As a former electronic resources librarian, along with what I’ll call my own unique set of life experiences, I’ve found the practice of radical acceptance has served me well. Acceptance as an ongoing practice is not optimism or permissiveness, but healthily recognizing how and when to let go, and knowing that acceptance is not the same as approval. This practice comes in handy, especially in life’s lemon-giving moments. I’ve mentioned a few from the technical side of library work in previous posts. Certainly the current sociopolitical climate is not at a loss for examples of this either.
When these “Seriously?” moments occur in my job, I am reminded of another idea, comfort with ambiguity, which frequently appears as a desirable skill in job advertisements, along with its companion resilience. Both have been on my mind since attending a recent ACRL presentation, Resilience, Grit, and Other Lies: Academic Libraries and the Myth of Resiliency. As ubiquitous as both ambiguity and resilience are in my field, this presentation reminded me how poorly defined, misunderstood, and problematic they are when idealized professionally. So I was thinking about how to unpack this concept related to my own academic librarianship and how a personal practice of acceptance (without approval) might play a helpful role.
It seems in the everyday ambiguity, as well as ambivalent with the same root, often describe something squishier. For example, ambivalent is often misused to describe someone who is passively undecided or not invested in a particular outcome, rather than actually feeling multiple different ways about a thing. Similarly, ambiguity is often synonymous with an amorphous state of confusion than specific set of circumstances that make a solution unclear.
While inexactness and its synonyms might reflect this murky spirit, isn’t ambiguity really only inexact because it can’t be just one thing? The fact that it can still be exactly many things is what I find interesting and overlooked in the experience of ambiguity. Recognizing the possibility of multiple interpretations as specific, distinct avenues for action is especially important for efficiency and service in e-resources management.
Here’s a very basic example working with and a technical problem solving of e-resource access, which I repeatedly encountered when working with publishers’ technical support:
Me: Hi, My name is [me] from [my institution]. We have a current subscription to [your journal] but we’re not able access content online.
Tech Support: What’s your institution’s [subscriber number, IP address, and other details]?
Me: *gives details*
Tech Support: OK, it should be working now.
And that was it. No explanation, no assurance it would not happen again, no way to plan workflow to prevent this very regular disruption. Good problem solvers who thrive on the details of the problems and the solutions will no doubt feel frustrated and confused by this. But the situation is no more a mystery than it is comfortable. There likely is an exact cause for this problem. It’s just the cause is likely multiplicitous, complex, and in most cases less important than the fact that the problem is now fixed. So we move on. In responding to the given ambiguous situation, we must accept the priorities of the current moment rather than the past or future. This mindfulness of the present moment is a key part of the practice of acceptance.
Change may the new normal, but comfortable with ambiguity?
I think these tendencies show up in e-resources librarianship in particular because positions of this type developed from those which focused on the exacting and predictable realm of attention to detail. Certainly the evolution of libraries content and services necessitates characterizing those details as now really messy and inexact. But position descriptions mistakenly place this ambiguity in the context of a personal quality when it is really a quality of the environment. To use such a problematic word, and to prefer people who are comfortable in that state, doesn’t say anything about how people should actually respond in these situations. Expecting comfort in ambiguity falsely sets people up to stay in that state longer than may be necessary.
And this is where the problem of resilience comes in. As the ACRL presentation I mentioned notes, research shows resilience often normalizes oppression of marginalized groups. Systemically, I wonder how resilience hinders innovation, preventing us from answering the question “what can we stop doing?”.
“Abandonment as the key to innovation…what can we stop doing?” #acrl2017
— V. Arellano Douglas (@arellanover) March 25, 2017
So since, as a colleague once reminded me, the privileged have to be uncomfortable to recognize oppression, it is useful to discard a preference for comfort in the face of ambiguity. Resilience or grit may help us more than comfort, as long as it is focused in the direction of action. It should not be the normal or preferred quality of an individual professionally.
The idea of resilience as oppression also reminded me of another “What fresh h*!! is this?” experience working as an elementary music teacher. At one of the two inner-city schools I was assigned, the music room was the stage in the gym’s auditorium. A burlap-like stage curtain was the only barrier between my music classes and the screaming, sneaker-squeaking, ball-bouncing, whistle-blowing activity of PE. I often preface my sharing of this experience with disbelief that this was a reality to describe – it seemed so obviously nonsensical and in need of a solution. So, I once spent a week’s planning periods reworking the entire school schedule so that all teachers still got their planning period during elective classes, but in a way that PE and music didn’t overlap. Working out those complexities was frustrating and certainly not comfortable. At the same time, I was driven to resist normalizing the resilience expected of the situation. I knew this was more than a personal preference of the [should-be librarian] music teacher than the institution was leading me to believe. Before leaving this job, I don’t think I ever gave these alternatives to my principal, but succeeded in getting a new curtain for the stage. When I noted to the principal that the change didn’t block sound as I’d hoped, I’ll never forget her response.
“Why do you care, since you won’t be here any longer?”
On one hand her response demonstrated everything that’s wrong with institutional resiliency. At the same time I can also see it as an honest statement of my own realm of control. When work and life inevitably boil down to “Just…what? Why is this normal?”, a practice of acceptance means neither normalizing nor pursuing crazy to find resolution.
Image CC BY 2.0 with attribution: matthew_pennell “The circus has left town”
If there is a proactive path through ambiguity or resilience, then I believe the skill we’re really after is how to recognize, reassess, and negotiate our power to influence and control. This requires a constant give and take of our experience of that control as anxiety or relief. It means exactly both action and letting go and not necessarily having to choose between the two. When requiring choice, it means knowing how not to wrestle very long in the choosing.