Posts Tagged 'libraries'

Academic librarians and the rhetoric of excellence

SOCRATES: What is the excellence of the art of music, as I told you truly that the excellence of wrestling was gymnastic — what is the excellence of music — to be what?
To be musical, I suppose.
Very good; and now please to tell me what is the excellence of war and peace; as the more musical was the more excellent, or the more gymnastical was the more excellent, tell me, what name do you give to the more excellent in war and peace?
But I really cannot tell you.

Plato, Alcibiades I

As academic librarians strive for ever greater levels of achievement in our professional lives, we frequently find ourselves caught up in the fashionable discourse of excellence. Awards for excellence, endowments for excellence, excellence in librarianship, excellence in research, excellence in excelling. Like Alcibiades stuttering his way through Socrates’ relentless questioning, we have to admit that we don’t really know its true meaning except that the concept is supremely valued and sublimely variable.

We read articles by other librarians extolling accomplishment, distinction, inimitability, and overall superbness [1-2]. We hear rousing accolades to the “mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship” between business and the library as a “centre of excellence” [3]. We are subjected to peculiar perorations such as the following:

The continuous repetition of the entire excellence processes at regular intervals, including a renewed assessment, ensures a development of the library that is close to the market and meets the needs of a knowledge-based society. This dynamic leads to a continual optimisation of the library whereas the scale of the excellence achieved often corresponds to the current situation. The improvement of a library therefore knows no upper limit and new optimisation potential can be revealed continually [4].

“Centre of excellence,” “close to the market,” “no upper limit,” “continual optimisation”:  there is certainly a message here, and the language it is written in is that of the corporate communiqué and the total quality management handbook. It seems that whenever one hears of excellence, along with it there is the sound of a cheque book being snapped open.

As Elizabeth Hodgson, President of the University of British Columbia Faculty Association, writes in her recently published rant on excellence, this all-too-familiar morpheme has become “a supersaturated term like ‘patriot’ or ‘family values’, a word that means both everything and nothing” [5]. Like the Lacanian Big Other or the Foucauldian instrument of social control, it hovers over and underlies our discourse. Everyone has an idea of what excellence means, but it remains just beyond the margins of the definable. Immeasurable and impossible to grasp, its attainment is all-important, yet ever-receding. Robert Merton, the well-known sociologist of science, described it this way: “Many of us are persuaded that we know what we mean by excellence and would prefer not to be asked to explain. We act as though we believe that close inspection of the idea of excellence will cause it to dissolve into nothing” [6, p. 422].

Despite this hermeneutic panic on the part of some thinkers, for our elite groups, including university administrators, the word has become a handy shibboleth. It conveniently stands in as a universal signifier that justifies almost anything — for who could possibly object to excellence? To question the pursuit of excellence could only arise out of the envious rancour of mediocrity, the resentment of the underachiever or the subversive. As with Protecting Our Children or Supporting Our Troops, excellence allows no nuance or debate. It is absolute, inviolate, and demands uncritical acceptance.

There is a large degree of expediency in our leaders’ relentless emphasis on excellence. It provides ideological cover for power wielders, impresses those with money, and nicely papers over inadequacies. For, as has been remarked of old, often the cockloft is empty in those whom nature hath built many stories high. The bullying use of the term in the academy must further the same ends. Why else bring coals to Newcastle by pushing excellence in a setting that is already marked by an abundance of ambitious over-achievers, self-motivated, creative, and zealous of their scholarly reputations? Academic librarians have jumped on the excellence bandwagon partly to prove that we are as good as our faculty colleagues and that we deserve the resources we require to do our jobs, and partly also out of our own conformism and conceit. We should look harder at this trend. We should ask why there are so many awards for excellence in librarianship.

Where none admire, ’tis useless to excel;
Where none are beaux, ’tis vain to be a belle.  (George, Lord Lyttelton – Soliloquy of a Beauty in the Country)

A fixation on excellence can quickly go to one’s head. The way some librarians carry on, a dull-as-ditchwater meeting is made to sound as exclusive as a reunion banquet for the Ptolemies. A commonplace journal article recounting the creation of a few web pages unexpectedly and embarrassingly bursts into praise for “librarians’ persistence, performances [sic] and achievements” [7]. Are we not too familiar with unseemly preening and puffery of this sort? We enter into heated arguments and contractual battles about the measurement of excellence in research and scholarship, teaching, or professional performance. Excellence-obsessed concepts and practices such as enterprise culture, managerialism, total quality assurance, and customer care have battered the coastline of academic librarianship in successive waves. Scarcely has one subsided than the next arrives. Yet in all this commotion around excellence we can’t suck clarity out of our thumb. Right, but we can always establish another award.

While we are all scrambling in pursuit of our ideas of excellence, the cheque book reveals its true utilitarian and economic hue. Our academic centres of excellence are prodigious factories. Research excellence and research commercialization are in a tight embrace. The three drivers of research excellence are the creation of new, high-quality scientific and technical knowledge, its accelerated transmission to user communities, and the commercial exploitation of that knowledge. Achieving and maintaining excellence is now all about competing at national or international scientific frontiers, and attracting sufficient resources to maintain a lead. Striving for excellence has become of paramount importance in science policy and informs the quality assurance practices of granting agencies [8].

Universities are taking this game seriously. They look for stars to ratchet up the excellence factor, perform as big money magnets, and compete with other institutions doing exactly the same thing. In this invidious process the message becomes clear: if you are not excellent — i.e., bringing in vast grants and accumulating ever more social and professional brownie points — you are essentially worthless. Yet it is patently absurd, as Elizabeth Hodgson reminds us, to refuse to recognize that any group of people will include a normal and healthy range of abilities, levels of commitment, and measurable success rates. A bemused colleague whispers in her ear: “Do you think they know that someone has to be in the bottom decile?” Are administrators not aware that there is a natural spectrum of achievement, that more nurturing and less needling might work wonders, that an orchestra composed only of star performers does not play well?

I recommend Hodgson’s essay to stressed librarians who feel caught up in the treadmill of competitiveness and the rhetoric of excellence. She concludes her self-acknowledged rant with a call for common sense:

As it is, we spend more and more of our work energies having to prove repeatedly that we deserve the resources we need to do our jobs. We spend more and more time attempting to demonstrate, in order to keep our jobs, that we are even more excellent than we were the year before, more excellent than our colleagues and more excellent than the university across town.
The net effect, ironically, is that we are far more likely to do less of what we were trained to do, what we are genuinely gifted at. You don’t make a pig fatter by weighing it; you feed it. “Excellence,” I assure you, despite its fine sound, has no nutritional value [5].

There’s food for thought. To switch metaphors, let’s avoid the fate of the fanatical climber in Longfellow’s poem, who reaches the mountain top only to end up lifeless but beautiful, and half-buried in snow, “still grasping in his hand of ice / That banner with the strange device, / Excelsior!”


1. Hardesty L. Excellence in academic libraries: recognizing it. Library issues. 2007;27(4):1-4

2. Hyams E. A new impetus to professional excellence. Library + information update. 2005;4(6):33-35.

3. Reid D. The National Library of New Zealand as a Sun™ Centre of Excellence. The electronic library. 2006;24(4):429-433.

4. Herget J. Excellence in libraries: a systematic and integrated approach. New library world. 2007;108(11/12):526-544.

5. Hodgson E. A rant on excellence. CAUT bulletin. 2010 Jan;57(1):2,12.

6. Merton R. The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.

7. Wu L. Montreal hospital librarians’ websites: striving for excellence. Journal of hospital librarianship. 2004;4(3):101-108.

8. Tijssen RJW. Scoreboards of research excellence. Research evaluation. 2003 Aug;12(2):91-103.

Photo credit: cc licensed flickr photo by Frankenstein

If you had to cancel a health database today? Evidence-based decision-making vs. Hobbesian elbowing

Trying to decide on a database cancellation can be fraught with uncertainty.  Evidence-based criteria are important but often shoved out of the way by other considerations. The culling process is a little more sophisticated than resorting to eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Basing decisions on research is laudable, but in the end it’s dollars and a Hobbesian political deftness that count for more. It’s not a case of evidence-be-damned, but rather the Ellenbogengesellschaft – the sharp-elbowed social reality – of collection development.

Consider the following databases: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, EMBASE, and Global Health. If you had to cancel one of them, which would it be? The latter might get the boot from some of us, but I’m guessing most health libraries would probably push AMED overboard first. We would justify this to ourselves with the comforting assumption that the combination of the other databases provides good enough coverage of complementary and alternative medicine. CINAHL, for example, is well known for its lavish attention to allied health; PubMed offers its petal-strewn Complementary Medicine subset to smooth the way for us; and so on. And isn’t it true that in the minds of many faculty and health professionals CAM is to real medicine what holy water is to healing? That, to me, is the key issue. Always present in the background of a library’s cancellation decision is one of the guiding principles of a public service, multa docet fames (hunger teaches us many things). Regardless of what the literature tells us, this question cannot be avoided: to which database’s disappearance would the most influential library patrons object least?

Some justly claim their decisions to be reasoned and evidence-based. Others, if pressed, might have to admit that a decision can be biased, gratuitous, hasty, or obviously political. Journal and database cancellations are determined centrally in my world, and hence are mostly out of my hands. I like to think that the best reasons, and not just sharp elbows, are always brought forward before a subscription is dropped. Be that as it may, with respect to CAM resources, a Canadian study [1] has succeeded in undermining most of my notions about the quality and comprehensiveness of PubMed’s coverage of complementary and alternative medicine. I also see AMED in a new light.

AMED acclaimed
In a recently published article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine, the authors’ objective was to compare a number of databases relevant to CAM. In all, they searched fifteen databases to identify CAM controlled clinical trials not also indexed in MEDLINE.

Their abstract sums things up adequately:

Searches were conducted in May 2006 using the revised Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS) and the PubMed CAM Subset. Yield of CAM trials per 100 records was determined, and databases were compared over a standardized period (2005). The Acudoc2 RCT, Acubriefs, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) and Hom-Inform databases had the highest concentrations of non-MEDLINE records, with more than 100 non-MEDLINE records per 500. Other productive databases had ratios between 500 and 1500 records to 100 non-MEDLINE records-these were AMED, MANTIS, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health and Alt HealthWatch. Five databases were found to be unproductive: AGRICOLA, CAIRSS, Datadiwan, Herb Research Foundation and IBIDS. Acudoc2 RCT yielded 100 CAM trials in the most recent 100 records screened. Acubriefs, AMED, Hom-Inform, MANTIS, PsycINFO and CINAHL had more than 25 CAM trials per 100 records screened. Global Health, ICL and Alt HealthWatch were below 25 in yield. There were 255 non-MEDLINE trials from eight databases in 2005, with only 10% indexed in more than one database. Yield varied greatly between databases; the most productive databases from both sampling methods were Acubriefs, Acudoc2 RCT, AMED and CINAHL.

Not unexpectedly, in their conclusion the authors recommend a multi-database approach:

The very low overlap between … non-PubMed sources suggests the need for multiple database searching in addition to MEDLINE in order to comprehensively search for CAM controlled trials. The results indicate that of the six databases analyzed that are not focused on a specific therapy, CINAHL was the most productive, followed by AMED. The Acubriefs and Acudoc2 RCT databases were highly productive for acupuncture trials.

With budget restrictions looming, the University of Manitoba Libraries has just dumped AMED, which this study identifies as second only to CINAHL for controlled clinical trials coverage in complementary and alternative medicine. Who would have guessed that AMED would stand out in this subject area, considering how poorly it is rated in another recent study which has just been published in Physiotherapy [2]?

AMED def-amed
Researchers at the University of Sydney compared the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL [Cochrane], CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed). The results in a nutshell? PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%.

Poor AMED comes a cropper here, outclassed as it is by a free resource like PEDro (a name almost as silly as Acubriefs, which sounds like the latest offering from Stanfield’s Ltd., Canada’s self-proclaimed, one-and-only “Underwear Company”). A library might feel quite justified in cancelling its subscription after reading about AMED’s poor coverage of physiotherapy research.

Given these contrasting evaluations of a database’s effectiveness, the question arises as to which evidence will have the most weight in the decision to cancel or retain? Our pair of studies illustrate how difficult it can be to play the database shuffle in making cancellation decisions. When budgets are tight and sacrifices must be made librarians are always ready to lend a hand, but attached to those hands should be sharp elbows.


1. Cogo E, Sampson M, Ajiferuke I, Manheimer E, Campbell K, Daniel R, Moher D. Searching for controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicine: a comparison of 15 databases. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 May 25. PubMed PMID: 19468052. DOI 10.1093/ecam/nep038.

2. Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.Physiotherapy. 2009 Sep;95(3):151-6. Epub 2009 Apr 23. Review. PubMed PMID: 19635333.

Photo credit: CC licensed flickr photo by fabbio:

For academic librarians what’s hard to reach is time for research

These be the stops that hinder study quite
And train our intellects to vain delight.

Love’s Labour’s Lost, 1.1

Who has the time for research? Very few of us, unless it is somehow part of our work day. Our teaching faculty colleagues do not teach from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, nor are they always required to be in their offices when not in front of a class, especially between June and August. But academic librarians, it seems, can never have their cake and eat it too. We are expected to be on the job, at the workplace, every day, summer included, unless we are on vacation or on ventilation. And, with some variations, from the midst of this perpetual motion machine we are also expected to produce viable, publishable, imperishable research.

At the University of Manitoba we librarians take our research obligations seriously. We enjoy academic status and are members of the University of Manitoba Faculty Association (UMFA). We have senior management who by and large recognize the value of research and support our pursuit of it. We now also have new language in our Collective Agreement that guarantees us academic freedom and twelve paid days a year to devote entirely to scholarly pursuits. During our last protracted contract negotiations, obtaining recognition from the University that, as part of our academic status, librarians needed time to do the research required of them was a hard-fought battle.

Articles 17 and 20 of the UMFA Collective Agreement, not to mention our own promotion guidelines, more than adequately define both research and the purpose of the working time entitlement for librarians (in particular 17.A.2.5; and see also the Research, Scholarly and Other Creative Works section, 20.B.1.2.2, of the Promotion article). But lately there has been talk amongst my colleagues of establishing “guidelines” to determine the suitability or otherwise of someone’s research and whether a request for time away from other duties to pursue research should be granted.

My generous nature interprets this development as arising from good intentions, but I have to ask: why establish a set of guidelines separate from what has already been well defined in the contract, as well as in a detailed document on guidelines and criteria for the promotion of librarians through the ranks? As I see it, the subject of a librarian’s research is a matter of professional judgement in an atmosphere of academic freedom and collegiality. Our Collective Agreement wisely includes its own warning that librarians’ academic work must be undertaken responsibly: “Academic freedom carries with it the responsibility to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research, teaching and the collection, dissemination and structure of knowledge in a search for truth.” (17.A.1) Must we form yet another committee to encode and encapsulate what “responsibly” means?

Here is the controversial addition to our contract that seems to stick in some people’s craw. As I mentioned, Article 17 (Academic Librarians) was revised in 2007 to include language on so-called “research days”:

Academic librarians holding probationary and continuing appointments are entitled to twelve (12) working days on full salary in each academic year for research and scholarly activities relating to library science or an academic subject within their expertise, subject to notifying the department head of their proposed work and arranging a mutually agreeable schedule.  (17.A.2.5)

Article 20 on Promotion defines the nature of librarians’ research, scholarly work and other creative activities:

Factors that may be considered include:  the publication of books, monographs, and contributions to edited books; papers in both refereed and nonrefereed journals; papers delivered at professional meetings; participation in panels; both supported and nonsupported unpublished research including current work in progress; editorial and refereeing duties; creative works and performances; and scholarship as evidenced by the candidate’s advanced study and research in library and information science and/or a subject specialization, his/her depth and breadth of knowledge and general contributions to the research of the University. (20.B.1.2.2)

Here, in clear and unequivocal language, the UMFA Collective Agreement spells out what is considered research by librarians and carves out a bit of unencumbered space in which such research can be performed. Some have complained that the twelve days are no more than “automatic days off.” To argue so, I would reply, is misguided in the same way that it would be foolish to maintain that sick days should not be provided because they might, heaven forfend, actually be taken. Should the remote possibility that one of us might abuse a provision of the Collective Agreement be used as a pretext to reshape or subvert what is already appropriately defined in that document? Life is too short for us to start composing intricate commentaries on reasonably comprehensible contractual language. I think what Calvin Trillin once said is appropriate: if law school is so hard to get through, how come there are so many lawyers?

It might be argued that establishing more rigorous guidelines for librarians’ research activities would provide clarity and  improve equity across the library system. My response is that the existing contractual provisions for librarians’ research are entirely sufficient for this purpose. If all librarians read, understand and abide by it, the Collective Agreement itself is the best assurance of equity and should be the primary authority on this issue. It is only when the Collective Agreement specifically calls for the creation of guidelines that we are obligated to go beyond its provisions, as is the case with hiring and promotion at this university.

It is the responsibility of an academic library to foster librarians’ research and to organize the work of the academic staff in such a manner as to accommodate time away from other duties for that purpose. This is in the spirit of the Collective Agreement. If a manager disagrees with a librarian about his or her request for time to pursue research, that is an academic matter which should be resolved between the two of them. If no resolution is possible at that level, there are agreed-upon steps that individual can take. Under the terms of the UMFA Collective Agreement, extended postponement or denial of research time could lead to a grievance. Moreover, any attempt further to enumerate and codify what should or should not be the nature of a librarian’s research – beyond the very detailed provisions already cited above – could be interpreted as an infringement upon his or her academic freedom.

It is unfortunate that we have become accustomed to use the term “research days” – which, by the way, is not to be found in the Collective Agreement – as a convenient but demeaning moniker for what that document calls “twelve working days on full salary in each academic year for research and scholarly activities relating to library science or an academic subject within [a librarian’s] expertise.” (17.A.2.5) The entry of this term into common usage has contributed to a general perception that Article 17’s provision for time given over to research is somehow an add-on, accessory or perquisite, when in fact research is an essential component of our work. This is precisely the attitude that our hard-won provision for research time was meant to dispel.

As I see it – and I speak solely from my Canadian experience – some academic libraries have not yet developed or have not fully developed a culture of research. That goal can only be achieved by creating work environments and job expectations that are not so demanding as to discourage librarians from considering research and creative scholarly contributions, or from thinking that such pursuits could be an integral part of their “regular” working day. A strong faculty association and a Collective Agreement with guts are two other important factors in furthering librarians’ participation in academic research.

I have often heard from librarians at this and other universities that they are too busy just coping with their job even to contemplate doing research. That is why I think it vital to focus on fostering research rather than devising methods to contain or curtail it. It is part of moving away from what I call the “No” school of librarianship, the kind of passive-aggressive impasse where – I speak figuratively – it is illegal to make liquor privately or water publicly. If any more guidelines are to be written for us librarians, let them elaborate on how we can open up the taps of creativity, improve our working conditions, provide better service, and be more rounded scholars and professionals.

Being wrong is a feature, not a bug

An incisive and unblinking analysis of the fate of publishing and other dinosaurs recently appeared on Michael Nielsen’s blog: Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? This longish essay is based on a colloquium given June 11, 2009, at the American Physical Society Editorial Offices. The topic and the occasion of its delivery would not normally promise an exciting read – most writing of this kind being tedious in the extreme – but this paper is a cracker.

help graffitiAlthough Nielsen’s main subject is the impending fate of the likes of Elsevier, his theme is broader.  With compelling insight and a rare ability to avoid excessive jargon and boilerplate, he describes why it is hard for incumbent organizations in a disrupted industry to change to a new model. He makes telling comparisons with the newspaper and music business, both of which are singing the same swan song from the same hymn book. He could just as easily have been talking about another industry tilting on the edge: academic libraries. Does this sound familiar?

I’ve described why it’s hard for incumbent organizations in a disrupted industry to change to a new model. The situation is even worse than I’ve described so far, though, because some of the forces preventing change are strongest in the best run organizations. The reason is that those organizations are large, complex structures, and to survive and prosper they must contain a sort of organizational immune system dedicated to preserving that structure. If they didn’t have such an immune system, they’d fall apart in the ordinary course of events. Most of the time the immune system is a good thing, a way of preserving what’s good about an organization, and at the same time allowing healthy gradual change. But when an organization needs catastrophic gut-wrenching change to stay alive, the immune system becomes a liability.

Many unsuccessful attempts at implementing services like those I’ve just described have been made. I’ve had journal editors explain to me that this shows there is no need for such services. I think in many cases there’s a much simpler explanation: poor execution. Development projects are often led by senior editors or senior scientists whose hands-on technical knowledge is minimal, and whose day-to-day involvement is sporadic. Implementation is instead delegated to IT-underlings with little power. It should surprise no one that the results are often mediocre. Developing high-quality web services requires deep knowledge and drive. The people who succeed at doing it are usually brilliant and deeply technically knowledgeable. Yet it’s surprisingly common to find projects being led by senior scientists or senior editors whose main claim to “expertise” is that they wrote a few programs while a grad student or postdoc, and who now think they can get a high-quality result with minimal extra technical knowledge. That’s not what it means to be technology-driven.

The same basic story can be told about the disruption of the music industry, the minicomputer industry, and many other disruptions. Each industry has (or had) a standard organizational architecture. That organizational architecture is close to optimal, in the sense that small changes mostly make things worse, not better. Everyone in the industry uses some close variant of that architecture. Then a new technology emerges and creates the possibility for a radically different organizational architecture, using an entirely different combination of skills and relationships. The only way to get from one organizational architecture to the other is to make drastic, painful changes. The money and power that come from commitment to an existing organizational architecture actually place incumbents at a disadvantage, locking them in. It’s easier and more effective to start over, from scratch.

When new technologies are being developed, the organizations that win are those that aggressively take risks, put visionary technologists in key decision-making positions, attain a deep organizational mastery of the relevant technologies, and, in most cases, make a lot of mistakes. Being wrong is a feature, not a bug, if it helps you evolve a model that works: you start out with an idea that’s just plain wrong, but that contains the seed of a better idea. You improve it, and you’re only somewhat wrong. You improve it again, and you end up the only game in town.


Nielsen’s predictions are stark, but possess the clear contours of hard, inevitable truth. The implications for libraries are obvious:

This flourishing ecosystem of startups is just one sign that scientific publishing is moving from being a production industry to a technology industry. A second sign of this move is that the nature of information is changing. Until the late 20th century, information was a static entity. The natural way for publishers in all media to add value was through production and distribution, and so they employed people skilled in those tasks, and in supporting tasks like sales and marketing. But the cost of distributing information has now dropped almost to zero, and production and content costs have also dropped radically. At the same time, the world’s information is now rapidly being put into a single, active network, where it can wake up and come alive. The result is that the people who add the most value to information are no longer the people who do production and distribution. Instead, it’s the technology people, the programmers.

How do librarians add value to information? We won’t find the answer in the NYRB or the TLS.

So far this essay has focused on the existing scientific publishers, and it’s been rather pessimistic. But of course that pessimism is just a tiny part of an exciting story about the opportunities we have to develop new ways of structuring and communicating scientific information. These opportunities can still be grasped by scientific publishers who are willing to let go and become technology-driven, even when that threatens to extinguish their old way of doing things. And, as we’ve seen, these opportunities are and will be grasped by bold entrepreneurs.


My Tweets

My Delicious Bookmarks

PubMed Logo

Blog Stats

  • 73,373 hits