A while back I had an interesting conversation with a colleague on the origins of successful liaison outreach strategies. As several examples came to mind, we recognized a trend. Many of the most interesting collaborations seem to happen by accident. The librarian chatting with a faculty colleague before commencement. The liaison librarian who made new connections at a weekly departmental social hour. The librarian who connected with a faculty member outside his normal liaison duties based on a talk by the faculty member at a library-sponsored symposium.
It occurred to me that these informal social settings are an ideal setting for what Etienne Wenger describes as "one-on-one" and "immersion" "boundary encounters" (p.112 ff). To the faculty member from the departmental setting, there is no threat or explicit challenge to the departmental culture. The casual conversation may have nothing to do with teaching, with the university, or with any work-related topic. Perhaps the conversation is about children, the weather, local news, etc. The point is that the boundaries between two "communities of practice" are down. Too often, I fear, we librarians come blazing into a conversation on teaching and learning, with an immediate faculty response of "divert all energy to forward shields." If we begin a conversation with an apparent intent of infiltrating the departmental "teaching and learning regime" (Trowler) of the department, we should expect a hostile response. By contrast, in the informal social setting, we are hopefully an interesting life form worth learning more about, not a threat to the Federation (my recent DS9 binge is obviously warping my vocabulary).
As my co-worker and I continued the discussion, we reflected on the varied skills of our colleagues in these informal social settings. Several of them are not comfortable in these informal social settings. Heck, I'm not always comfortable in these settings. We realized, however, that it is part of our leadership roles to help make these connections.
We can help by playing the part of match maker, serving as the "weak link" in the network between our library colleagues and the faculty members we know through our various connections -- past or present faculty committees, community organizations, common hobbies, etc. This technique works particularly well in faculty-rich environments like the social hour before the start-of-semester all-faculty meeting, at the faculty dining center over the lunch hour, at athletic or arts events, etc.. By wrangling our faculty friends into conversations with the librarian assigned to their respective departments, we help our library colleagues "explore strange new worlds" of departmental culture.
Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Monday, March 24, 2014
Diversity and Collisions: A Problem-Solving Strategy
Last week I had the privilege of attending the Global Business Forum sponsored by Baylor's Hankamer School of Business. One of the most intriguing presentations was by Will Cukierski of Kaggle. Kaggle uses a competition model to engage data scientists in the development of predictive models. Cukierski indicated that Kaggle has seen that the groups most likely to solve a problem are frequently those most distant from the problem. Cukierski pointed to the work of Karim R. Lakhani. The company InnoCentive, much like Kaggle, provides a platform for crowd sourcing scientific problems. In "The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving" Lakhani et. al. (2007) found that "the more heterogeneous the scientific interests attracted to the solver base by a problem, the more likely the problem is to be solved" (p.7).
On a related note, I heard a story on NPR last week highlighted the work of Richard B. Freeman and Wei Huang on the effects of ethnic identity on authorship of scientific papers. In their paper "Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US," Freeman and Huang examined the surnames of authors between 1985 and 2008. The focus on the research was the impact of homophily ("birds of a feather flock together") on the quality of science produced. I was most interested in their final interpretive remarks, in which they hypothesize, based on their data, that "greater diversity and breadth of knowledge of a research team contributes to the quality of the scientific papers that the team produces" (p.19).
A related point, and the biggest takeaway for me from Cukierski's presentation last week, was Kaggle's approach to combining predictive models, from different teams, and often different academic domains, to come up with even better predictions. When they take the top two solutions and combine them, they tend to get better results than if using only the first-place model. Adding the third result will likely make the model even better. It is only after some number of approaches (the example graph put this n at 15) that additional models make the overall model less accurate. Better models come from combining multiple solutions, from multiple perspectives, not from selecting the one best solution.
There are likely several factors at play here. First, by bringing together multiple research teams from around the world, Kaggle is playing the part of the weak tie in the social network (Granovetter, 1973). Second, in a more diverse network, one is more likely to find those outside of the "normal science" (Kuhn, 1962), and therefore not bound by associated disciplinary constraints . Third, the competition model takes advantage of what we know about brainstorming and individual creativity (Cain, 2012, ch.3).
As I've written before, I see the research library of the future playing a key role in facilitating these kinds of interdisciplinary collisions, both with the spaces we provide (e.g. a "research commons") and the services we develop. So perhaps we can look to Kaggle and InnoCentive as a model for a type of academic library programming. Could we host our own Kaggle-like competition? A component of Baylor University's strategic vision, Pro Futuris, is "Informed Engagement," which includes an intent to "address systemic problems facing our community." What if we hosted a competition to find the best interdisciplinary solutions to community problems, partnering with local agencies and initiatives? What if we engaged faculty to make participation in the competition a course assignment?
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking
New York: Crown Publishers.
Freeman, R. B., & Huang, W. (2014). Collaborating With People Like Me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US (Working Paper No. 19905). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19905
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving (No. 07-050). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/download.aspx?name=07-050.pdf
On a related note, I heard a story on NPR last week highlighted the work of Richard B. Freeman and Wei Huang on the effects of ethnic identity on authorship of scientific papers. In their paper "Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US," Freeman and Huang examined the surnames of authors between 1985 and 2008. The focus on the research was the impact of homophily ("birds of a feather flock together") on the quality of science produced. I was most interested in their final interpretive remarks, in which they hypothesize, based on their data, that "greater diversity and breadth of knowledge of a research team contributes to the quality of the scientific papers that the team produces" (p.19).
A related point, and the biggest takeaway for me from Cukierski's presentation last week, was Kaggle's approach to combining predictive models, from different teams, and often different academic domains, to come up with even better predictions. When they take the top two solutions and combine them, they tend to get better results than if using only the first-place model. Adding the third result will likely make the model even better. It is only after some number of approaches (the example graph put this n at 15) that additional models make the overall model less accurate. Better models come from combining multiple solutions, from multiple perspectives, not from selecting the one best solution.
There are likely several factors at play here. First, by bringing together multiple research teams from around the world, Kaggle is playing the part of the weak tie in the social network (Granovetter, 1973). Second, in a more diverse network, one is more likely to find those outside of the "normal science" (Kuhn, 1962), and therefore not bound by associated disciplinary constraints . Third, the competition model takes advantage of what we know about brainstorming and individual creativity (Cain, 2012, ch.3).
As I've written before, I see the research library of the future playing a key role in facilitating these kinds of interdisciplinary collisions, both with the spaces we provide (e.g. a "research commons") and the services we develop. So perhaps we can look to Kaggle and InnoCentive as a model for a type of academic library programming. Could we host our own Kaggle-like competition? A component of Baylor University's strategic vision, Pro Futuris, is "Informed Engagement," which includes an intent to "address systemic problems facing our community." What if we hosted a competition to find the best interdisciplinary solutions to community problems, partnering with local agencies and initiatives? What if we engaged faculty to make participation in the competition a course assignment?
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking
New York: Crown Publishers.Freeman, R. B., & Huang, W. (2014). Collaborating With People Like Me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US (Working Paper No. 19905). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19905
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving (No. 07-050). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/download.aspx?name=07-050.pdf
Friday, March 21, 2014
Bootcamp for creatives
It's true. I need a swift kick in the butt every so often to do the things I need to do professionally. Don't get me wrong. I work hard every day. I try, with more or less success, to practice "inbox zero," and have certainly improved in management of my scary to-do list. I get assignments done on time, make it to meetings, and spend time on developing my team. But when it comes to writing - blogging, reading the research, developing an article or presentation - I need a periodic "kick" to clear my head and get me focused on what's really important. So every once in a while Amazon tells me I need yet another book on creativity/productivity/psychology, and I obligingly "one click," purchasing what is usually a cheap, short e-book that is clearly a compilation of blog posts, often by someone with a certain too-cool-for-school writing style. And yet, despite being cheap, short, and casual, I often find these kicks to be just what I need to shut my door, minimize Outlook, and focus on important stuff.
My burst of professional productivity the last couple days is likely connected to my most recent purchase, Show Your Work!: 10 Ways to Share Your Creativity and Get Discovered
by Austin Kleon. According to my Kindle app I'm 64% of the way through the book (probably the equivalent to about 30 pages if you account for font size, blank space, and large images). At this point, the most powerful message for me has been to "share something small every day." Of course this is old advice - but nevertheless a good reminder to find a way to have some productivity each day - and not let "perfect" get in the way of "good," something I've perhaps done better at preaching than practicing.
In this same section Kleon talks about finding time. There are 24 hours in every day, and you can "find time the same place you find spare change: in the nooks and crannies." This comment reminds me of another book for the creative's bootcamp, Laura Vanderkam's 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think
.
Here are a few more books to fire up your creative productivity:
The 99U compilation, Manage Your Day-to-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, and Sharpen Your Creative Mind (The 99U Book Series)
The book with the cheery title Die Empty: Unleash Your Best Work Every Day
, by Todd Henry.
And, for a truly bootcamp approach, Steven Pressfield's Do the Work
My burst of professional productivity the last couple days is likely connected to my most recent purchase, Show Your Work!: 10 Ways to Share Your Creativity and Get Discovered by Austin Kleon. According to my Kindle app I'm 64% of the way through the book (probably the equivalent to about 30 pages if you account for font size, blank space, and large images). At this point, the most powerful message for me has been to "share something small every day." Of course this is old advice - but nevertheless a good reminder to find a way to have some productivity each day - and not let "perfect" get in the way of "good," something I've perhaps done better at preaching than practicing.In this same section Kleon talks about finding time. There are 24 hours in every day, and you can "find time the same place you find spare change: in the nooks and crannies." This comment reminds me of another book for the creative's bootcamp, Laura Vanderkam's 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think.Here are a few more books to fire up your creative productivity:
The 99U compilation, Manage Your Day-to-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, and Sharpen Your Creative Mind (The 99U Book Series)
The book with the cheery title Die Empty: Unleash Your Best Work Every Day
, by Todd Henry.And, for a truly bootcamp approach, Steven Pressfield's Do the Work
Thursday, March 20, 2014
On hiring capacity over experience
We have a semi-regular brown bag lunch for librarians at Baylor. A frequent agenda item is sharing around the table of highlights from recent conferences. At a lunch meeting last fall I spoke about the
Designing Libraries for the 21st Century conference I had just attended at North Carolina State University. It was a tremendous conference, and a great opportunity to see the truly fabulous new Hunt Library. One highlight of the conference for me was hearing Susan Nutter speak on her vision for the library, and the long-term process of developing the team of professionals around her who made the library possible.
One portion of Nutter's presentation jumped out at me. It was an echo of something I'd read in the distant past, and parallel to a philosophy which has guided me when writing job descriptions or making a hiring decision. I shared Nutter's comments with my colleagues at our brown bag session. One of my colleagues, who was chairing a faculty search, asked me later to repeat these comments, as he didn't capture all of them in his notes. I'm not sure I captured everything Nutter said, but my notes had the following: changed the hiring process - look for talent, knowledge, team players, eager, intellectually engaged, willing to take chances. Nutter also indicated that experience doing the job was NOT a key criteria.
Years ago, well before I began working in libraries, I read the book Growing a Business
by Paul Hawken. I think I read it during my stay-at-home dad stint, when I was trying to imagine the entrepreneurial business I could start with zero capital. I never started that business (or at least, haven't yet), but I have tried to bring an entrepreneurial attitude to library leadership. At any rate, Nutter's remarks reminded me of one small section of Hawken's book which really resonated with me back in the early 1990's, and which has stuck with me ever since. Hawken said he aimed to "hire the person, not the position," and to focus on the character and potential of a job candidate. I had to wonder as Nutter spoke whether she had read Hawken, too, especially when I realized that she was hired at NCSU in 1987 -- the same year Hawken's book was published!
The "hire the right person" philosophy plays out in a number of practices for me. First, when writing a job description, I lean toward expanding the applicant pool, rather than restricting it. I always ask my search chairs whether a particular position requires an MLS. Sometimes we agree that an MLS is required (so far we've always required the library degree for cataloging positions). Frequently, we settle on a combination of graduate degree(s) and experience or evidence of related success.
When reviewing candidates, I'm more impressed by evidence of capacity to do a job than generic library experience. I can recall a time when a finalist pool for a very technical, detail oriented position with a need to at least understand databases and programming included someone with no undergraduate work in math or computers, an obvious (from the undergraduate transcript) failed attempt at a degree in the sciences, and an eventual esoteric humanities degree. I strongly discouraged the search committee from advancing the candidate, as we didn't have any evidence of capacity for the type of work required, despite some experience working in academic libraries. The end result of this search was an outstanding, new-to-the-profession librarian who jumped right into the work.
Finally, when making a final selection, do the hard work of reference checks. Go beyond the minimum institutional requirements. If a named reference seems to be avoiding your calls, be dogged in pursuit of them - they may be trying to avoid giving accurate, negative feedback on someone they want to see hired (or hired away). With the permission of the finalist, expand your conversations to include non-directed references. When we are preparing to do reference checks for a finalist, we tell the candidate we would also like to talk to a couple people not included on their list of references. We ask if there is anyone in their current or immediately previous place of employment (or among the faculty of their program) they would not want us to contact. Then we contact at least one or two people who, based on their positions, should have some knowledge of the candidate. Find out about their competence and and their collegiality. Remember, you are looking for ability and fit. Generally, you are going to get glowing reviews from people who really like the person you've liked in the interview process. Occasionally, however, you might gain new insight that helps you avoid a bad hiring decision.
Designing Libraries for the 21st Century conference I had just attended at North Carolina State University. It was a tremendous conference, and a great opportunity to see the truly fabulous new Hunt Library. One highlight of the conference for me was hearing Susan Nutter speak on her vision for the library, and the long-term process of developing the team of professionals around her who made the library possible.
One portion of Nutter's presentation jumped out at me. It was an echo of something I'd read in the distant past, and parallel to a philosophy which has guided me when writing job descriptions or making a hiring decision. I shared Nutter's comments with my colleagues at our brown bag session. One of my colleagues, who was chairing a faculty search, asked me later to repeat these comments, as he didn't capture all of them in his notes. I'm not sure I captured everything Nutter said, but my notes had the following: changed the hiring process - look for talent, knowledge, team players, eager, intellectually engaged, willing to take chances. Nutter also indicated that experience doing the job was NOT a key criteria.
Years ago, well before I began working in libraries, I read the book Growing a Business
by Paul Hawken. I think I read it during my stay-at-home dad stint, when I was trying to imagine the entrepreneurial business I could start with zero capital. I never started that business (or at least, haven't yet), but I have tried to bring an entrepreneurial attitude to library leadership. At any rate, Nutter's remarks reminded me of one small section of Hawken's book which really resonated with me back in the early 1990's, and which has stuck with me ever since. Hawken said he aimed to "hire the person, not the position," and to focus on the character and potential of a job candidate. I had to wonder as Nutter spoke whether she had read Hawken, too, especially when I realized that she was hired at NCSU in 1987 -- the same year Hawken's book was published!The "hire the right person" philosophy plays out in a number of practices for me. First, when writing a job description, I lean toward expanding the applicant pool, rather than restricting it. I always ask my search chairs whether a particular position requires an MLS. Sometimes we agree that an MLS is required (so far we've always required the library degree for cataloging positions). Frequently, we settle on a combination of graduate degree(s) and experience or evidence of related success.
When reviewing candidates, I'm more impressed by evidence of capacity to do a job than generic library experience. I can recall a time when a finalist pool for a very technical, detail oriented position with a need to at least understand databases and programming included someone with no undergraduate work in math or computers, an obvious (from the undergraduate transcript) failed attempt at a degree in the sciences, and an eventual esoteric humanities degree. I strongly discouraged the search committee from advancing the candidate, as we didn't have any evidence of capacity for the type of work required, despite some experience working in academic libraries. The end result of this search was an outstanding, new-to-the-profession librarian who jumped right into the work.
Finally, when making a final selection, do the hard work of reference checks. Go beyond the minimum institutional requirements. If a named reference seems to be avoiding your calls, be dogged in pursuit of them - they may be trying to avoid giving accurate, negative feedback on someone they want to see hired (or hired away). With the permission of the finalist, expand your conversations to include non-directed references. When we are preparing to do reference checks for a finalist, we tell the candidate we would also like to talk to a couple people not included on their list of references. We ask if there is anyone in their current or immediately previous place of employment (or among the faculty of their program) they would not want us to contact. Then we contact at least one or two people who, based on their positions, should have some knowledge of the candidate. Find out about their competence and and their collegiality. Remember, you are looking for ability and fit. Generally, you are going to get glowing reviews from people who really like the person you've liked in the interview process. Occasionally, however, you might gain new insight that helps you avoid a bad hiring decision.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
PaperShip - finally, a great iPad app for Zotero
Last week I discovered PaperShip. I've been a big fan of Zotero for years, but have been frustrated by the limited and complex options for reading and annotating my attached files on my iPad. I have Zotero set up to sync attachments with my university-provided box.com account. PaperShip syncs with both my Zotero.org citations and my Box attachments. I can open my attachments, annotate (limited free tools, or get more tools with a $4.99 in-app purchase), and attach a note. PaperShip puts the annotated version back into Box. When I sync Zotero on my computer, all of the annotations are there. Another nice feature is the ability to search and add citations from within PaperShip. If you want to follow up on a work cited in the article you are reading, simply copy the title, click the "+" symbol, and choose your search interface (arXiv, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, PubMed, or ScienceDirect). Find the item, click "Import" and the item appears in your PaperShip Inbox. From there you can move it into the appropriate folder(s). It will also capture the full article, when it can. The program also allows for sharing via Twitter, text, or email, and for opening in alternate reader applications. You can even attach audio notes to your documents.There do seem to be a few minor bugs. The program occassionally crashes or requires reestablishing a Zotero connection, and the free and paid annotation tools do not work together quite as seamlessly as one might wish, but overall I am very pleased to have this tool available.
PaperShip also has an iPhone version, though it, too, seems a little buggy. The "open in" option for attachments would be useful for reading in the text-only mode in GoodReader (as pdfs tend to be too small to be legible on a 4S, and still too small to read comfortably on a 5S) . I can open an attached html file in GoodReader, but can't get PaperShip to open a pdf in GoodReader. Also, the iPhone version seems to have trouble when there are multiple attachments. One citation with two files, an html and a pdf, opened the pdf first. I then used the arrow down to open the html. Later, I went back to the same citation, and it seems to switch between attachments, but only shows the html file. Finally, I've noticed that sometimes the annotation bar doesn't seem to be available for pdfs.
I am hopeful that the developer will work out the bugs soon, as this app is a great concept, and I use the iPad version just about every day.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Good Ideas Come From Here
When I read Steven Johnson's Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation
a few months ago, it occurred to me that the book could serve as a framework for design of an academic library's research commons. Or perhaps, to fully explore Johnson's ideas, I should call it a "research reef." For anyone thinking about fostering innovation, I highly recommend the book.
I've just finished re-reading the book, this time taking notes and thinking specifically about how it might be used for planning library spaces. Johnson's main point is that environments matter to the development of new ideas. The coral reef, the city, and the World Wide Web all stand as exemplars of environments where innovation thrives. In a nutshell, innovation typically involves a new combination, pieced together from the "adjacent possible" (existing pieces). Ideas frequently emerge over time, held as "slow hunches" until the other pieces fall into place. Networks are needed to bring people/ideas together, and a "liquid" state allows for a randomness in the collisions between ideas. Serendipity brings possibly beneficial solutions together, sometimes helping a person see that what has seemed like error is in fact the answer to a completely different question. "Exaptation," a term from evolutionary biology, describes the borrowing of a trait intended for one purpose for a completely different use. Johnson gives the example of Gutenberg's adaptation of the screw press from the wine industry for his printing press. These kinds of exaptations are more likely in "a world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap" (p. 162). A platform for innovation is typically built as a stack of ideas or technologies, with openness a trait which generally fosters more creativity.
"Research commons" is a rather amorphous phrase, and describes an intention more than a particular type of space and/or set of services. It is a needed reaction to a decade of focus on undergraduate learning spaces and noble attempts to create one-stop triage for basic undergraduate needs, all embodied in the "information commons" movement. The new nomenclature points to a desire to embed our work deeper into the process, to get beyond the role of dispensary of information, and into a role as partners in the research process.
As the research commons movement matures, a leading conceptual framework is the "research lifecycle." This is a useful, structural approach to designing services (including space as a service). It provides a checklist of possible service options, facilitates identification of complimentary (or competing) programs on campus and potential partners, and highlights gaps in the support network for faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate researchers. A recent, thoroughly researched report from the Ohio State University Libraries takes this approach, referring to the model as a "services focus" approach, as compared to an "innovative space" model or a "research lab" profile. The OSU report points to a particularly well-done "Research Lifecycle" graphic from the University of Central Florida Libraries. The UCF graphic clearly illustrates, at an institutional level, the services currently available, services not yet offered, and the links between these services. Again, I really like this way of thinking through support for research.
I do have two concerns about relying solely on this model. First, it puts a lot of focus on a traditional research process. Even though there are new elements, such as data management, this model doesn't directly address alternative forms of scholarship, or the types of support which might be needed, such as video production, digital humanities expertise, GIS services, makerspaces, etc. My second concern is that this model is too utilitarian to sell. The model likely makes sense to a provost or head of research. And if these leaders have the pockets to fully fund the project, maybe this is enough. If, however, a library needs donor or legislator support to make the research commons a reality, this model will likely fall short. It is practical, but lacks a theoretical, and more to the point, an inspirational angle.
This is where I see Johnson's book helping us make the case. I think we need to talk about the research library as a suite of spaces, services, and programs which serves as a platform for innovation. The RC should bring together a diverse mix of expertise, a variety of perspectives, to create the "weak ties" (Granovetter, 1973) that help ideas spread and recombine in a network. The RC should be a space that serves as an incubator for new networks. The RC should be a combination of spaces which is the right mix to find the "liquid" state between the inert solid (librarians hidden away behind office walls) and the chaos of a gas (welding torches and drills next door to the special collections reading room, perhaps?). The RC should be an interdisciplinary coral reef, a city of academic subcultures, an ever widening web of connections. The RC should foster the "gradual but relentless probing of the adjacent possible, each new innovation opening up new paths to explore" (Johnson, p. 33). The RC should be "a world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap...where exaptations thrive" (p. 162).
If we revisit the structural research lifecycle model in light of Johnson's text, what jumps out at me is how the lifecycle privileges the status quo. It assumes the library plays a servant role, injecting support into an existing and rather static academic dialog. The focus is on the researcher(s), not on the conversation; on saving the time of the researcher (yes, a fundamental library value), but failing to assert a library role facilitating new conversations between new partners. This is the opportunity of the research commons -- creating spaces, services, and programs that draw in expertise from many fields, and create the collisions of ideas that, on occasion, shift paradigms and create something entirely new.
Works cited:
a few months ago, it occurred to me that the book could serve as a framework for design of an academic library's research commons. Or perhaps, to fully explore Johnson's ideas, I should call it a "research reef." For anyone thinking about fostering innovation, I highly recommend the book.I've just finished re-reading the book, this time taking notes and thinking specifically about how it might be used for planning library spaces. Johnson's main point is that environments matter to the development of new ideas. The coral reef, the city, and the World Wide Web all stand as exemplars of environments where innovation thrives. In a nutshell, innovation typically involves a new combination, pieced together from the "adjacent possible" (existing pieces). Ideas frequently emerge over time, held as "slow hunches" until the other pieces fall into place. Networks are needed to bring people/ideas together, and a "liquid" state allows for a randomness in the collisions between ideas. Serendipity brings possibly beneficial solutions together, sometimes helping a person see that what has seemed like error is in fact the answer to a completely different question. "Exaptation," a term from evolutionary biology, describes the borrowing of a trait intended for one purpose for a completely different use. Johnson gives the example of Gutenberg's adaptation of the screw press from the wine industry for his printing press. These kinds of exaptations are more likely in "a world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap" (p. 162). A platform for innovation is typically built as a stack of ideas or technologies, with openness a trait which generally fosters more creativity.
"Research commons" is a rather amorphous phrase, and describes an intention more than a particular type of space and/or set of services. It is a needed reaction to a decade of focus on undergraduate learning spaces and noble attempts to create one-stop triage for basic undergraduate needs, all embodied in the "information commons" movement. The new nomenclature points to a desire to embed our work deeper into the process, to get beyond the role of dispensary of information, and into a role as partners in the research process.
As the research commons movement matures, a leading conceptual framework is the "research lifecycle." This is a useful, structural approach to designing services (including space as a service). It provides a checklist of possible service options, facilitates identification of complimentary (or competing) programs on campus and potential partners, and highlights gaps in the support network for faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate researchers. A recent, thoroughly researched report from the Ohio State University Libraries takes this approach, referring to the model as a "services focus" approach, as compared to an "innovative space" model or a "research lab" profile. The OSU report points to a particularly well-done "Research Lifecycle" graphic from the University of Central Florida Libraries. The UCF graphic clearly illustrates, at an institutional level, the services currently available, services not yet offered, and the links between these services. Again, I really like this way of thinking through support for research.
I do have two concerns about relying solely on this model. First, it puts a lot of focus on a traditional research process. Even though there are new elements, such as data management, this model doesn't directly address alternative forms of scholarship, or the types of support which might be needed, such as video production, digital humanities expertise, GIS services, makerspaces, etc. My second concern is that this model is too utilitarian to sell. The model likely makes sense to a provost or head of research. And if these leaders have the pockets to fully fund the project, maybe this is enough. If, however, a library needs donor or legislator support to make the research commons a reality, this model will likely fall short. It is practical, but lacks a theoretical, and more to the point, an inspirational angle.
This is where I see Johnson's book helping us make the case. I think we need to talk about the research library as a suite of spaces, services, and programs which serves as a platform for innovation. The RC should bring together a diverse mix of expertise, a variety of perspectives, to create the "weak ties" (Granovetter, 1973) that help ideas spread and recombine in a network. The RC should be a space that serves as an incubator for new networks. The RC should be a combination of spaces which is the right mix to find the "liquid" state between the inert solid (librarians hidden away behind office walls) and the chaos of a gas (welding torches and drills next door to the special collections reading room, perhaps?). The RC should be an interdisciplinary coral reef, a city of academic subcultures, an ever widening web of connections. The RC should foster the "gradual but relentless probing of the adjacent possible, each new innovation opening up new paths to explore" (Johnson, p. 33). The RC should be "a world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap...where exaptations thrive" (p. 162).
If we revisit the structural research lifecycle model in light of Johnson's text, what jumps out at me is how the lifecycle privileges the status quo. It assumes the library plays a servant role, injecting support into an existing and rather static academic dialog. The focus is on the researcher(s), not on the conversation; on saving the time of the researcher (yes, a fundamental library value), but failing to assert a library role facilitating new conversations between new partners. This is the opportunity of the research commons -- creating spaces, services, and programs that draw in expertise from many fields, and create the collisions of ideas that, on occasion, shift paradigms and create something entirely new.
Works cited:
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovation. New York: Riverhead Books.
Research Commons Task Force. (2013). Research Commons Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Libraries. Retrieved from http://go.osu.edu/ResearchCommonsReport
University of Central Florida Libraries Research Lifecycle Committee. (2012). The research lifecycle at UCF. University of Central Florida Libraries. Retrieved from http://library.ucf.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/ResearchLifecycleUCF.php
Friday, July 26, 2013
Home Improvement as Professional Development
Last weekend Kathy and I started in on a home improvement project. We'd hated the ugly wallpaper in the dining room and kitchen when we bought the house a dozen years ago. In a conversation over pizza at Rosati's we finally decided to tackle the project. And, a few hours later, I found myself asking the same, early-in-the-project question I usually ask, "Why did I decide to do this?"
Sometimes "ignorance" is the answer -- I don't fully understand or appreciate the complexity of what I am starting. Steven Pressfield (Do the Work
) lists stupidity as the first of several "allies" in overcoming the resistance faced by artists and entrepreneurs:
I think this was definitely the case when I put up a fence, hand-digging 2 ft-. and 3 ft.-deep post holes in our lovely, Central Texas soil. On this kitchen wallpaper project, however, I had a pretty good idea of what was coming. I'd previously removed the wallpaper in the entry way of our home, only to discover the various shortcuts the builders used, most notably failing to tape and float the corners, and neglecting to put a coat of primer on the drywall before hanging the paper. So if it wasn't ignorance...
Over the weekend, when I wasn't scoring, spraying, peeling, spraying, or scraping wallpaper/paste/oops -- drywall, I spent some time reading
Manage Your Day-to-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, and Sharpen Your Creative Mind (The 99U Book Series)
. A series of brief essays from a variety of creativity/productivity gurus, the book was a quick and enjoyable read. Within its pages I found not just a few tips for improved productivity and creativity, but also some possible explanation for my propensity to take on new DIY projects.
Sometimes "ignorance" is the answer -- I don't fully understand or appreciate the complexity of what I am starting. Steven Pressfield (Do the Work
) lists stupidity as the first of several "allies" in overcoming the resistance faced by artists and entrepreneurs:Ignorance and arrogance are the artist and entrepreneur's indispensable allies. She must be clueless enough to have no idea how difficult her enterprise is going to be -- and cocky enough to believe she can pull it off anyway.
I think this was definitely the case when I put up a fence, hand-digging 2 ft-. and 3 ft.-deep post holes in our lovely, Central Texas soil. On this kitchen wallpaper project, however, I had a pretty good idea of what was coming. I'd previously removed the wallpaper in the entry way of our home, only to discover the various shortcuts the builders used, most notably failing to tape and float the corners, and neglecting to put a coat of primer on the drywall before hanging the paper. So if it wasn't ignorance...
Over the weekend, when I wasn't scoring, spraying, peeling, spraying, or scraping wallpaper/paste/oops -- drywall, I spent some time reading
Manage Your Day-to-Day: Build Your Routine, Find Your Focus, and Sharpen Your Creative Mind (The 99U Book Series). A series of brief essays from a variety of creativity/productivity gurus, the book was a quick and enjoyable read. Within its pages I found not just a few tips for improved productivity and creativity, but also some possible explanation for my propensity to take on new DIY projects.- In an essay on "Unnecessary Creation," Todd Henry (author of a book I started this week, The Accidental Creative: How to Be Brilliant at a Moment's Notice
), advocates finding a means of "engaging in the creative act on our own terms." One benefit of "unnecessary creation," according to Henry, is that it allows you to develop skills that you can use later in your paid creative work. I can't say I've ever dug post holes or replaced carpet with a hardwood floor (my last big home improvement project) at the library. But part of the joy of UC is that the connection may not be obvious, or there may, in fact, never be a connection. I do, however, think I can point to a number of professional benefits from my DIY projects, such as improved respect from a facilities project manager who knows I've handled a jamb saw, refined ability to plan a project in an unfamiliar context, and positive reinforcement for the benefits of persevering in the face of a job that initially seemed overwhelming.
- Finding Solitude - Unlike the current wallpaper remediation project with my wife, most of my DIY jobs are solo ventures. As an introvert, I appreciate the time to focus and recharge my batteries while working along on a project. Leo Babauta's essay, "Making Room for Solitude," recommends meditation. I think Susan Cain's (Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking
) notion of a "restorative niche" is an even better description of what I get out of my solo projects.
- Tuning In - Another benefit of working alone, especially on something completely different from my intense, always-on work life, is what Scott Belsky calls for in his chapter "Tuning in to You." He calls for disengaging from the constantly connected, over-stimulated lives most of us lead. While Belsky's essay is primarily advocating unstructured, unfocused time, I find that a DIY project -- especially once I get to a stage where there is some mastery of the task and rhythm to the work -- also takes me away from my devices, and gives my mind time to wonder (except when running power tools, of course).
- One final insight from the the book "Doing busywork is easy; doing your best work is hard." It is easy to plop down in front of the TV (meanwhile making regular checks of email and news feeds on your smartphone); it is hard (or at least, more challenging) to texture and paint a wall. Which can you point to with pride a year later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
