Working Together: How South Australian Libraries Shared Their COVID-19 Experiences through a Student-led Project

ABSTRACT

2020 was a challenging year in so many ways. Undertaking student placements as part of a professional accreditation course for LIS (Library and Information Studies) was one challenge that students, course coordinators, and industry had to face together. Working together, two University of South Australia students partnered with a local industry professional in a personal professional capacity to complete their placement. The project they undertook was to design and deliver a symposium for library and information professionals. This article uses the lens of Tuckman’s Small Group Development model to demonstrate how this project was delivered.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic libraries
• student placement
• COVID-19
• symposium

Introduction

The Graduate Diploma Information Management at the University of South Australia (UniSA) has, like many other qualifications, an element of industry engagement. The course aims:

To provide an appreciation for modern project management techniques and practices in a specialist area, as determined by the Program of the enrolled student, in the context of a project team or individual depending on the project scope. (University of South Australia, n.d. Information Management Project.)

The nature of 2020 meant that the usual opportunities for students to engage with industry were scarce. The library industry as well as other members of the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) sector were all experiencing challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, with limited scope for in-person engagement, including that of student placements. Both students and industry needed to think creatively about how to continue to engage with each other in placement and project opportunities.

As in other years, Flinders University Library was approached by the UniSA Information Management Course Coordinator to be an industry placement partner. Unfortunately, due to COVID restrictions, the Library was unable to offer a ‘traditional’ placement project; that is, an onsite experience. However, Associate Librarian Liz Walkley Hall presented an opportunity to work with her in a personal professional capacity, on a project to develop a symposium event for SA-based librarians. In doing so, we became a small project team that needed to work very quickly to deliver an outcome in a short space of time.

This was a classic small group development situation, and much of our interaction can be seen through the lens of Tuckman’s Small Group Development model, ‘the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature’ (Miller, 2003, p. 122). Originally conceived with four key stages known as ‘forming storming, norming, and performing’ (Tuckman, 1965), a fifth stage was later added: adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977/2010). This paper will look at the progress of this project through each of these stages.

Stage 1: Forming

As a new team, we needed to come together relatively quickly. This is referred to as the ‘forming’ stage where goals are set, ensuring the team has a shared vision for success, creating some ground rules and establishing relationships (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977/2010). In our small group of three, we were able to bring this together relatively quickly on some points, for example, that we would meet online only, but in other decisions taking longer to establish such as our shared vision of the symposium. We also needed to move quickly because of the capacity and time limitations imposed by the students’ (Ainsley Best and Akrati Dwivedi) project structure. The fact that they needed to complete a write up within a 10 week timeframe meant that the symposium needed to be delivered at least 2 weeks’ prior. This gave us a hard, and short, deadline to work towards.

A major initial decision was deciding on a theme for the symposium. A few topics were brainstormed, however, given the immediate relevance of the worldwide pandemic, it was decided quite quickly that this would be an appropriate theme for our symposium. Providing a forum for library professionals to share their experiences of the impact of COVID-19 in their workplaces was the objective.

Stage 2: Storming

The ‘storming’ stage is a testing stage for group development; as group members become more comfortable with each other, and more willing to express opinions even if they are different from the group, conflicts may appear (Bonebright, 2010). This can occur even in a small team. As the group leader and mentor, Liz modelled inclusive communication skills and negotiation as a way to ensure we continued in a positive direction. An important part of the planning process was to complete a risk assessment to help us plan for any problems that may arise during the event. We used a risk matrix to determine the level of the risk for each scenario then came up with solutions for each hypothetical problem. This allowed us to be prepared when things didn’t go according to plan so that the whole project was not derailed.

Once we had selected the topic of the symposium, the next challenge was to identify potential speakers. We discussed putting out a call for speakers, but realised our timeline wouldn’t allow for this, due to turnaround times. Instead, we leveraged our networks of industry contacts. Our aim in selecting presenters for the symposium was to gain perspectives from multiple library sectors including public and academic libraries.

Invitations were extended to three professionals, each representing different sectors:

• Kate Sinclair, Associate Librarian from The University of Adelaide, to represent the academic library sector and share her experiences with navigating the challenges of the pandemic

• Michelle Dawson, Digital Officer from the Adelaide Hills Council, to represent the public library sector and share her insights into delivering online content throughout the pandemic.

• For our ‘keynote’ speaker we chose to provide a different perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic through the eyes of a disaster management expert by inviting Johanna Garnett, Executive Officer from the Torrens Resilience Institute, to speak about how libraries can better prepare for any potential disruptive events.

We were grateful that all three invited speakers accepted our invitation.

Stage 3: Norming

The third phase, ‘norming’ sees group cohesion develop and strengthen. Roles within the group become established as members determine the most effective ways of working together (Neuman & Wright, 1999). This was our most productive time as a group, as we moved closer to the event deadline.

Our next decisions, during the norming stage, related to event management. We sought to market the event through professional networks including the Australian Library Information and Association (ALIA) SA group as well as personal professional networks. We created a promotional e-flyer for the symposium that was distributed by ALIA SA on their e-list and social media accounts. Akrati and Ainslie worked together on these tasks, with Liz providing minimal oversight. We also set up an Eventbrite page for the event, where attendees could register their contact details with us, and also allowed us to update our attendees with information in the lead up to the event.

A significant discussion point in this stage was whether to bring speakers together to deliver their presentations, as we had planned for a panel question and answer session as part of the Symposium. We thought that having the speakers together in one room would facilitate discussion, even if our audience was online. We investigated room options and were able to secure a University space for this purpose.

In choosing an online delivery platform, we needed to understand requirements from both our attendees’ and presenters’ perspectives. Webex, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom were all considered as possibilities. However, an environmental scan found that Zoom was being most widely used; also, one which the group were familiar with. The different features of the Zoom platform were tested to ensure best practice could be followed the day of the symposium. Internet speeds, microphone and video settings and – very importantly! – speaker backgrounds were all considered and tested. The thorough planning that we went through by going through each of these steps contributed to the successful delivery of the symposium.

Stage 4: Performing

Our ‘performing’ stage is perfectly described, aligning as it did with event delivery. In this stage, roles are meant to be more flexible as team members work to deliver on task (Betts & Healy, 2015). Indeed ‘task accomplishment’ in the performing stage is also associated with eliciting more effort from group members (Hall, 2015) and this was certainly the case in that our project team needed to work very hard in the few hours’ lead up to manage one very significant challenge: the sudden lockdown in South Australia.

While coronavirus cases had steadily been building in South Australia for a few days prior (known as the ‘Parafield cluster’[Boisvert, 2020]), there was a sudden decision from the State Coordinator to enact a lockdown which was put in place as of 12.01am Thursday 19 November (Siebert & Brice, 2020). With our event set for November 19 (and with no adjustment possible) we very quickly needed to mobilise our risk assessment plans. Our risk assessment had prepared us for the possibility of not being able to have the presenters utilise the conference room to deliver the event. It was the reason why we chose to do an online symposium as it meant everyone had the option to present from their homes.

However, we still needed to test our assumptions. Akrati and Ainsley were quick to action, contacting the speakers to both ensure they would be available as well as ensure their technology would be up to standard. One of our speakers requested a change to the speaking order, so she could attend an emergency meeting at her workplace. She was also unable to take part in the Q&A. This was a slight disadvantage for our audience as they were not able to get this presenter’s point of view of the questions asked. This was a very small price to pay in what were extremely extenuating circumstances.

With delivering from home came the challenges of everyone’s varying technology set up. We asked all presenters to join us online early so we could test the technology, including:

Internet speeds: this was initially an issue for one of presenters when connecting at the start, however it was resolved before the presentations began

Microphone/Sound: testing prior to delivery, we noticed some interfering background noise and the issue of one of our presenter’s microphone cutting out now and then. We were unable to address this and fortunately it did not occur too frequently during the presentation

Video: Liz, as our moderator, had her own technology challenge with her video not working that morning. Unfortunately, this could not be fixed in the short time before the symposium. It meant that we had no visual of our moderator, however as the sound was working perfectly we were still able to continue.

When the time came, we only had about 60% of our registrants connecting with us. While unfortunate, we appreciated there were likely several attendees who were unable to join at the last minute due to challenges at their own workplaces on the day. Due to our substantial planning and preparation, the presentations went without a hitch. However we had many enthusiastic attendees keen to connect with our speakers, and despite our good intentions ran over schedule especially during the Question and Answers (Q&A) time. While it was positive that everyone was so eager to ask questions and share their experiences and knowledge, it did mean that some attendees had to leave and were not able to listen to all of the discussion. We hypothesised that people may have felt more comfortable to participate as we did not record the event and also due to the lack of interactions during the pandemic, this event provided a place for people to connect and not feel isolated.

Stage 5: Adjourning

Tuckman’s original model ended at the performing stage, however in 1977 when Tuckman and Jensen were invited to update their model, they added the fifth stage of ‘adjourning’ (Bonebright, 2010). This acknowledged the final stage in a group lifecycle where separation is an important consideration.

In adjourning, our small group came together to reflect on the event and to also acknowledge that the work was not quite finished, as Ainsley and Akrati still needed to write up a reflection of the event as part of their assessment. We certainly achieved our goal of creating an event for library professionals to come together, and understand how two different SA libraries responded to COVID-19. Our expert presenters were able to share their knowledge and provide answers to questions from the audience regarding their evolving practices. As well as providing a space for sharing information and experiences, the successful completion of the event fulfilled the requirements of our capstone project in order to complete our university degree.

We measured the success of our project through many aspects. This included:

The positive comments and feedback we received from the attendees of the event

Having 37 registrants for the event through Eventbrite despite only advertising the event for just over 2 weeks.

Having 17 registered attendees, despite the sudden lockdown being implemented in South Australia on the day of our symposium.

Conclusion

Undertaking an industry placement during a global pandemic was never going to be easy; and we made the challenge even greater in the task deliverable of an online symposium. The situation, while unique, presented many common challenges for group development which can be seen in our exploration of Tuckman’s Small Group Development model. While it was indeed a challenge, all members of the team gained much in undertaking this project. As students Akrati and Ainsley gained valuable experience in how to plan and deliver an online symposium. With the skills and knowledge that they have developed throughout this process, there is potential for the continuation and expansion of this work. This project has helped them develop skills that will be useful as future library professionals. For Liz, the opportunity to support the development of new professionals was the most important outcome.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Liz Walkley Hall

Liz Walkley Hall is currently Associate Librarian, Engagement and Scholarly Communication, at Flinders University Library. She has a strong interest in practitioner-research and working with new professionals.

Ainsley Best

Ainsley Best is a recent graduate of the Graduate Diploma in Information Management (Library and Information Management). As part of the study Ainsley Best chose to contribute to the GLAMR (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums and Records) industry by working with Liz Walkley Hall.

Akrati Dwivedi

Akrati Dwivedi is a recent graduate of the Graduate Diploma in Information Management (Library and Information Management). As part of the study Akrati Dwivedi chose to contribute to the GLAMR (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums and Records) industry by working with Liz Walkley Hall.