RECEPTIVITY TO INNOVATION IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS
H. Frank Cervone
completed a survey that explored two dimensions: (1) the nature of relationships within their professional advice network and (2) the individual’s personal receptivity to innovation. Analysis of the nature of relationships within the professional advice networks was based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques, in contrast to the analysis of the respondents’ receptivity to innovation which was based on quantitative measures. Based on the information from the 440 respondents, the results of this research indicate that there is a relationship between the size of the professional advice networks and individual’s receptivity to innovation, but additional aspects of the professional advice network may play a role in an individual’s overall receptivity to innovation.
INTRODUCTION
In an academic environment where ‘‘the need for collaboration and greater understanding between parts of the academic silos is necessary for the survival, if not the advancement, of academic work’’ (Savage & Betts, 2005, p. 4), intra- and interorganizational innovation takes on an even greater importance to reach across ‘‘typical academic silos to form mutually beneficial networks for knowledge sharing’’ (Raines & Alberg, 2003, p. 37) that enable the effective delivery of service to both students and faculty.
A lack of innovation in academic units can result in service lapses that may have significant negative implications for individual units within the university as well as the institution as a whole.
Traditionally, the university library has held the role of caretaker of scholarly information on behalf of the academic community. However, as electronic modes of information delivery have begun to overtake traditional print-based formats, the scholarly information environment has been changing rapidly. In an environment where there is a fundamental shift in what people consider a library to be (Shuler, 2005), there is also a significant change in the expectations of academic libraries (Andaleeb & Simmonds, 1998; Baruchson-Arbib & Bronstein, 2002; Harley, Dreger, & Knobloch, 2001; Kroeker, 1999; Lynch, 2003; Pinfield, 2001). As a result, in order to provide a stable and substantive repository of scholarly resources, it is critical that libraries be adaptable organizations that respond to changes in the environment quickly, efficiently, and effectively. Academic libraries need to realign efforts into growth areas and reassess the centrality of other functions (Akeroyd, 2001).
However, even in the face of strong evidence, some academic librarians have persisted in ignoring, denying, and resisting adaptation to environmental changes during a period of time when academic libraries have been ‘‘at the center of a revolution y (that) only hints at the magnitude of changes in information and knowledge production, preservation, and dissemination that are taking place’’ (Euster, 1995, p. 12). In many ways, this resistance should not be surprising as ‘‘people’s natural inclination is to hold on to whatever feels familiar, even when there are better alternatives’’ (Munck, 2002, p. 23).
An additional complicating factor is that innovation in libraries is sometimes difficult to detect because innovation in libraries is usually related to services, and innovation in a service-based environment is inherently less obvious than it is in product-based environments (Deiss, 2004).
Nonetheless, the resulting implications of resistance to change can be dire, as ‘‘librarians who cannot go forward will find themselves pushed to one sidey(where) the library exists in name but it will become a backwater and an alternative organization will be developed’’ (Pack & Pack, 1988, p. 130).
It is because of this potential for becoming a backwater that authors such as Cluff (1989)have stated that ‘‘creativity and innovation are crying needs in the library profession’’ (p. 185).
It is possible that environmental factors account for a predisposition against innovation. For example, the findings fromLuquire’s study (1983) may be due to the production orientation (Lewis, 1986) of most academic libraries. On the other hand, lack of innovation may be related to a broader issue.Brodie and Mclean (1995)have observed that libraries, as part of their organizational strategy, seem to encourage those who work in them to accept insularity and to see themselves as victims of circumstances in which they can neither innovate nor change.
These portrayals, however, stand in stark contrast to others, such as the environment Garten and Williams (2000) described in their history of libraries that showed that ‘‘librarians placed an early emphasis on the establishment of consortia and networks’’ (p. 64) as mechanisms for both facilitating cooperation inter-institutionally and for enabling change and advancement. Lack of innovation in librarianship is also at odds with the picture thatDysart and Abram (1997)and Malinconico (1997) painted of librarians as leaders in technological innovation, not just in libraries, but with technology in general. This leads to two simple, but very significant questions: Why does this contradiction exist? Why are there such disparities in innovative practice?
It is possible that part of this paradox is due to the very nature of academic librarianship. Every organization has assumptions about its values
and beliefs (Bolman & Deal, 1997) as does every profession (Pavalko, 1988).
Librarianship is deeply rooted in a culture of strong values and beliefs:
freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, and an overall strong service orientation. Alvesson (1993) has described an institutional culture such as this as a ‘‘sacred cow’’ (p. 20) organizational culture: a culture where the members’ internalization of particular ideals and values can cloud the rational acceptance of new or different beliefs because of emotional identification with values. As a result of historical processes in which people gradually accept and internalize beliefs because they have been shown to be successful, cultures operating from this perspective ‘‘stress the limits of instrumental reason by focusing on deep value commitments and the stability of the core beliefs and values of the culture’’ (Alvesson, 2000, p. 33).
Consequently, organizational strategies in this type of culture are tightly coupled to a specific set of values, values which place an inherent limit on change processes. Both Ulrich (2002) and Kanter (2002) have noted that organizations characterized by strong reliance on standards, expertise, and a performance-orientation are less likely to be innovative. These values and rules tend to remain in place, for extended periods of time, because of the general cultural stability that tends to be found in most organizations (Harrison & Carroll, 2006). Eventually, this stability can affect organiza- tional performance (Sørenson, 2002).
Because these beliefs, values, and behaviors become so ingrained in the culture, they are no longer obvious to those within the culture and become unquestioned rules for the organization (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This is exemplified in the strong group cohesion that develops in this type of organizational context which has negative, rather than positive, conse- quences (Flynn & Chatman, 2004). One of these negative consequences is that the members of these types of organizational cultures tend to see their core values and beliefs as almost impossible to change because of their unquestioned character and the deep commitment the organization has to them.
Nevertheless, because an organization is a subjective experience (Smircich, 1983), cultural persistence or the transformation of culture is directly associated with how cultural information is transmitted (Cavalli-Sforza &
Feldman, 1981). It is well known that social networks affect how people discover and process the information required to do their work (Cross, Rice, &
Parker, 2001), so one possible way to affect change in an organization might be by drawing on the knowledge of people in the professional advice networks of the individuals working in the organization in order to increase the amount of external input into the organization.
Yet a more fundamental question must be addressed before it can be said that this approach would be an effective strategy. One needs to know if the professional advice network of a person actually has an affect on their receptivity to innovation. Since the earliest research into organizations, it has been known that the behavior of an individual is
‘‘directed by his habitual relations to his fellows in the group’’ (Veblen, 1909, p. 245) or as Bauman and May (2001) have more recently put it,
‘‘how we act and see ourselves is informed by the expectations of the groups to which we belong’’ (p. 20). That is, everyone is a social construction, formed, sustained, and changed by ongoing interaction (Scott, 1995). It is known that shared experiences can lead to shared meanings (Alvesson, 2000) and that interpersonal connections outside of the immediate environment can substantially broaden ones perspective (Pavalko, 1988).
These connections can have a major impact on what we choose to do (Valente, 1995).
Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that a larger professional advice network could have a greater positive effect on receptivity to innovation than a smaller one. This supposition is based on the increased amount of diverse external stimuli additional interactions would provide (Robinson & Stern, 1998). On the other hand, if professional advice networks were not to have a positive effect on a person’s receptivity to innovation and actually inhibited a person’s receptivity to innovation, these networks would not be effective mechanisms for increasing innovative input into an organization.
With this in mind, the focus of this study was to determine what influence professional advice networks may have on receptivity to innovation. By using methodologies from social network analysis (Freeman, 2000; Scott, 2000; Wasserman & Faust, 1994), the study explored the relationships between the extent and diversity of professional advice networks and the receptivity of individuals to innovation.
This study addressed three broad areas of inquiry:
1. What is the relationship between receptivity to innovation and the compositional qualities of a person’s professional advice network?
2. What are the distinctive characteristics in the composition of the professional advice networks of people with high receptivity to innovation?
3. What are the distinctive characteristics in the composition of the professional advice networks of people with low receptivity to innova- tion?
These issues were addressed through the investigation of four specific hypotheses:
H1A. People with large professional advice networks are more receptive to innovation than those with smaller networks.
H10. People with large professional advice networks are not more receptive to innovation than those with smaller networks.
H2A. People with the highest receptivity to innovation have large professional advice networks that are heterogeneous.
H20. People with the highest receptivity to innovation do not have large professional advice networks that are heterogeneous.
H3A. People with externally focused professional advice networks are more receptive to innovation than those with internally focused professional advice networks.
H30. People with externally focused professional advice networks are not more receptive to innovation than those with internally focused professional advice networks.
H4A. People with the lowest receptivity to innovation have professional advice networks that are highly homogenous, both demographically and professionally.
H40. People with the lowest receptivity to innovation do not have professional advice networks that are highly homogenous either demographically and professionally.
In order to answer these, questions in two different knowledge domains were asked. First, it was necessary to understand aspects of the professional advice networks of the people participating in the study. The questions in Appendix A, suggested byCross and Parker (2004), were used as the basis for this inquiry into both the scope and composition qualities of individual professional advice networks.
For the second knowledge domain, questions from the Rusaw Multi- factor Assessment instrument (Rusaw, 2001) were used to measure the receptivity of individuals to innovation. These questions, outlined in Appendix B, measure the strength of belief in the various principles (defined inAppendix C) which contribute to an environment that fosters the development of innovative products and services.