The workshop was structured to maximise discussion amongst participants, by including presentations of the Study's background and findings in three sections. Each section deliberately ended at a pointwhich was likely to be controversial enough to stimulate responses and debate. The three sections broadly consisted of:
Discussion on the definition of cultural change centred around the use of language and the way it evolves as people's perception and behaviour changes. This was seen to involve a three stage process where new words and concepts are first used in a rhetorical, legitimising way (e.g. "They want to bring in a computer"). The new concepts are then applied, although not always in natural or appropriate ways, as staff learn the conceptual model underlying the new innovation. Lastly, the language is accepted into general use, it is taken for granted and disappears from the rhetoric. Another important aspect of cultural change is the way people think about their work as a group (rather than individually), and the way those perceptions change. People's perceptions of what a system can be have a powerful influence on shaping that system, whether the system is technological or procedural.
On discussing mobilisation, it was emphasised that although this implies deliberate, conscious change, this is not necessarily the case. The point was emphasised that eLib projects may be unaware that they are effecting cultural change, or at least unaware of exactly what cultural changes they are effecting.
The general consensus, corresponding to our findings from the deliverables and interviews, was that eLib was not intended or likely to be the main stimulus for change, but that individual projects were drawing attention to the organisational restructuring required to bring about cultural change. The process was gradual and evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and partly involves blurring the distinctions between teaching and research so that learning becomes a seamless process. One suggestion was that eLib should be working more closely with the teaching and learning committees in HEIs, in order to ensure that both structural and educational changes occurred within the context of an integrated organisational strategy. However, it was also suggested that such committees can have limited impact on grass-roots teaching practice in many institutions. There has perhaps been too little focus on ensuring that developments permeate through to the academics who need to embrace them if their working practices are to be enhanced.
It was generally agreed that projects have focussed more on research and communication than undergraduate education, although eLib was "laying down the sediment of resources and learning". There was little evidence of academics taking on new roles regarding electronic course delivery, and this was an area requiring considerable attention.
The issue of convergence in libraries was debated at length; it was pointed out that while some institutions are currently showing signs of divergence, in that information and technical services are being split under separate management, the reverse has been the case in many institutions both in the UK and abroad. Convergence may be a simplified term, since the issue at stake is really new divisions of labour, and new paths of communication and responsibility. The most likely scenario for the future consisted of individuals possessing a less narrow or stereotyped set of skills than in the past, since the hybrid 'systems librarian' figure is becoming commonplace. It was suggested that while librarians and computer personnel do have to start working more closely together, one source of tension inhibiting this cooperation is the fact that librarians perceive themselves as a qualified profession while computing personnel do not. This is evidenced by the fact that we do not even have a single-word name for the latter category of worker, let alone a recognised and respected system of qualifications (other than those provided by bodies such as the British Computer Society, whose examinations are rarely taken by technical staff in academia).
One aspect of cultural change that perhaps has yet to be addressed was suggested by a participant who pointed out that when computing became less centralised in HEIs, as in other organisations, computer centre personnel had to accept the shock that 'their' users no longer came to see them, no longer had to travel to their building to use technology, and no longer depended on them so much for help and support. Arguably, the rise of electronic resources will at some point produce the same shock for librarians, and stimulate the establishment of new and different roles for them.
Regarding the eLib Training and Awareness activities, it was suggested that the focus on junior library staff may in fact be causing greater alienation of staff who may typically be older and/or more senior, and who may feel even more isolated from the new paradigm by feeling excluded from the T&A (even where, on the surface, there is no reason why they should). It was suggested that the T&A aspects of eLib were misconceived in that they allowed proposers of projects to define what training would be offered to the community, rather than basing it on a truly open user needs analysis. Library and academic department managers could be addressed via pedagogically-oriented 'conferences', like those organised in the commerical world more to inform managers than to discuss issues, thus giving them a learning opportunity they would not always take up if presented as 'training courses'.
It was recognised that there were inherent difficulties in encouraging eLib projects to learn from each other, and there were doubts that it was possible to stimulate a more collaborative learning approach at this stage of the programme. A cultural and learning lag of months or years was inevitable, and this was a normal feature of the research process. In eLib the emphasis is very much on "learning by doing". The only way to learn was to make mistakes, there was no shortcut to this. Comparisons were made with European Commission research programmes, which encourage adoption of "technology transfer" initiatives to communicate supposed "best practice" (although it was felt that this was often spectacularly unsuccessful).
One suggestion proposed by the Study team, that a more co-ordinated approach was needed to deal with the complex logistical difficulties over copyright and pricing mechanisms, was discussed in some detail. There had been a deliberate intention by FIGIT to allow a large number of separate projects to face these issues separately (the policy of "let a hundred flowers bloom"). At the time this was seen as the most appropriate way of encouraging a constructive response from the publishers and to discover a variety of solutions. It was argued that now, having effectively berated publishers into more active and positive participation, a more co-ordinated approach (at a suitable level in HE management/funding) could be more successful than in the past.
Previous section: Findings: other project/programme deliverables
The Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) was funded
by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
Page version: 1;
Web page maintained by
UKOLN Systems Team
and hosted by
UKOLN
- feedback to
systems@ukoln.ac.uk
.
Site last revised on: Tuesday, 24-Nov-1998 14:21:10 UTC
DC Metadata