Thursday, September 30, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] Fwd: [IFLA-L] Medical Library Association: Cunningham Memorial International Fellowship Applications due December 1, 2010



>>> "Muellenbach, Joanne" <jmuellenbach@tcmedc.org> 9/29/2010 3:29 PM >>>

Cunningham Memorial International Fellowship Applications due December 1, 2010

 

Applications are now being accepted for the Cunningham Memorial International Fellowship. The Fellowship is awarded annually to health sciences librarians from countries outside the United States and Canada.  The fellowship provides for attendance at the MLA '12 Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington and travel to library host sites in the United States and Canada. Further details, including an application and fact sheet, are located at <http://www.mlanet.org/awards/grants>www.mlanet.org/awards/grants. For additional information, contact Joanne Muellenbach, Jury Chair, at jmuellenbach@tcmedc.org.

 

Joanne M. Muellenbach, MLS, AHIP

Library Director

The Commonwealth Medical College

501 Vine Street

Scranton, PA 18509

 

Tel:  570-504-9627

Fax: 570-504-9618

E-Mail: jmuellenbach@tcmedc.org

Internet: http://www.thecommonwealthmedical.com

 

 

 


###

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.

###

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] twitter hashtag code search for LIASA 12th Annual Conference

Dear colleagues
To gather together all the tweets from different people on the 12th
Annual LIASA conference:
Go to search.twitter.com and type in the code "liasa12" in the search
box, without the quotation marks, hit the search button and Voila -
every post with that hashtag code will be listed.

--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

_______________________________________________
Lib-helig-l mailing list
Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za
https://lists.uct.ac.za/mailman/listinfo/lib-helig-l

[Lib-helig-l] Searching for better research habits (INSIDE Higher Ed, 29 September 2010)

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via Unisa Library by Library Procurement on 9/29/10

Should colleges teach students how to be better Googlers?

Educators who see the popular search engine as antithetical to good research might cringe at the thought of endorsing it to students. But they might not cringe nearly as hard as did attendees of the 2010 Ithaka Sustainable Scholarship Conference when Andrew Asher showed them what happens when students do not learn how to use Google properly. 

"Students do not have adequate information literacy skills when they come to college, and this goes for even high-achieving students," said Asher, the lead research anthropologist at the Enthographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries (ERIAL) Project, which recently studied the search habits of more than 600 Illinois students spanning a range of institutions and demographic groups.

To read this article click here

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

[Lib-helig-l] The Mission of Research Libraries

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via LISNews: - Since 1999 by Blake on 9/29/10

The Mission of Research Libraries
The mission of research libraries is motivated by the mission of research universities, which were founded to create new knowledge and disseminate it through publication. Sometimes this new knowledge has practical and commercial applications, and so often receives more funding, but that's not necessarily the case. The mission to create new knowledge extends to every area of human experience, from the mundane and practical to the esoteric and purely abstract.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

[Lib-helig-l] Articulating Value in Special Collections: Are We Collecting Data that Matter?

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via In the Library with the Lead Pipe by Genya O'Gara on 9/29/10

As librarians, we invest a great deal of time and effort instructing researchers on how to use our materials. This is especially true for special collections librarians, as we attempt to familiarize researchers with our unique resources and intricate collection arrangements. At the end of that instruction investment, we often wonder if we have been effective and what our students have truly learned. Have we taught them lasting research skills? If so, how do we illustrate the value of this service to cost-cutting administrators? How do we quantify the skills gained from working with our materials? Most importantly—how do we know if our instruction is making a difference for the researcher?

Last year, we had the opportunity to collaborate with the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in the production of SPEC Kit 317: Special Collections Engagement. SPEC Kits, produced annually, survey the 124 ARL member institutions and collect data on current practices and policies of libraries.

We surveyed member institutions about the ways special collections are engaging students, faculty, and researchers through exhibits, events, and curricular involvement, and found that over 95% of respondents are involved in these activities (Berenbak et al., 2010, 16). A core component of many of these outreach efforts was instructional engagement in the use of special collections materials.

As we began the work of analyzing the survey results, a recurrent theme surfaced: the inconsistency of instructional engagement assessment. We began to ask ourselves questions about the concepts of evaluation and assessment of instruction, and how those terms are articulated and understood in the context of special collections. For example, when conducting a one-time instruction session, should evaluation focus on the librarian's presentation skills, the use of archival collections by participants after a session, or the number of participating students or classes?

Although special collections are attempting to assess their instruction in a variety of ways, these efforts are not consistent, not standardized, and often not driven by a "need for information that fosters targeted change" (Ariew, 2007, 508). Many special collections would like to move assessment beyond use counts and anecdotal feedback, but the majority of ARL special collections have no plan or policy for outreach or engagement, and few have dedicated outreach staff (Berenbak et al, 2010).[1] Under these circumstances, how do special collections conceptualize what success looks like, or what measurements will convey when success has been achieved?

What IS being assessed?

Currently, most research libraries contribute annual statistics to government agencies and organizations such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).[2] These statistics include the size of each library's collections, circulation, staff. Additionally, ARL asks libraries to describe instructional engagement efforts, reporting on the number of presentations that are given to groups, the number of participants in those groups, and the number of reference transactions. ARL provides the following definitions for its categories:

Presentations to Groups. Report the total number of sessions during the year of presentations made as part of formal bibliographic instruction programs and through other planned class presentations, orientation sessions, and tours . . . Presentations to groups may be for either bibliographic instruction, cultural, recreational, or educational purposes . . . the purpose of this question is to capture information about the services the library provides for its clientele. (Kyrillidou, & Bland, 2009, 100, emphasis added)

Participants in Group Presentations. Report the total number of participants in the presentations. For multi-session classes with a constant enrollment, count each person only once. Personal, one-to-one instruction in the use of sources should be counted as reference transactions (Kyrillidou, & Bland, 2009, 100).

Reference Transactions. A reference transaction is an information contact that involves the knowledge, use, recommendations, interpretation, or instruction in the use of one or more information sources by a member of the library staff. The term includes information and referral service. Information sources include (a) printed and nonprinted material; (b) machine-readable databases (including computer-assisted instruction); (c) the library's own catalogs and other holdings records; (d) other libraries and institutions through communication or referral; and (e) persons both inside and outside the library . . . . (Kyrillidou, & Bland, 2009, 100).

Special collections departments are asked to contribute their numbers to their library's general pool; ARL does not differentiate between general library instruction and the instructional efforts of special collections departments, a practice that makes the compiled statistics less useful for both ARL and the responding institutions.

It is clear from the results of our SPEC Kit findings that few institutions are doing any assessment of instructional engagement beyond what is required by ARL. Most responding institutions do not have formal evaluative measures. [3] Instead, these institutions tend to rely heavily on feedback and conversations with students, faculty, and researchers (Berenbak et al, 2010, 78, 79,91,92). [4] Special collections tend to either quantify the usefulness of their instruction when patrons mention they "learned" or "got something" from the instruction, or when they count how many items were checked out to patrons. And while counting items is arguably important for certain kinds of assessment, without measuring against a desired and stated outcome, what does a number like this really tell a special collections about its practices?

We know that very few special collections departments have any sort of formalized planning or policies guiding their instructional programming (Berenbak et al, 2010, 15). Different circumstances in each special collections contribute to this situation. In some cases, staff are short on the time and energy to devote to this activity (or, more commonly, staff tasked with this activity are a luxury most special collections cannot afford). In others, the responsibility of instruction is delegated at the time of need to the staff person whose background most closely aligns with the subject area of the instruction, limiting the consistency of the instruction. Sometimes the institution simply has not considered or not yet formally developed a plan for instructional engagement that fits into the overall activities of that special collections.

Whatever the circumstances, the results of our survey showed that most (80%) special collections are engaging in instructional sessions on a steady basis, and will likely continue to do so in the future — perhaps at an even greater frequency than their current rates (Berenbak et. al, 2010, 13).[5] If special collections are going to direct more focused efforts at planning their instructional engagement, they will need articulated and useful assessment metrics. After all, we cannot know if our engagement planning is a worthwhile investment if we are not assessing the outcomes of that engagement.

Though we recognize a need for better assessment, we are struggling to respond to this need. Determining which metrics will provide useful information about instruction is a conundrum that is keeping many special collections frustrated or hesitant to try assessment at all. A few institutions provide evidence that assessment is not daunting for everyone — one special collections, for example, looks for citations of materials from their holdings in student papers as an indication of the success of their instruction; some look for any citations of primary source materials; and some have undertaken short surveys and faculty interviews. [6] But by and large, most special collections seem uncertain as to what to collect or how to collect it.

What are we teaching?

When we do an instruction session with patrons in special collections, what are our objectives? Aware that specific objectives will vary from one session to another — informed by the needs, topics, or other parameters that may frame a session — there are still general objectives that we, as instructors, are always hoping to meet. Helping patrons find exactly what they need is possibly the most successful outcome we can achieve, but the many steps along the path to discovery are the components of instruction that perhaps most need to be measured in order to gauge the effectiveness of our instruction. Before patrons can find exactly what they are looking for, they first have to learn how to find it. From our perspective as instructors, a successful journey is more indicative of our instructional impact than arrival at the destination.

Why is the journey so important in special collections? Elizabeth Yakel, in her article "Listening to Users," describes archives as a tablula rasa for researchers (Yakel, 2002, 122). She makes the important point that, unlike libraries where the "paradigm for assistance, access tools, and rules" has been learned by users from childhood at their public and school libraries, archives are considered a great unknown (Yakel, 2002, 122). The intricacies of the different rules, different materials, and different access tools often stump even the most experienced library user or researcher. Some archivists have correctly compared a successful special collections instruction session to an "archeological dig" (Schmiesing & Hollis, 2002). Since the majority of special collections materials are not reflected on an item-by-item basis in either the library catalog or a finding aid, researchers must "dig" through boxes of materials, digital images, or artifacts. Because of the nature of this type of research, and because materials are not individually pre-selected for consumption, users must constantly reformulate their queries as they discover new materials. This often necessitates close collaboration with the special collections staff throughout the research process.

Unfortunately, this type of instruction is not accurately reflected in our measurements. Certainly limited head counts and use statistics do not paint an accurate picture of this work, nor do brief reactionary evaluations. [7] These evaluations are important and necessary, especially when reporting to organizations outside the library, but they fail to assess whether or not learning objectives are being met.

What's out there now?

Academic libraries recognize that the reactionary evaluation of instruction often falls short, and have developed tools to help libraries make sure students and users are meeting learning objectives. These include guidelines such as ACRL's "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education," "Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators: A Practical Guide," and skills tests such as Project SAILS. These guidelines give a framework for conducting meaningful evaluation for instruction librarians. And although there is no shortage of literature to be found on the subject of library instruction and assessment, we are only beginning to see similar literature and tools dealing with evaluating instruction in archives and special collections. A good example of this emerging interest can be found in Michelle McCoy's article, "The Manuscript as Question: Teaching Primary Sources in the Archives – The China Missions Project." McCoy details methods for the planning, instruction, and innovative assessment of a collaborative effort between the special collections and archives department at DePaul University and Professor Warren Schultz's undergraduate History 199 Historical Concepts and Methods class.

Arguably the most important current project appearing in the assessment literature for archives and special collections is the Mellon-funded Archival Metrics Project, which includes models for assessing instruction (discussed at length below). In addition to the products themselves, Archival Metrics investigators have produced papers detailing initial studies for the project such as Duff and Cherry's "Archival orientation for undergraduate students: An exploratory study of impact."

Although we appear to be making progress, current assessment practices of efforts to instruct patrons on the use of special collections resources — both the materials themselves and the many discovery tools we've created (finding aids, databases, and subject guides) — would probably not receive a passing grade. Measuring and quantifying the journey is a daunting task.

While we should not stop collecting the statistics that are needed by ARL, the general library community — and especially special collections — should have a clear understanding of what these numbers actually represent. Any instruction or reference librarian will tell you that a headcount for their curricular sessions or a tally mark for a reference transaction does not adequately measure what they do or the instruction they provide. Especially when tally sheets obscure the difference between a quick question lookup and an hour-long research consultation at the desk.

We face a number of difficulties in achieving the goal of both establishing and collecting useful assessment metrics. In addition to a lack of policies or plans regarding curricular outreach and engagement, special collections often do not have positions designated to conduct instructional outreach. As discussed earlier, these duties often fall to the person in the department with the greatest subject knowledge, or the most available time.[8] It will be difficult to take on additional duties — especially when there are no easy answers and many special collections are short on staff and funding — but we offer some suggestions for ways that special collections might start.

Assessing the Journey

That's right. Journey.

First, we must share. Some special collections are reaching students and evaluating their work with them in innovative ways, and the success of these efforts needs to be promoted.

Some of these innovations include:

  • Making early contact with graduate student instructors so that they have experience working with special collections before they enter faculty positions;
  • Working with subject librarians to incorporate relevant material into their teaching efforts;
  • Giving awards to undergraduate research projects that make extensive use of the collections;
  • Working with students to create virtual and physical exhibits highlighting materials used in special collections.

Assessment examples include:

  • Monitoring use statistics of particular collections after an instruction session;
  • Asking classes to donate copies of student papers to review the citations as a tool for better understanding the effectiveness of instruction;
  • Using student focus groups to evaluate video tutorials;
  • Monitoring books and articles published, performances given, and theses written;
  • Tracking number and value of grants received;
  • Examining web server statistics;
  • Feedback forms and surveys;
  • Monitoring number of graduate and practicum students using the collections;
  • Soliciting and compiling one-on-one feedback from professors and students. [9]

The assessment practices that generate the most useful results are multipronged in their approach. The China Missions Project, for example, was organized in such a way that the students included a self-assessment of their experience using archival materials and research methods as part of their class research papers (McCoy, 2010, 55). Copies of these papers were deposited with the University Archives, and then staff conducted a qualitative survey of the papers to assess their responses. Recognizing that self-assessment in a graded paper might encourage students to write positive responses regardless of actual understanding, staff further scrutinized the papers' citations. "Students who used a total of four citations or fewer or relied heavily on Wikipedia or other Web sources whose reliability cannot be verified were moved to a neutral position and not included in the positive total" (McCoy, 2010, 55). This approach—as well as other methods listed above—have plusses and minuses, but becoming aware of what other special collections are trying gives the rest of us a jumping off point.

A variety of special collections have noted their relationships with outreach and subject liaison librarians. Developing these close relationships can be beneficial for everyone involved. Understanding the holdings in a special collections, and illustrating how those materials might be incorporated into the curriculum, creates a great opportunity for instructing students in the value of primary sources. Drawing on the skills and backgrounds of subject specialists and instruction librarians can help special collections staff (often untrained in these areas) to develop sound instruction techniques.

Additionally, our colleagues in outreach and instruction have done an extraordinary amount of work related to best practices for evaluating instruction. In a 2007 article, Ariew and Lener state that one of the main insights gained in their study "Evaluating instruction: developing a program that supports the teaching librarian" was that teaching evaluation forms should be "tailored to specific classes, objectives and learning outcomes." Most importantly, the group learned that "effective assessment requires a variety of assessment procedures be used" (Ariew, & Lener, 2007, 512). From teaching portfolios to 3-2-1 cards to surveys, the literature yields a great deal of information about what works and what doesn't for each type of instruction. Although not all of these practices can be used to evaluate special collections instructional engagement practices, they provide guideposts to start from.

Fortunately, some people are starting to address the problem of how to assess the engagement work being done by special collections departments. The Archival Metrics Toolkits[10], for example, attempt to standardize evaluation in archives. This work recognizes that the "administration and use of primary sources are sufficiently different from libraries that they deserve tools that appropriately measure service to users" (Yakel, & Tibbo, 2010, 221). This creation of a standardized survey tool for archives could relieve a large part of the assessment burden, which is particularly important for archives with small staff. It also begins to answer the call for standardized evaluation that was so apparent in the results of our SPEC Kit survey.

The Archival Metrics Toolkit is particularly useful in laying out a set of standard questions about archives use, and they provide clear instructions on how to gather, compile, and analyze the data from the surveys. This information provides a basis for making comparisons across institutions, and could give special collections a better chance of identifying best practices and trends.

However, even the best of surveys have drawbacks such as rate of completion (particularly difficult in archives due to small numbers)[11], survey fatigue, and a focus on perceptions. Supplementing surveys by seeking evidence of skills mastered, such as citation analysis or testing, seems a more well rounded method to determining "what students have learned as opposed to how they feel about what they have learned" (Barclay, 1993, 198).

Special collections must clearly state engagement goals in order for any type of evaluation to be meaningful. Good practice in evaluating instructional engagement starts "with the learning objectives of the instructor" (or the department), and uses those to shape the tools being applied for evaluation (Areiw, & Lener, 2007, 512). As the libraries at Virginia Tech discovered, evaluation, when possible, should be unique to specific classes and desired student and faculty outcomes and will likely require that a variety of assessment procedures be used (Ariew, 2007, 512).

Conclusions

Today more than ever, library administrators are being asked to describe in a quantifiable way the value of their academic libraries and their practices. Therefore, special collections must be able to articulate to administrators why current evaluation methods are insufficient. Simple forms, tally marks, and baseline ARL statistics will never be able to get at the information we need to improve our practices. Specials collections need to make the case for developing more appropriate evaluation methods — even though this will require a commitment of valuable staff resources — and then make the commitment to using the results of these evaluations to enhance services. Ultimately, more meaningful data will help us provide better service to the students, faculty, and researchers who rely on special collections, and it will better equip us to tell their story and our own.

Huge thanks to our editors and advisors: Kathy Brown, Hyun-Duck Chung and Brett Bonfield. Your thoughtful comments have made this a much better post,` and sparked ideas for future avenues of exploration. And of course, thank you so much to all of our SPEC Kit co-authors, Adam Berenbak, Claire Ruswick, Danica Cullinan and Judy Allen-Dodson.


[1] Adam Berenbak et. al, Special Collections Engagement SPEC Kit 317, (Washington D.C.: Association of Research Libraries), p. 14-16. Of respondents to SPEC Survey 317, 87% of have no formal plan or policy for outreach and engagement (p. 14) and approximately half of the institutions cite their primary engagement barrier as insufficient staffing, in particular "lack of dedicated outreach staff" (p. 15). Also most institutions "rely on patron or item counts and anecdotal feedback to assess the effectiveness of their outreach" (p. 16). At the same time, many special collections "clearly expressed a desire to move beyond this to a more systematic approach" (p. 16).

[2] The ARL states that these data "describe collections, staffing, expenditures, and service activities" of the 114 university libraries and 10 public, governmental, and nonprofit research libraries that collectively form ARL (Association of Research Libraries, 2008).

[3] This is not to imply that no one is attempting to assess instruction, but it is not standardized, and based on the survey responses, in general, it is fairly ad-hoc (Berenbak et al., 2010, 78, 79, 90, 91).

[4] Question 35 in the ARL Spec Kit did not specifically ask about the evaluation of instructional engagement but more broadly inquired, "What measure(s) have been used to evaluate special collections engagement with faculty/scholars/researchers who are affiliated with your institutions." Many of the responses were similar to the more directed question 28 "What measure(s) are used to evaluate student use of unique materials in research projects." The following types of statements made up the bulk of the responses: "no evaluation," "much to few [sic]," "no particular measures have been used," "nothing systematic," "little evaluation has been done," and "none to date."

[5] The number of respondents actively working to engage students for curricular purposes is even higher at 99% (Berenbak et. al, 2010, 62).

[6] These examples are taken from the responses to the question "What measure(s) are used to evaluate student use of unique materials in research projects?" Responses include examining the "extent and breadth of primary resources and collections in any format," a "learning outcomes survey," and "discussion with faculty of results" (Berenbak et. al., 2010, 78, 79 and 80).

[7] Reactionary refers to a short survey after a presentation that often focuses on a students' perception of the presentation rather than on whether or not new skills have been developed.

[8] When respondents were asked who had primary responsibility for coordinating curricular engagement, 15% had one individual who held primary responsibility, 15% said one individual leads a team or staff, 31% stated that all (or most) special collections staff shared the responsibility, and 39% noted that it varied depending on the project (Berenbak et al, 2010, 64).

[9] These examples are drawn from the responses to questions 28 and 35 of the ARL SPEC Kit 317 "What measure(s) are used to evaluate student use of unique materials in research projects" and "what measure(s) have been used to evaluate special collections engagement with faculty/scholars/researchers who are affiliated with your institution"(Berenbak et. al, 2010 78, 79, 80, 91). The respondent's institutions are kept anonymous in SPEC Kit publications, so although these are specific examples, we are unable to point out specific schools for the purposes of this post.

[10]The toolkit includes sections for "Researchers" (A user-based evaluation tool for on-site researchers to evaluate the quality of services, facilities, and finding aids in university archives and special collections), "Online Finding Aids" (A user-based evaluation tool for visitors to evaluate the quality and usability of online finding aids in university archives and special collections), "Websites" (A user-based evaluation tool for visitors to evaluate the quality and usability of websites in university archives and special collections), "Student Researchers"(A user based evaluation tool for students use the archives or special collections as part of a class and participate in archival orientations), and a "Teaching Support" section (A user-based evaluation tool for instructors who have used the university archives and special collections to evaluate its services.)

[11] Small numbers can make it difficult to obtain an appropriate sample size.

Resources

Ariew, S., & Lener, E. (2007). Evaluating instruction: developing a program that supports the teaching librarian. Research Strategies, 20. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W60-4MWXT97-2/2/e3d2a22ec51f17a15bc53a77240d49e7 doi: 10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.020

Association Of Research Libraries, (2010). Association of Research Libraries: SPEC Kits. Retrieved Sep. 15, 2010, from http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/index.shtml.

Association of Research Libraries. (2008, February 4). Association of research libraries: annual surveys. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/index.shtml

Barclay, D (1993). Evaluating library instruction: Doing the best you can with what you have, RQ 33 (2), pp. 195–202.

Berenbak, Adam, Putirskis, Cate, O'Gara, Genya, Ruswick, Claire, Cullinan, Danica, Dodson, Judy Allen, Walters, Emily, & Brown, Kathy (2010). Spec kit 317 special collections engagement. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Knight, L. (2002). The Role of assessment in library user education. Reference Services Review, 30(1), Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=861677&show=html

Kyrillidou, Marth, & Bland, Les. (2009). Arl statistics 2007-2008 Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/arlstats08.shtml

McCoy, M. (2010). The Manuscript as question: teaching primary sources in the archives – the china missions project. College and Research Libraries, 71(1), Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/71/1/49.full.pdf+html

Schmiesing , Ann, & Hollis, Deborah. (2002). The Role of special collections departments in humanities undergraduate and graduate teaching: a case study Libraries and the Academy, 2(3), Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v002/2.3schmiesing.html

Yakel, E. (2002). Listening to users. Archival Issues, 26(2), 111-127.

Yakel, E., & Tibbo, H. (2010). Standardized survey tools for assessment in archives and special collections. Performance measurements and metrics, 11(2), Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1871188&show=abstract doi: 10.1108/14678041011064115


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

[Lib-helig-l] LIASA FAIFE Conference session 2010, 29 September 2010, be there!

LIASA FAIFE session this afternoon at 13:30 in Acropolis 6,

Dr Reggie Raju will present for Prof Peter Underwood.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fatima Darries <darriesfa@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:40:22 +0200
Subject: LIASA FAIFE Conference session 2010, 29 September 2010, be there!
To: lib-helig-l <Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za>,
liasa-faife-09@googlegroups.com, liasaonline@list.liasa.org.za,
sabinet-sabinews@googlegroups.com

Hi
As promised, a conference session rather than a workshop for LIASA FAIFE.

Diarise, 29 September 2010, 13:30 to 15:30, St George's Hotel and
Conference Centre.

Dr Naresh Sentoo, practically an institution at the LIASA conference
with his witty and funny presentations, is presenting at the LIASA
FAIFE conference session. His paper "It's not my fault ... BUT, I know
how to put it right"

Prof. Peter Underwood, talks about the "fatal equation". What leads to chaos?

And finally, Siphiwe Segodi, from the Freedom of Expression Institute,
talks about how libraries can play a role in assisting the
marginalized communities access to information, the Act and the Bill.

See the full line up on the LIASA FAIFE Conference session on this
blog at http://liasafaife.wordpress.com/liasa-faife-conference-session-2010/

--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

_______________________________________________
Lib-helig-l mailing list
Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za
https://lists.uct.ac.za/mailman/listinfo/lib-helig-l

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] Fwd: [IFLA-L] Reminder - Publisher wants to establish a Librarian Focus Group

 
 
Ingrid Thomson
Librarian: Humanities Information Division
Chancellor Oppenheimer Library
University of Cape Town Libraries
Private Bag
7700 RONDEBOSCH
SOUTH AFRICA
 
Tel: +27 21 650 3703  Fax: +27 21 689 7569
 
 
 


>>> Eric Broug <EBroug@emeraldinsight.com> 9/28/2010 11:20 AM >>>

Dear librarian,

 

We'd like to remind you of the following opportunity, the deadline for expressing your interest is Friday the 15th of October.

 

Emerald Group Publishing in the UK is looking for academic librarians to take part in a new initiative that will give you an opportunity to let us know what we are doing right and what we could do better.

 

We are seeking to create focus group that represents all parts of the world. We want to understand better what academic publishers should be doing to

  1. stay up to date with technological developments in electronic libraries
  2. encourage usage and decrease cost-per-Download
  3. provide statistics and metadata in a way that is easy for you
  4. take into consideration special regional circumstances

 

If you are interested to offer your views, we would love to hear from you. We are aiming to request your views on a number of issues two to three times a year. Depending on the number of expressions of interest we receive, we will consider how best to do this. You can email me directly (ebroug@emeraldinsight.com) but please don't reply to the listserv moderator. Please get in touch by Friday 15th October at the latest.

 

 

 

Eric Broug

Vice President Operations - Asia, Middle East & Africa

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Tel: +44 (0)1274 785195

Mobile: +44 (0)7875 249006

e-mail: ebroug@emeraldinsight.com

http://www.emeraldinsight.com 

 


Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA United Kingdom. Registered in England No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 665 3593 06

###

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.

###

[Lib-helig-l] Tweets from the LIASA Conference

Dear Colleagues who use Twitter
 
To follow tweets from the LIASA Conference,  follow #liasa12. 
 
 
Regards
Ingrid Thomson
 
 
Ingrid Thomson
Librarian: Humanities Information Division
Chancellor Oppenheimer Library
University of Cape Town Libraries
Private Bag
7700 RONDEBOSCH
SOUTH AFRICA
 
Tel: +27 21 650 3703  Fax: +27 21 689 7569
 
 
 

###

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.

###

Monday, September 27, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] LIASA FAIFE Conference session 2010, 29 September 2010, be there!

Hi
As promised, a conference session rather than a workshop for LIASA FAIFE.

Diarise, 29 September 2010, 13:30 to 15:30, St George's Hotel and
Conference Centre.

Dr Naresh Sentoo, practically an institution at the LIASA conference
with his witty and funny presentations, is presenting at the LIASA
FAIFE conference session. His paper "It's not my fault ... BUT, I know
how to put it right"

Prof. Peter Underwood, talks about the "fatal equation". What leads to chaos?

And finally, Siphiwe Segodi, from the Freedom of Expression Institute,
talks about how libraries can play a role in assisting the
marginalized communities access to information, the Act and the Bill.

See the full line up on the LIASA FAIFE Conference session on this
blog at http://liasafaife.wordpress.com/liasa-faife-conference-session-2010/

--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

_______________________________________________
Lib-helig-l mailing list
Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za
https://lists.uct.ac.za/mailman/listinfo/lib-helig-l

[Lib-helig-l] Library Labs turn to their patrons for new services

September 24, 2010, 12:27 PM ET
Library Labs Turn to Their Patrons for Project Ideas
By Travis Kaya
University librarians are turning to their patrons for ideas on how to
improve library services.

This fall, the new Harvard University Library Lab invited students and
faculty and staff members to help enhance the facility's offerings by
proposing projects of their own. The lab will pool the
proposals—submitted through an online portal—for review by a board of
library officials. Once selections are made, the lab will develop the
most promising projects with grant money from Arcadia, a London-based
charitable fund to protect endangered natural and cultural resources,
and with technical support from computer programmers and the library
staff.

"The main goal has been to get some grassroots ideas generated and get
people excited about contributing to their own efforts," said Stuart
Shieber, a professor of computer science and faculty director of the
Office for Scholarly Communication, which runs the lab.

While Mr. Shieber said a large chunk of projects will most likely be
Web-related, the lab is not restricting its search to any one medium.
Whether projects affect one academic field or the entire student body,
Mr. Shieber said, the lab is also interested in helping people with
"ideas of all scales."

As the lab collects project proposals, library staff members are
answering questions from and bouncing around ideas with prospective
applicants. Although Mr. Shieber said he expected to see a large
number of submissions from faculty members and library staff, he has
also received inquiries from students who are "gung-ho about the
opportunities."

The library lab is based on a two-year-old program at the Harvard Law
School Library, which works one-on-one with faculty members and
library staff members to develop new projects. Although it does not
receive outside financing and is restricted to the law-school
community, the law library's outreach to users on new projects served
as an inspiration for the campuswide lab. "Much of what we're trying
to do initially is to create the capacity for innovation," said John
G. Palfrey, Harvard Law School's vice dean for library and information
resources.

Harvard is not alone in its push to get patrons more involved with
library programs. At the University of Virginia's Scholars' Lab,
faculty members and advanced graduate students have been proposing and
carrying out library tech projects for the past three and a half
years. "Having an R&D group attached to a public-services group allows
us to do a lot of interesting things," said Bethany Nowviskie,
director of digital research and scholarship at the university.

Rather than simply looking for one-time solutions to specialized
faculty problems, Ms. Nowviskie said, the selection committee seeks
out projects that can be used across disciplines and departments.
"We're trying to steer away from one-off boutique projects and look
for combinations that will work with many faculty members," she said.

The project to create the library's new catalog search tool is a
recent example of a specialized project adopted for widespread use.
The tool, which is currently in its testing phase, was inspired by an
open-source database established by the Networked Infrastructure for
Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, or NINES. According to Ms.
Nowviskie, NINES was one of many academic projects housed in the
research library, which sets aside office space for faculty. Once
NINES—then led by UVa faculty member Jerome McGann—moved in,
conversations about the database's value for the wider campus
community developed naturally. "It was a problem that scholars were
trying to solve for themselves and it had some very interesting
technical and interface implications for the problems that librarians
were trying to solve," Ms. Nowviskie said. "We looked at what UVa
faculty were doing there and took some great ideas from it."

Ms. Nowviskie said the lab allows for valuable experimentation with
new library services, even if all projects do not prove successful.
"We shouldn't be glossing over failures. We should be learning from
them," she said.

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Library-Labs-Turn-to-Their/27111/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

_______________________________________________
Lib-helig-l mailing list
Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za
https://lists.uct.ac.za/mailman/listinfo/lib-helig-l

Saturday, September 25, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] The Mission of Research Libraries

Interesting Read ....
Regards
Ingrid Thomson

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via Academic Librarian by Wayne Bivens-Tatum on 9/22/10

AL Direct linked today to a blog post I hadn't yet read at the Book of Trogool blog. In that post, and in another linked from it, Dorothea Salo responds to a challenging question she received at a meeting at UCLA:

"How do libraries justify spending on open access--making local materials available to the world--if our guiding mission is to buy appropriate materials specifically on behalf of our patron base?"

Her answers were that promoting open access is better for us financially in the long term, and that unless we achieve a "collective openness," libraries will die as their and the publishers' business model dies. These are good answers, but not the ones I would give.

Instead, I would choose to challenge the original assumption, that the guiding mission of research libraries (and I'm assuming research libraries only, which UCLA has) is to buy appropriate materials for local (and presumably currently existing) patrons. That's not now, nor has it ever been, the guiding mission of research libraries, or in the interest of the research institutions they support. The guiding mission of research libraries is to collect the human record in its totality and make it accessible for study by all scholars. We have not yet achieved a "collective openness," but we've achieved a remarkable amount of collective organization.

Salo is primarily concerned with journal publishers and open access, but considering other areas will help us understand this mission. Archives and special collections exist at every research library, and yet in my experience archives and special collections aren't funded specifically because the local patrons want to use them. The purpose of archives is to collectively preserve the human record. Visiting scholars are as common in many archives as local scholars. Special collections exist because someone somewhere may want to study them because they are important. If local scholars study them, so much the better. And libraries are increasingly digitizing these archives because the mission of the library is to disseminate as well as collect and preserve human knowledge. Scholars everywhere benefit from the preservation or digitization of knowledge by libraries at institutions they don't work for. 

Another way libraries try to fulfill this mission is through interlibrary loan and other forms of resource sharing and cooperation. No library is an island, and librarians have worked very hard for several decades to build up networks to share resources and information. Stand outside the profession for a moment and think how amazing it is that thousands of libraries are connected through OCLC and other organizations, and that a scholar in Florida who needs a book available only at libraries in Oregon and Alaska could probably get the book in a few days without traveling. 

The interconnectedness of libraries today is no trivial fact. And the more that libraries cooperate and share and digitize and allow open access, the greater the totality of resources available to all scholars. It's the totality and access that are important. Scholar A at University B also benefits when University C digitizes content or shares it through ILL or an institutional repository, and all scholars and librarians should remember that.

Research libraries are not like, say, community college libraries, because the driving goal for every purchase isn't that a resource fills an immediate curricular need. Research libraries also buy materials for immediate need, but they have to consider the needs of scholarship in general, both now and decades from now. A lot of scholars are able to do their work now because some librarian some time in the past collected material just for the sake of collecting it, and the same will be true of scholars in the future. Or it won't be true, depending on whether research libraries live up to their mission. Research libraries that purchase only what is absolutely necessary for their current local patrons fail in their mission.

The mission of research libraries is motivated by the mission of research universities, which were founded to create new knowledge and disseminate it through publication. Sometimes this new knowledge has practical and commercial applications, and so often receives more funding, but that's not necessarily the case. The mission to create new knowledge extends to every area of human experience, from the mundane and practical to the esoteric and purely abstract. Knowledge creation in history, literature, philosophy, or even higher mathematics doesn't lead to startling commercial products, but still research universities support this work to the extent they fulfill their mission. Unlike undergraduate teaching, which until recently was necessarily confined to local classrooms, the research mission of universities and the community of scholars have always been international in scope. 

Thus, an answer as to why research libraries should spend money promoting open access publications is because open access publications perfectly fit in with the mission of research libraries to collect the human record in its totality and make it as accessible as possible to all scholars. While the bean counters at every university may think only of short term expenses and gains, librarians and the current and future scholars they serve have an obligation to think globally and collectively. Research libraries and research universities are all part of a vast network to create, preserve, and disseminate human knowledge, and while they have many challengers with less pure motives, and are far from perfect in fulfilling their mission, it's still astounding how much they have accomplished. Whether they can better accomplish this mission in the future considering the current economics of information is still an open question, but that they should do what they can to accomplish the mission should not be in question at all. Instead of being contrary to the mission of libraries, open access to the results of scholarship would be the ultimate fulfillment of the mission of research libraries and universities.





 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Friday, September 24, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] Research Library Issues, no. 271 (Aug. 2010): Special Issue on Value in Libr...

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via Library Intelligencer by shirley on 9/23/10

http://publications.arl.org/rli271

Washington DC—The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has published a special issue of Research Library Issues (RLI) on demonstrating library value by assessing organizational performance. The special issue focuses on ways in which ARL assessment tools help libraries improve their services and programs and show their value to stakeholders.

In an introductory essay, " Library Value May Be Proven, If Not Self-Evident," guest editor Martha Kyrillidou, Senior Director, ARL Statistics and Service Quality Programs, highlights the range of articles in this issue and discusses the need to assess, improve, and prove the value of library services.

Other articles in the special issue are:
  • A Decade of Assessment at a Research-Extensive University Library Using LibQUAL+®
    Colleen Cook and Michael Maciel
  • LibQUAL+® and the "Library as Place" at the University of Glasgow
    Jacqui Dowd
  • Service Quality Assessment with LibQUAL+® in Challenging Times: LibQUAL+® at Cranfield University
    Selena Killick
  • ARL Profiles: Qualitative Descriptions of Research Libraries in the Early 21st Century
    William Gray Potter, Colleen Cook, and Martha Kyrillidou
  • The ARL Library Scorecard Pilot: Using the Balanced Scorecard in Research Libraries
    Martha Kyrillidou
  • Lib-Value: Measuring Value and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries
    Regina Mays, Carol Tenopir, and Paula Kaufman
  • The Value of Electronic Resources: Measuring the Impact of Networked Electronic Services (MINES for Libraries®) at the Ontario Council of University Libraries
    Catherine Davidson and Martha Kyrillidou

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] Call for Papers: Special Issue of the Journal of the Medical Library Association on Applying Technologies in Medical Libraries

For the medical librarians.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lisa A Ennis <lennis@uab.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:41:58 -0500
Subject: [Web4lib] Call for Papers: Special Issue of the Journal of
the Medical Library Association on Applying Technologies in Medical
Libraries
To: "web4lib@webjunction.org" <web4lib@webjunction.org>

Using technology to improve access to information has long been
integral to medical and health sciences libraries. However, today's
environment of rapidly changing software and hardware, social
networking tools, and increasingly tiny and mobile devices presents
special challenges for health sciences libraries. To help readers to
better understand and manage this environment, the Journal of the
Medical Library Association (JMLA) is planning to devote an upcoming
issue to papers that help in understanding how health sciences
libraries can use technologies to improve delivery of, and access to,
medical and health sciences information.
JMLA particularly welcomes submission of case studies that describe
how a particular institution used technology to solve a common problem
confronting our libraries, as well as research papers that use
quantitative or qualitative methodologies to evaluate the use of
technology in health sciences libraries, and state-of-the-art reviews
that look at some aspect of this issue. Papers should follow the
guidelines on JMLA's Information for Authors website at
www.mlanet.org/publications/jmla/jmlainfo.html. ln addition to
describing the application used, case studies should include a
discussion of alternatives considered, data that supports an
evaluation of the projects' success in meeting stated goals, and a
section on "lessons learned" that will aid other libraries who may be
considering a similar application.
To appear in this issue, scheduled for January 2012, papers should be
received no later than May 10, 2011. If you would like to discuss an
idea for a paper, please contact Susan Starr, Editor, JMLA at
jmlaeditorbox@gmail.com.


Lisa Ennis, MS, MA
Systems Librarian / School of Nursing Co-Liaison
Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
(v)205.934.6322 (f)205.934.3545
http://www.uab.edu/lister

"In order to be really good as a librarian, everything counts towards
your work, every play you go see, every concert you hear, every trip
you take, everything you read, everything you know. I don't know of
another occupation like that. The more you know, the better you're
going to be."
--Allen Smith

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib@webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/


--
Regards
Fatima Darries

E-LIS SA Editor

http://eprints.rclis.org

www.highedlibrarian.blogspot.com
www.openaccesslibrary.pbwiki.com

_______________________________________________
Lib-helig-l mailing list
Lib-helig-l@lists.uct.ac.za
https://lists.uct.ac.za/mailman/listinfo/lib-helig-l

[Lib-helig-l] Sconul Focus number 49, 2010

 
 

Sent to you by IngridThomson via Google Reader:

 
 

via Library Intelligencer by shirley on 9/20/10

http://www.sconul.ac.uk/publications/newsletter/

contents include:

E-book readers: what are librarians to make of them? Karl Drinkwater

The first six tools for practical Library 2.0; Paul Stainthorp

Use of social media in the member libraries of the Business Librarians Association; Emma Cragg

A typical morning for the information support desk in the University of Liverpool's Sydney Jones library; Sandra Brunnen

From fairytales to real-life stories: sharing experiences at the library information desk; Nora Hegarty

International networking and staff development EU-style: Cardiff University's library service and the Erasmus staff mobility scheme; Sonja Haerkoenen

The body in the Library: Using collaborative working to develop effective and efficient online information literacy training for distance learners at the University of Portsmouth
Paula Thompson

Measuring up the experience of LibQUAL at ITT Dublin University; Philip Russell

Is the library collection fit for purpose? Collection analysis at the University of Lincoln; Phillipa Dyson

Self-service reservations: a review of a pilot at Anglia Ruskin University; Norman Boyd, Sarah Allen

Living through super-convergence: creating library and student support at Liverpool John Moores University; Leo Appleton



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

[Lib-helig-l] Fwd: eLearning Africa 2011 - The Call for Papers is now open!

 
 
Ingrid Thomson
Librarian: Humanities Information Division
Chancellor Oppenheimer Library
University of Cape Town Libraries
Private Bag
7700 RONDEBOSCH
SOUTH AFRICA
 
Tel: +27 21 650 3703  Fax: +27 21 689 7569
 
 
 


>>> <conference@elearning-africa.com> 9/21/2010 9:47 PM >>>


The Event








eLearning Africa 2011
The Call for Papers is now open!

eLearning Africa 2011 will focus on Youth, Skills and Employability. How can Africa unlock the huge potential of its young people? How can ICT for learning and training help?

eLearning Africa is the world's leading conference on technology and education in Africa. In 2011, it will take place in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania from 25 – 27 May.

Please join us in the discussion.

For more information on the specific themes, please click here.

Details about the Call for Papers 2011, such as information on submission requirements and deadlines, session formats, as well as the proposal forms can be accessed here.

Find out more about the conference:
www.elearning-africa.com


Sponsoring & Exhibiting



Leading international eLearning suppliers and service providers will present their latest products and services in eLearning Africa's extensive exhibition and demonstration area. It is the central meeting point within the conference where participants can compare vendors' latest and best offers and select those that will help take their organisation to the next level.

To view the list of exhibitors and sponsors 2010, please click here.

If you are interested in exhibiting and sponsoring opportunities for eLearning Africa 2011, please contact us at marketing@elearning-africa.com

eLearning Africa News Portal
Our news portal offers you a look behind the scenes. Learn more about keynotes, conference speakers, exciting projects and latest news from the world of ICT for learning and training on the African continent. Our regular newsletter brings all the latest contributions right into your digital mailbox.

Visit the eLearning Africa News Portal and sign up for the eLearning Africa News Service!

Registration






Until
Dec. 10, 20
10

From
Dec. 1
1, 2010
African Nationals Based in Africa:
(and not working for international organisations or global corporations)

€ 230
€ 280
Other Participants:

€ 490
€ 590
African Students:
(please enclose a copy of Student ID)

€ 100
€ 100
Non-African Students:
(please enclose a copy of Student ID)
€ 170
€ 170

The fees include VAT, conference materials, a conference CD-ROM, coffee breaks and luncheons on May 26th and May 27th, 2011. Group rates are available upon request. The above-mentioned fees do not include pre-conference events, accommodation, travel costs or the Book of Abstracts.

Please note that African participation is being partially subsidised by ICWE, and is being granted a discount of € 310 towards the standard conference registration fee of € 590.

Take part in eLearning Africa 2011 and explore new worlds of learning!

Book your place today!

If you have any questions, please contact Katharina Goetze:
info@elearning-africa.com


ICWE GmbH, Leibnizstrasse 32
10625 Berlin, Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)30 310 18 18-0
Fax: +49 (0)30 324 98 33
info@icwe.net, www.icwe.net
Please click here if you would like to have your name removed from our mailing list


###

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 4500. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.

###