Anderson identifies two broad categories of orientation among librarians – on the one hand ‘soldiers’, who focus on local needs, current impact, alignment to institutional mission, support and service; and on the other ‘revolutionaries’ who focus on global needs, long term impact, solving global systematic problems, leadership and education.
“At an institutional and personal level, we have to decide which of these is going to be our basic orientation when we’re making decisions about allocating scarce resources,” said Anderson.
“All of us harbour both of these tendencies to some degree, and in different mixtures”, noted Anderson. “At an institutional and personal level, we have to decide which of these is going to be our prevailing orientation when we’re making decisions about allocating scarce resources.”
Anderson identified a number of action points which flow from this analysis. Firstly, libraries should discuss the issues and decide which orientation is most reflected in current practices.
Next, he suggested, explore how this orientation fits with the goals of the parent institution. A discrepancy between the orientation of the library and the aims of the institution could prompt discussion with senior institutional leadership which, in turn, might present an opportunity for the library to influence institutional mission or culture – or it might mean that the activities of the library itself can be realigned.