In this concluding chapter, I present two kinds of conclusions. First, I discuss various theoretical implications and present the Activity constructs expressed in the early researching efforts of academic librarians. The model is preliminary in nature, and aims to inform future research in the field. Next, I provide practical conclusions for librarians and libraries and discuss best practices suggested by the findings from my research study. These best practices should give useful applied advice for libraries and librarians to plan research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.
5.1 Theoretical Representation of the Activity of Academic Librarians’ Researching Initially this study was motivated by a desire to understand how academic librarians developed their early skills and competencies in researching. However, the discussions
inevitably centered around the Activity of Researching. Even questions about essential skills the interviewees learned or advice to new librarians trying to do research drew from applied learning rather than supplementary coursework. In CHAT, it is normal to develop by doing, which
seemed to suit development of researching competencies. But this study did not effectively build a focus on development distinct from doing. Some possible reasons for this are: it may be that asking about activities before learning steered the interviews towards the Activity instead of development; it may be an inevitable theoretical effect in using the CHAT construct model instead of focusing on other aspects of CHAT; or it may be that researching and development of researching competencies are nearly inextricable in the experiences of these librarians. So, my modeling focuses on the Activity of early researching activities and experiences of academic
librarians. Therefore, I present a discussion of CHAT analyses and a CHAT Activity model of researching in academic librarians’ early research projects.
5.1.1 Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Academic Librarian Researching Activities
Before considering a preliminary model of researcher competencies development among academic librarians, it is valuable to go back and re-examine the implications of the findings of this study on CHAT analytical interests. Some of the findings interact meaningfully with the concerns and implications of CHAT as a view on researcher competency development. Looking at these theoretical implications and attempting to align them into a full view of learning should give some cohesion to the preliminary model.
This re-examination of the researching Activity highlights how researching looks in the CHAT framework, because I believe that this view provides some insight into CHAT and its application. However, it should be noted that this view, though theoretical, is derived only from the current study of researching among librarians. Even so, these ideas may be conceptually relevant to the development of similar complex suites of competencies, of the sort that one usually develops through long hands-on applied learning experiences. With that caveat, I present some potential modifications of CHAT for the situation of librarian research competencies development, and for the concept of research competencies development as viewed from a CHAT perspective.
5.1.1.1 Contradictions and tensions in the nature of the Object of researching. One of the analytical concerns of CHAT is the concept of contradictions that point out the presence of tensions. A major contradiction that arose in this analysis was conflation of the aims of researching. This conflation was between researching with an aim at discovering
findings and researching with an aim at producing artifacts. Talking about “research” with interviewees sometimes led to discussion of artifact production and sometimes to the discovery of findings. Sometimes both findings and products were discussed together, treating the report of the findings and the discovery of the findings as one conceptual Object.
CHAT suggests that contradictions often stem from tensions in the system. A common tension in CHAT (which is based in the Vygotskian school which, in turn. has many Marxist influences) is value tension. As mentioned in 2.4.3 above, many systems are seen to have tension caused by use-value of activities in tension against an exchange-value of the activities. In the case of research competencies, the conflation of the research finding with the research artifact is likely due to this very kind of value tension. There is an exchange-value placed on the
production of articles and presentations, while the use-value lies in the usefulness of the findings themselves. By putting a price on productivity, the academy creates a problematic contradiction. This emphasis on exchange confuses the issue of why we do research; it encourages a belief in the academy that researching a lot is more important than researching well. This is particularly visible in environments where productivity is mandated. On the one hand, the exchange-value of research helps to ensure that research happens. On the other, it means that the product is valued in and of itself for its ability to be exchanged for continuing employment, rather than being judged on the usefulness of the findings.
Although this view does not require any adjustment in the CHAT view of Activity, it highlights some specific points such as tight coupling of researching Objects and Outcomes, as well as a conceptual bifurcation of what is meant when librarians talk about research. These points of coupling and bifurcation may need to be emphasized in training and discussions about
research among academic librarians. These points may also have further implications about CHAT in knowledge work and professional work.
5.1.1.2 Fractional navigation of the Zone of Proximal Development.
A particular feature of librarians’ development of researcher competencies appears to be that there is not a single area of uncertainty. Instead, there are multiple interlocking uncertainties that they face in developing research competencies. Some of these are sequential sets of
competencies such as understanding human ethics generally and then understanding campus IRB rules specifically. However, many of them are not so tightly linked, such as understanding the traditional format of a journal articles and understanding the submission process for journal articles. Because it is possible to submit an article without following the traditional format – although the review process will then present problems – these loosely linked competencies are difficult to navigate. They can occur sequentially but they do not necessarily have logical linkages in procedure. Moreover, there are a large number of competencies involved in a
successful research process, as we saw in Chapter 4. Trying to work through them all for an ideal learning experience was not feasible for these learners. Instead, some learned just enough of the process to make it successfully through a research project (or they did not make it through, and were faced with confusion). Instead of facing the whole of their uncertainties around research, they faced as many as were necessary for one project, then learned or planned to learn more in a second project.
My thinking on this is that the uncertainties are too numerous and complex for the whole cloud of uncertainty around research to be navigated at once. There is not even a clear beginner’s stage for reducing the cloud in a systematic stepwise fashion. Instead, I believe that each
uncertainty and learns through those. They then piece those together as best they can. These pieces are fragments of the learner’s uncertainty, and so I am calling this fractional navigation of the Zone of Proximal Development.
Traditionally, development through the Zone of Proximal Development (in both the Vygotskian school overall and in early versions of CHAT) is considered to look something like the process shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: The Zone of Proximal Development --- Development by navigating uncertainties
Engeström’s work, in the second and third generations of CHAT and beyond, has
included the concept of expansive development, wherein increasing difficulties are navigated by learners and teams of learners. Engeström concentrates on organizational development and knowledge work in his concept of expansive development, seeing organizational learning through facing small and then larger uncertainties as an upward spiral of growth. Other
on individual learning in an expanding upward view from simple to complex concepts via scaffolded learning. A simplified view of expansive learning or scaffolded learning can be visualized as in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2: Breaking up the Zone of Proximal Development into smaller uncertainties for navigability
However, no scaffold exists for many of the academic librarians who are attempting to develop their research competencies. If there is such a scaffold, participants did not find it accessible or perhaps did not find it to be applicable to their situation. Instead, they faced a large cloud of uncertainty, so much so that even the right way to approach it was itself uncertain. They therefore took multiple attempts, approaching pieces of a route and experiencing different
elements of the research experience each time they tried. This experience can be visualized as shown in Figure 5.3.