Organization Monkey

i just finished reading theresa westbrock and sara fabian’s article in the latest college & research libraries and am sad.  in their article titled “proficiencies for instruction librarians: is there still a disconnect between professional education and professional responsibilities?” they outline acrl’s proficiencies for instruction librarians from 1985 and then compare them with the 2007 updated proficiencies.  the thrust of the updated proficiencies is to focus on “broad areas of proficiency rather than a comprehensive list of skills” (p. 572).  are you wondering which “skills” got left behind?  you guessed it: research skills.

the 1985 proficiencies (http://library.csus.edu/services/inst/indiv/acrl_bis_profic.htm) include a section titled “ability to employ research and evaluation methodologies.”  here is the list of skills that fall under that heading:

• Is able to design an evaluative instrument and to use survey techniques
• Is able to interpret feedback and use it to modify activity
• Is able to solicit and analyze student comments and attitudes
• Understands the structure of information within various disciplines and the categories of tools necessary to use the information
• Understands basic statistical concepts and methods
• Understands validity and reliability measures for research use
• Understands SPSS or other computerized statistical packages
• Is able to develop a search strategy

looks pretty solid, doesn’t it?  if i were in an undergrad sociology class i’d feel confident about having that instruction librarian teach me how do gather and analyze data.

in the new proficiencies (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/profstandards.pdf) the word “statistics” is mentioned once: “1.3. Maintains and regularly reports accurate statistics and other records reflecting own instruction activities.”

is it possible i’m misreading the new proficiencies and that having a clear understanding of how the basic research process works is embedded in the language somewhere that i’m missing?  crossing my fingers.

Westbrock, Theresa, and Sarah Fabian. 2010. “Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians: Is There Still a Disconnect Between Professional Education and Professional Responsibilities?” College & Research Libraries 71(6): 569-590.

Of the 11 gaps that the authors identified in communication between research and practice in librarianship, I feel the Publication Gap most acutely.  Very often the first thing I do when I want to answer a question in my field is to see how it may have already been answered in the literature.  More often than not I don’t find the answer, or I end up wading through a sea of weak literature only to give up in frustration.

“Publication gap.  The body of LIS research papers is small both in itself and as a proportion of the published literature (Feehan, Gragg, Havener, & Kester, 1987; Nour, 1985; Peritz, 1980).  To some writers, the emphasis on pragmatic issues (Goodall, 1998; Montanelli & Mak, 1998, Rayward, 1983; Saracevic & Perk, 1973; Williamson, 1999) and the low proportion of practitioner authors relative to the number of practitioners in the field (Enger, Quirk, & Stewart, 1988; Fisher, 1999; Mularski, 1991; Olsgaard & Olsgaard, 1980; Stephenson, 1990; Swigger, 1985) are evidence that the relationship between research and practice is troubled and requiring attention.” (p. 32) [emphasis mine]

Haddow, G., & Klobas, J. E. (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-43. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2003.11.010