STRAIT to the future

8th Asia-Pacific Specials, Health and Law Librarians Conference

One-person libraries: islands or innovators?

Carolyn Malkin
Arnold Bloch Leibler

Keywords: One-person libraries; innovation; technology

Abstract

Librarians are constantly being told to adapt to change, to develop their library services, to keep track of current technology, to think about intranets and knowledge management. Are one-person librarians in a position to do this? It would seem there are many obstacles which prevent smaller library services adopting new technologies at the same rate as their better-resourced colleagues. There is also a perception that as the only library professional in an organisation, one-person librarians must necessarily be more isolated. This must also have an effect on their ability to implement change.

This paper examines how one-person and small law librarians are coping in the information age. Are they keeping up with their colleagues from larger organisations? Do they want to, or need to?

Through a questionnaire distributed to colleagues, and general discussions and observations, the author concludes that one-person librarians, despite the obvious impediments to wide-sweeping technological change, are keeping pace with the library profession, and innovating in their own way. Isolation is not as much of a restriction as might be expected, and the future holds many challenging opportunities.

Introduction

Some time ago I was discussing with my Australian Law Librarians' Group (ALLG) colleagues some ideas for forthcoming activities. I mentioned that our firm was looking at having me conduct a legal research and Internet training session for external clients, and suggested this might be an activity the ALLG could take on. The response from my colleagues, who work primarily in larger law firm libraries, was surprising. They suggested that Internet training was a little "passe", and that intranets and knowledge management were the way of the future. I became concerned that my library was not keeping up with technology and that I, by extension, was not innovative enough.

These doubts are probably more prevalent because I am the only professional librarian in my organisation. As Guy St. Clair, a prolific writer on issues affecting one-person librarians, has said, "When people have no one else with whom to share their professional concerns, they quickly find themselves wondering if they are as good as they should be, if the products of their labors are of a standard that matches the demands of their customers."[[1]]

As a result of this recent experience, I was prompted to embark on the research presented in this paper, primarily to reassure myself and my organisation that one-person and small law libraries are keeping up with their better-resourced colleagues and are still relevant and useful in the 1990s.

My methodology for coming to the conclusions presented here was quite simplistic. I sent a brief questionnaire to a dozen colleagues in small and one-person law libraries in Melbourne. Seven of them replied. I am drawing on their input as well as my own experience and reading to provide some impressions of the position of one-person librarians.

What is Innovation?

If one-person librarians are to be considered innovative, we must first examine what this term means. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, innovation is "something new or different introduced" or "the act of innovating; introducing of new things or methods."[[2]]

In writing about innovation in libraries, one author has suggested that to be considered truly innovative, the new idea should be new to the field of librarianship as a whole.[[3]] However, the number of new ideas unique to the field of law librarianship would be quite small. I believe innovation can be the introduction of new ideas to one's own environment. It is about making a difference to one's library, implementing new methods or procedures, changing the services provided by predecessors. It should be irrelevant whether the innovation was an original thought. What makes it innovative is that the librarian has taken an idea and adapted it to the needs of his or her organisation. This is not exclusive to one-person libraries - librarians in all types of organisations are constantly sifting ideas, distilling them for use in their own environment.

There is an element of entrepreneurship in any consideration of innovation. One author has described this concept as "intrapreneurship" - that is internalentrepreneurs taking risks on behalf of their parent organisations.[[4]] There needs to be an organisational culture which encourages risk-taking and innovation. It is unusual for librarians to consider themselves entrepreneurs, but in many cases one-person librarians have the autonomy to develop ideas and implement them. The library committee to which I report told me they were aware that our library had potential to develop, but as I was the expert on library services, I would be the appropriate person to outline what that potential was, and how best to implement change. This is effectively a clean slate on which to introduce ideas.

Many ideas and innovations introduced at the one-person library level have come from elsewhere in the library profession. Often the large national, state or academic libraries have the luxury of budgets, staff and time to devote to working on ideas and ironing out glitches and problems. Once the idea has been refined , there are "early adopters" in other libraries who take it on for their environments. Although one-person libraries can be found at this stage, it is more likely most of us are "late adopters". Perhaps it is easier to let others with more resources discover the problems with an idea before we implement it. However, adapting a new idea at the micro level of a one-person library is still innovative for that environment, and no less valid or important than the original idea.

The Reality for One-person Law libraries

One-person librarianship is developing into a recognised discipline within the larger library management field. As such, there are authors who have established theories, written books and articles and defined the area of study so that standards can be applied. However, law librarianship is different. There are different factors at work which make working in a law library unique. So the one-person law librarian has two sets of standards from which to work. It is still difficult to generalise as all law firms have different cultures, different standards and expectations of their library service. However, some general impressions can be drawn from the questionnaire completed by my colleagues.

Firstly, technology has been a great advantage to one-person libraries. Less time is now spent on the general administrative tasks which often blur the lines between the clerical and professional elements of our roles. So accessioning, cataloguing, and circulation tasks can be automated. This leaves more time for more "professional" work - primarily our role as researchers. As Guy St. Clair says,

When there is only one person to do the work the distinction between clerical and professional is really no longer relevant. We admit that non-professional tasks consume a great deal of time... time which could otherwise be used in performing, at a higher level, many of the professional tasks that are not done as well as the librarian would like. ...the one-person librarian must think of himself or herself as a professional sometimes doing clerical work, not as a clerk working in a library."[[5]]

With the time afforded us by the automation of clerical tasks, we don't seem to be spending more of it on planning or new projects. All of the respondents indicated that the vast bulk of their time is spent providing reference and research assistance to library users. This is probably to be expected, given this is the primary role of any library. The time estimates vary from 40% to an amazing 80% spent providing this service. I imagine this would be quite a contrast with our colleagues in larger law firms who as managers would most likely have more time to devote to administrative tasks, as many would have staff whose role is solely to provide reference services.

The Internet has mostly been of tremendous use in expanding the small library's collection and making many more reference queries easily answerable. This means less time is spent trying to borrow items from colleagues and larger collections like the Law Institute and Supreme Court libraries. However, sometimes the Internet can seem like a double-edged sword. There is a perception among many library users that everything is online and free. We all know this is certainly not the case. But because so many requests can be answered quickly and easily using Internet resources, some users believe all questions can be answered in this way. One respondent indicated she was battling to maintain her budget for hard copy resources due to the belief within her organisation that the Internet superseded the need for much hard copy. Other respondents said that the Internet made users' expectations of the time required to provide answers a little unrealistic. Because the answer to yesterday's problem was nearly instant, then today's response should be the same. On the whole, however, the Internet has greatly improved the service we can provide our users, and we mostly wonder how we ever did without it.

Most of the respondents have responsibility for the library's budget, but have not presented a long-term strategic plan to management. The management of the library's budget does assist in providing the one-person librarian with relative autonomy. It also indicates the organisation's belief in the librarian as the most appropriate person to be making spending decisions and affirms the perception of us as professionals, akin to the marketing, IT or human resources managers who also have responsibilities for their budgets. Whilst this may be taken for granted in larger firms where libraries are well established and their place in the organisational structure is well understood, this can often prove to be a battleground for small libraries.

It may be that the respondents have not felt the need to provide a strategic plan to management as the communication lines are well drawn and utilised. The library's forward vision may be acknowledged via other avenues. Approval may be sought for projects on a more ad hoc basis. Respondents did not provide reasons why strategic plans had not been provided, but some suggested that more informal mechanisms were in place. My library committee prefers me to communicate ideas directly to them, rather than provide a substantial written document which will not be read. Once I articulate an idea to them, they are then better able to discuss the proposal succinctly with the whole partnership. Different cultures in different firms dictate the requirements.

Of the many projects listed by respondents as being planned for the coming year, intranets certainly feature, but do not dominate. Most respondents indicated that more fundamental services such as training and updating library collections were of most importance. In the previous twelve month period, most respondents listed Internet training as being the major new project completed. Several respondents also mentioned developing a precedents or opinions database. Intranets, where they are on the agenda, are only at discussion stages, or have already been imposed from above so the librarian has not had much involvement. Similarly, knowledge management is not being formally adopted by any of the respondents' organisations. This is not to say it is not an important issue, but it suggests that the ideas have not filtered down through the "early adopter" stage yet. I don't believe many larger Melbourne law firms are pursuing knowledge management in an organised, institution-wide way yet, either. I could boldly suggest that when senior and managing partners start talking to their colleagues about it, then it will be taken seriously in law firms. Whatever the case, it did not seem to be of overwhelming concern to any of the respondents, and priorities for new services seem to be directed elsewhere. Knowledge management and intranets take a major commitment of time and resources, which one-person librarians have in short supply.

Obstacles to Innovation

The reality for one-person librarians is in many respects not very different to the reality for any librarian. There are constraints and opportunities for all of us. Similarly, the issues affecting law librarians are universal, regardless of the number of staff we have. There are, however, several obstacles which seem more prevalent in the one-person library situation than elsewhere.
Firstly, many one-person librarians suffer from a lack of awareness within their organisations as to how their role is defined and their sphere of influence. In some cases, this contributes to a sense that anything is possible, but it can also be isolating and frustrating when trying to effect change. "The desired relationship is a partnership, a situation in which management recognizes the value of the one-person library to the organisation and, as a consequence, supports the work that the library does."[[6]] While this might be the ideal, it is a goal many one-person librarians have not yet attained. It is difficult to implement new programs and services when there is not universal support for the old ones, and even questions as to their relevance. It is important to constantly remind management that we are professionals in our field and that we have an expertise in managing information which makes us the obvious choice for implementing intranets or knowledge management or precedent systems. As one author puts it, "there's no reason why the in-house data-processing/computer services/MIS...people should be the ones offering Internet instruction."[[7]]

Yet there are many that do. In my firm, the term "professional staff" is used to describe professionally qualified lawyers only, and does not encompass the library manager, the marketing manager, IT or the human resources manager, all of whom are professionally qualified. Attitudes like these act as an impediment, preventing one-person libraries from reaching their full potential. Often in larger multistaff libraries, the questions of the role and position of the library, the expectations of management and the professional standing of staff have long ago been resolved. Despite this, law firm libraries of all sizes battle the image that we are cost centres for the firm and value is difficult to quantify and recoup.

There are libraries who do not operate in a culture which is open and accepting of change. Law firms are notorious as being traditional in their outlook and innovation is not a concept often linked with law firms. Partnerships often incorporate varying personalities and perspectives, and as a law firm librarian, it is often important to find a "sponsor" among the partnership in order to ensure the library's interests are considered. For innovation to thrive, there needs to be a culture which accepts it, or at least someone at a management level who advocates it. This works well at large multinational companies like IBM or 3M or Ford, but at the micro level of a small law firm, it is rarer. It is all very well to suggest that "Innovative thinking ought to be part of the librarian's job description'[[8]], but the reality is often different.

Information technology has, as stated above, been of enormous importance to the library profession. We are often "early adopters" of new technologies and certainly among the strongest advocates. This sometimes brings librarians into conflict with information technology staff who, apart from appropriating many of our terms and titles (such as knowledge manager or chief information officer), view technology differently and thus have difficulty understanding the librarian's perspective. I know this phenomenon is not limited to one-person librarians. It has been said that "librarians are very customer-service and individual oriented, while the IT department is more accustomed to dealing with people on a group basis and minimising the individual."[[9]] This is a feasible explanation, but it is important not to generalise in this area. There are some pro-active IT departments who are supportive and work well in conjunction with library staff. However, most of the respondents to my questionnaire indicated that the relationship with their respective IT departments was not as good as it could be, and an IT vision was not necessarily shared. Some did mention this was improving. Technological innovation relies upon a supportive and responsive IT department.

All librarians would probably say at different times their vision for their libraries has been thwarted by insufficient time, money or staff. These resources are always overstretched in library environments, but one would imagine one-person libraries would be particularly vulnerable. It is surprising then that some respondents felt that there was no factor in particular which prevented their library service from being innovative. Others mentioned the obvious time and staff restrictions, but also the IT environment in which they operate.

With anywhere from 40% to 80% of the respondents' time being dedicated to providing reference services, the remaining time one-person librarians have (many of whom are part-time as well) is precious. Much of it is taken up with training, general administrative tasks, current awareness services and collection maintenance. Where does one then find the time to be innovative? Somehow it happens, but is this necessarily at the expense of other services?

Every one-person librarian decides early on in his or her career to distinguish between essential and non-essential services. It is rare to find a one-person librarian, in law at least, who catalogues to strict AACR2 guidelines, for example. It is simply not necessary for most library services, and does not directly affect library users. However, the current awareness service may have been deemed as essential and therefore time devoted to it is justifiable. This practical approach means that one-person librarians concentrate their limited time on providing the services which are demanded by users. "The limitations of a library, especially one small enough to be managed by one person, are not cause for apology. Indeed, by limiting what they do, one-person libraries are often able to do things better than some of the larger institutions which try to do too much."[[10]]

Prior to working in a one-person library, I had started my career as a librarian at a larger law firm. When I moved to the small firm environment, I endeavoured to provide some of the same services I had been used to providing in my previous position, simply because I thought, naively, that was how a good library operated. This soon proved impossible to maintain, and I found when I dropped some of the services there was barely a ripple of disapproval, as users had not requested the services in the first place. A good one-person library service responds to the needs of its users within its available resources, and does not seek to be all things to all users.

It is still possible to be innovative within one's means. As mentioned above, it is innovative to be able to take a new idea or project and adapt it to the micro level in which we operate. Refining, adapting and distilling ideas, despite the limitations presented by our environment, is the essence of innovation in one-person librarianship.

Isolation

One of the themes of this conference is the effect isolation has on librarians and librarianship. Although our colleagues in Tasmania are geographically isolated, I suspect many of them view this as a challenge and opportunity as well as an obstacle. Similarly, one-person librarians are professionally isolated, but that situation can have its advantages.

To succeed in a one-person library environment, a professional librarian needs to have the confidence to make decisions alone, and to work with little direction or consultation. This does not mean all decisions are made independently. There are library stakeholders who should influence decisions, and colleagues are usually available for discussion and clarification of issues. Decisions are not made in a vacuum.

In my experience, librarians are on the whole a very cooperative profession. Perhaps this spirit is developed by our library education, which emphasises equality of access to information, and sharing of that information. Law librarians seem unusually cooperative. We operate in a highly competitive and adversarial environment, yet seem willing to provide information to any colleague who needs it (within reason). The Victorian division of the ALLG thrives because most members know help is usually only a phone call away. (I suspect the other state divisions are equally friendly, but I have no direct experience of them on which to draw.) One-person librarians are not excluded from this process, and in many respects the cooperation of one's colleagues can be a lifeline which prevents a feeling of isolation. When asked how they kept up to date with library industry developments, all respondents listed the ALLG and its meetings and their colleagues as the primary means. Journals and conferences are also important. To keep up with technological developments, they use newspapers, journals and the Internet as well as conferences. If anything, one-person librarians rely on their colleagues more than their counterparts from larger libraries, often as a sounding board for new ideas.

"It is essential to keep up-to-date with new technology and new trends in the library profession as these are going to provide you with new ideas which in turn can lead you to providing a better service. Talking with other librarians at meetings, workshops or seminars as well as visiting other libraries will keep you involved in the profession and broaden your perspective."[[11]] Therefore, input from other sources is an important means of keeping one's library service up to date and relevant, and, by extension, innovative. It is just as important for one-person librarians to experience continuous professional development as it is for the professional lawyers in a firm.

Although one-person librarians work alone, the respondents did not indicate this was a serious impediment to the development of their library services. It is the onus of the individual librarian to seek out colleagues and others to maintain the inflow of new ideas.

Conclusion

Where to for the future of one-person librarianship? Well, in law firm libraries in Melbourne, at least, it seems more of the same. There is always a level of frustration when one is confronted with obstacles which prevent the attainment of goals. And one-person librarians certainly have their fair share. The overwhelming impression gained from the respondents was that of pride in what we have achieved and are able to achieve. There is a sense that we are keeping up with our better-resourced colleagues, that we are practical about the services we can provide, that our users' needs are paramount, and that professional isolation is easily overcome, or at least not holding us back. While our experience is often different from our colleagues in larger firms, and even from each other, that does not necessarily mean it is any better or worse. We are surviving, making strides forward, innovating as best we can and heading "strait for the future" with confidence.

References

[1] Guy St. Clair, "Solo power: how one-person librarians maximise their influence", Information Outlook, December 1997, pp 27-33.
[2] The Macquarie dictionary, Second revision, The Macquarie Library, Macquarie University, NSW, 1987, p 901.
[3] See Patricia Willard, "Innovation with particular reference to libraries; a look at the future", Australian Library Journal, Vol. 38, No3, August 1989, pp 241-247.
[4] Brian Champion, "Intrapreneuring and the spirit of innovation in libraries", Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 9, No2, 1988, pp 35-43.
[5] Guy St. Clair and Joan Williamson, Managing the new one-person library, London, Bowker Saur, 1992, p 86.
[6] Guy St. Clair, "Solo power: how one-person librarians maximise their influence", Information Outlook, December 1997, pp 27-33.
[7] Anne C. Tomlin, "The three faces of Marian (Librarian/Cybrarian/Multidisciplinarian)", The Australasian One-Person Library, Vol. 2, No2, November 1997, pp3-5.
[8] Brian Champion, "Intrapreneuring and the spirit of innovation in libraries", Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 9, No2, 1988, pp 35-43.
[9] "AALL Videoconference report. The age of technology: your guide to change management", The Australasian One-Person Library, Vol. 2, No9, June 1998, pp 4-5.
[10] Guy St. Clair and Joan Williamson, Managing the new one-person library, London, Bowker Saur, 1992, p 84.
[11] Claire Body, "Implementing change in a special library - advice from an expert", The Australasian One-Person Library, Vol. 1, No3, December 1996, pp 1-2.

Biographical

Carolyn Malkin completed her Graduate Diploma of Library and Information Services at RMIT in 1993, having previously completed her Bachelor of Arts and working in litigation support at a law firm for several years. She has held positions in law libraries as Assistant Reference Librarian, Business Librarian, Systems Librarian and Library Manager before commencing in her current position as Library Services Manager at Arnold Bloch Leibler, a medium-sized Melbourne law firm, in 1997. Carolyn has been a member of the ALLG (Vic Div) since 1993, and became a committee member in 1998. She currently holds the position of Information Sheet editor, and has been involved in the Finding the Law subcommittee, conducting training sessions for new law library staff for the past three years.