work of actors and organisations involved in delivering the service.


European models of RM include rela- tionships with a wide array of stakeholders and present marketing as embedded in the networks of the service organisation, the market sector and whole social ecosystem. Our service model draws on Nordic RM based on interactive network theory and influenced by contemporary thinking on strategic alliances, quality management and organisational design. Evert Gum- messon defines RM as “marketing seen as relationships, networks and interaction”.9 At a practical level, multi-stakeholder models such as Gummesson’s 30Rs of nano, market and mega relationships and the Cranfield “six markets” model offer readymade frameworks for libraries intent on developing strategies for relational en- gagement or evaluating their performance in relationship management.10 The notion of the Boundaryless Organisation emerged at the General Electric Company in the fast-moving infor- mation-centric business environment of the 1990s as a new mode of working based on collaborative relationships spanning the traditional boundaries of hierarchy, function, institution and geography/cul- ture. Alternative concepts include virtual, network and inside-out organisations, which all assume boundary-spanning work will deliver speed, flexibility, integration and flexibility.


Boundaryless organisations basically make non-hierarchical cross-functional/ multi-professional/ interdisciplinary teams the modus operandi for many every- day tasks, instead of limiting their use to special projects. Similar models have been identified in higher education. Celia Whitchurch defines a spectrum of “blend- ed” or Third Space roles in the academy, including “bounded”, “cross-boundary” and “unbounded” professionals, whose work spans functional, institutional, sectoral and geographical boundaries in ways that many librarians will recognise as typical of current practices in supporting research, learning, growth, wellbeing and sustaina- bility in their institutions.11 Cultural Humility originated in the healthcare domain in the 1990s before spreading to social work, education and other sectors. It entered the library dis- course around 2017 with Nicole Cooke’s groundbreaking work on serving margin- alised groups. The concept “stretches the idea of cultural competence” beyond critical self-reflection and respect for cultural differences to a lifelong commitment to redress power imbalances in libraries and build relationships with diverse communi- ties.12


It has gained momentum in academ- ic libraries from renewed efforts to advance diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging via decolonisation, liberation, indigenisa- tion and revitalisation of library collections, classification systems, reading lists and


42 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL


Key terms defined


Network society: “A modern type of society with an infrastructure of social and media networks that characterises its mode of organisation at every level: individual, group/organisational and societal” 14


Relationship Marketing: “Strategic management of relationships with all relevant stakeholders. These include not only customers, but also suppliers, influencers, referral sources, internal markets, etc.” 15


Boundaryless Organisation: “an organisation without boundaries, where knowledge flows freely from where it was developed to where it is needed within the organisa- tion or with customers and suppliers” 16


Cultural Humility: “an ongoing process that focuses on three things: self-evaluation of one’s own background and expectations, committing to redress power imbalances, and building relationships” 17


Democratic Professionalism: “sharing previously professionalized tasks and encour- aging lay participation in ways that enhance and enable broader public engagement and deliberation about major social issues inside and outside professional domains” 18


Social Capital: “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit” 19


Social Network Analysis: “Network analysts investigate patterns of relationships that connect members of social systems, and how these patterns channel resources to specific locations in social structures” 20


literacy education. Crucially, practitioners recognise that individuals have multiple identities that may affect their interactions with others in different service contexts, including relationships with other workers in their libraries and parent organisations. The theory of Democratic Profession- alism was developed by Albert Dzur in the early 2000s as a middle ground between the conservative technocratic-consumerist tradi- tion of professional work and the progressive radical-activist alternatives emerging in domains such as law, medicine, social work, university teaching and academic librar- ies.13


Such movements reflected growing concerns that professionals had become self-serving and remote, they were not dealing with critical human needs and were failing in their social responsibilities. A key argument centred on their intermediary roles and whose interests were being served by their interventions. Dzur argues that de-professionalisation is not the solution to the professional monopoly of tasks. Instead, what is needed is a redistribution of expertise through sharing of responsi- bilities, tasks, knowledge, authority and power with citizens. We should reform professional work as a collaborative effort in a co-operation and partnership model that assumes exchange of ideas, co-creation of products and co-direction of services.


Tools for thinking


A relational model of collaboration and partnership involves novel roles, a new skill mix and a significant mind-shift. Working differently across boundaries requires new frameworks for planning and designing person-centred and team-based help and facilities and also for assessing and evaluating resources and services. A resource-based view of library organisa- tions is needed, such as the perspectives


offered by intellectual and social capital theory, which promote a holistic view of tangible and intangible library assets and capabilities through a social lens. Academic library interest in mobilising invisible assets began with work on institutional information strategies in the 1990s. The focus on relational and social capital came later and coincides with a huge surge of studies in higher education adopting a social capital paradigm to investigate diversity, equity and inclusion issues. Social capital is widely used to survey personal networks, neighbourhood belonging, community relationships, civic engagement and other indicators of social wellbeing. It is a complex concept with multidisciplinary origins and vary- ing definitions, but this pluralism offers versatility as an analytical and evaluative framework. The various conceptions share an interest in relationships and resources, specifically how personal and social relationships of individuals and groups generate and facilitate access to resources. Three overlapping strands of thinking focus on the symbolic, network and normative dimensions of relation- ships. Leading theorists concentrate on different dimensions, but subscribe to the same basic thesis that relationships have the potential to provide resources that can be mobilised for social action. All three perspectives have been used by education and library researchers, with some scholars combining different theories for more nuanced understand- ings of complex situations. Recent higher education studies have investigated the social networks and relationships of students and academics from minority groups at different stages of their schol-


October-November 2023


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60