Moving the library beyond the library: Reflections on an RLP leadership roundtable

This post is part of a growing series on the Library Beyond the Library. 

My colleague Rebecca Bryant recently offered a synthesis of roundtable discussions on cross-campus collaboration convened by the OCLC Research Library Partnership. The roundtables included 48 library leaders from 26 RLP institutions in four countries. Participants discussed how their libraries are collaborating with other campus units to provide research support services in response to university (or parent institution) priorities, and the challenges involved in making these partnerships work. Some of the participants also talked about how new cross-campus operational structures, involving the library and other units, have emerged, and the subsequent impact on the library’s value proposition. 

These topics all connect to a concept we recently introduced called the “library beyond the library” – the idea that academic and research libraries have increasingly partnered with other units on campus to address a range of emerging institutional priorities and expectations in research support, such as scholarly communication and open research, research data management, research expertise profiles, and research analytics. In engaging in these partnerships, the library role, contribution, and value proposition may not be clearly defined or recognized by other campus stakeholders. 

Rebecca’s post on the roundtables highlighted key motivations for building partnerships between the library and other units on campus to address emerging institutional priorities in the area of research support services. While our roundtable participants shared a wide array of motivations for engaging in these partnerships, they also marshalled an equally broad list of complexities and frictions that stood in the way of making them successful and sustainable. As the conversation turned to speculation about the future, and the possibility that cross-campus partnerships might be formalized into new kinds of multi-unit operational structures, responses were often pessimistic. The key difficulty? “It just won’t work on my campus.” 

“It just won’t work on my campus” 

The main insight of the Library Beyond the Library model is that the library’s expertise and capacities will be increasingly combined with those from other campus units under new operational structures, outside of current library administrative hierarchies. In thinking about this model, many roundtable participants expressed doubts that structures of this kind could emerge on their campus, citing, among other issues, the decentralized nature of campus organization, and the need for every campus unit to demonstrate a clear value proposition to senior campus leadership. A number of discussants summed it up with the observation that it simply was not how the campus operated. 

This is a very legitimate perspective, and we readily acknowledge that for some – perhaps many – campuses, the Library Beyond the Library model will find difficulty emerging, or if it does, be significantly limited in its extent. However, we would like to offer a response to consider alongside it. Our response touches on three main points:  

• Path dependency 
• Patience 
• Plurality. 

Path dependency 

In a recent OCLC Research report, Library Collaboration as a Strategic Choice: Evaluating Options for Acquiring Capacity, we identified four economic concepts that impact the decision whether to choose collaboration as a strategy for acquiring library capacities like expertise, services, or infrastructure. One of these concepts is path dependency, which addresses how organizations cope with change, especially when decision makers and other stakeholders are invested in established relationships, workflows, and systems for getting things done. In other words, “history matters.” A key reason that path dependency inhibits change is the existence of switching costs – the costs of moving away from one approach and adopting another, such as learning curves, building new relationships and workflows, and installing new software or equipment.  

Switching costs are indeed an important consideration when contemplating impactful changes like new operational structures. However, it is also important to consider status quo costs – the costs of avoiding change and continuing as before. We heard many examples in the roundtable discussions of potential status quo costs of the library continuing to operate autonomously in the provision of research support services: less visibility across the campus; less impact; fewer resources. For example, one participant noted that training workshops conducted in partnership between the library and another unit providing research support on campus attracted far more attendees than the training offered by the library alone. By acting in partnership, the library increased its visibility and impact. In short, switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher. 

Switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher.

Patience 

The Library Beyond the Library concept involves a movement toward new operational structures that combine library capacities with those of other campus units. But in listening to our roundtable participants, it is clear that this movement should not be interpreted – at least in most cases – as a dramatic, discontinuous, and abrupt shift from current operational structures to new ones. A better characterization of the dynamics underpinning the Library Beyond the Library is probably “evolutionary.” For example, the new Research Alliance unit at Montana State University, involving an operational convergence of five campus units including the library, was the result of years of planning and preparatory work preceding the launch. Moving from current operational structures to ones that formalize and sustain cross-campus partnerships can take years and years.   

The word “formalize” suggests another reason for the need for patience in shifting to a Library Beyond the Library model. We noticed that several roundtable discussants used the phrase “informal services” while at the same time acknowledging the need to formalize them. Participants characterized the informal nature of these research support services in various ways. For example, one participant noted that a number of services offered at their institution have yet to be documented on the library web site. Another indicated that instead of clearly scoped services, much of their library’s offerings in research support are more along the lines of encouraging researchers to reach out to the library if they need help. Another point raised was that sometimes new services that are not adequately staffed/resourced are deliberately kept informal and are not heavily promoted for fear of exceeding capacity limitations. These and other examples are all suggestive of a service space that, for many institutions, has yet to mature into a consistent operational structure. 

Given the current “informal” state of research support services at many institutions, it may be premature to consider transitioning them to Library Beyond the Library-type operational structures when the library – as well as other campus units – are still in the process of establishing a foothold in this space and clarifying what their unique capacities and expertise may be in contributing to related institutional priorities. One roundtable participant observed that in their experience, new services such as those emerging in research support tend to grow organically, and in their early stages, are almost entrepreneurial. As time goes on, formal resource allocations, service boundaries, and workflows eventually emerge. It is perhaps after this “sense-making” process, as the participant described it, that cross-campus partnerships for service provision can be usefully considered. 

It is perhaps after this “sense-making” process . . . that cross-campus partnerships for service provision can be usefully considered. 

Plurality 

It is important to emphasize that the Library Beyond the Library concept does not describe a monolithic, identical end state that all libraries are inevitably converging on. Rather, it is a framework for understanding trends in service provision in domains like research support, in which the library and other campus units are stakeholders in meeting institutional needs and priorities. But the outcome of these trends is highly context-dependent, and Library Beyond the Library operational structures, when they emerge – if they emerge – are likely to be quite diverse in shape and intensity. In this sense, rather than a specific endpoint toward which all libraries are moving, it is better to think of the Library Beyond the Library concept as a continuum of outcomes along which libraries will align themselves according to what works best on their campus. 

In our roundtable discussions, we heard a number of examples of how libraries are implementing the Library Beyond the Library concept, illustrating the plurality of ways cross-campus partnerships can be incorporated into new operational structures. 

The Library Beyond the Library concept in action 

Change is hard (see above regarding path dependency!). This is certainly true of the kinds of changes involved in adopting a Library Beyond the Library approach to service provision. Yet, as our roundtable discussions revealed, some libraries have taken steps toward those changes – albeit in different ways.  

Consolidated marketing of decentralized research support services 

One example of the Library Beyond the Library concept in action, mentioned by multiple participants, is the deployment of an institutional, concierge-style website that serves as a single portal or hub for researchers in need of research support. The website presents the institution’s research support offering in a holistic way, independent of the unit-specific operational structures underpinning the services. For example, one roundtable participant at a US research university described their online portal that aims to reduce the burden of connecting to research support expertise and services distributed across the campus, and in doing so, expand the reach of those resources throughout the local research community. While websites of this kind direct the user to the appropriate campus unit to fulfill their inquiry, the idea of presenting research support services as a centralized, institutional capacity (as opposed to a decentralized set of unit-specific capacities) certainly captures the spirit of a Library Beyond the Library model. From an operational standpoint, the website integrates the marketing of research support services distributed across multiple campus units. 

Convening institutional stakeholders on enterprise topics 

The Library Beyond the Library concept can also be seen in examples described by several roundtable participants of the library serving as the convener or co-convener of multi-unit efforts to address topics of institutional interest in research support, such as research impact or compliance. The connection to the Library Beyond the Library concept arises in the recognition that certain institutional needs in the research support space must be addressed through multi-unit collaboration – which in turn is a necessary condition for a potential future re-alignment of operational structures optimized to meet those needs. Acting as a convener of campus-wide committees, task forces, or interest groups confers agency to the library in gathering stakeholders around issues of institutional priority and identifying future collaborative partners. 

Demonstrating the portability of library expertise  

Lastly, the Library Beyond the Library concept appears in emerging expertise-sharing patterns where a librarian joins a research project or grant-planning committee as a team member. In these cases, the librarian combines their expertise in information organization with the subject experts on the team. Roundtable participants cited examples of this approach relating to evidence synthesis (systematic reviews) and research data management. A key element of this model is that it is based on the idea of the “librarian as expert”, possessing a skill set that can be dropped into research teams and combined with subject and methodological experts as an important contribution to the success of the project. In this sense, the Library Beyond the Library concept manifests in the portability of library expertise outside the library walls and into cross-campus research teams. 

It should be emphasized that none of these examples represent full-scale shifts in operational structures. However, they can be interpreted as first steps toward more expansive re-imaginings of cross-campus partnerships that do lead to formalized changes in operational structures as new cross-unit alignments coalesce. Consolidated marketing of decentralized services, gathering and convening campus stakeholders, and demonstrating the portability of library expertise into cross-unit venues can be interpreted as necessary precursors to future, potentially deeper, forms of operational reconfigurations further along the Library Beyond the Library continuum. 

Communicating the library’s value proposition 

An important aspect of the Library Beyond the Library concept is that the library value proposition needs to evolve alongside changes in multi-unit operational structures. As the library’s contribution to addressing institutional priorities becomes increasingly embedded in multi-unit collaborations, its value proposition must be articulated in new ways to reflect the changed circumstances under which it is operationalized. 

Our roundtable participants described some of the difficulties they have encountered in communicating the library’s value proposition in the context of cross-campus partnerships. Some spoke of the library being tasked with a lot of “invisible work” that no other campus unit is willing to take on: while this work needs to be done, the library’s efforts tend to fly under the radar with little recognition. One participant also noted that cross-campus collaborations often resulted in internecine struggles for leadership and reputation-enhancing credit. Others mentioned experiences in which the library initiates an effort only to have another unit take it over once it is off the ground; the library then steps away, its only reward the knowledge that the project is at least being sustained. 

Another issue that was repeatedly mentioned was that library contributions in the form of the temporary assignment of a librarian to a research team or other group, while highly valued by campus stakeholders, nevertheless quickly drained available resources. As one participant noted, everyone wants their own “personal librarian.” For example, systematic reviews, which were frequently mentioned as an area of high interest, tend to be bespoke allocations of staff time and effort, rather than a formal, clearly defined service supported through functional roles. In these circumstances, the library’s value proposition is not scalable.   

The challenge of surfacing the library value proposition in multi-unit operational settings is amplified in novel, emerging areas of institutional interest. Contrast this with a relatively long-standing model of library partnership with other campus units: embedded or liaison librarians. In this case, the library contribution is often connected to collection development, a traditional, recognized library function. But for Library Beyond the Library-type models taking shape in new areas like data management and research impact, the library contribution may take forms not immediately attributable to the library by other campus stakeholders (think, for example, of the “invisible work” mentioned above in the context of research support services). This illustrates the need for the library value proposition – and how it is communicated – to evolve in concert with changing operational structures, ensuring full recognition of the many ways libraries contribute to the university research enterprise. 

The realities of change 

As the examples above show, there are lots of ways to move toward a Library Beyond the Library operational structure. For those institutions where cross-campus partnerships are the best choice for providing research support services, building a successful, sustainable cross-unit operational structure will likely require overcoming the frictions of path dependency and careful consideration of status quo costs; patience to manage transitions as a gradual, evolutionary process, and a keen sense of timing to implement these changes when services have reached an appropriate level of maturity; and the ability to identify, among the plurality of options, the right way to organize (and formalize) cross-campus partnerships to align with local needs and circumstances. Underpinning all of this is the necessity to find new ways to articulate and amplify the library value proposition alongside any changes in operational structure that combine library capacities with those of other campus units. 

Our OCLC Research Library Partnership roundtable participants shared invaluable perspectives on the opportunities, challenges, and future of cross-campus partnerships in research support. Moreover, their on-the-ground experiences helped add practical context and nuance to the Library Beyond the Library concept laid out in our earlier post, rounding out the abstraction with a healthy dose of reality.  We thank all who joined us for the discussions! Stay tuned for more posts about the Library Beyond the Library as we continue to explore this topic and its implications for the future of libraries.

Thanks to Rebecca Bryant and Richard Urban for great advice on this post!