A recent article in the
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
provides the results of a
fascinating small scale study of Canadian business and industry
librarians and their involvement in information synthesis and
analysis (ISA). This prompted reflection on the extent of my work
involving ISA, or what I had previously loosely termed “value
adding”. It also encouraged me to consider whether my colleagues
and I should be providing more ISA within a British devolved
government library service. This blog structures my thoughts and
reflections.
The study – a
brief overview.
Patterson & Martzoukou (2011) surveyed 98 Canadian business and
industry librarians in October 2007, with in-depth follow-up
interviews with eight respondents. The study sought to identify:
whether business librarians were undertaking more ISA as part of
their roles,
whether this was in response to increasing demand for this type of
activity,
undertake such work by collaborating with colleagues, through team
work; and
how have librarians equipped themselves with skills to perform
synthesis and analysis.
The authors identified similar past studies and found a lack of
clarity in the definitions for ISA. Indeed this activity may also be
called information packaging / re-packaging, intelligence provision,
or intelligence analysis. Patterson & Martzoukou therefore
suggest these definitions:
“Synthesis was
defined as the process of putting raw data / information together in
a logical way, while analysis is the process of finding
relationships between different pieces of information and then
drawing inferences from the relationship to convert information into
actionable intelligence” (p.50)
Patterson and
Martzoukou found that 37% of respondents undertook both synthesis and
analysis work, 35% did one or the other, while 28% considered that
they didn't do any . Level of ISA undertaken was suggested to be
associated with level of experience (length of time working in the
organisation/ business information sector), as well as knowledge and
understanding of the subject area. The study further investigated the
nature of work roles (Figure 1). One third of Canadian business
librarians (34%) reported roles that involved activities of
collecting data or information; a fifth (21%) summarized literature,
and nearly a fifth summarized market information (18%). There was
lower activity in the more advanced ISA roles of drawing conclusions
(13%) or making recommendations (14%).
Patterson &
Martzoukou conclude that nearly three-quarters of business librarians
surveyed are undertaking synthesis and analysis, and suggest that the
demand for this type of work has increased over time. The internet
provides an easily available source of information for end-user
searching, and therefore requests received by business librarians
tend to be increasingly more complex, and result because the user has
been unable to find the information for themselves. The authors also
conclude:
“It is believed
that the role of the informational professional as an intelligent
provider will continue to evolve and therefore it is important to
ensure that effective mechanisms that support this transition are
present in the workplace.” (p. 58)
So how does this
resonate with me?
I
work in a library and information service within a UK devolved
nation, providing a legal information service, supervising and
providing backup support for the business librarian. This article was
of immediate significance for me for three reasons:
As a comparator
for levels of ISA undertaken by other business librarians;
As a further
stimulus for reflection on levels of ISA in my own legal information
work;
As a catalyst for
evaluation of our whole service approach to ISA.
When I first considered
the amount of value-adding or information synthesis and analysis work
undertaken by my colleague and I it didn't seem terribly significant.
However, delve a little more deeply into the nature of our outputs
and it soon becomes clear that whilst we may not undertake much
analysis we certainly do a wide range of synthesis. In terms of
business information while much of our work falls within the
traditional category of “collecting data / information” there are
still elements of analysis and synthesis:
is this company
report up to date, is it complete and accurate? We substantiate
information where possible by providing several sources for the
information. (Critical analysis)
Similarly with
Director reports, is there variation in director name, do dates of
birth, other business associations make sense? (Critical
analysis)
market
intelligence from a number of key suppliers, and also identifying
what we don't have direct access to. (Synthesis + Critical
Analysis). Evaluations of markets via different means: newspaper
articles; complex searches within company information databases,
journal articles etc. (Synthesis)
literature search
results – carefully selected references, presented consistently,
often with clear statements of limitation or perceived information
gaps. (Selection and synthesis)
Similarly, in legal
information work I spend time checking facts, presenting information
as concisely and in a format that will suit my requester. Typical
outputs include:
listings of
relevant case law, prioritised by key cases where listings are
extensive (selection and synthesis)
identify
legislative provisions of relevance to particular queries,
(analysis)
provide literature
searches (Selection and synthesis)
undertake more
detailed research looking at Hansard / National Assembly for Wales
debate proceedings on a specific aspect of a bill. (Pepper &
Hart research). (Analysis
and synthesis).
Patterson and
Martzoukou provide a framework for what they consider to be ISA
roles. I have used this to reflect on our current provision and also
to identify possibilities for future training and development (Table
1).
Table
1. Synthesis and analysis activities. What are they, do we currently
do them and what is the scope for further development?
Work Process
|
Routines
|
Business Librarian
|
Legal Librarian
|
Potential for further development?
|
Reference Interview
|
Clarify client's information needs: keywords,
type of information required. Wider context of request. How will
information be used?
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Re-look at process and supporting
documentation. Many of these interviews are now conducted
remotely, (phone / email interaction). How can we make this
remote query taking more effective?
|
Brainstorm
|
Thinking of keywords, sources and approaches.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Could be more collaborative?
|
Strategise
|
Decide final search terms, search strategies,
sources, Consider limitations, and how these may be overcome
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Is this process done formally / at all – or
do we skip straight to Pilot Search?
|
Pilot Search
|
Informal “quick and dirty search” -
provides sense of what is available and how likely search
strategy is to be successful. Can be more systematic / formal –
with review and client feedback at the end.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Consider more formal approach with client
dialogue for more involved searches?
|
Plan Again
|
Depending on results of the pilot search. Also
an iterative process throughout searching stage
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Opportunity for further client dialogue
|
Searching for information
|
Search evolves over time as new keywords /
concepts are identified.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Distil and evaluate
|
Evaluation as the search progresses, with
continuing refinement as required. Quality and fact checking /
confirmation undertook. Selection of useful references in
accordance with criteria. Bibliographic software may be used to
collate results, de-duplicate.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Refining this phase, developing expertise /
confidence.
Use of bibliographic management software.
|
Synthesis and analysis
“Synthesis was defined as the process of
putting raw data / information together in a logical way, while
analysis is the process of finding relationships between
different pieces of information and then drawing inferences from
the relationship to convert information into actionable
intelligence” (p.50)
|
Synthesis: keeping most of raw data intact;
highlighting relevant passages, text and data that are
particularly pertinent; producing a reference list. Data
extraction sheets / spreadsheets. Often undertaken in parallel
with info gathering.
Analysis: only undertaken when subject
knowledge / confidence is high. But may include evaluating
information found, strengths / weaknesses of the search sources
/ results. Analysis also includes inclusion / exclusion of
findings for relevance.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Promote this role. Recognise what we do in
terms of synthesis and analysis, but also clearly differentiate
how other professionals' expertise is vital.
|
Format and distribute
|
Creation of the report to transfer findings.
Taken to a refined level could mean providing a “one pager”
of significant findings, pin-pointing more detailed information
sources. May also mean compiling information into formats that
are quick and easy to digest (e.g. tables, charts).
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Scope for really adding value in providing a
“one pager” or key findings. Restructuring our literature
search results files?
|
From this analysis it becomes clear that there are significant
elements of ISA work currently undertaken. This quick evaluation
therefore does much to dispel my original hunch that we don't do much
value-add or ISA work. I feel confident that when evaluated against
Patterson & Martzoukou's framework my colleagues in the Policy
Support Library Team would also rank highly for ISA work.
Scope for further
development?
Table
1 details many areas for further developing, from re-evaluating our
practices in the reference interview, seeking greater and longer
interaction / involvement with the requester and their information
needs, reconsidering the pilot search stage, increasingly
collaborative working within the library team, using bibliographic
management software, redesigning our search results template to
provide a brief summary or “one-pager”, and possibly a new focus
on effectively marketing our information distillation, evaluation and
synthesis skills.
So
although we undertake considerable information seeking, synthesis and
evaluation work, might we undertake more analytical work in the
future? I would caution against such a role change for the following
reasons:
Our organisation
is large and we employ specialist professionals (e.g. social
researchers, economists, statisticians, business analysts, lawyers
etc). Much of our work involves providing these professionals with
our findings so that they can undertake the complex and specialist
analysis. In a recent survey of library users we asked if there was
demand amongst our users for librarians to conduct analysis. A very
clear response was received, along the lines of, “definitely not!
That's my job”. This mirrors Patterson & Martzoukou's findings
that half of librarians worked collaboratively with others.
However, this fails to recognise the extensive work undertaken in
information synthesis, and evaluation of sources, search strategies,
limitations and strengths.
We aren't the
experts, and therefore there is a real danger that we could draw
incorrect or inappropriate conclusions. Our expertise lies in
understanding the information landscape, in knowing how to gain the
most from it, and understanding potential limitations and
restrictions. Some of our subject remits are incredibly broad,
preventing us from truly getting to grips with the full range of
topics required. Business and legal librarians work across policy
directorates, and exemplify the difficulties of being able to become
fully competent within all subject areas.
Lack of training
and confidence in undertaking analysis work, and a pressured work
environment that doesn't encourage development in this direction.
Lack of time. ISA
work would require far more time than we have available to us.
Requester
confidentiality / reluctance to divulge the “full picture” to
the librarian. This mirrors findings with Patterson &
Martzoukou. We are often provided with broad search terms because
were the requester to be more specific then confidentiality may be
breached. However, do requesters appreciate how we value our Code of
Ethics and Professional Practice, and how closely we work to this
Code? Can we be more “assertive” within the reference interview
in order to understand the real and full intent of the enquiry and
the actual information requirement that lies beneath the initial
approach?
So where to next?
This study has provided, for me, a fresh perspective on ISA. I had
previously fallen into the trap of lumping all extended information
handling skills into one “value adding” category, and in doing so
underestimated and undervalued elements of this work. Patterson and
Martzoukou provide a framework for considering aspects of ISA,
providing stimulus for a revised consideration of how our service can
move forward. This helps identify areas where we won't “tread on
others' professional roles”, and where we can add real value to our
organisation. It may also help in identifying activities that are
viable given current resources and staffing, and those which are not.
Crucially it will also hep us promote the extensive work that we
already undertake!
One challenge will be in providing training and mentoring for
colleagues to develop and expand their information synthesis and
analysis roles. External courses may be suitable, but I also think
closer dialogue with our users may provide an excellent opportunity
for training and development. For instance working closely with a
requester well beyond the point of information delivery will be
helpful in allowing us to see, first hand, how information is used by
the requester. This will provide us with direct experience of some of
the problems of how to work with the information supplied, what
conclusions are or should be draw, what additional information is
required. This may therefore provide librarians with greater skills
in structuring information so that it can optimally meet user's
needs. The adoption of peer support and review of work undertaken by
colleagues could also offer opportunities for development and
advancing our practices
These aspects really aren't new or innovative but this reflection
demonstrates the value of reconsidering service provision from time
to time, using benchmarks to identify potential for service
development, promotion and marketing.
Final thoughts
This was a survey of Canadian business librarians. Are there cultural
differences that need to be considered? Does the role of North
American librarians and information professionals differ
significantly from those working in the UK? I suspect roles and
expectations do not differ greatly, but nevertheless this would need
to be proven.
Perhaps more significantly the survey took place just prior to the
global economic recession that started in 2008. What impact has the
recession and the associated changes in the library and information
sector employment landscape had on the nature of work undertaken by
librarians? There has been significant reduction of employment within
the commercial, legal and financial sectors as a consequence of the
recession. Many organisations will have reduced or totally removed
librarians and information professionals from their labour force. For
those who remain does this mean that pressures of routine work are
too great to enable the same detailed focus and allocation of time to
ISA roles? Or has the converse happened, acknowledging that greatest
benefit can come through ISA output from librarians, requiring
end-users to do more of the routine / basic information sourcing for
themselves. The push for a growing “self service” culture within
my own organisation, freeing up time for librarians to undertake more
value-adding work, is still being considered as a viable, cost and
resource effective model for future provision.
