On Monday I attended both a General Faculties Council (GFC) meeting and a strategic retreat. The retreat consisted of members of the GFC, the Board of Governors, the Senate and the Alumni Council. We essentially had roundtable discussion regarding the future of the university. Overall it was very interesting and enjoyable.
The GFC is headed up by the President of the University. All the Vice Presidents, plus the Provost and Vice Provosts are members. All the Deans and department/program heads are also members (I think). And then there are elected members that represent various other groups on campus, like the Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the academic and non-academic staff unions, etc. I'm considered a Graduate Student-at-Large on the GFC as I was nominated by the GSA to be on the council. Last week we had a brief overview of university governance and it turns out the GFC is 33% students, but most are undergraduates. Students are also members of the Senate and the Board.
Anyway ... the retreat was organized into 12 tables. Each table was assigned a specific topic to discuss. Each table was also assigned a facilitator and a scribe. The facilitator mediated the discussion and the scribe (obviously) made the notes of what was said. The scribes consisted of actual staff members in the President's office and other Governance offices. The facilitators ended up being Deans. For example, table 1 (my first table) was lead by the Dean of Physical Education. Table 5 (my second table) was lead by the Dean of Science. Table 3 was the Dean of ALES. Table 4 was the Vice Provost and Head Librarian. Table 7 was the Dean of Students. Table 10 was the Dean of FGSR. And table 12 was the Dean of Native Studies.
My point here is that the assignment of Deans as facilitators was pretty deliberate. It probably had something to do with the fact that there were enough of them to spread between 12 tables AND they could naturally take on a leadership role.
Near the end of the retreat, when each table was sharing what they'd discussed, someone raised their hand and pointed out that we unintentionally assigned only white people to be facilitators of each table. She also mentioned that she'd already mentioned that fact to the President and said -- very forcefully -- that we could not continue to do that.
I understand where she was coming from (although ironically she was a white woman), but I don't understand what she expected as an alternative. If there are no Deans with non-white ethnicities, what were they suppose to do? Would it have been appropriate to assign someone as a facilitator ONLY because they weren't white? Wouldn't it be odd that some facilitators were white Deans and others were non-white something else's? I think one of the purposes of having Deans be facilitators is because they already had a certain level of power at the table and people would respect their leadership. If you assigned a non-Dean to facilitate at one table simply because they weren't white, would they receive the same level of respect as per leadership? And if they didn't would it be automatically assumed that they weren't respected as well because they were non-white or because they weren't at the Dean level? Wouldn't that open more problems?
Again, I can see her point but I'm not sure the organization of an event like this is the problem. The problem is more systemic and related to the fact that there are very few Deans who are non-white. Isn't that the larger problem? Why aren't there more non-white Deans? Do we have a balanced number of white and non-white professors (who could one day be a Dean)? Do we have enough non-white interest in a Dean job? Does the U of A have a diversity hiring policy?
But then doesn't it go even deeper? Maybe there are a lot of white Deans because the majority of professors are white as well. And maybe the professors who are skilled enough to be a Dean also happen to be white. Then the question is -- why don't we have more non-white skilled professors? Is it because we don't have enough non-white graduate and undergraduate students? Is there enough interest in this profession from non-whites? If so, are they at a disadvantage, and if so, how? And doesn't that mean it really starts from the bottom (i.e. kids)?
You can't change someone's ethnicity once they reach a certain level, you need to have a variety of ethnicity at every level. But unless you start with giving all kids an equal chance to pursue whatever they want, that'll never happen. You can't wait till you get to the Dean level and they say "we're only going to hire a non-white person." If the only skilled people at that level are white, you can't hire an unskilled non-white person to do the job -- that's not helpful to anyone.
Anyway, as I've already said, I understand where this person was coming from, but I'm not sure pointing it out in that particular situation was useful. Ironically, up until that moment no one was probably thinking about white and non-white people (i.e. they looked at everyone as simply a member of the university community). But the minute it was pointed out everyone starts to notice the ethnicity of everyone else -- for the wrong reasons.
Many of the topics discussed at the various tables were too high-level to include ethnicity (or any specific type of demographic). But the ones that did have the ability to include ethnicity, did. It wasn't ignored or forgotten. It was discussed naturally not because it was suppose to be, but because it was important.
Although -- the main ethnicity focus was Aboriginal peoples. Is that racist? To focus on a specific ethnic group over others? I'm not sure. Are Aboriginal peoples more important than other ethnicities here in Alberta or Edmonton or the U of A? Is that fair or reasonable? I have no idea.
As an aside, immediately after this comment was made to the group, a professor asked a question. She happened to be of an ethnic minority. As she started her question she made the comment that she would be the ethnic minority representation. I don't think she said this to be funny, she said this sarcastically. I don't think she appreciated being distinguished because of her ethnicity, she would have preferred being treated as an equal.
Wednesday 25 November 2015
Tuesday 10 November 2015
Annoying Little Things
I'm in the middle of reading this book. It's part of a series by one of my favourite romance authors. This is book 7 in her current series, but this series is a continuation of a previous series that had at least a dozen books. It's based in Scotland, but the author is American.
Based on just standard knowledge that most anyone should have, there are a few things that authors shouldn't mess up. When authors do mess up on these things, it bothers me. There are several things that annoy me in this specific book:
1. The fact that the lead female character calls herself a masseuse and she works at a fancy spa in South Carolina. No respectable person who gives massages for a living would call themselves a masseuse -- they'd call themselves a massage therapist. It's a thousand times more professional and respectable.
2. The lead female character had checked into her flight at the Edinburgh airport, but never got onto the flight. Twice now she's made a comment about how her luggage would already be back in South Carolina. Anyone whose been on a plane in the last 5 years or more would know that your luggage NEVER flies without you. It doesn't matter if you check in. If you don't go through the gate, your luggage is taken off the plane. Therefore her luggage would still be in Scotland.
I also watched the movie Edge of Tomorrow last night. It stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt and it was surprisingly good, I liked it. Tom Cruise's character is American. To make a long story short, he gets thrown into a situation he's unprepared for. However when making a plan with Emily Blunt's character he refers to a trailer attached to a mini-van as a 'caravan.' He's in France when he says this.
I know that folks in Britain call trailers 'caravans.' Americans and Canadians call them trailers. I'm sorry, but there's no way that Tom's character would refer to the trailer as a 'caravan.' My guess is that most Americans don't even know that the Brits call trailers something different.
The same series of books I'm reading had a situation earlier in the series where a woman was living in a mountain cave. Someone had set it up for her with a generator, etc. But somehow she was able to talk on her cell phone ... from inside the mountain ... in the middle of the Scottish Highlands. There's no way she would ever get reception out there, especially not inside a mountain. I actually pointed this out to the author and her response was that the story had magic in it, so the magic allowed her to be able to use her cell phone. While that may align with the story, it's a bit of a cop out!
I don't know why these little things bug me, but they do!!
----------
Oh, another annoying little thing ... it bugs me when people post something really vague on social media like ... "I can't believe that happened last night, I'm so glad we're okay" ... but then never actually say what happened. It's like they're looking for blind sympathy from their social media friends.
If you're going to post it on social media, explain what happened. If you're uncomfortable explaining the details on social media, then don't mention it on social media. For some reason you want to advertise the fact that something happened to you, but you don't want to say what it was. It might be something big ... it might be something small ... no one has any clue. And obviously you're hiding something from your social media friends. I don't find these posts sad or concerning, I find them annoying.
I guess tonight is pet peeve night!
Based on just standard knowledge that most anyone should have, there are a few things that authors shouldn't mess up. When authors do mess up on these things, it bothers me. There are several things that annoy me in this specific book:
1. The fact that the lead female character calls herself a masseuse and she works at a fancy spa in South Carolina. No respectable person who gives massages for a living would call themselves a masseuse -- they'd call themselves a massage therapist. It's a thousand times more professional and respectable.
2. The lead female character had checked into her flight at the Edinburgh airport, but never got onto the flight. Twice now she's made a comment about how her luggage would already be back in South Carolina. Anyone whose been on a plane in the last 5 years or more would know that your luggage NEVER flies without you. It doesn't matter if you check in. If you don't go through the gate, your luggage is taken off the plane. Therefore her luggage would still be in Scotland.
I also watched the movie Edge of Tomorrow last night. It stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt and it was surprisingly good, I liked it. Tom Cruise's character is American. To make a long story short, he gets thrown into a situation he's unprepared for. However when making a plan with Emily Blunt's character he refers to a trailer attached to a mini-van as a 'caravan.' He's in France when he says this.
I know that folks in Britain call trailers 'caravans.' Americans and Canadians call them trailers. I'm sorry, but there's no way that Tom's character would refer to the trailer as a 'caravan.' My guess is that most Americans don't even know that the Brits call trailers something different.
The same series of books I'm reading had a situation earlier in the series where a woman was living in a mountain cave. Someone had set it up for her with a generator, etc. But somehow she was able to talk on her cell phone ... from inside the mountain ... in the middle of the Scottish Highlands. There's no way she would ever get reception out there, especially not inside a mountain. I actually pointed this out to the author and her response was that the story had magic in it, so the magic allowed her to be able to use her cell phone. While that may align with the story, it's a bit of a cop out!
I don't know why these little things bug me, but they do!!
----------
Oh, another annoying little thing ... it bugs me when people post something really vague on social media like ... "I can't believe that happened last night, I'm so glad we're okay" ... but then never actually say what happened. It's like they're looking for blind sympathy from their social media friends.
If you're going to post it on social media, explain what happened. If you're uncomfortable explaining the details on social media, then don't mention it on social media. For some reason you want to advertise the fact that something happened to you, but you don't want to say what it was. It might be something big ... it might be something small ... no one has any clue. And obviously you're hiding something from your social media friends. I don't find these posts sad or concerning, I find them annoying.
I guess tonight is pet peeve night!
Friday 6 November 2015
My Recent Job Shadow Experience
Every year the library school students' association organizes job shadows for the students. They call this event Partner's Week, although it's scheduled for one week in October and one week in January.
From a student's perspective, we're provided with a list of potential librarians to shadow divided into three categories -- public, academic and special. Each listing includes the librarian's name, their work location (and maybe address), when they're available and a very, very brief description of their job. I don't know how the organizer's collect this info, and what sort of screening they do, if any, before they put someone on the list. Based on my personal experience, I suspect they don't do any screening of librarians.
I selected a librarian that worked in a 'special' library as a research analyst. Based on the organization where she worked and the brief job description, it sounded like an interesting job and possibly something I'd like. How very wrong I was!!!
The job shadow I signed up for was in Calgary -- therefore it was a 3 hour drive (one way) to get there. I was there for 3 hours on a Friday afternoon. The woman seemed very nice, but I discovered pretty quickly that while she'd graduated from SLIS a couple of years ago, this job was the first one she had related to library science, and she only started it 2 months earlier!!! I have absolutely no idea why she thought it would be a good idea to sign up to have someone shadow her when she's only been in the job for 2 months!!!
Unfortunately the job shadow went downhill from there. She showed me her job posting and I discovered that they had only been looking for someone with a bachelor's degree. It was very much an entry-level position and not designed for someone with an advanced degree. And while there was some content management involved, it did not require someone with a degree specifically in information science. Essentially she was over-qualified and under-employed in this job.
By the end of the job shadow I did learn that -- for her -- this job was perfect. It seemed right up her alley and she seemed to really like where she worked. But it was also apparent that there was no need for her to have a masters degree. In fact, she worked in an extremely similar job for 7 years before she went back to school to get her MLIS. Technically I don't think her MLIS was necessary, she could have gotten this job based simply on her past experience. Interestingly, even her past experience made her over-qualified. I'm just glad she seemed happy where she was and didn't seem to think she was in the wrong place or at the wrong level.
Having said that though, when I asked her what her career plans were for after this, she had none. Not because she wasn't yet sure what she wanted to do, but because she didn't want to do anything else. She claimed she loved this job so much she'd be happy in it for the rest of her life! She had no plans to ever get another job, a promotion or change organizations! If she's that happy, power to her. But I'd like to ask her that question again in a year and see if she still feels the same way!
While I learned a lot about her and the job she does, none of it was helpful for my own career plans or future. The job she was doing was something I could do with one hand tied behind my back. Most of her job consists of gathering data from online sources and giving it to someone else to use in an analysis. She doesn't actually do any analysis, so I'm not really sure why they called the position a 'research analyst.' It should just be 'researcher.'
She had also apparently taken one database course in school over a year ago that did go over Access a little bit. Based on this limited knowledge she actually argued with me about what Access can and can't be used for. I've used Access for a large variety of projects for years. For every suggestion I made, I had done it before in Access myself -- therefore I knew it could be done. But no matter what suggestion I made, she claimed it couldn't be done. Based on her understanding of Access, it can't be used for much. That is very unfortunate as Access can be a great tool if you know how to use it right.
Ironically the tools she did have she didn't know how to use. She showed them to me, but couldn't explain their purpose or what they were suppose to be for, only what she had been experimenting with.
Overall I was very disappointed and a little annoyed. It wasn't until after that a fellow LIS student mentioned that she checks all the librarians on Linkedin before she decides if she wants to shadow them. I totally should have done this, but in all honesty I never thought someone with so little experience would have been included. If I can volunteer to run the event next year, I totally will. Not only can they benefit from using more automated methods in the whole thing, but they could benefit from screening out some of their librarian candidates. After all, based on who had signed up in the books, they had more librarians than students, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to screen some of them out.
I sure hope that other students had a better experience than me. And I sure hope that I have a better experience in January at my next 2 shadows. Before I contact those people, however, I will be checking them out online to make sure the same thing doesn't happen.
From a student's perspective, we're provided with a list of potential librarians to shadow divided into three categories -- public, academic and special. Each listing includes the librarian's name, their work location (and maybe address), when they're available and a very, very brief description of their job. I don't know how the organizer's collect this info, and what sort of screening they do, if any, before they put someone on the list. Based on my personal experience, I suspect they don't do any screening of librarians.
I selected a librarian that worked in a 'special' library as a research analyst. Based on the organization where she worked and the brief job description, it sounded like an interesting job and possibly something I'd like. How very wrong I was!!!
The job shadow I signed up for was in Calgary -- therefore it was a 3 hour drive (one way) to get there. I was there for 3 hours on a Friday afternoon. The woman seemed very nice, but I discovered pretty quickly that while she'd graduated from SLIS a couple of years ago, this job was the first one she had related to library science, and she only started it 2 months earlier!!! I have absolutely no idea why she thought it would be a good idea to sign up to have someone shadow her when she's only been in the job for 2 months!!!
Unfortunately the job shadow went downhill from there. She showed me her job posting and I discovered that they had only been looking for someone with a bachelor's degree. It was very much an entry-level position and not designed for someone with an advanced degree. And while there was some content management involved, it did not require someone with a degree specifically in information science. Essentially she was over-qualified and under-employed in this job.
By the end of the job shadow I did learn that -- for her -- this job was perfect. It seemed right up her alley and she seemed to really like where she worked. But it was also apparent that there was no need for her to have a masters degree. In fact, she worked in an extremely similar job for 7 years before she went back to school to get her MLIS. Technically I don't think her MLIS was necessary, she could have gotten this job based simply on her past experience. Interestingly, even her past experience made her over-qualified. I'm just glad she seemed happy where she was and didn't seem to think she was in the wrong place or at the wrong level.
Having said that though, when I asked her what her career plans were for after this, she had none. Not because she wasn't yet sure what she wanted to do, but because she didn't want to do anything else. She claimed she loved this job so much she'd be happy in it for the rest of her life! She had no plans to ever get another job, a promotion or change organizations! If she's that happy, power to her. But I'd like to ask her that question again in a year and see if she still feels the same way!
While I learned a lot about her and the job she does, none of it was helpful for my own career plans or future. The job she was doing was something I could do with one hand tied behind my back. Most of her job consists of gathering data from online sources and giving it to someone else to use in an analysis. She doesn't actually do any analysis, so I'm not really sure why they called the position a 'research analyst.' It should just be 'researcher.'
She had also apparently taken one database course in school over a year ago that did go over Access a little bit. Based on this limited knowledge she actually argued with me about what Access can and can't be used for. I've used Access for a large variety of projects for years. For every suggestion I made, I had done it before in Access myself -- therefore I knew it could be done. But no matter what suggestion I made, she claimed it couldn't be done. Based on her understanding of Access, it can't be used for much. That is very unfortunate as Access can be a great tool if you know how to use it right.
Ironically the tools she did have she didn't know how to use. She showed them to me, but couldn't explain their purpose or what they were suppose to be for, only what she had been experimenting with.
Overall I was very disappointed and a little annoyed. It wasn't until after that a fellow LIS student mentioned that she checks all the librarians on Linkedin before she decides if she wants to shadow them. I totally should have done this, but in all honesty I never thought someone with so little experience would have been included. If I can volunteer to run the event next year, I totally will. Not only can they benefit from using more automated methods in the whole thing, but they could benefit from screening out some of their librarian candidates. After all, based on who had signed up in the books, they had more librarians than students, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to screen some of them out.
I sure hope that other students had a better experience than me. And I sure hope that I have a better experience in January at my next 2 shadows. Before I contact those people, however, I will be checking them out online to make sure the same thing doesn't happen.
Sunday 1 November 2015
Responding to Emails
I've had the unfortunate experience lately of having a number of people not feel it necessary to respond to my emails. Or, not to respond to my emails in a timely manner.
In general there is no set rule on how quickly emails should be answered, but I do think there's general etiquette and respect that can be followed by everyone. I do not think it is unreasonable to respond to emails within 48 to 72 hours. Keep in mind that these initial responses do not need to include full and complete answers to the original emails. They can simply include acknowledgment that the original email was received and you are looking into the matter.
This is what I consider to be respect. Respect for the person sending the email, but also respect for whatever type of position you have. If you are employed in a certain profession, your actions help create the overall reputation for that profession. Remember, chains are only as strong as their weakest link -- don't be the weak link that brings your whole profession down and gives it a bad reputation. Or worse, helps its existing bad reputation continue.
And for the love of all things holy, do NOT use the "I'm really busy" excuse. YOU are not the only one who is busy. YOU are not the only one who has a lot of things on the go. You may have your own priorities, but so does everyone else. YOUR priorities are NOT more important than anyone else's, no matter what your position is in comparison to anyone else.
The worst part about using the "I'm really busy" excuse is it assumes you actually know everything there is to know about the person to whom you're too busy to deal with. By saying you're too busy to deal with them, you're implying that you are more busy than they are. Yet in reality you probably don't know that person well enough to truly know what's going on in their life and how busy they may be.
Not being able to answer emails within 48-72 hours and claiming it's because you're so busy also implies (a) you have bad time management skills or (b) you have too much on your plate. Either way, it's not anyone else's fault that you either can't manage your time effectively or have taken on too much, it's yours. Yes, maybe there's an underlying reason why you have too much on your plate and can't handle it, but that doesn't mean you throw respect out the window and resort to being "that person" who ignores people.
I've had a lot of different jobs in my time and I've met some insanely busy people. Oddly, some of the busiest people I've met have been the most responsive via email or other forms of communication. Either because they have help, they've figured out how to manage their time to respond to their emails, or because they've figured out that ignoring emails is disrespectful and that's not the sort of person they want to be. Whatever the reasons why they were able to be responsive, it demonstrates that the "I'm really busy" excuse is just that, an excuse.
As is probably obvious by now, this lack of response via email has escalated to the point of extreme annoyance and frustration for me. It makes me feel disrespected and unimportant. And I don't like feeling that way, it's not fun. I don't know why my emails are not responded to. Did the other person receive them? Were they lost in cyberspace? Did the other person see it and then ignore it, or did they not notice it at all? Are they waiting for something before responding? Is there a reason why they can't let me know they're waiting for something? Did they accidentally delete my email and are waiting for me to follow-up? Are they categorizing their emails somehow and I'm in the "don't care" category? Did they see who the email was from and have deleted it? Did they think they responded but didn't actually respond? The point is I'm left in limbo not actually knowing what's going on at the other end.
You might be thinking to yourself, "why doesn't she contact them in another way"? Excellent question. One, in the case of some folks I don't have any other way to contact them. And two, in the case of other folks the only other way I potentially have to contact them is during a very limited timeframe that is either too far away and I need a response sooner. Either way I'm SOL.
You might be thinking to yourself, "why doesn't she contact them in another way"? Excellent question. One, in the case of some folks I don't have any other way to contact them. And two, in the case of other folks the only other way I potentially have to contact them is during a very limited timeframe that is either too far away and I need a response sooner. Either way I'm SOL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)