Tuesday, 17 January 2017
Monday, 9 January 2017
Last week I took part in the Cambridge Libraries Conference 2017 where I sat on a panel discussing failure. This is something we don't discuss enough as a profession, probably because it's always a little embarrassing to admit that you've failed at something, but I think it's an important topic to cover.
It's inevitable that you will fail at something at some point in your career, whether this be a job application, project or an interview. If you don't then I would seriously begin to question what has been going on behind the scenes! With this in mind it's only sensible to prepare for it so you can deal with it when it comes. This is particularly true if you are dealing with professional failure. People have long memories and if you handle things badly it could reflect poorly on you for some time and damage future chances.
I was tasked with talking about failure in job interviews. Given my struggles to get a full time job I thought I was quite qualified to take part! I've applied for multiple jobs across Cambridge libraries over the last few years (including jobs that I was already doing on a temporary or part time basis). For one role I applied seven times before I was finally successful! I learnt a lot about applications, interviews and rejections over the course of this process. Below are some of the points I raised and I hope the tips will be helpful.
- It's normal and completely acceptable to feel rubbish if you don't get the job you apply for. If you're not a bit upset then this tells you something about how much you really wanted the job. It's important to acknowledge these feelings and self-medicate with chocolate/wine/Netflix as appropriate. What you mustn't do is allow this part to drag on too long and take over.
- Think about it this way - failure is a by-product of innovation and trying new things. This is something that I heard at IFLA and it's stuck with me. New professionals and those who are really active in the profession are likely to fail more as they get involved in more things and there is nothing wrong with this - it's just about experimenting and finding things out. What your mother told you was true - how do you know you don't like something until you've tried it?
- When you get rejected for a job it's a good idea to ask for feedback. It takes guts as no one really likes having their failures discussed face to face but it's worth doing as you can find out how to improve for the next time. You might even find out that you were the second choice for the role. Whether that makes you feel better or worse is open to interpretation...
- Turn failure into a learning opportunity. If you get the feedback that you lack a particular skill then you know what to work on for next time. Was your interview or application bad? Then try to develop these skills. A lot of this is just trial and error and you will get to grips with it over time. Try getting hold of the job specification for your dream role and develop the skills they are looking for. That way when it comes along you will be prepared.
- Learn to move on. Sometimes no matter what you do there is someone more qualified who will get the job. Does this hurt - yes. Can you do much about it - no. So move on. One of my biggest professional regrets is not moving on from that role I applied for seven times sooner. I got so fixated on trying to prove to myself and others that I could get the job that I ignored other opportunities trying to get a job that I was almost done with it as soon as I got it. It all worked out well in the end but sometimes I think I could have saved myself a lot of heartache.
This is just one experience and point of view of failure. If anyone has any other experiences they would like to share then please let me know in the comments section. If nothing else we can all have a group hug and commiserate together!
Thursday, 5 January 2017
Today I'm taking part in the annual Cambridge Libraries Conference - Are You a Library Superhero? As well as taking part in a panel discussion on professional failures (more to follow in another blogpost) I'm presenting a poster about the Research Support Ambassador Programme. This initiative is aimed at improving the scholarly communication literacy of library staff and equipping them with the skills needed to work in the 21st century academic library.
A copy of the poster can be found below:
A copy of the poster can be found below:
Hopefully there will be more publicity for the Programme in the near future but for now the poster provides general information. I had great fun leading the Programme last year and almost as much fun making a comic book poster to fit in with the superhero theme of the conference. I'm really looking forward to seeing where we can take the Programme in 2017!
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
A large part of my role involves managing the Research Support Ambassador Programme at Cambridge University. This Programme encourages interested staff to learn more about the research process and receive specialist training to enable them to provide a high standard of research support to library users. In addition to taking classes Ambassadors have the chance to work on a group project in order to produce training materials which can be used by librarians across Cambridge.
In 2016 one of the three Ambassador project groups worked on a project to produce a presentation and teaching activity that could be used to explain metadata and came up with the brilliant idea to use Lego. The following guest post contains contributions from Kirsten Lamb (a Research Ambassador) on creating the activity and Rosie Higman (Research Data Advisor) on how it has been used in practice.
As part of the Research Ambassadors programme 2016, Joyce Heckman, Kirsten Lamb and Eleanor Barker came up with a presentation and an activity to help teach researchers about metadata. For the activity portion they settled on the idea of describing the characteristics of an object to illustrate the difference between data and metadata. Since both are (often) abstract, making the “data” a physical object and writing “metadata” to describe it seemed like a good way to simplify the idea, and the simpler the object the easier to delve into the idea that there are many different ways to describe the same thing.
The humble Lego brick popped into their heads first, thanks to Lego Serious Play sessions forging the connection between abstract concepts and the brightly coloured plastic bricks. The other useful thing about a brick is that it can represent different things to different disciplines. In social science it might be an interview or a single answer from an interview, questionnaire, etc. In biological science it may be an experimental result. In maths it may be a single number in a complex series. In history it may be a photograph of an event or the GDP of Denmark in 1829.
Once you have established the conceit that a Lego brick represents one unit of data, you can explore other characteristics and types of metadata. After participants have described the brick in as many ways as possible, the group came up with an activity intended to emphasise the benefit of creating meaningful metadata, both to allow others to understand and reuse your data and to ensure that you can find the data you’re looking for in future. In this activity, participants would try to describe a Lego model, deconstruct it, then get another participant to try to reconstruct the model from their description alone. Meaningful metadata becomes essential when you want to share your data with other researchers. Even finding the data relies upon useful descriptions.
Using Lego in Practice
Having received this excellent idea from the Research Ambassadors the Research Data team (Marta Teperek and Rosie Higman) were faced with the task of deciding if this could be integrated into our training. At the moment there does not seem to be sufficient interest (or awareness) to run an entire workshop on metadata, so instead I looked at where it might fit into our existing ‘Introduction to Research Data Management’ workshop. This workshop runs for 2-3 hours on a regular basis for PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in different departments, covering everything from file backup strategies to funders’ requirements to share research data.
Whilst file names and organisation are included in the introductory workshop there is not a specific section on metadata, so for the first attempt we placed the exercise at the end of the section on organising physical samples. As the workshop was already quite busy I realised we could not complete the entire activity in the time available, and so decided just to do the second half (making, describing and reconstructing models) as this would have the most impact on researchers. In particular, I felt it would be valuable for researchers, who are increasingly being asked to share their research data alongside their publications, to see how hard it is to re-use someone else’s data without meaningful metadata.
We have now run this exercise in several workshops and it is consistently popular with participants across the disciplines. The models built have varied from sausage dogs to abstract towers, and most groups struggle to recreate their colleagues’ models, emphasising the importance of good metadata. As with all our activities and workshops we are refining the Lego metadata activity on the basis of participant feedback and our own observations. In order to save on the amount of Lego we needed we ran the exercise with researchers working in pairs or small groups, this worked well in terms of allowing them to network but it was clear after the first workshop that I had not allowed enough time for the activity. Participants became very enthusiastic about their models and so spent a long time discussing it with their partner and then, after swapping descriptions, debating how the other pair’s model should be reconstructed. To get around this problem I lengthened the time allocated for the exercise, reduced the number of Lego bricks each group had to 6 and started using a bell to let participants know when they were running out of time.
After running the activity a couple of times it seemed like it might be in the wrong point in the workshop; we had not yet introduced the idea of data sharing so researchers were sometimes initially confused by discussing having researchers around the world use their data. This turned into a good opportunity as the section on data sharing is quite long, and did not have any interactive elements, so we moved the Lego exercise to the end of this section when researchers have been introduced to the principles of sharing and when we are about to discuss repositories. The new position of the activity has been more effective, with researchers able to see how hard it is to use data which is not properly described. The only difficulty we have now is making sure that researchers do not get distracted by the Lego for the rest of the workshop!
Thursday, 29 December 2016
The end of year blog post is becoming something of a tradition for me. I like to use it as a chance to reflect on the previous twelve months and make some plans for the future - if I share them there is more chance that I will actually stick to them!
This time last year I was only a few weeks into a new role and still figuring out how everything in my new office worked. After just over twelve months in the job I hopefully have everything figured out by now! This role marks my first permanent full time role and aside from the relief of not having to constantly apply for new jobs it's been a relief to actually put work plans into place and know that I'll be there to see them through. Short term contracts are great for getting experience but you sometimes feel like a placeholder and it can be frustrating not to see projects that you start through to the end. One of the largest elements of my current role in the Office of Scholarly Communication is supervising the Research Support Ambassador Programme which aims to educate library staff in order to provide a higher standard of support to the research community. The second cohort of participants has recently completed the programme and there are plans for another run in 2017.
One of the highlights of 2016 was the chance to attend IFLA WLIC in Columbus, Ohio. This came about thanks to a grant from CILIP and I learnt so much from the process. A series of blog posts about my experiences can be found here so I won't go into too much detail. The only thing I will say is that if you ever get the chance to apply for similar bursaries then go for it. It took me a while but I was eventually successful and it was a great experience. I've also attended other conferences this year, both large and small. Two that stick in my mind are Internet Librarian International and the CILIP Conference and each provided a different experience. CILIP have recently announced that Dr Carla Hayden, the new Librarian of Congress, will be a keynote speaker at the CILIP 2017 conference so I'll definitely be looking to attend.
I also attended the LISDIS Conference in November. This conference is aimed at allowing recent library graduates to showcase the research they have undertaken and I was really impressed with the quality of their presentations. I attended the conference to give one of the keynote presentations on carrying out Research in the Workplace which was really interesting to research and deliver. I'm currently in the middle of conducting some research into the educational background of people who work in scholarly communications - another project for 2017. I've also submitted abstracts for a couple of other presentations and I'm currently waiting to hear if they have been successful. One I do know about is our local Cambridge Libraries Conference which will happen in January. I'm presenting a poster on the Research Support Ambassador Programme and talking about my professional failures as part of a panel discussion (another blog post to follow on that in the new year).
Although I've been busy at work I've tried to keep up my extra-curricular professional activities. I completed the CILIP Leadership Programme in the summer which was a great experience that gave me a lot of practical tips to put into practice. I feel much more confident in my leadership abilities as a result of the programme and would recommend a repeat run to anyone. As part of this I wrote articles about my experiences for CILIP Update, including an article on attending IFLA WLIC. I've also been busy developing my writing skills in other ways including submitting my first peer reviewed article. I'm currently waiting for the feedback but hopefully there will be some good news to report in new year. Finally I've been working on conducting and writing about my own research both on this blog and others, including this literature review posted on Brain-Work - the blog for the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice.
I've been active on the committee front as well, continuing to work as Candidate Support Officer for CILIP East and Social Media Manager for CILIP Cataloguing an Indexing Group. As my work interests have changed I've expanded my committee positions in 2016 by working on the Editorial Board of the New Review of Academic Librarianship. I've learnt a lot from this role and it's interesting to see the publication process from another perspective.
All in all it's been a busy year but that doesn't mean I don't have plans for 2017. I started a teaching course in 2015 but was unable to complete it due to work commitments. I hate leaving things unfinished so I'll be starting that again in the new year. I do a lot of teaching in my role so this seems like a sensible qualification to pursue. I'm also looking at Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy for similar reasons. I also have another goal in 2017 - to address my work/life balance. The images in this post were taken when I visited Chicago in the summer on my way back from IFLA (for those that don't know it's the Cloud Gate sculpture which I felt fit the reflection theme well!). I had a great time and it was nice to have a few days break from work. People often ask me why I do so much outside work and the short answer is that I have been trying to secure a permanent job and add to the CV. For now at least this goal has been accomplished so I can devote a bit more time to relaxation. I think this is something people often forget to do for various reasons but I'm aiming to make it a priority next year - and maybe even have another holiday!
I hope you all have a great 2017!
Monday, 19 December 2016
One of the 'perks' of my current role is that I get to carry out some research. Working in scholarly communication and dealing with the research community in Cambridge conducting my own research helps me to better understand the process they go through.
A few weeks ago I was asked to speak about doing research in the workplace at the LISDIS Conference. This conference is a chance for LIS students and recent graduates to share the research they have undertaken as part of their qualification. What happens when you have finished your qualification though? During your studies you are supported to undertake research but what happens when you're in work? How do you fit research into your day job?
This were the questions I set out to answer in my keynote on Research in the Workplace. Preparing the presentation was actually a great learning experience for me and helped me to focus on some of the things I have been doing over the last few months. The slide deck is included below:
If you're thinking about carrying out some research in your workplace then my advice would be to go for it. It doesn't have to be a massive, complicated research project. It can be a small change that you want to look into or a problem that has been niggling you for some time. Hopefully this presentation will give you a few ideas to try and overcome common barriers and plan your own research project!
Wednesday, 14 December 2016
The Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) has recently joined the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP) Research Network and as part of that commitment will be producing regular blog posts to Brain-Work, the Network blog. The first of these posts is a literature review that I conducted with Dr Danny Kingsley as part of a larger piece of research into scholarly communication education. The blog has previously appeared on both Brain-Work and Unlocking Research - the blog of the OSC. The post is reposted here via a CC-BY licence.
There is no doubt that libraries are experiencing another dramatic change as a result of developments in digital technologies. Twenty years ago in their paper addressing the education of library and information science professionals, Van House and Sutton note that “libraries are only one part of the information industry and for many segments of the society they are not the most important part”.
There is an argument that “as user habits take a digital turn, the library as place and public services in the form of reference, collection development and organisation of library resources for use, all have diminishing value to researchers”. Librarians need to adapt and move beyond these roles to one where they play a greater part in the research process.
To this end scholarly communication is becoming an increasingly established area in many academic libraries. New roles are being created and advertised in order to better support researchers as they face increasing pressure to share their work. Indeed a 2012 analysis into new activities and changing roles for health science librarians identified ‘Scholarly communications librarians’ as a new role for health sciences librarians based on job announcements whilst in their 2015 paper on scholarly communication coaching Todd, Brantley and Duffin argue that: “To successfully address the current needs of a forward-thinking faculty, the academic library needs to place scholarly communication competencies in the toolkit of every librarian who has a role interacting with subject faculty.”
Which skill sets are needed?
Much of the literature is in agreement about the specific skill set librarians need to work in scholarly communication. “Reskilling for Research”identified nine areas of skill which would have increasing importance including knowledge about data management and curation. Familiarity with data is an area mentioned repeatedly and acknowledged as something librarians will be familiar with. Mary Anne Kennan describes the concept as “the librarian with more” – traditional library skills with added knowledge of working with and manipulating data.
Many studies reported that generic skills were just as much, if not more so, in demand than discipline specific skills. A thorough knowledge of advocacy and outreach techniques is needed to spread the scholarly communication message to both library staff and researchers. Raju highlighted presentation skills for similar reasons in his 2014 paper.
The report “University Publishing in a Digital Age” further identified a need for library staff to better understand the publishing process and this is something that we have argued at the OSC in the past.
There is also a need to be cautious when demanding new skills. Bresnahan and Johnson (article pay-walled) caution against trying to become the mythical “unicorn librarian” – an individual who possesses every skill an employer could ever wish for. This is not realistic and is ultimately doomed to fail.
In their 2013 paper Jaguszewski and Williams instead advocate a team approach with members drawn from different backgrounds and able to bring a range of different skills to their roles. This was also the argument put forward by Dr Sarah Pittaway at the recent UKSG Forum where her paper addressed the issue of current library qualifications and their narrow focus.
Existing library roles are being adapted to include explicit mention of areas such as Open Access whilst other roles are being created from scratch. This work provides a good fit for library staff but it can be challenging to develop the skills needed. As far back as 2008 it was noted that the curricula of most library schools only covered the basics of digital library management and little seems to have changed since with Van House and Sutton identifying barriers to “the ability of LIS educational programs to respond” to changing needs such as the need to produce well-rounded professionals.
Most people working in this area learn their skills on the job, often from more experienced colleagues. Kennan’s study notes that formal education could help to fill the knowledge gap whilst others look to more hands-on training as this helps to embed knowledge.
The question then becomes should the profession as a whole be doing more to prepare their new recruits for the career path of the 21st century academic librarian? This is something we have been asking ourselves in Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) at Cambridge. Since the OSC was established at the start of 2015 it has made a concerted effort to educate staff at the one hundred plus libraries in Cambridge through both formal training programmes and targeted advocacy. However we are aware that there is still more to be done. We have begun by distributing a survey to investigate the educational background of those who work in scholarly communications. The survey was popular with over five hundred responses and many offers of follow up interviews which means that we have found an area of interest amongst the profession. We will be analysing the results of the survey in the New Year with a view to sharing them more widely and further participating in the scholarly communication process ourselves.
Wherever the skills gaps are there is no doubt that the training needs of academic librarians are changing. The OSC survey will provide insight into whether these needs are currently being met and give evidence for future developments but there is still work to be done. Hopefully this project will be the start of changes to the way academic library staff are trained which will benefit the future of the profession as a whole.
Dr. Danny Kingsley and Claire Sewell
Originally posted on Unlocking Research on November 29th 2016.
Dr. Danny Kingsley and Claire Sewell
Originally posted on Unlocking Research on November 29th 2016.