Knowledge hoarding could well be the greatest barrier to well-functioning information-sharing systems in organizations, as well as in broader society. Isabel Rechberg and Jawad Syed mention this phenomenon in passing in their article Ethical issues in knowledge management: conflict of knowledge ownership: “Insufficient or inefficient reward systems may lead individuals to believe they are better off hoarding rather than sharing what they know.” Knowledge hoarding costs organizations money and time in retraining employees and recompiling information that employees would prefer to keep rather than share with colleagues and employers.

Rechberg and Syed recommend that organizations institute a “moral contract” with employees to encourage them to “willingly process knowledge” – an appealing yet abstract concept. A great deal of ink has been spilled as corporations seek concrete ways to encourage employees to share what they know. The Harvard Business Review attributes the expert employee’s impulse to hang on to experience-based knowledge – what they call “deep knowledge” – to “financial incentives, personal ego, discontent or frustration with the company.” The employee mentality could be summed up as – “what’s in it for me?” Why should an employee bother sharing knowledge that they worked hard to collect, if it won’t gain them money or prestige, for the benefit of colleagues who did nothing to earn the information?

HBR recommends that companies create a “knowledge transfer program” that will foster mentoring and teamwork, so that knowledge will never be concentrated in any single person, and make employees feel appreciated so that they will want to pay back their employer and leave a legacy when they depart. In the corporate context, then, employers have a clear plan of attack against knowledge hoarding – dismantle hierarchical work structures that make employees think they must keep their knowledge close to keep themselves from becoming irrelevant or less valuable; encourage mentoring and group work and set aside time for education; and provide encouragement and incentives for employees who share.

As Kenneth Husted and Snejina Michailova noted in an article entitled Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility, the impulse to hoard knowledge is an unproductive one, but it is also completely human and natural: “The decision to hoard knowledge is destructive from an organizational point of view but, at the same time, it is often rational and well-justified from the perspective of the individual.” People do not trust others with their hard-earned knowledge and do not want people to “freeload,” or they worry about being judged harshly if their knowledge is deemed incorrect.

These concerns are not limited to the corporate context, and neither is knowledge hoarding. How does knowledge hoarding manifest in the non-corporate world, for example in academia? How can we combat it and foster an intellectually open culture? Is it even realistic to think that we could overcome such ingrained human behaviors?

The first example of non-corporate knowledge hoarding that comes to mind is that of scientific research – researchers spend years of their lives obtaining funding and resources for their research, compiling data, and interpreting it. Being the first to conduct and publish cutting-edge research can lead to prestige and further funding to conduct even more cutting-edge research. It is reasonable that researchers would prefer to hang on to their ideas and data so that others cannot cut in. The fear of “knowledge parasites” is real.

It is all well and good for researchers (and the institutions that sponsor them with money and resources) to reap the rewards of their own hard work, to the exclusion of those who did not meaningfully contribute to it. But this culture of hoarding ignores the fact that research does not occur in a vacuum. It inevitably builds on discoveries that came before it, and collaboration among scientists can speed progress and increase the quality of the knowledge that is put out in the world for society’s benefit. This is the root of the recent trend toward open research databases that encourage researchers to make their findings, and in some cases the underlying data, publicly available. Indeed, the National Institutes of Health – a major grantmaker – has instituted a public access policy. With the stated goal of advancing science and improving human health, NIH requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to an open access repository.

As one example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently published a report on one NIH-funded repository, ClinVar, which compiles research on genetic mutations. ClinVar is meant to foster a more complete, unified perspective on the current state of research in this area. According to the NEJM study, no single laboratory can have the complete picture of genetic mutation research – indeed, individual laboratories possess varying and inconsistent data and, as one researcher remarked, “if private companies or single labs followed their own interpretation of variants, they’re likely to get it wrong.” Accordingly, NEJM found, “[h]ealthy competition among isolated entities is no longer sufficient to drive our understanding of human variation, and patient care may be compromised when data are not shared.” The best possible solution is for researchers to contribute to and learn from open databases rather than keeping data to themselves. No researcher is an island.

The trend toward open access databases is not limited to the sciences and is moving forward across disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences – although the sometimes slow pace of growth in participation is frustrating to many advocates. Just like in the corporate context, individuals are frequently unwilling to open up the knowledge they have worked hard to compile, and it can take considerable convincing and incentives for them to do so.

Individuals will always hoard knowledge when they think it is in their interest to do so. It is human nature. However, when openness and knowledge sharing make a true difference to a common good – for the success of an organization or for the growth of scientific knowledge – people have developed strategies to change individuals’ incentives and to combat knowledge hoarding. These strategies shift the information culture from one of individualism and personal knowledge ownership to one of collaboration and mentorship. Efforts like open access databases should eventually gain traction and show their worth in growing the quality and quantity of knowledge in the world, in a way that benefits both the original knowledge creators and a broader population.

References

Rechberg, I. & Syed, J. (2013). “Ethical issues in knowledge management: conflict of knowledge ownership.” Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), pp. 628–647.

Leonard, D. (2014). How to prevent experts from hoarding knowledge. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/12/how-to-prevent-experts-from-hoarding-knowledge.

Husted, K. & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), pp. 60-73. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Snejina_Michailova/publication/247142520_Diagnosing_and_Fighting_Knowledge-Sharing_Hostility/links/02e7e51e051bacb293000000.pdf

Subbaraman, N. (2015, May 17). Want better science? Quit hoarding data, genetics researchers say. The Boston Globe.  Retrieved from http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/05/27/want-better-science-quit-hoarding-data-genetics-researchers-say/.

NIH Public Access Policy. (2014). Retrieved from https://publicaccess.nih.gov.

The concern for patron privacy is a tale as old as time. Well, almost. The Code of Ethics for Librarians, published in 1939, states “It is the librarian’s obligation to treat as confidential any private information obtained through contact with library patrons”. [1. “Midwinter Council Minutes,” American Library Association Bulletin 33 no. 2 (1939): 128–129.] It’s no wonder that when the Snowden controversy emerged in 2013 that the American Library Association took a stance. However, within 24 hours, that position wavered.

In 2013, Edward Snowden released thousands of classified government documents revealing NSA surveillance programs. The debate encompassing the controversy often begs the question – is he a hero, or not? Did Edward Snowden do the right thing? The ALA Council issued a resolution on June 30^th, 2013 supporting Edward Snowden. The resolution says that the ALA “recognizes Edward Snowden as a whistleblower who, in releasing information that documents government attacks on privacy, free speech, and freedom of association, has performed a valuable service in launching a national dialogue about transparency, domestic surveillance, and over classification”. [2. Resolution in support of Edward Snowden. (2013, January 29). Retrieved September 20, 2015.]

However, the next day on July 1st, the resolution was revised and took out any mention of Edward Snowden.  The new resolution urges the United States Congress and Obama to “reform our nation’s climate of secrecy, over classification, and secret law regarding national security and surveillance” and “reaffirms its unwavering support for the fundamental principles that are the foundation of our free and democratic society”. [3. ALA Council passes resolution on whistleblowers; government transparency. (2013, July 2). Retrieved September 22, 2015.] While the core ideas of privacy remain, the choice to remove any mention of Edward Snowden in the revised resolution has not gone unnoticed.

Why, in the matter of a day, did the American Library Association revise their position? The idea, the “myth”, of neutrality comes to mind. Robert Jensen makes it very clear in his article The Myth of the Neutral Professional that neutrality is impossible. You will always have a stance on any issue – even not taking a stance, actually, is a stance in itself. Yet, the ALA seems a little shaky on taking a non-neutral standing when publicly supporting Edward Snowden. Perhaps supporting him would have been too controversial. Maybe it would have been crossing the political lines too much. Possibly, supporting whistleblowers is great in theory, but not when it applies to an individual’s personal case. Whatever the true reason, the ALA focused their resolution more so on the importance of privacy as a whole and swept Edward Snowden under the rug.

Regardless of their seemingly “neutral” opinion of Snowden (though, we know in reality it isn’t neutral at all), the ALA has not had such a wavering stance on all controversial subjects. The ALA is extremely vocal in regards to patron privacy, especially when it comes to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001. Before the Patriot Act, 48 states had laws protecting library users’ information, including search histories and circulation records. Information would only be released if there was a court order. [4. England, D. (n.d.). The patriot act and library records. Retrieved September 22, 2015.] After the Patriot Act (particularly Section 215) was signed into law, that information was easily accessible to government agents. “Third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it’s trying to protect against terrorism”. [5. Roller, E. (2013, June 7). This is what section 215 of the patriot act does. Retrieved September 28, 2015.]

It did not take long for the ALA to get involved. ALA President Barbara Stripling (role served 2013-2014) says in a 2013 open letter to members of the organization:

“When we [the ALA] spoke out in 2001 against the passage of the PATRIOT Act, we were concerned about Section 215, a provision of the law that allowed the government powers to obtain ‘business records and other tangible things’ from suspected terrorists. We were fearful that the government would come into libraries without warning and take library records on individual patrons without reasonable suspicion. Libraries were one of the first groups to publicly oppose the bill, and many legislators and privacy experts have noted that Congress would not have understood the chilling impact on privacy if librarians had not brought it to the nation’s attention. Librarians were so vocal in their opposition to the law that Section 215 was called the ‘library provision.’ We could not have imagined then what is happening today. Today, in spite of the leak allegations, the government continues to use the ‘library provision’ to vacuum up private communication records of Americans on a massive scale.”[6. Wright, J. (2013, July 11). ALA president Barbara Stripling: “Our country needs to find the right balance”. Retrieved September 22, 2015.]

In 2001, the ALA teamed up with the American Association of Law Libraries and Association of Research Libraries to write a letter to Congress voicing their concerns about the Patriot Act. These concerns included the expansion of access to business records, education institution records, and the expansion of trace devices to the Internet. [7. Library community statement on proposed anti-terrorism measures. (2001, October 2). Retrieved September 22, 2015.] In 2003, the ALA issued “Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users” [8. Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users. (2003, January 29).] and later “Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Libraries” in 2005. [9. Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Libraries. (2005, June 29)] The American Library Association has not remained silent when it comes to the Patriot Act. Far from it.

As of June 1^st, 2015 Section 215 of the Patriot Act has expired. Thankfully. Even better, on June 2^nd, 2015 the USA Freedom Act was signed into law (and librarians rejoiced!). The Freedom Act, loudly advocated for by the ALA, would limit the scope of information the NSA and government agents could receive. [10. How does the freedom act affect nsa surveillance. (2015, June 3). Retrieved September 22, 2015] It definitely would not solve all of our privacy concerns, but it is a step in the right direction.

With the amount of advocacy against the Patriot Act and for patron privacy, it doesn’t make sense why the American Library Association revised its June 2013 resolution and removed its public support for Edward Snowden. It seems hypocritical to advocate against the Patriot Act, and not openly support Snowden. The reasoning behind it is undoubtedly political. The ALA has been decidedly non-neutral in their position of patron privacy, and should proudly advocate for those that have helped to further that cause.

The Eric Carle Museum is the only one of its kind to solely dedicate attention to children’s picture book art. This is a place that praises the illustrator and her work. Located in Amherst Massachusetts, the Carle aims to collect, preserve, present and commemorate picture books for children. Eric and Barbara Carle founded the Museum in November 2002. Eric Carle is a renowned author, artist/illustrator in the world of children’s literature. He is famously known for The Very Hungry Caterpillar, The Grouchy Ladybug, and illustrator of Bill Martin’s Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? Carle has a distinct and recognizable style; he uses tissue paper collage, which is often combined with acrylic paint, pencil, and crayons. His artistic intention is it to bridge the gap between learning and merriment. He uses his love for nature and vibrant images to capture the reader’s interest and attention. His Museum, commonly known as The Carle, embodies the same intention, to provide a space in which children and adults can enjoy art, literature, and education without the restrictions and ambience of a traditional museum.

I had the opportunity visit the Carle and speak with the Director of Education Courtney Waring, and Museum Educator Emily Prahbaker. Visiting The Carle allowed me to venture away from a library setting, but experience and environment that caters to a young audience. I meet with the two professionals to inquire about their interest in the field, and how they achieved their professional positions.

The Carle is rather small building but voluminous within. The museum contains two galleries, library, café/resting area, gift shop, and theatre. I knew I was in the children orientated environment, when one of the stalls in the rest room had funky shaped toilet set, along with Eric Carle animals formatted into bathroom tiles. My tour was lead by the Director of Education, Courtney Waring. Courtney gave me a tour to the show room that was dedicated to the life and work of Eric Carle. The works shown were Carle’s original works aligned with his revision. Whenever Carle’s books are to be republished he recreate his work to make sure the work is more colorful and vibrant compared the original. In addition, there is also artwork from his early career in illustration and advertisement. In the middle of the showroom was a desk that displayed all of the materials he uses for his illustrations. Courtney mentioned that Carle wanted to display his material to show children that the work he produced could be mimicked by anyone. These materials are accessible to anyone and install the idea that you do not need expensive material to make quality art. After, I saw their current exhibit of the illustrations from Louise Fitzhugh’s Harriet the Spy. The Carle has another gallery but it was under construction to feature the work of Ludwig Bemelman’s Madeline.

Afterwards, I saw the museum’s library. It was small but contained enough content for it’s audience. Its collection was primarily children picture books, with few chapter books on display. Furthermore they dedicated a shelf to Caldecott awarded books. What I thought was interesting and radical about their library was that it was arranged by illustrators last name, and then title of the book. The library the Carle also holds story time, which is often conducted in the galleries. Later, Courtney provided me more insight about the services the Carle offers to their community. I was later provided insight on how Courtney came to the Carle, along with the approaches and methods that are used in the museum to promote literacy and engagement.

The Eric Carle Museum uses several approaches to promote literacy, arts and engagement. The Visual Thinking Stategies, the Whole Book Approach, and inspiration from the Reggio Emilia educational learning project. The Visual Think Strategies is a learner-centered method to examine and find meaning in visual art through a sequence of carefully selected fine art images…Students look carefully, develop opinions, express themselves, consider multiple viewpoints, speculate together, argue, debate, and build on each other’s ideas, and sometimes revise their conclusions[i]. Furthermore, this strategy uses art to help children practice respectful, democratic, collaborative problem solving. The Carle uses VTS open-ended question to engage the children in discussions about the illustrations in a book. However, the Whole Book Approach further emphasizes this dialogue by allowing children to explore all parts of the book, cover to cover, page to page. Lastly, the Carle embodies the ideas of Reggio Emilia educational learning methods. The Reggio believe that children have the right and the ability to express their thinking, theories, ideas, learning and emotions in many ways. Therefore, Reggio educators provide children with a wide range of materials and media, and welcome a diversity of experiences, so that children encounter many avenues for thinking, revising, constructing, negotiating, developing and symbolically expressing their thoughts and feelings[ii]. Emily Prahbakers, who is the Museum Educator, further explained these methods. With her masters from Simmons in Children’s Literature and Library Science, Emily conducts literacy and art programs within the museum and in the community. Emily uses and is a firm believer in encouraging children to have a dialogue about art and literature. Promoting the use of dialogue with children allows for them to make personal and worldly connections with the theme, and message of the book. She believes that a group interaction can empower, and permit children to explore the world around them. This approach leads children to engage in open-thinking. I share the same belief and practice similar methods with the work I do at my library. After witnessing the bizarre feeling of having children stare out of boredom, I have encouraged and ignited dialogue during story time so that they can be an active part of the reading experience.

Speaking to the Director of Education and the Museum Educator allowed me the share interest in children’s literature, plus promoting and advocating for dialogue in literacy for young children. The Carle is a unique facility to praise children picture book illustrations. Museums and libraries have the power to provide alternate educational methods to encourage children to have fun while learning. The service that is available at the Eric Carle Museum is probably the most organic educational interaction a child can experience today.

[i] Eric Carle Museum

[ii] The North American Reggio Emilia Alliance