LIBR 210 – Reference and Information Services
Dr. Stenstrom
Discussion Post Week 10: Managing Reference / Indexes
Patricia Ayame Thomson
“Technology Requires a Paradigm Shift in Reference Management”
Many issues affecting librarianship today including reference service management are directly related to the rapidly-changing state of technology. In their book Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century, Cassell and Hiremath (2011) describe the premise in the following way: “The explosion of changing technology requires a far more diverse body of talents and experience” (p. 352).
By force, many aspects of the traditional reference management and services must be considered in new and innovative ways. In this week’s introduction, Dr. Stenstrom states: “Some of the issues when considering reference staffing models are related to a paradigm shift in how we think about service” (Week 10, Audio Lecture-Transcript, p. 1).
The most dramatic changes include how we think about the logistics of reference staffing models, how we deliver information, as well as our roles as informational professionals. Along the same vein, Dr. Stenstrom explains that the: “Two of the overarching themes when discussing staffing models are user-centered service and teamwork” (Week 10, Audio Lecture-Transcript, p. 1).
The primary reason the reference service and delivery model has changed is in direct correlation to the fact that the learning style has also changed. This paradigm shift is because of the rapidly-advancing technology, proliferation of devices, and overwhelming electronic resources available on the Internet. In their book, Cassell and Hiremath (2011) consider a rhetorical question as follows: “Do information seekers of the twenty-first century have learning styles that are intrinsically different from the past?” (p. 351). The authors respond affirmatively stating the following: “Yes, the ‘design’ has changed and there is such a thing as a twenty-first-century learning style” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 351).
In addition, the textbook explains the driving force that determines the course and direction of the reference management model is user-centered expectation. Cassell and Hiremath (2011) describe the user-centered model as follows: “It is a style that has developed a muscular expectation for rapid and on-demand information. Fueled by this expectation, the organization of reference delivery and access continues to change in many ways” (p. 351). This is not surprising since prior librarianship services were based on a somewhat disparaging but nonetheless ubiquitous comment about human nature expressed in Zipf’s “Principle of least effort.”
One of the most significant pitfalls Cassell and Hiremath (2011) mentions in the textbook is that “Library management has traditionally looked to corporate management for guidance” (p. 351). Examples of user-centered expectations mentioned in the book are retail management models and styles that provide instant answers from the help desk available 24/7.
As a case in point, Cassell and Hiremath (2011) mention General Motors management decision error stating: “For reference managers of the twenty-first century clear cautionary tale can be salvaged from GM’s managerial pileup” (p. 351). According to Cassell and Hiremath (2011), the primary blame fell on GM’s “management that failed in its primary duty of making effective business decisions” (p. 351). The critical error in GM’s managerial decisions is described as follows: “The fallibility of their decision making was further traced to an inability or unwillingness to ‘let consumers drive its designs’ (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 351).
The primary reason the traditional management model no longer applies is because, the traditional structure is rigidly hierarchical. As a result, Dr. Stenstrom explains that: “Rather than a hierarchical structure, we’re looking more at a flattened structure of teams that deal with specific groups of patrons” (Week 10, Audio Lecture-Transcript, p. 1).
Cassell and Hiremath (2011) describe the same concept in different words:
Traditionally, the management of reference departments has cohered to a hierarchical principle that upholds a scalar chain of command. While elements of that chain continue, the hierarchy is perforce flattening out to accommodate the vibrant new roles and services necessitated by the new learning style. (p. 352).
Dr. Stentrom (2012) describes a significant change in the logistics and delivery of reference staffing models as follows: “Where we used to think location problems and where we would deliver service, we now shifting that to delivery methods. So it’s not where we’re delivering services but how” (Week 10, Audio Lecture-Transcript, p. 1).
To meet the challenges of the ever-changing face of reference services, Cassell and Hiremath (2011) provide the salient advice as follows: “The reference manager of the twenty-first century must not only be acutely sensitized to the evolving environment, but must be prepared to ably administer and manage dramatic new service models, information delivery systems, and innovative staff configurations” (p. 351).
Cassell and Hiremath (2011) describe the user-centered needs as follows: “The rapid change in service needs demands a higher degree of coordination and “synergistic problem-solving” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 352). Consequently, flexibility, innovation, self-direction, and teamwork seem to be important qualities to possess in order to be a successful 21st Century reference professional. In Cassell & Hiremath’s (2011) words, they articulate the claim as follows: “These have combined to limn the advantages of flexibility, dimensionality, and personal motivation inherent to self-directed management” (p. 353).
In contrast, smaller environments that are not affected by such dramatic changes and continuously changing user-expectations, teamwork and self-directed management is not as suitable. It is not feasible for smaller public libraries that only have one or two members on the staff and “the induction of technology innovations is more gradual” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 353). The library community’s size and environment determine whether it is feasible or even necessary to have a self-directed reference management team. Naturally, the user expectation and demand for a shared reference management team is directly related to the library’s size and speed in the change of technological use.
Therefore, it stands to reason that the highest demand for more flexible, self-directed, and shared reference management duties is in academic libraries. Naturally, in an academic environment there is greater demand for highly academic and in-depth research, as well as the expectation of the latest and most updated use of technology. As a result, an academic environment requires more collaborative effort from many members working together as a team. For example, embedded subject librarians, general reference librarians, roving librarians, paraprofessionals, and computer specialists all work together by contributing their specialized competency or expertise to enhance the reference management team.
I believe in implementing the paradigm shift and incorporating a more flattened and less-hierarchical management structure. I read with interest about the new design model, since it is a unique, novel, and innovative break from the traditional hierarchical model. I’m glad to read that the: “Self-directed or team-based management has made some inroads into traditional hierarchies” was instituted the Reference and Information Services Team (RIST)” back in 1998 by the Ohio State University Health Sciences Library (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 352).
Not surprisingly, this inclusive concept of collaboration, teamwork, and integration mirrors the Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 technology. I concur with the idea of bringing each librarian’s specific area of expertise to the table, as well as the practice and “the opportunity to learn one another’s jobs with the idea of making reference services more integrated” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 352).
In today’s society, the reality is that the technological revolution put librarians in a precarious state of constant flux and change. However as the textbook mentions, substantial research has not been conducted to show empirical evidence about the advantages and benefits of a team-based management system. Some persuasive analysis includes: “members feel a moral sense to make the approach work so as not to let down other members,” and another is that: “there is flexibility in being able to respond quickly to problems without consulting a chain of authority” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 352).
In conclusion, although I believe core leadership and overall management on the administrative level remains necessary, there is definitely a place for trying a more flattened hierarchical and integrated model. In particular, the self-regulated reference management team and the roving reference model. The strikingly innovative collaborative team-based management style is definitely worth pursuing as well as conducting more research on, in order to learn its effectiveness of implementing the new model in the today’s information environment. I wrap up the discussion coming full circle with the apt quote from the beginning stating: “The explosion of changing technology requires a far more diverse body of talents and experience” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2011, p. 352).
References:
Cassell, K. A. & Hiremath, U. (2011). Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century: An Introduction (2nd Ed.). Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. New York: NY
Stenstrom, C. (2012). LIBR 210. Fall 2012. Course: Reference and Information Services. Week 10. Audio Lecture-Transcript. p. 1.