Changing Our Tools:
The Use to Metaphoric Analysis

Felix T. Chu

One of the most important attributes of being able to deal successfully with change is having the right tools for the job-both physical and mental. Physical tools are those such as the catalog that offers access and bibliographic control over the library collection. The catalog went from cards in cabinets in a physical building to online catalog accessible through the Internet via a computer workstation any place where a connection can be made. What is accessed went from the catalog and indexes that must be used individually at different locations in the library to simultaneously from one workstation. Mental tools include frames of reference or models for analysis, such as Max Weber's concepts on bureaucracy or Frederick Taylor's views on scientific management. While one can read about and discuss the change process in the abstract, it is important to place the change in context. In a personal correspondence with Kathryn Deiss (1998), senior program officer for Training & Leadership Development at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), she said that "the concept of linkages to the past/present from the future is extremely important and, many times lacking altogether. And, the ability to see internal linkages and cause and effect relationships within an organization is the root of many problems." One mental tool that we can use to better understand change is metaphors. It gives us a context to understand the process and, more importantly, establish links to the past and the future. In a recent article, Kathleen de la Pena McCook calls for searching for new metaphors to describe library service in a challenge to "move forward without discarding the wonders of the past." (1997, 127)

The need to update and use appropriate tools has always been studied. Updating physical tools are clearly observable. In his book on developing the operating system for the IBM 360, Frederick Brooks (1995) described the need for a "toolsmith" on a software development project whose major function is to make sure that the development team always has a supply of sharp tools needed for the job that are appropriate not only for the task at hand but also for the the individuals on the team. These may include programs for text editing or file manipulation. He feels that this is still true when the 20th anniversary edition of the book was published in 1995.

Mental tools present a different problem because they cannot be directly observed. Weizenbaum (1976) said that tools may limit one's thinking of possibilities or expand one's boundaries. When a new tool such as the computer is being used, people tend to automate the manual process to increase efficiency. In doing something faster or doing calculations that were not possible under a manual system, inadequacies in the existing design may be exposed. What needs to accompany new physical tools and changing environments is new theories and new uses for existing ideas that take into consideration the new environment.

The use of appropriateness of conceptual tools becomes apparent in Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O'Day (1999). Cases where new technology is used successfully are instances where the use is folded into the process, not taught as a separate component. This illustrates a change in mental tools of how we frame the use of new technology. However, our tools may need to be flexible in design to allow improvisation. We need to think beyond the traditional stages of unfreezing-change-refreezing described by Kurt Lewin because "as soon as one freezes a design, it becomes obsolete in terms of its concepts" (Brooks 1995, 9).

One mental tool to deal with change is metaphoric analysis. Such an analysis should take in more than a superficial comparison and go into details about relat-

* Felix T. Chu, Ph.D., systems and operations librarian. University Library. Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois. This paper was presented at the Illinois Association of College & Research Libraries (IACRL) Forum Conference in Matteson, Illinois in April 2000. The paper is also available on the web at http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfftc/wiu/TOOLS.htm.

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 273

ed terms and connotations. In the session, "But What About Me? The Human Face of Organizational Change" at the 1995 ALA Annual Conference, I made the comment that the process of change is more like following a recipe than following a blueprint in reference to an article by Karl Weick (1993). When one follows a blueprint, one does not proceed until the necessary materials are available, usually with very little or no options for substitution. When following a recipe, one frequently encounters phrases such as "bake until brown on top," "season to taste" or "use six medium-sized potatoes." Those loosely defined directions allow some interpretation and adaptation. In the ensuing responses from the panel, someone mentioned that one must work with the ingredients that are available at the point of need.

The above illustrates an instance in the use of metaphors as a means in understanding change. Metaphors can be used effectively as sensitizing agents to bring to the foreground aspects of a topic that may otherwise be hidden. In sensitizing different aspects of a particular event, metaphors can set up different frameworks for analysis. They show relationships and create new ones in bringing together objects and events in new ways (Wheelwright 1962). Metaphors have also been understood as a shorthand to transform meaning and to understand new, unknown things by attaching them to older, known things (McInnis 1984). In this sense, they allow coherent chunks of information to be passed easily as set of relationships instead of fragmented ideas (Ortony 1975). As Eckstein (1983, 321) said, "metaphor is inherent in human thinking, and its main function is to help us bridge the known and the unknown." One must realize, however, that in using metaphors to sensitize one aspect of an event or a policy, other aspects are being desensitized. There is no best perspective because each perspective has its assumptions, limitations and an associated reference group (Charon 1985).

Metaphors may be viewed as symbols that create images in the mind of the observer and provide guides in expanding our thinking (Crowell 1989). However, a careful and systematic process must be undertaken to avoid erroneous uses. Taken at face value, the metaphor of a library as the heart of the university has been used often to mean that a library is vital to a university. However, a careful examination raises several questions. The heart is a passive organ that can only react. If the body (the institution) needs to be exercised so that the heart can remain healthy, the heart (the library) cannot force the body to exercise. The heart cannot scan the environment and be proactive. Librarians need to change that metaphor and begin to think about the library as a total person who must not only react, but sense, perceive and act. The library must be able to see, feel and smell changes in the environment and act accordingly. It is only after one considers the library as a person that one can sensibly start talking about public service as limbs and organs providing the five senses, technical services as the skeleton providing the infrastructure, and administration as the central nervous system. It is then that we librarians can perceive ourselves as total persons responsible for our well-being, able to analyze the environment, anticipate changes, and participate as a complete team member within the administrative team of the organization.

In the field of librarianship, the use of metaphors has received some attention. The library has been described as "museum," "mirror of the universe," "reflector of things," or "memory of civilization" (J. Nitecki 1979, 25-26). Each of those uses emphasize different characteristics of librarianship, with each giving a different slice of reality. More recently, conceptual models of libraries held by faculty, university administrators and librarians were examined through metaphoric analysis of their writings published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Most often used metaphors by administrators are "activist" and "partner;" by faculty are "storehouse" and "location;" and by librarians are "storehouse," "object of ownership," and "partner" (D. Nitecki 1993, 270). Each set of metaphors suggest different roles to be played by the library within a given institution, such as an active participant in educating students, as a warehouse for books, etc. Within the library, metaphors have also been used in bibliographic instruction (Chu 1993; Nibley 1991) and reference (Tallent 1998).

One metaphor in current use by librarians is teams and related concepts such as teamwork and team member. Many papers and presentations have treated teams and teamwork in relationship to organizational structure and workflow. But my question is what kind of team are we talking about? If we use team as a metaphor, we need to think whether we are talking about a football team where plays on offense are usually called by the coach, offensive coordinator or the quarterback, and at least initially it is a set play from which players are not free to improvise. If we talk about a tennis team, how the number three player has to deal with his/her opponent bears little on how the number four player deals with his/her opponent. When

274 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000

we talk about soccer teams, any player may, depending on the circumstances, switch from being on offense to being on defense according to the flow of the game.

So we need to look at the dynamics of the relationship among the team members, the overall organizational structure that define rules of the game, the coaching style of the administration, the behavior of the team leader, the time devoted to practice by team members, etc. Talking about a team approach is not sufficient! We need to look further. If your institution uses a team approach, think about what kind of a team it is and whether it is really working. Maybe team members assume they are playing different games or the administrator is using an inappropriate coaching style given the individual characteristics of the team members.

In this brief metaphoric analysis of teams, I try to bring about a basic understanding that the concept of team, as understood by each individual, has its intent and associated overhead, such as behavior of team members, content of team work and the level of cooperation and trust that exist in different kinds of teams. In bringing together librarians from different areas of the library, the function of librarians remains constant in trying to bring together users and needed information. This basic mission may be viewed as a link to the past and future. As a library adopts new technology, the process requires a redefinition of procedures involved in doing library work much as a football team instituting new plays to counteract strengths of the opposing team or in reaction to changes in circumstances. In viewing teams as a metaphor with its consequent implications of communications and behavior, the context for change becomes more apparent and the linkages are more concrete, thus lending continuity to the change process.

References

Brooks, Frederick P. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Charon, Joel M. 1985. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Chu, Felix T. 1993. Bibliographic Instruction and the Scholarship of Integration. Research Strategies 11 (Spring): 66-72.

Crowell, Sam. 1989. A New Way of Thinking: The Challenge of the Future. Educational Leadership 47 (September): 60-63.

Deiss, Kathryn J. 1998. Email to the author, 26 February.

Eckstein, Max A. 1983. The Comparative Mind. Comparative Education Review 27 (October): 311-322.

McCook, Kathleen de la Pena. 1997. The Search for New Metaphors. Library Trends 46 (Summer): 117-128.

Mclnnis, Raymond G. 1984. Mental Maps and Metaphors in Academic Libraries. The Reference Librarian no.10 (Spring/Summer): 109-120.

Nardi, Bonnie A., and Vicki L. O'Day. 1999. Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Nibley, Elizabeth. 1991. The Use of Metaphor in Bibliographic Instruction. RQ 30 (Spring): 343-347.

Nitecki, Danuta A. 1993. Conceptual Models of Libraries Held by Faculty, Administrators, and Librarians: An Exploration of Communications in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Journal of Documentation 49 (September): 255-277.

Nitecki, Joseph Z. 1979. Metaphors of Librarianship: A Suggestion for a Metaphysical Model. Journal of Library History 14 (Winter): 21-42.

Ortony, Andrew. 1975. Why Metaphors Are Necessary and Not Just Nice. Educational Theory 25 (Winter): 45-53.

Tallent, Ed. 1998. Lessons Bull Durham Taught Me: Reference as the Show. In Recreating the Academic Library: Breaking Virtual Ground, ed. Cheryl LaGuardia, 193-201. New York: Neal Schuman.

Weick, Karl E. 1993. Organizational Redesign as Improvisation. In Organisational Change and Redesign, ed. George P. Huber and William H. Glick, 346-379. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weizenbaum, Joseph. 1976. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: Freeman.

Wheelwright, Philip. 1962. Metaphor & Reality. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

llinois Libraries, Fall 2000 275