Crossing the Bridge: Library School to Library Job

Please welcome our new First Year Academic Librarian Experience blogger Nisha Mody, Health & Life Sciences Librarian at the Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In the summer of 2016, I decided to start applying for librarian jobs. I wouldn’t graduate until May 2017 at the earliest, but a Health & Life Sciences Librarian position at UCLA immediately sparked my interest. Before getting my MLIS, I was a speech-language pathologist. And I love the sun. These two experiences convinced me that I was qualified for this position. I figured this would get me to start updating my resume and website (which now needs more updating). And it worked, I got the job! I was shocked and overjoyed.

Since I was applying to jobs on an earlier timeline, I also ended up starting my position before I finished my MLIS. Thankfully, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has an online learning option to complete an MLIS. So I moved out to La La Land in March 2017 to start my first real librarian job. I have been in my position for a little over 6 months now, and while it took me awhile to understand the myriad of UCLA acronyms, I am finally starting to feel that I have a decent grasp of how things work. However, this grasp has been very (or not very) informed by my experience in my MLIS classes and while working at the Communications Library. I was also able to chronicle several of my experiences and reflections while writing for Hack Library School. Similar to Abby, I took the advice to get as much library experience as possible. I tried my best given that this is my third career, I am in my mid-30s, and I honestly just wanted to get this show on the road.

Now that I have gotten that first library job, I am starting to see what I did learn in library school and working in a library – these lessons have helped me tremendously. However, I realized that there were some learning opportunities I missed. Yet one of the most enlightening aspects of my experience has nothing to do with library school. Rather, I see how the skills I obtained in my previous careers in IT consulting, IT recruiting, and speech-language pathology are transferring to library-land. I’ll outline each of these a bit right here:

What did I learn?

While working at the Communications Library, I gained knowledge about the importance of positive patron interactions (and how to communicate in not-so-positive interactions), outreach, library organization, the integrated library system, interlibrary loan, and the myriad of possibilities to be more critical in all of these areas (and more).

In library classes, I learned the value of intellectual freedom and how this related to control. I learned how various medium of books (print, electronic, and everything in between) are perceived and used. While I don’t ever see myself working in technical services, I gained knowledge about cataloging and metadata which have helped me understand how resources are categorized. My involvement in University of Illinois’ local Progressive Librarian’s Guild chapter allowed me to advocate for issues seemingly outside my immediate library space. I was also able to integrate experiences from library school to my work in a library through an independent study by starting a Human Library chapter.

All of these lessons (and probably more) were essential to how I view the library today. They have given me the framework for my work today and in the future, especially to never remain neutral as a librarian.

What did I miss?

One of the things I loved about my program was that there was a lot of freedom in the classes you could take. However, the downside of this is that I chose to take classes that looked oh so dreamy. As a result, some of the practical classes fell by the wayside. I wish I took classes around collection development and the administration and management of libraries. I never felt the urge to be a collection development librarian, but I do have to start making these decisions within my current role. I know I can learn this on the job, however, having a better foundation would have been helpful.

I am only now really seeing Ranganathan’s fifth law, “The library is a growing organism” in action. But, in my opinion, it is critical to really understand how different functions within a library relate to each other to see this organism in action. After being in less fulfilling careers, I was resolved to take the classes I was passionate about. And while I am happy I was able to do this, I forgot that I am also passionate about the library itself. This required me to have a grounded understanding in all of the different areas of librarianship whether I was to focus upon them or not.

What have I been able to transfer?

While I am thrilled to not directly be working in corporate culture (because, let’s be real, it is always integrated in our work), I did learn valuable skills regarding project management organizational structure, processes, and workflows, that I can infuse into my work today. I also dealt with various stakeholders in these positions; I see how these interpersonal skills have been beneficial when I interact with vendors now. These experiences have also given me critical thinking skills to analyze and navigate through a stakeholder’s motives and desires.

My work as a speech-language pathologist has first and foremost amplified my empathy. Invisible disabilities are real, and I have learned to never assume anything about a colleague and/or patron. While working in the schools, I learned about a lot of economic, family, and social obstacles that many of my students faced. Everyone has a story, and this has been important for me to keep in mind as a librarian. Additionally, being a speech-language pathologist requires one to create tangible goals for patients/students/clients to measure progress. This has easily translated into learning outcomes for library instruction. I realized that I have always been a teacher of sorts, and while the setting is different, the skills are transferable.

I am truly looking forward to contributing to this blog, and I hope that my skills and knowledge are ever-increasing – building upon the past and supporting a growing organism.

Like a Real Library?

I’m a regular reader of Matt Reed’s Confessions of a Community College Dean blog over at Inside Higher Ed, and last week he published a post that has had me thinking ever since. His post “Like a Real College” reflects on the experiences that hybrid and online learning in colleges and universities sometimes leave behind, like graduation ceremonies and in-person social interactions. Reed notes:

I’m consistently struck at the resonance that some of those traditional trappings have for non-traditional students. They may need scheduling flexibility and appreciate accelerated times to degree, but they still want to feel like they’ve attended a “real college.” I’ve heard those words enough times that I can’t write them off as flukes anymore.

How does this translate to academic libraries? Lots of recent research has shown that many students appreciate what we think of as a traditional library atmosphere for doing their academic work: book stacks, good lighting, table and carrel desk seating, and quiet (see Antell and Engel, Applegate [paywall], and Jackson and Hahn, to name just a few). My research partner Mariana Regalado and I heard similar preferences from the students we spoke to in our research, several of whom also specifically mentioned their admiration for the the very formal, serious library at one CUNY college. To me this suggests that our library space planning and renovations need to balance collections and study space, and acknowledge the importance of books and other physical academic materials for environmental as well as informational reasons.

But what about online learning or competency based degrees, as Reed refers to in his column? How can the academic library contribute to the “real college” feeling that students say they want? Online learning seems to pull apart the collections and workspace roles of the library. And while not always the easiest or most user-friendly experience, online access to our college and university library collections is often (and increasingly) possible.

Is it possible to replicate, or even approach, the traditional academic library experience for studying and academic work with online-only students? One question I have sounds almost too simple to be asked, but also seems fundamental to the online student experience. Where, exactly, are our students when they do their online and hybrid coursework? At home? At the public library? At a coffeeshop (or McDonald’s)?

The college where I work is still very focused on our students in face-to-face classes, and we don’t have any fully-online degrees (though the university that my college is part of does). Anecdotally, we do see students working on their coursework for online or hybrid classes in our library computer labs, though I’m sure they also work on it elsewhere. But I’d be interested to hear about other academic libraries that have grappled with this: are there things we can do to bring the traditional, library-as-place to online-only students? Is the “real library” experience possible?

Give Me A Chat Box

If you haven’t been taking advantage of webcasts/webinars (whichever you like to call them), you probably will be soon enough. When John Shank and I started doing webcasts at the Blended Librarians Community back in 2005 there weren’t many opportunity for academic librarians to take advantage of webcasts for professional development. Now there are so many being offered you’d hardly have time to attend most of them – and the good news is that many are free. Who’s offering webcasts? Well, you can start with ACRL – they’ve got a whole e-learning series of online seminars and chats. Then you have offerings from organizations such as WebJunction, the Alliance Library System, SirsiDynix, Library Journal (caution – some are thinly veiled product promotions) and of course, ALA – and don’t overlook webcasts from EDUCAUSE and other higher education organizations. I added a good webcast from EDUCAUSE about two weeks ago on mobile platforms for library services.

Sometimes I like to attend webcasts just to experience the different delivery platforms being used, and to take in any new presenter techniques for delivering a webcast. As a veteran of multiple platforms and many presenters, I tend to have high standards and can be a harsh critic when the webcast falls short of my expectations. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it has to take shortcuts. The tools for delivering a robust webcast experience are out there, and they support all types of possibilities for dynamic, interactive online programming. Yesterday I attended an ALA-sponsored webcast (ALA Techsource and LITA) on the ALA Midwinter Tech Trends program. The idea was to replay some of the original content with a mostly new set of speakers. The speakers were all quite knowledgeable about the topics, they had good content, they were professional and the technology worked flawlessly for me. But overall I thought the webcast fell short in one very important – well make that two – areas.

First, there was no chat box for the participants. All you could do was submit a question with no certainty of it being answered. For me a chat box for the attendees is a must these days. When librarians attend a webcast they want to comment on the fly, talk to each other, and in the case of questions they are often answered by the attendees before the speakers can respond – the sharing of knowledge is a critical component of a great webcast. So what happened yesterday? Since there was no chat box the presenters told the attendees to take their conversation over to Twitter using the hashmark #TTwebinar. This, to me, is a lame solution to the lack of a chat box. For one thing, you have to keep jumping between the webcast and Twitter (Ok, you could have multiple windows going). What about someone who doesn’t have a Twitter account? He or she is immediately a non-participant, and having a Twitter account shouldn’t be a requirement for participation. The conversation also suffers. Many of the tweets are just repeats of what the presenters just said (e.g., Griffey just said Blio is cool). Well we all just heard him say that, so why are you repeating it back to everyone. Well, of course we know why. Folks want to share the proceedings with their tweeps – and hopefully get a RT I guess. Does anyone blog a conference presentation anymore? So the webcast participants get lots of echoes and the tweeps get content with little context (why does Griffey think Blio is cool?).

Second, and this ties in to the lack of a chat box, there just wasn’t enough interactivity for the participants – which may be why many of them headed off to Twitter rather than staying with the presenters. Part of this is owing to the presenters themselves. Did they think about building opportunities for interaction with the attendees into their presentation slides? Did they get any advice on this or help from an experienced webcast designer? But the fault doesn’t lie entirely with the presenters. The platform, with no chat box, no polling tools, no VoiP, leaves them with little opportunity to engage the attendees. Even if they wanted to ask us a question or have us take a poll (e.g., How many attendees are working on a mobile platform for their libraries?) they couldn’t have done so because they had no way to get a response from the attendees. We were like a a silent majority – lots of ideas and opinions but no way to express them – except for a totally disorganized Twitter feed.

Forgive me for griping about a free program. Don’t get me wrong. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn from the presenters, and I respect that they’ve given their time to try to enlighten me with their expertise. I also appreciate that ALA is making this program available. I’m a strong supporter of webcasts as both a professional development opportunity for librarians – and a great opportunity for them as presenters (you don’t have to travel, it saves your organization a bundle, you get professional exposure and best of all – you share your ideas). But as webcast attendees, given the state of the technology, we should no longer have to suffice for stripped down, we-talk-and-you-listen webcasts. That’s not a good formula for success – for the presenters or the attendees. And if no one gripes about it, why should any of the organizations offering webcasts make an effort to improve them. If the choice of webcast platform, GoToWebinar in this case, can’t support an internal chat or other interactive features, please take a look into elluminate or adobe connect. While it was certainly not a fail, with a better platform and planning, this webcast – and many others – could be a shining example of everything that makes webcasts a great virtual learning experience.