Today and tomorrow I am in Seattle for the Association of Research Libraries institute, "Scholarly Communication Outreach: Crafting Messages that Grab Faculty Attention."
This afternoon's session, led by Jon Wergin, discussed effective ways of engaging with faculty so that they are more receptive to librarian messages about challenges to the current scholarly publishing model.
The workshop was productive. We discussed positive and negative experiences in engaging with faculty, and developed some good take away messages. Most resonant for me: the need to anticipate likely questions before a meeting, and how important it is to engage with faculty on an informal basis rather than via lecture or soapbox presentation.
So that was good. But I found myself paying just as much attention to how Wergin facilitated the discussion. For a good part of the afternoon he recorded observations offered by presenters on a laptop, which was projected onto a screen that we could all see. Many times he wrote comments verbatim, but sometimes he edited them. For example, when someone said "Be flexible" that became "Flexibility" in our written record (all workshop attendees will get the slides later.)
It's unreasonable to expect that Wergin would have written everything down word for word; I found his edits to be reasonable. But the interaction reminded me of how delicate the power dynamics are whenever someone is entrusted to record the thoughts of others. We had a team-building workshop at NYU a few years ago, also with a facilitator who recorded comments on a laptop projected for all to see. Then, too, I realized how treacherous this can be.
The faciliator can err by not catching the nuances of what someone said, thus "editing" the thought somewhat inaccurately. The person speaking then has to decide whether to protest or let it go in the interest of group harmony.
The facilitator also has to mediate when a participant seeks to amend or summarize a comment offered earlier by someone else. This happened one time today; the latter comment was offered as reasonable extrapolation of an earlier, more specific point. But if Wergin had replaced the specific comment with the more general observation, that would have negated the earlier point already on the screen. So--wisely, in my view--Wergin just made a new bullet point.
I'm not sure why these interpersonal nuances are so compelling to me. I think it's because this is where "real work" happens, in some vague and mushy interpersonal space. Today's session was among strangers gathered together, but similar interpersonal dynamics apply at our old and familiar workplaces. So they're worth noting and absorbing...and perhaps even blogging about!
Comments