do They Count?

Einstein, Drucker, and others have pointed to the conundrum that "not everything we measure is important, and what is important may be impossible to measure".  The topic of "Information Services Return on Investment" figures regularly in my professional activities - to wit, I will be a panel member at a session offered October 27 by the Ottawa Chapter of the Canadian Association for Special Libraries and Information Services (CASLIS is a section of the Canadian Library Association).  Here are some key aspects of the conundrum associated with demonstrating the value of information centers, libraries, intranets, collaboration tools, and the like:

 

►The professional literature on ROI from libraries and information centers features quite a few titles sounding promising …some with publication dates in the 1970s.  We have been working on the challenge for a long time.

 

►As examples, perceptions of value derived from research into renewable energy tend to be positive, and few would question the value of diagnostic imaging technology.  Such 'carte blanche' acceptance of associated investments is more elusive when it comes to information centers and libraries.

 

►The fact that many of the costs of information centers are "sunk" - that is, we must pay for library systems and content licenses before the first customer arrives and regardless whether 100 or 1000 employees avail of our content and research service offerings - bedevils us.  Cost cannot be scaled with consumption (but to make matters even more complicated, consumption may not be seen as translating into value).

 

►Metrics of activity - searches, article downloads, page views, turnstile counts, circulation, reference questions, and so on - are a staple of operational reporting, yet the valid question is raised:  What do the numbers mean?  Does "5000 views" suggest users are confused or indicate users are getting appropriate information in apporiate volume? It is no surprise that executives express difficulty in translating counts into an understanding of impact.

 

►Calculations such as literature research time saved by knowledge workers as a result of our assistance point to ROI but are at best indicative.  Moreover, time savings and other soft benefits such as reduced risk and better-informed decision making may be nice-to-haves in the context of budgetary scrutiny.

 

►To provide context for impact assessment, we need to show the difference our work makes:  To what kind of decision/policy/project/deliverable was our assistance applied?  Was the outcome different from what it might have been without the information or guidance we provided?  Although answers to such questions cannot constitute proof of ROI, they may be essential in demonstrating our contribution to the success of the organization we serve. 

 

Should you have succeeded in developing new ways to assess and indicate the value and impact of your work, anecdotally or otherwise … thousands of your colleagues would be grateful to hear about them!  In the spirit of Thanksgiving - October 12 in Canada - I give thanks in advance to those who share.