One of the programs I attended at the ALA Conference in New Orleans was titled “Hiring Non-MLS Librarians: Trends and Training Implications.” The first panelist shared some research findings from a survey in which library directors were asked about the positions in their libraries that they believed did or did not require an MLS. The results were pretty much what you’d expect. Directors expected the MLS for positions related to reference, instruction, and metadata services – the more traditional librarian functions. For positions in human resources, IT, fundraising and instructional technology, not so much. The other three panelists addressed the pros and cons of hiring non-MLS holders (as they were called) for librarian positions in libraries. My impression is that all three panelists supported the notion of hiring non-MLS holders under certain conditions, but that if a MLS librarian was available at the right price and with the right skill set an MLS holder is preferred. But in each of their libraries, it appeared that hiring non-MLS holders for librarian positions is an accepted practice.

The comments that followed the presentations revealed the strong, mixed emotions about this topic. It’s definitely a hot button issue, and I commend the organizers for providing their perspectives on why we’d want to hire non-MLS holders for some professional positions in our libraries – and those conditions that make it a challenge to fill an opening with an MLS librarian. Given the topic I was surprised by the light turnout. Perhaps the 8:00 am, Sunday morning time slot had an impact. One commenter mentioned that the “MLS attitude” is more about individuals than the profession, and that the “Yes I am superior to you” mentality, while unfortunate, isn’t limited to MLS holders. The dean from an LIS program shared his concerns that we think it’s fine to replace MLS holders with non-MLS holders, and articulated some excellent thinking points for what LIS grads can bring to libraries in tangible and intangible ways. But it was the comment from the public library board trustee that most concerned me.

The trustee shared a story about the current library director. Apparently this person has no MLS. She has worked at this library for 40 years in different positions (we have no idea what the size of the library is or where it’s located). “She’s doing a bang-up job as our director” was the comment. I take that to mean you can be a great non-MLS library director – or librarian – with many years of on-the-job training/experience regardless of your educational background. My response to a statement like this one – which I suppose is often thrown out to justify non-MLS librarians – especially in administrative positions – is “compared to what?” Perhaps this person does do a great job, but according to what standard? What does this director deliver? Maintaining the status quo for all those years? Doing whatever the trustees want? Making sure the community doesn’t complain by keeping it all the same and giving them whatever they want? Is that what constitutes “bang-up” results? In comparison to similar libraries with MLS directors, what has the non-MLS director actually accomplished? Perhaps more and even better things, but without some sense of the outcomes achieved doing a “bang-up job” means little and is hardly a rationale in support of non-MLS holders in librarian positions.

What are we to make of the “anyone with on-the-job experience can do the MLS holder’s job” proposition, especially when it’s being spread in public forums? We all know there are non-MLS folks who do their jobs well, just as we know there are MLS holders who should practice another profession. But it’s not about just doing a job well, being proficient or keeping the masses happy. We need MLS librarians because their specialized education and commitment to professional development is about more – or should be about more – than just maintaining the status quo and being good enough. As I said to the LIS dean afterwards, we need LIS programs to educate professionals who will challenge the status quo at their institutions, who will do the research that leads to new discoveries, and who will the explore the mysteries that lead to new knowledge and innovation. In essence they will do more than just get the job done. They are motivated to advance the science and practice of librarianship. They are inspired to keep their knowledge current with the state-of-the-art, but are constantly motivated to learn new skills. They debate the issues of the day among one another. For MLS holders, librarianship is more than just a job; it is a driving passion.

None of this is to suggest that we should be insistent that all professional positions in academic libraries require the MLS degree. We need to accept that our future will require a mix of skilled professionals. As was discussed at the program, it is accepted and sometimes preferred to have non-MLS colleagues for specialized positions in human resources, information technology, instructional design or the business office. In academic libraries specifically, non-MLS PhD holders may be best suited for some highly specialized collection or archival areas. I do believe that the MLS is the preferred degree for academic librarians. It is advantageous and often necessary for research support, education and strategic operations.

If we desire to establish the validity of the claim that communities best benefit by being served by MLS holders, then it is our responsibility to show that our careers result in concrete improvements, substantial advancement and benefits that would not otherwise be possible. That requires a commitment from all those who earn the MLS and the right to qualify for ALA-accredited positions in academic libraries to demonstrate, with humility and respect for colleagues from any and all educational backgrounds, that there is more to being a professional librarian than just meeting expectations and maintaining the status quo. It requires a passion for exceeding those expectations and constantly questioning what we do and how we do it – and in what ways could we make our libraries even better for our communities. When those inevitable comparisons between non-MLS and MLS holders in librarian positions are made, the rationale for and value of the MLS should be an easy case to make.

You’ve no doubt had that experience where you go to a store, hotel or some other setting where you receive service, and the person (or people) serving you is doing all the right things to be nice – but you know it’s an act being put on for your benefit. We accept this because we know the person is doing their job and the management expects them to put some kind of positive emotions into the service. Just the same, it may leave us feeling a little weird. Should businesses expect their employees to fake emotions with you? This question is raised is a column titled “The Coming Point of Sale Revolution” by Grant McCraken. He understands the strategy but has a problem with it:

One of them is the American conviction that your emotions are your own personal business. Generally, we believe emotions are a private matter and that it is wrong to ask the employee to use them for public, commercial purposes.

McCraken shares the story of Dolores, a clerk at a busy 7-11 that sells the most cups of coffee of any other similar convenience store in America. Try to watch the video of Dolores in action. There’s nothing fake, contrived or insincere about the way she greets the customers and makes them welcome. While many of our service desk-based interactions could be described as impersonal transactions, I believe that we too have our “regulars” that we chat with, share a story or greet warmly. In other words, we put our emotions into those relationships – and the community members know it is sincere.

McCraken goes on to suggest that service-driven businesses should go out of their way to look for people like Dolores, or even those who have the capacity, through staff development, to be more skilled at what he calls “reading people and responding to them in real time” – the opposite of which is always avoiding eye contact, being sullen or professionally cold or aloof. I have no idea if that works for academic libraries. We talk about the importance of customer service, but when hiring and developing new librarians what do we tell them about connecting with community members when at a service desk or in consultation situations. Should we be asking or suggesting that academic librarians engage with everyone in a more personal and emotional manner – or at least be more adept at reading people and sensing at what level they desire personal engagement? It’s not necessarily a skill we all have.

Perhaps the important thing for all us who connect with community members in one way or another, at a desk, in a classroom, in offices or wherever, is to be thoughtful about the possibilities for building relationships. They can start with an enthusiastic greeting, sustained eye contact or simply demonstrating that we care. We should avoid at all cost communicating that the interaction is no more than an impersonal or bothersome transaction we perform in order to survive our time at the desk until we can get back to whatever it is we’d really rather be doing. Putting some emotion into our work can be a good thing. Do we all need to be Dolores? Of course not. Faking it, in fact, may be far worse.

Thanks for all the comments on my earlier post How Do We Evaluate Collaboration in Librarian Scholarship?

Here’s what we came up with at my place of work as a revision (still a draft) for our disciplinary standards for Librarian scholarship. We wanted to honor both sole-author and collaborative works:

“First or sole-authored works are highly valued but the nature of work in librarianship is often collaborative. Collaborative scholarship between librarians within the field of librarianship and interdisciplinary collaboration between librarians and scholars in other fields is common, encouraged, and highly valued. The sole-authored work is not necessarily the benchmark…but multi-authored works require the candidate to document the extent of their contribution and the nature of the collaboration.”

If anyone else has statements addressing collaboration in their campus documents and is willing to share I’d be interested to see them.

For more on collaboration, the first article below documents the increasing collaboration in librarian scholarship over the years, and the second has some good advice for how to document collaboration so that it can be evaluated.

Alice Harrison Bahr and Mickey Zemon, “Collaborative
Authorship in the Journal Literature: Perspectives for Academic Librarians Who Wish to Publish.” C&RL 61 (2000): 410-419.

Elizabeth G. Creamer, “Promoting the Effective Evaluation of Collaboratively Produced Scholarship: A Call to Action” in Advancing Faculty Learning Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 102, Summer 2005.

While I can’t say enough about the importance of video as a communication and learning tool, I’m hardly enamored with most librarian videos – especially the ones that involve lip synching to pop tunes. That’s why I was particularly impressed by the creativity and craftsmanship demonstrated by the now well known video that won top prize in the ACRL 2011 Video Contest, the Strozier Rap Video.

The Florida State University Libraries Strozier Library team did a great job with their video, and I wanted to learn more from them. So I sent them a few questions and they were kind enough to answer them. Here’s the interview with:
Michelle Demeter, Academic Partnerships Librarian
Job Jaime, Technology Center Coordinator
Suzanne Byke, Undergraduate Outreach Librarian

Where did the idea for the video come from?

We are fans of Lazy Sunday from SNL! Based on the criteria for the video we felt that modifying the Lazy Sunday video would create a really cool, fun ACRL promotion.

What video equipment did you use?

The video was recorded using a Sony HDC-3 camcorder, Sony Vegas for video editing and a basic lighting kit. For audio, we used Audacity audio editing software. We used both Adobe Flash and Photoshop for animation. All of the equipment and software is available from Strozier Library to the Florida State University community. We also provide assistance using all of the software to any student, faculty or staff at FSU.

Was this your first library video or have you made others?

As a team, this was our first video. The library does have many videos that have been created by individual members of the team. Check out the Club Stroz video which was created by two undergraduates that now work on promotion for our Undergraduate Commons.

How long did it take to create the video?

Here are approximate times: writing the rap 3 hours, filming 7 hours, sound recording 1.5 hours, animation 3 hours, sound and video editing 9 hours, and endless laughter watching it! We took many takes. Between the perfectionist director and our inability to rap on cue, we took more takes than we can count…but we had FUN!

What suggestions do you have for other librarians who want to make cool videos?

A creative idea, or stealing from pop culture, and a team of awesomely talented audio/video geeks that are willing to give up their free time to help you!

What’s your take on lipsyncing to pop songs in videos?

Seriously, it’s harder than it looks! You need to have a sense of humor when singing or rapping if it’s not your thing and don’t give up your day job until you get a record contract. You also can’t let the comments on YouTube crush your dream, haha!

So, would you do it again?

You betcha! While it was a lot of work, it was definitely worth it! We were so happy with the final result!

Thanks Strozier Team. If we need some suggestions for our next library video we know who to call.

How Usage Shapes Technology Application

Scanning the October 2010 issue of The Charleston Advisor I came across a review of the web-based movie making site called Xtranormal. Even if you didn’t know that name, you’d instantly recognize one of the movies created on the Xtranormal site. The review, by Ellen Metter is well done, and seriously considers the value of Xtranormal for instructional movie making by librarians. However, between now and when the review was submitted a few months ago, I wonder if any academic librarian is still seriously considering using Xtranormal to make a library-related video. The problem is that the software has become the leading contemporary technology for mocking, ridiculing or just plain bashing just about any topic you can imagine, from following printing instructions in libraries to tea party followers. It’s practically synonymous with sarcasm. You’ve probably seen most of the “So you want to be/go….” series – all incredibly sarcastic.

At this point I am wondering if any academic librarian would use Xtranormal to create an instructional video. If you did, would anyone take it seriously or would you be hoping that your target audience is woefully unaware of how Xtranormal is being used by the masses. What I find interesting is how the crowd is shaping the use of and perceptions surrounding this particular technology. I’m sure there are lots of well thought out Xtranormal instructional productions on there, but at this point would anyone take seriously these animated characters? I think not. What do you think? Still willing to use Xtranormal for serious learning or waiting for the next best thing?

No Library-Related Articles in The Chronicle’s Top Ten

Whenever there is a library-related article in the Chronicle I like to keep tabs on the “most read” and “most e-mailed” sections. To me it somewhat indicates the degree of interest in reading about library issues, and usually the library articles are highly read and e-mailed. Quite often these articles are at the top of the chart for several days. That’s why I was surprised to find that not a single article about academic librarianship made it to the top ten most read Chronicle articles for 2010. You academic librarians need to start reading the Chronicle a whole lot more.

Here’s How It Works People

I was amazed and astounded to learn that nearly 50% of the librarians who submitted proposals for the poster sessions at ACRL 2011 included information about their institution or library – and in some cases even named names – in the proposal. Over 400 proposals for posters were submitted and 160 were accepted. The selection committee members were puzzled by the unexpected high occurrence of librarians who didn’t appear to understand the concept of blind peer review. Yes, you do submit your contact information during the submission process, but that doesn’t mean you should include it again in your actual proposal. The two get kept separate so the reviewers won’t know who is submitting the proposal or where it’s coming from (and folks, we often know each other just by the names of our libraries). If there is any profession that should have a firm grasp of how blind peer review works, it ought to be us guys. Let’s see if we can do a better job in 2013. BTW, proposals were not eliminated or penalized for mentioning an institution or library. Next time, ACRL may not be so kind.

Wanted – Young Librarians Only

Perhaps you share my concerns about the future of professional library associations like ACRL. So any study that offers recommendations for how to retain existing members and recruit new ones should be of interest to us. So I was eager to read a new report from a group seeking to encourage member engagement. While this Task Force idea is a good one, I can’t say the same for the name. The ALA’s Young Librarians Task Force has issued the report that repeatedly refers to “young librarians” as it discusses ways to encourage them to become better advocates for ALA and the profession. There is one reference to “new/young” members, which to me is the sensible way to present this demographic. A case of ageism? Anyone who’s been teaching in an LIS program in the last few years knows that we still have a fairly sizable contingent of mid-life career changers entering this profession. To organize a Task Force around “young librarians” seems likely to dis-engage anyone over the age of 25. What age is young anyway? Can I be on the task force if I’m over 30? To be slightly cynical, I guess that if an association is going to throw time and effort into a recruiting campaign it is better to focus on young people because the older ones will die sooner – meaning less lifetime dues. If ALA signs up a 25 year old and retains them over 40 years – well that sure does add up. So perhaps I’m nitpicking a bit here, but in an organization that is perhaps the most politically correct on the planet, you have to be wondering why they decided on this name.

Before getting to the core of this column, how about a round of applause for the newest winners of ACRL’s top awards, Academic/Research Librarian of the Year and the Excellence in Academic Libraries Award. They are:

2011 Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Academic/Research Librarian of the Year
Janice Welburn, dean of university libraries at Marquette University

2011 Excellence in Academic Libraries Award
Luria Library at Santa Barbara City College, Santa Barbara, Ca.
Grinnell College Libraries, Grinnell, Iowa
Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

ACRLog congratulates all the winners on their amazing accomplishments.

When ACRL isn’t doling out awards, it’s busy trying to advance the association into the future. At ALA Midwinter I heard more about these initiatives, and now is the time for members to share their thoughts about two important developments. First is the new version of ACRL’s strategic plan, the Plan for Excellence. This plan is currently in draft format and input is being sought from the academic library community. The first thing you’ll notice about the Plan for Excellence is that it’s far shorter than its predecessor. Whereas the old plan had quite a few goals and multiple objectives – and went on for several pages – the new plan is streamlined. It consists of only three goals, and each goal has but four objectives. This is a welcome change, and our colleagues who developed the plan should be applauded for coming up with a document that will likely be more practical and realistic to implement.

I’m not going to rehash the goals and objectives here; you can link to the ACRL Plan for Excellence and look it over. In brief, the three goals are (1) Value of Academic Libraries (2) Student Learning and (3) Research and Scholarly Environment. I don’t think any ACRL member would argue with the importance of these goal areas. The related objectives leave plenty of room for innovative project development. Where I am somewhat disappointed is with dropping membership growth as an ACRL goal. What I heard is that membership and some other prior goals were dropped because they are now perceived as the routine work of ACRL, and are no longer considered truly strategic in nature – and that ACRL needs to have a manageable set of goals and objectives that are within the scope of what we can actually accomplish with our limited (and potentially decreasing) resources.

I agree that the association needs to be careful about how much it takes on, but you only need to take a look at pg. 633 in the December 2010 issue of College & Research Libraries News where you’ll see a chart in the ACRL Annual Report that shows the percent change in membership from 2009 to 2010. There are many more minus signs then I’d like to see. It’s true that total membership is only down a few hundred members but this is a trend we can’t afford to ignore by eliminating its strategic value. Retaining existing members and recruiting new ones is the lifeblood and future of ACRL. When you bring into this picture the reality that many newer-to-the-profession academic librarians can build their own professional support system through social networks or seek newer alternatives such as SLA’s new and growing Academic Libraries Division, it seems to me that we do need a strategic approach to growing ACRL’s membership. My suggestion is to add a new fourth goal called “Organizational Sustainability” with the following four objectives:

* increase the membership by 5% by 2014
* study association needs of academic librarians with fewer than five
years in the profession and identify strategies for developing next
generation leaders
* identify strategies to make association membership and conference
attendance more affordable for new members
* continue to build opportunities for virtual membership

By adding this fourth goal ACRL keeps the retention and recruitment of members firmly in its vision as a vital issue that does require a well thought out strategy.

And speaking of membership, the other big change being advanced by ACRL is a Bylaws revision that would change how a dues increase would occur. Currently, the timing and amount of a dues increase is somewhat arbitrary. Dues only change, typically upward, when the ACRL Board decides that it needs to and by what amount. Then the full membership must vote on that increase. The whole process is time consuming, and the increases are usually approved. As a result, the ACRL Board has only moved to increase dues, because of its unpopularity, sporadically and it results in less frequent but larger increases. For example, the last dues increase was in 2005. Dues went from $35 to $55 for a 57% increase which is pretty substantial. The new proposal seeks to eliminate this from happening again – and after five years we might be due for an increase – by shifting to having the Board consider a dues increase annually. The increase would be tied to the HEPI meaning that the Board could only increase dues by the percent amount increase in the HEPI. Over the last 20 years if ACRL dues had been tied to the HEPI the maximum annual increase would be $3 (and less in 2009 and 2010). That doesn’t mean the Board would increase dues annually. The revision would just give it the power to do so without a vote by the membership. A vote would be required only if the amount of the increase needed exceeded the HEPI. According to my calculations, between 2002 and 2008 the HEPI averaged 4%. The obvious advantage to the revision is that it will allow the Board much greater flexibility in increasing dues as needed so that we avoid these huge bumps every 5-7 years.

While I support this revision to the bylaws, my opinion is that we need to look at restructuring the dues all together. Right now we all pay the same, and this is true with ALA dues as well. This puzzles me because it would seem to make more sense to connect dues to salaries. This is the method used by most state library associations. Why am I paying, after 30+ years in the field, the same amount as the new academic librarian who is making far less than I am, and is no doubt loaded with student debt? For me, dues and membership are intertwined. If dues are keeping new-to-the-profession librarians from joining ALA and in turn ACRL, that ultimately weakens the organization and is threat to its future sustainability. There was a similar conversation recently concerning ALA conference attendance, and I made the point that I’d be willing to pay more so that attendance would be more affordable for our newer colleagues, especially those lacking employer support. By no means is this a simple issue, and I don’t doubt that even considering it would cause some organizational turmoil. It’s complicated by the fact that ACRL dues are connected to your ALA dues payment. But even a modest step in this direction would make a statement, and perhaps encourage current non-members to consider joining. Would a change in this direction be more likely to encourage you to join ACRL – or do you support the current dues structure?

Whatever direction the change in ACRL takes us, I hope that more of you ACRL readers will consider being a part of that change (if you are not already positioned to do so), by becoming an ACRL member and helping to guide the association into the future.

In his recent Chronicle essay titled “Library Inc.”, which was part of special Chronicle Review focusing on the corporatization of higher education, Daniel Goldstein takes academic librarianship to task for selling out to corporate America. Judging by the comments shared by readers the reaction to the essay is mixed; while some agree others take Goldstein to task for blaming librarians for a situation beyond their control. Goldstein focuses the essay on two areas where he sees commercialization of the library most evident. The first is collections, where Goldstein is critical of academic librarians for allowing corporate mega-publishers to take control of the academic journal publishing. If Publisher A buys out Publisher B, I’m not sure how that’s the fault of academic librarians. Maybe we didn’t work hard enough to fight these developments, although I recall a number of academic libraries that joined together to reject big packages and unjust price increases.

I’m not as interested in what Goldstein has to say about collections as I am about the second area where he claims our profession has gone astray – customer services. Far fewer commenters had anything to say about this part of the essay, yet that’s the area where, from my perspective, the arguments are particularly weak and unfounded. As I read the essay, the conclusion I draw is that if you believe there is value in delivering high quality customer services, if you and colleagues go out of your way to understand your user community and design services that meet their expectations, and if you – heaven forbid – believe there is something to the idea of creating a well thought out, holistic user experience for your user community, then you have somehow sold your soul to the corporate devil. Goldstein writes, “There are far-reaching implications to disregarding so much of what a library does in favor of an impoverished, customer-service-centric model.” Goldstein is entitled to his opinion but my response to it: what utter nonsense.

I realize this is a short Chronicle essay, so I won’t fault Goldstein for failing to provide some good examples of what these “far-reaching implications” are, but I think it has something to do with dumbing down a student’s research process so that they actually discover information with simple-to-use interfaces instead of facilitating thorough and precise “systematic research” that leads to the production of new knowledge. That sounds great, but I’m not sure Goldstein has worked with many underclassmen lately – the students who mostly never even bother using the library at all. Does he prefer that to better customer services designed to engage distracted students? Has he paid any attention to the Project Information Literacy reports that document what an unpleasant user experience our libraries can present to overwhelmed students who are greatly challenged to get started on the fundamental research paper? Goldstein waxes eloquently about the noble work of the academic librarian who shepherds students to produce new knowledge in response to “new and unusual” questions. The reality on the ground level is that academic librarians are typically confronted by confused undergraduates struggling with the same research project that’s been assigned to hundreds of other students before them. When you frame our challenging problem more realistically, going corporate – if that’s what you want to call it – looks more and more like a pretty good solution.

As I read Goldstein’s concerns about “a future when libraries look a lot like Google: a vast, undifferentiated mass of information queried by a simple search box”, it sounded vaguely familiar. It should. I wrote pretty much the same thing back in 2004 in a Chronicle essay titled “The Infodiet: How Libraries Can Offer An Appetizing Alternative to Google”. In it I raised similar concerns about how we observed students consuming a steady junk food diet of information rather than the high quality “nutritious” content our libraries offered. Since then I’ve come to worry less about this problem because I don’t think the answer is simply found in wishing for the good old days of…what…just exactly what is it that Goldstein is recommending we do other than “insist that scholarly requirements take precedence over commercial interests.” How exactly do we do that? By abandoning the core value of delivering good customer service in which we empathize with our community members and attempt to deliver a research environment that responds to their expectations?

I suppose the bottom line from my perspective is that there’s absolutely no evidence that establishing a culture of service diminishes an academic library’s ability to help students develop strong research skills. I would argue that if we want students to move beyond dumbed down research, junk food resources, and all that which Goldstein abhors, then the answer might be expanding and improving our services and user experience so that we do a much better job of building relationships with students. We can’t expect them to magically want to become the passionate researchers that Goldstein envisions unless we figure out how to create an emotional connection between them and our libraries – so that they actually perceive academic librarians as trusted sources of information. If we do this right, we’ll create the passionate users Goldstein visualizes, the ones who’ll come to us when they want to learn – not just when they’re forced to by their instructors.

Creating a passionate user is no random act; we need to be thoughtful in designing a holistic library experience that engages students and encourages them to pursue research interests. I believe that corporate America (think Starbucks, Amazon, Zappos, Apple, Ritz-Carlton, etc.) provides good ideas for how to design the right kind of experience for a specific community. That’s not saying our libraries are businesses, or should be run like business, but rather that corporations can offer ideas worth exploring. We need to discern the good ones from the bad ones, and then wisely implement the good ones to the benefit of our user community members.

So I may be a tool of corporate America, but I’m going to continue to advocate that there’s much we can learn from the companies that excel at designing great user experiences. Doing so doesn’t mean that you are commercializing the library. It means that you think there’s a better way to accomplish an outcome we all share. It’s great for Goldstein to share his noble aspirations with us, but it’s better to be realistic about what you can accomplish and how you can best go about getting it done. If you believe there’s value in exploring the business perspective on creativity, innovation, user experience – and all those other evil corporate machinations – come on over to Designing Better Libraries for a taste of the devil’s brew.

With June comes the ALA Conference (except for Chicago years), and when it ends that also signals a close what I would call the library “presentation season” for both academic librarians who present and those who attend. While there are programs throughout the year, I find that the months between April and June bring the heaviest concentration of programs. ACRL chapters are having their spring programs, information literacy conferences are being held, there are many library staff development programs and quite a few other regional and local conferences from which to choose.

It also means that many of us are experiencing our roles as presenters and attendees, where we prepare and deliver presentations or we are on the receiving end as attendees. Did we make the best of our opportunity to present, and what did we learn from the experience as a presenter or attendee? While I gave a few presentations, I was also learning from other presenters who demonstrated new ideas and new techniques with their programs. With the end of the presentation season just ahead, we will soon have time to reflect and think about what we can do better or differently to improve our presentations.

Some good advice comes from Dave Paradi, a blogger and author who specializes in consulting with others to improve their presentations, although he mostly concentrates on PowerPoint and using it for more effective communication. In a recent post he shared some ideas that made good sense. The gist of the post is that presenters start their preparation by creating the visuals that become their slide presentation. Once the presentation starts to take shape, the presenter becomes personally invested in slides and it becomes difficult to make changes, and almost impossible to scrap it and start again with a completely different approach. He writes:

Why the resistance? Because they are heavily invested emotionally in the slides they spent so much time creating. It is human nature to resist changing something that we put a lot of time and effort in to…there is no way we are just throwing it out and starting over again

Paradi’s advice for avoiding the emotional attachment trap is to adopt a different way of creating presentation visuals. He suggests that presenters start their presentation preparation away from the computer. He believes it is better to:

Start by thinking about the goal of the presentation – what do you want the audience to know at the end of the presentation…The structure of the presentation can be done on a whiteboard, pad of paper, or, my favorite, sticky notes so I can move them around

When beginning a new presentation I tend to follow Paradi’s suggestion to start away from the computer. I will either develop a rough script for my presentation or sketch out my ideas as a way of determining what the three or so main concepts or themes are. Then I’ll work on fleshing each of those out and building in more detail. Here’s an example of some rough sketches of new presentation on which I’m working.

You may argue that ultimately it is better to avoid using traditional slide presentations all together, and I would tend to agree. I’m not opposed to using PowerPoint. Despite some recent criticism , PPT is only software and it’s up to each presenter to use it to achieve the outcomes of the presentation in a way that makes for a good learning and program experience for the attendee. The best presentation advice I’ve heard is that you need to begin with a passion for the audience, and a desire to make the presentation about them. I’ve been experimenting with a variety of techniques, including storytelling (with mixed results), my own hand-drawn sketches (a love it or hate it proposition for some), video that I mix and then integrate into the slides, and more conversation with attendees when it fits. Between that variety of techniques I’m hoping each attendee will believe I’ve designed the presentation with their needs in mind.

One presentation I attended was a nice combination of using Prezi and hands-on activity. Another presentation I attended was based on the Garr Reynold’s style of using images alone or with a single word or short phrase. I’m sure you’ve seen many presentations in this style as it has grown in popularity in recent years. But other than a few clever photos, I found myself paying little attention to the slides at all, and instead found the speakers were doing quite well just sharing what they knew. For me, the images became a distraction and did little to communicate ideas or engage me. This was a case where no slides at all may have been better, but I suspect, as Paradi suggests, that the presenters were quite heavily invested in their slides and likely thought of them as absolutely necessary for the talk.

Whether you did the presenting or the attending, think about using the summer months to practice new presentation techniques or focus more on the preparation process. If you are heading to ALA, take special note of the presentation techniques and look for new ideas. If you see something of interest, take time to ask the presenter about their methods. The best way to become a better presenter, besides getting as much authentic practice as you can, remains observing others, spotting good technique, viewing videos of great presenters, and then learning how to adapt those techniques to create your own unique style of presenting.

A few weeks ago I had the great honor of serving as the Emcee for the TEDxNJLibs conference held at the Princeton Public Library in New Jersey. You probably know all about TED and the famous talks. You may be less familiar with TEDx which seeks to replicate the vibe and excitement of the annual TED event. Putting on a TEDx conference in no easy undertaking. From finding the right speakers to planning out the one-day program, this is an enormous amount of work. The payoff is treating the attendees to a great day of inspiring and amazing speakers. The Library Garden gang did an amazing job organizing the event. Last year I attended their Pres4Lib unconference which was great, and I wondered if they could top it. Going for the TEDx was a brilliant move, and yes, they did top themselves.

The main thing you should know is that TEDxNJLibs was really not about librarianship. The theme was community and culture, and like all TED events it featured a diverse collection of speakers who brought different perspectives to the theme. And just like TED events, the speakers shared stories of courage, caring and inspiration. As a celebration of culture it also featured great music and good food. It was a really well-balanced program that got me thinking. One of the commonalities that ran through the talks was, for me at least, the idea of choosing to act to make a difference in the community and lives of others. Whether it was Sam Daley-Harris’ effort to use microfinance to eradicate world hunger and poverty, or Salman Ahmad’s mission to share music to promote peace, the speakers demonstrated that a single good idea, well executed, can make a difference.

I do want to share one illustrative story because it’s a good one, but also because it involved the community library. Mimi Omiecinski moved to Princeton, New Jersey in June 2006, with absolutely no plans to start a small business. But that’s exactly what she did. The epitome of the local entrepreneur, Mimi started a local walking tour company in Princeton, New Jersey. Mimi’s business, like any new one, was slow to catch on with the community and visitors. But then she had an idea – a great one. According to an interview with a local paper Mimi recalled:

A few years ago, I started my bike tour business, and I literally couldn’t even give away the bikes. So I started the walking tours (Princeton Tour Company), and figured I’d study up on Albert Einstein for a tour. So I Googled him, and found out he was born on March 14 — 3/14. Pi, of course, is 3.14159 … That was my “oh my god” moment.

Many of have that “oh my god” moment but we either let it drift off or perhaps we do make a note of it, but then we ultimately never get past the idea stage. But Mimi took hold of her idea and became its champion. Out of her “aha” moment grew Princeton Pi Day, celebrated of course on March 14. Taking personal responsibility for the idea, Mimi enlisted businesses and others in the community to participate with special events and items that would cost $3.14. A real stroke of genius was collaborating with the Princeton Public Library. The Library put together a mix of Einstein and Pi-related activities (Einstein look alike contest, contest to recall the most numbers in Pi, pie throwing, etc.), and funds raised by Mimi’s tours would be contributed to the Library. Mimi’s one simple idea and her commitment to it made all the difference for the community, its people, and the Library.

The “one idea can make a difference” is a theme that others have explored. Malcolm Gladwell discussed in his book The Tipping Point. He referred to it as “creating an epidemic”:

The virtue of an epidemic, after all, is that just a little input is enough to get it started, and it can spread very, very quickly. That makes it something of obvious and enormous interest to everyone from educators trying to reach students, to businesses trying to spread the word about their product, or for that matter to anyone who’s trying to create a change with limited resources.

Had I not been asked to emcee, I probably would still have attended TEDxNJLIBS. I knew it would be a fun and informative event, and one of the great things about TED is that is you can easily expose yourself to new ideas and new mysteries. Doing so is one way to keep learning and putting yourself in a position to get those ideas that can lead to innovations that make a difference. I learned one other important lesson from the TEDx speakers. Having a great idea is important, and coming up with a plan to implement it is the start to creating change. The other important ingredient is the “WHY”.

As in “why am I doing this?” I don’t doubt that Mimi wanted to jump start her tour business, but I think there was more to Pi Day than that. As I listened to her tell the story I sensed she really wanted to do something to bring the community together for a shared experience. She believed it would make the community a better place, and the community members believed in her – and shared the vision for what Pi Day could offer. The next time you have an idea try to do more than capture it on paper. Share it with colleagues. Play with it. Come up with some prototypes for it. If there’s a positive response, take it to the next level. But always keep the “why” question front and center. If you strongly believe in the WHY – if it is more about doing something for the community and is less about how it advances your career – then it should be easy to articulate for yourself and demonstrate to others the WHY behind your great idea. Start there and you will make a difference.

Addendum: You can view the video of Mimi’s TEDxNJLIBS presentation here.

Becoming an academic library administrator brings many changes to one’s career. It typically means leaving behind old job responsibilities while adopting a new set of challenges. For many of us who’ve moved into administration from a public services position that typically means giving up the reference desk and classroom for planning, budgeting and other management and leadership responsibilities. But what if you really enjoy working at the reference desk or helping educate students to become better researchers? That is often why we were drawn to academic librarianship in the first place. Does moving into an administrative position mean the end of those opportunities? Not always. It is, as they say, situational.

If you choose to become the director at a college or small university library, particularly one with a small professional staff, it’s quite likely that you will not only have the opportunity to continue performing in public services, but it will most probably be required. Any significant outreach effort involving active liaison duties, embedded librarianship, a proactive library instruction program and other efforts to extend beyond the walls of the library can be hard on a small staff. The library director can’t afford to sit behind a desk in their corner office – and why would he or she want to? More meetings and administrative tasks means less time for public service, but the college library director that wants to continue being involved should have ample opportunities.

The other common administrative track is the assistant director or associate university librarian in a larger university setting. In this situation, it’s more likely the library has a well-staffed reference and instruction department capable of meeting the demand. Though the situation might not necessitate administrator involvement, I’d advocate for library administrators to seek out a weekly shift on the reference desk and to take on a few instruction sessions each semester. Here’s why. First, if it’s something you really enjoy, having the opportunity to participate on the front line will make the job that much more satisfying. Second, if public services are part of your portfolio, serving the public will make you a better informed and more effective administrator. How can you make good decisions that impact the staff and user community if you are out of touch with the delivery of public service? Third, keeping connected to the work of reference librarians and instructors enables you to better understand the day-to-day challenges that front-line professionals face. When they express frustrations about a clumsy printer setup or an inadequate training room, you are much better prepared to understand the situation and act decisively on it if you have experienced it firsthand. Nothing frustrates a front-line librarian more than an administrator who pooh-poohs a dilemma without really understanding its complexities. Being involved has its advantages, but be careful not to micromanage the situation or use your administrative power to gain leverage over others. That can be equally frustrating or downright annoying. Fourth, if reference and instruction activity really picks up, it may actually overwhelm the staff. An involved academic library administrator can help meet the demand or fill in for front-line librarians who are stretched thin.

I’m not sure where my career is headed next, but whatever administrative position I might hold in the future I will most likely want to continue to retain some involvement in direct public service. I’ve found that a regular shift at the reference desk and a few instruction sessions each semester, in addition to allowing me an opportunity to keep practicing what I really enjoy, does enable me to keep my reference and instruction skills somewhat sharp. Fortunately, I’ve not found myself in a situation where the front-line staff prefers the administrator to stay off the front line and in their office. That’s another situation all together, and one that a good library administrator should be able to decipher and manage.

As I’ve said before, one of the best reasons to become a library administrator is to have the golden opportunity to bring your personal vision of what an academic library can be to an institution, and to work with a dedicated and passionate staff to bring that vision to fruition. Doing so will mean making sacrifices, like giving up daily interaction with library users at public service desks or leaving behind all those instruction sessions. Well, for some that might not be a sacrifice but rather a much appreciated change. After twenty years of 40 to 50 instruction sessions a semester, an administrative position might seem like a nice break. But I think a good academic library administrator is an involved, engaged and participative library administrator.