How can librarians and research managers work together?

Sarah Slowe is the Head of the Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC) at the University of Kent. The office was established last year and reports to the Assistant Director of Library Collections (Information Services) with a dotted line to Director of Research Services. Both, alongside an Internal Board, set the direction of the OSC. In this blog, Sarah discusses how research managers and librarians can most effectively work together to help make an impact.

I’ve been attending a number of conferences this spring, meeting a few people, talking to those involved in research services and libraries. Throughout these conferences and networking opportunities, a version of this scenario keeps playing out:

Delegate: Hi there, Sarah. What do you do?

Me: I’m the Head of the Office for Scholarly Communication at the University of Kent (Canterbury, Kent, UK, enter relevant reference here).

Delegate: Oh, so you work in The Library/Research Services. (Interesting side note at this point… those I meet at conferences nearly always assume I work in the area that the main conference is aimed at.)

Me: Well, yes and no – I work with both the Assistant Director (Library Collections) in Information Services and the Director of Research Services. I also have an internal advisory board with the 3 Associate Deans for Research that is chaired by the Dean for…

Delegate: Huh? You work with both?

From this point on, the conversation diverges – reactions vary from mild surprise and interest, via “How do you prioritise work given by each?” to “Don’t you end up like a bone being fought over by two dogs?” or “You’re not a librarian?” (I’m definitely not a qualified librarian).

Here’s the thing… the library, and information services more widely, and research services… and all the other departments I work with… we’re all on the same team. We’re all here to support the amazing, interesting, engaging and committed researchers that work at Kent.

Take, for example, the data management plan. They are required by the funder for many applications. Someone at an event recently remarked, “funding officers don’t care about data management plans”. I disagree – funding officers care about funding applications. All of it. They want them to be as good as they can be, but they do not need to be experts in research data management because we have an amazing research support librarian who is up to date on all the best practice, requirements and standards of research data management. They do not need to know how to write a data management plan. They need to know who can help.

At this level, most people can see the synthesis, but then move on to ideological questions. The most common of which is “How do you support open access with conflicting needs?” At first, this question was so out of the blue that I didn’t really understand – how is there a conflict? Open scholarship, from REF article compliance to fully open research methods, data, outputs and review is a good thing. The challenge is to engage well, and with the least administrative burden possible.

So, how do I work with both Information Services and Research Services? Really, it is easy. Different perspectives on an issue is useful for a richer understanding. Different working styles and practices engage different researchers – researchers are individuals, with individual needs and preferences, so it is great to have research support that offers a range of approaches. Varied knowledge and experience enhances the questions that are asked, which leads to a more comprehensive and effective answer.

I talk. A lot. Although I listen far, far more. Does it create more work? I don’t think so; I just think it evolves it. It may well mean it takes longer to change something, but when it does, it (hopefully) works for more stakeholders when it is made, and many key people are already engaged.

I really can’t overstate how valuable the different skills, approaches and priorities of the dual reporting lines have been over the first year of the OSC. I have learned far more from both of them than I would have learned from each individually. I suspect if you asked them to list the top three activities I should do today, you’d get six items, but if you asked them for the top OSC priorities over the next year, they would overlap fairly comprehensively. If I was micromanaged, if on a day to day basis it was crucial that I achieved the top three activities for each, this would cause a level of conflict but (thankfully) that is not how we work – by focussing on the medium to long term aims, we have a united direction.

Of course there are challenges – what to develop first with limited resources? Where do responsibilities lie? Time, resources and personnel are limited. There are differences in how the departments work that are a result of their core business and how they solve challenges many of us at Kent face.

So in answer to the question raised in many interesting conference conversations… yes, I work for both. Yes it works. It is not always easy. But (so far) it is always worth it.

Article Details
Author:

Sarah Slowe,
Head of the Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC), University of Kent

Date Published:

July 13th, 2018

Would you like to contribute to our Real Impact blog? Find out how.

Recent News & Blogs

- Discover impact news from across the globe

Keeping the door open

Shelley Allen - Open Research

As the new year dawned, the open access landscape was already in full discussion as cOAlition S requested feedback on their proposed framework for transformative journals. Here I explain our position on this framework and our aspirations for the future. At Emerald we are committed to providing a leading service for open research, in a

Read Article

The 1st issue of Real Impact is now live

Read the latest news and insights for the change-makers in the research community, who are passionate about making a difference and challenging the status quo.

Read Article

Stay In School campaign: Operationalising the extra medical measures to address the issue of fistula in Northern Nigeria

Dr. Bankole Allibay

Fistula and Extra-Medical Solution The orthodox response to gender-based sicknesses is scientific medical treatment. Although not incorrect, field experiences show that these treatments are often times reactive, and do not prevent a repeat incidence. Social performance practice recommends proactive social risk diagnosis and proactive risk management procedures, rather than reactive impact management. Such is the

Read Article

We use cookies to enhance your online experience. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to accept them in accordance with our cookie policy or you can .

Emerald Logo

Privacy and information

You can find further information about our privacy policy here.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings and ensure that the website works correctly, for example logging into the website.

If you disable these cookies, we will not be able to save your preferences and you may not be able to log in to the website. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

You can find further information about our cookie policy here.

Third Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

You can find further information about our cookie policy here.

Privacy and information

You can find further information about our privacy policy here.

To enjoy the full experience of our website please .