Search results

Within the developing exploration of the role of the scholar-practitioner, the situation in which scholar-practitioners engage in the scholarship of practice in their own organizational systems has not received much attention. This chapter adopts the position that scholar-practitioners are not merely practitioners who do research but rather that they integrate scholarship in their practice and generate actionable knowledge, that is, knowledge that is robust for scholars and actionable for practitioners. This chapter explores the phenomenon of scholar-practitioners engaging in the scholarship of practice in their own organizational systems as inside change agents. It discusses how scholar-practitioners engage in inquiry-in-action in first-, second-, and third-person modes of inquiry and practice in the present tense and provides a methodology and methods for such engagement that it be rigorous, reflective, and relevant.

This chapter describes the growth and decline of Library Operational Research (Library OR) since the first descriptions of such activity appeared in the 1960s. The changing nature of OR and of the academic library is discussed and a case is made for recognition of a new paradigm in Library OR. First explored are the origins of OR and its application to academic libraries, summarizing some of the critical assessments of Library OR from those active in the field, and exploring some of the literature that relates to the development of OR itself, the academic library as an entity, and the modeler/library–practitioner interaction. Each indicates that a new way of working in Library OR is required if it is to deliver the results that OR has delivered in other contexts. The growth and decline of Library OR has been very marked. The decline has coincided with a reevaluation of the nature and contribution of OR itself, particularly in relation to modeling activities. New modeling approaches have evolved involving problem structuring, and these new paradigms extend naturally to Library OR and would help ease a number of concerns raised against the use of traditional OR models. Practical implications of this chapter are that academic libraries are facing an era of unprecedented change and some of the issues to be addressed relate to identifying and managing strategy and managing change. The adoption of new paradigms could enliven the practice and contribution of Library OR.

In this chapter, the discussion revolves around the necessity for responsible management within the context of a complex environment. The 21st century has brought forth numerous challenges for businesses and organizations globally. The rise of VUCA has made it increasingly difficult for companies to achieve success using traditional management approaches. Addressing adaptive challenges and wicked problems, which are sustainability issues that are hard to define and even harder to solve, has become a significant concern for today's enterprises. To tackle these challenges, a shift in management and leadership paradigms is needed, particularly a shift from ego-centric to eco-centric management styles and from boss-centric to self-management approaches. Embracing a more responsible and sustainable management strategy is essential for addressing adaptive challenges. This could involve integrating Taoist principles like compassion, conservation and compliance into management practices and collaborating with stakeholders to devise innovative solutions to tackle adaptive challenges and wicked problems.

As libraries evolve, they accommodate and refine their services to support the varied institutional, student and faculty, and course needs, including developing workshops tailored to course requirements or that provide students and faculty with additional skills that promote their academic pursuits. Some services provided by academic libraries reflect strategic choices that promote the increased alignment of the users’ needs with the institution’s needs. Some needs anticipated and observed by many research-intensive institutions are data literacy, research, and software skills. This chapter describes the case of the academic library at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), an R1 research institution, which offered the Data Workshop Series (DWS) to help prepare students, faculty, and staff to clean, manipulate, analyze, and visualize research data. This applied, student-centered technical workshop series was guided by authentic assessment, specifically performance tasks, which were employed to ensure the participants’ engagement and comprehension of the applied techniques presented. The performance tasks also helped participants gain confidence in their data skills. From them, the participants learned that they can use the software and solve questions on their own. When reflecting on what they learned in the DWS, participants stated that they could develop their skills on their own with additional practice and that they plan on integrating the software into their academic work. By offering the DWS, UNLV Libraries has taken a step toward being part of the life of the user, a partner in more than information findings, but in knowledge creation.

If law's foundational promise lies in the belief that it promotes the social good, then we need to reassess the limits of that promise. Exploring the often problematic translation of legal goods into social ones, the central claim is that the legal discipline has been limited by a “legal imperative” that manifests itself in an excessive focus upon law as a social tool and attitude of complacency in the face of law's limits. Seeking to displace this approach, the author argues for an attitudinal shift that expresses honesty about limits, greater social inquisitiveness and care about law's promise.

This chapter focuses on techniques and technologies to aid groups in making decisions, with an emphasis on computer-based support. Many office workers regularly meet colleagues and clients in virtual meetings using videoconferencing platforms, which enable participants to carry out tasks in a manner similar to a face-to-face meeting. The development of computer-based platforms to facilitate group tasks can be traced back to the 1960s, and while they support group communication, they do not directly support group decision making. In this chapter we distinguish four technologies developed to provide support to group decisions, clustered into two main traditions. Technologies in the task-oriented tradition are mainly concerned with enabling participants to complete tasks to solve the group's decision problem via computer-supported communications. Group Decision Support Systems and social software technologies comprise the task-oriented tradition. Alternately, in the model-driven tradition, participants use computers to build and use a model that acts as a referent to communicate, mostly verbally, about the group's decision problem. System modeling and decision-modeling technologies constitute the model-driven tradition. This chapter sketches the history and guiding ideas of both traditions, and describes their associated technologies. The chapter concludes with questioning if increased availability of online tools will lead to increased use of group decision support technologies, and the differential impact of communication support versus decision support.

This commentary challenges researchers to include grounded social processes generated by individual action and interaction as they study managerial efforts in an attempt to impose prescriptive innovation models on them. Specifically, innovation planning for the middle of the organization and the middle stages of the innovation process should consider a variety of social processes that emerge from the interaction of individuals in their grounded setting. Researchers in this area should place much more emphasis on interpretation and further explore how leaders might facilitate interaction to increase the changes of dynamic adaptive emergence. We also suggest a consideration of managerial mindsets to determine how executives attempt to influence those in the middle, and we call on researchers to explicitly recognize differences in types of innovations and technological discontinuities.