Collection Liberatory* Librarianship

I saw the posting quoted below in CODE4LIB (which I only recently re-subscribed to for a one-time purpose but decided to stay on for a while and I’m glad I did). Wow, what a concept – “liberatory”, as in “liberated”. A much better word than “discovered” or “uncovered” or even “revealed”. I wish this would have been released a year from now – we might have something to contribute after our DEI collection assessment.

CFP: Edited Collection Liberatory* Librarianship: Case Studies of Information Professionals Supporting Justice*, due Nov. 30

Editors:
Dr. Laurie Taylor (University of Florida, USA)
Dr. Shamin Renwick (University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago)
Brian Keith (University of Florida, USA)
 
Background:
In this volume to be published by the American Library Association, we seek to explore what is “liberatory librarianship,” using liberatory to mean serving to liberate or set free and using “librarianship” capaciously, to include all information professionals, including archivists, museum professionals, and others who may or may not identify as librarians.
 
Liberatory librarianship involves the application of the skills, knowledge, abilities, professional ethics, and personal commitment to justice and the leveraging of the systems and resources of libraries to support the work of underrepresented, minoritized, and/or marginalized people to increase freedom, justice, community, and broader awareness.

 In this volume, we want to address questions like:
 – How can librarianship be liberatory?
– How is library capacity and expertise used to increase freedom, justice, and community?
– What is your story of being a liberatory librarian?
– Tell us the story of liberatory librarianship that inspired you in your work?
– In 2020 many librarians were shocked by tragic racially based events and motivated to become more focused on social justice work – how has that translated into library work?
 
We seek stories of liberatory librarianship so that collectively we can learn from impactful luminaries, who too often are unknown and their work unspoken.  In this volume, we seek to define, recognize, and foster liberatory librarianship by bringing together many voices sharing the stories of this work.
 
For what we hope is the first of many volumes, we seek:
– Practical stories to inspire us to think about our work and inform it, not opinion pieces
– Stories based on information professionals doing something
– Stories of stalwarts and champions who have forged progress in this area
– Autobiographical entries are welcomed
– Stories from the across the world
– Entries in English (the stories may depicted work undertaken in other languages)
– Cases are expected to follow practices of reciprocity and community, and so are expected to engage and return to the community. Community members should be afforded the opportunity to review and comment. For example, if the story of liberatory librarianship includes work with a particular community, will a member of that community be a contributor to the piece?
– For essays where the person is alive and available, the book process will include inviting the person to take part and incorporating their perspective to share their voice (incorporated into the entries). As with all of the essays, these will share stories of specific work and person working following liberatory librarianship.

The editors expect to include approximately:
– 10 long-form profiles (3,000-4,000 words)
– 15 short-form profiles (under 350 words)

We will select based on the importance of sharing hidden stories, representativeness of the stories, and the ability of each story in terms of how they can educate, inform, and inspire. 

This volume will complement recent scholarship on liberatory archives and justice in libraries, known by many terms, as with Michelle Caswell’s Urgent Archives (Routledge 2021) and Sophia T. Leung and Jorge R.
López-McKnight’s Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory (MIT 2021). This book will parallel the collection edited by Shameka Dalton, Yvonne J. Chandler, Vicente E. Garces, Dennis C. Kim-Prieto, Carol Avery Nicholson, and Michele A. L. Villagran, Celebrating Diversity: A Legacy of Minority Leadership in the American Association of Law Libraries, Second Edition (Hein 2018), which offers a thematic overview with specific stories of excellence and impact. This volume shares a methodology with grounded theory, narratology, and feminist practices, as with books like Sherry Turkle’s Evocative Objects (MIT 2011). In the telling of specific stories that speak to greater truths, the essays in this volume will illuminate complexity through accessible, readable, and engaging stories.
 
As a collected set of stories of the profession, this volume will be of interest to those working in librarianship, defined broadly, as well as to faculty and students in information science and museum studies programs.
 
Please send the following to laurien@ufl.edu by November 30, 2022:
– Name(s)
– Email(s) for all
– 100-250 word bio of the author(s), which may include links
– For a short form (under 350 words), please submit the full piece
– For a longer form (3,000-4,000 words), please submit the full piece or a 250-500 word proposal
 
For submissions:
– Please use Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition.
– Photos, images, or artwork should be saved in separate electronic files (each photo, image, etc. as a separate file). Indicate their placement with an all-caps comment in the manuscript, immediately following the paragraph that includes the reference to the figure, table, or box, for example:
   INSERT FIGURE 6.3 APPROXIMATELY HERE.

The editors will respond by December 5, 2022.
For longer form, final submissions will be due February 15, 2022.

About Us | Prelinger Library

Source: About Us | Prelinger Library

It is amazing what I have learned this year, and the Prelinger Library is the most pleasing.  I was reviewing items for a publication award, one of which included an interview with the founders, Megan and Rick Prelinger.  They established a privately run, non-profit but publicly accessible library of eclectic material of all kinds.  Located in San Francisco, the Prelinger Library’s collection is more of an archive than a library, comprising mostly historical books, ephemera, maps, brochures and periodicals.

More surprising than the content of the collection is its organization.  The Prelingers wanted to create an experience browsing the shelves, with an emphasis on serendipity.  The books are organized by their own “unique geospatial taxonomy”, starting locally (both geographically and conceptually), transitioning outward to outer space and “abstractions of society and theory.”

Their yearbooks (see 2015, for example) describe their growth in collections and their reach into the community.  Note how they address “‘weeding'”:

The Library’s collection is never static: On any given day new material is brought by thoughtful and inspired friends, while at the same time “weeding” decisions are made (deaccessioning). Some decisions are hard, but mostly we see deaccessioning as formative: like the pruning of a tree to promote the growth of fruit-bearing branches.

Those who attended ALA that year had the chance to visit this pearl (see the yearbook’s highlight of the visit).

In addition to their physical collection, the Prelingers have delved into digitization, collaborating with the Internet Archive (Archive.org) and Getty Images to make their work more accessible.  Random digitizations I found include these gems:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica’s 1946 film on Despotism.
• AT&T’s 1927 instruction on How to use a dial phone. I remember seeing this before, but never made the connection with the Prelinger.
• A 1961 documentary about a city project addressing the growing problem of teenage gangs called, Ask me, don’t tell me.
• A film by US Steel documenting their role in Bridging San Francisco.

Forgive me for not being aware of the Prelinger Library & their Archives before.  But now to bring this around to the focus of this blog – measuring the value of libraries.  The yearbook is not your typical annual report – there are few pieces of data, and the sections are broad:

• Collection Development and Library Events Chronology
• Artistic Use
• Publication and Scholarly Use
• Expanded Partnerships and Expanded Hours
• Support Structures

It is clear they were telling their story and demonstrating their impact on the local, artistic and scholarly communities.  There are descriptions of visits by scholars and the work that came of their use of the archives and resources:

“My dissertation research examines the design processes of large-scale home builders in the mid-twentieth century as their industry transformed the character of the American domestic landscape. The Prelinger Library collections of housing ephemera, hard-to-find building industry journals, and period housing literature allowed me to resurrect a robust design discourse among builders largely absent from historical accounts.”

There are also published works that the Prelinger Library has been actively involved with, notably The New Farmer’s Almanac.  In the yearbook, they describe the work, but more importantly, how the Prelinger Library was integral to its revival and its content.

The only aspect of assessment that I think is missing from their yearbook is how the works that came from the use of their collections have impacted themselves on the communities.  How has The New Farmer’s Almanac been used?  What effect has the Dona Ana Sphere Project had?  They tell the story of their connection to the communities, but I think the story ends prematurely.

So, an annual report need not (dare I say, should not) be a litany of numbers, even measures with comparators, but should instead tell a story that connects the library not only with those who are directly served, but those who are indirectly served.

Measures & factors of collection evaluation

As I have been developing a model of collection evaluation – that is, examining the features of specific subsets of our libraries’ collections, usually based on subjects – I have been collecting a mental list of aspects on which to assess.  Some of these are obvious and quite traditional: number of titles & volumes (by format and by subject), uses (circulation, e-resource use) and expenditures.  There are also measures of need – number of potential and actual patrons, majors & degree programs, etc.  And then there are gaps in need – ILL requests by program members, lower-than-expected use, etc.

However, it can be quite enlightening to step back and consider what others think are important.  This article is by a librarian relatively new to her field, Christina Wray from Indiana University-Bloomington, and her approach to learning collection development “on the job”.  Three of the “four main challenges” to here job involved “understanding the characteristics of…the current users,…the current collection, and…identifying new trends in the subject area.”  I thought it would be useful to use a practitioner’s approach to check against my list of measures.

Users

• The department’s “fit” in the “institutional heirarchy”.
  • Currently provide: Description of the department and its hierarchy, relative size of faculty, students and graduates
  • Would be useful: Org chart
• Degrees and certificates awarded.
  • Currently provide: List of degree programs, trends in degrees awarded, online programs
  • Would be useful: ? (what do you all think?)
• Online programs
  • Currently provide: List of online programs, relative size of online participation
  • Would be useful: size of truly distant students (versus local students who take online courses)
• Size of faculty and students
  • Currently provide: Absolute size of faculty, students and graduates, trends in enrollment.
  • Would be useful: ?
• “Crossover” with other departments
  • Currently provide:  Nothing (hmmmm)
  • Would be useful: Anything…I like this idea because of the emphasis on interdisciplinarity in our newest collection development model.
• Demographics of department
  • Currently provide: Distribution of faculty by level.
  • Would be useful: Not sure…age? Length of time at university?  Is race or ethnicity important for assessing collection need?  Maybe language…
• Number of classes
  • Currently provide: Nothing
  • Would be useful: Relative number of classes; ratio of classes taught by differing levels of faculty?
• Research interests & specialization
  • Currently provide:  List of key topics; a word cloud of research interests
  • Would be useful: Not sure…

While discussing users, Wray mentions defining the collection, notably by call number range.  While this seems a bit oddly placed in the article, her idea is at the heart of the collection evaluation model I’ve been developing.  Our subject-based collections all have fairly specific call number ranges assigned, but the collections are neither exhaustive nor, more importantly, mutually-exclusive.  These “profiles” are compared with the courses offered and the faculty research interests to ensure proper coverage.

Which leads to characteristics of the collection:

• Defining “subcategories” of the collection
  • Currently provide: List of subjects by call number range
  • Would be useful: visualizations of this “map”
• Inventory of books & journals
  • Currently provide: Well, given that our profiles are purposefully broad and our library is moderately-sized, such an inventory for most collections would be too large to be worthwhile.
  • Would be useful: Complete list of subject ranges linked to the catalog; journal subjects mapped to the profile; other e-resources mapped to the profile.
• Use (absolute & relative) of collections
  • Currently provide: Circulation by call number range.
  • Would be useful: database & e-journal usage.
• Historical coverage of books & journals
  • Currently provide: Distribution of book holdings by publication date.
  • Would be useful: Distribution of journal holdings by coverage dates.

What I found intriguing in Wray’s article was her suggestions on applying the data to answer some fundamental questions regarding the strengths & weaknesses of the collection based largely on the relative distributions of holdings and usage.  She also offers ways to “dig deeper”, including:

• Comparing the holdings & usage with the faculty research interests & course offerings.
• Understanding faculty satisfaction and perception of the collection.
• Applying the data to modifying the collection.
• Evaluating databases & other resources.

Finally, Wray advocates reviewing usage data once or twice annually.  We are currently developing a “collections dashboard” to provide some basic, actionable metrics, and usage data of specific resources could be one such metric.

While (or perhaps, because) this article is aimed at the subject-specialist librarian new to a field, it provides me, the Collection Assessment Librarian, the issues and factors of concern to the liaisons.

 

(2016). Learning Collection Development and Management on the Job. Collection Management: Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 107-114. doi: 10.1080/01462679.2016.1164646

Source: Learning Collection Development and Management on the Job – Collection Management – Volume 41, Issue 2

Notes from the Library Publishing Forum

It’s been a busy week at UNT – host of two meetings: The Library Publishing Forum and the 7th annual Open Access Symposium.  The dates, and themes, are overlapping – openness, transparency, shifting paradigms of ownership of scholarly communication.  The Library Publishing Forum (I’ll use LPF for brevity) included a half-day workshop on Open Educational Resources (OER – word of warning…the field is rife with abbreviations), thus bringing education & pedagogy into the fold.

Here is a word cloud of my notes of both meetings…

common words jump out, like “Publish” and “Journal” and “Library” and “University”.  Notice other words… “Communism” (more about that shortly), “Open,” “Sustain,” and “Go” (I like that last one in particular).

Now, looking solely at the LPF, other words appear more distinct: Specifically, “Faculty” and “Textbook” and “Student”.  This is the effect of the emphasis on OER’s.  The workshop was scheduled due in no small part to the number of proposals submitted on this topic.  So it reflects true growing interest in the community.

It is also interesting to me the geographic representation of the attendees.  The LPF is the meeting of the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC – I warned you).  The members are still primarily American academic institutions, although there is growing internationalism.

If you are interested, the notes that I took have been exported from OneNote into a PDF – another warning: it is long and somewhat annotated.  Recordings will be available shortly – when they are, I will post the links.

Library Publishing Forum 2016

 

To Float or Not To Float | Collection Management

Most libraries that adopt floating collections expect circulation to rise because collections will be better distributed to meet patron demand. Yet how many have analyzed whether collections perform better after implementing floating than they did before materials were relocated? The Nashville Public Library undertook an experiment in floating with optimism. Did the results pay off? Here is how it all began.

Source: To Float or Not To Float | Collection Management

This story demonstrates the importance of regular evaluation of policies & procedures.  It is a cautionary tale of not relying on conventional wisdom and the lack of complaints from patrons.  It is also a story of how deep data diving (versus surface or superficial scanning) can and should be used to reconsider decisions.

The Dallas Public Library utilizes floating.  As a patron, I noticed that this did result in a more inconsistent collection, particularly the highly-used videos.  I’m not a reader of fiction books, but the availability of audiobooks was more sporadic.

Floating collections is a method used by a number of library systems with multiple branches or locations.  Rather than returning items requested from differing locations, the library that receives the items essentially “keeps” it.  The theory is that if one patron at that location wants the item enough to request it, then other patrons of that location may want it.  This is not unlike the theory behind demand-driven acquisitions – if one patron uses an ebook, others may use it.

Initial results were promising – increases in overall circulation were seen and these gross measures were attributed largely to the floating collection.  But the author states that not taking “other factors” into consideration “could lead to wrong conclusions.”

Indeed, the closer look that he took presented a very different picture.  For example, the circulation of fiction books decreased after relocation.  The only locations that saw an increase were in areas of the “highest income and education levels and had customers most likely to place holds.”  Circulation of popular authors and titles also declined, as well as those in large-type print.

The problem was due to pooling of these titles at locations whose customers were more likely to request transfers.  The staff at these libraries were constantly shifting the collections to make space for these titles.  So they implemented more aggressive weeding, basing selections for removal primarily on the number of copies.

Also contributing to the problem was differences in accessibility of the locations.  Those located “along travel routes to and from major job and commercial centers…often became overwhelmed by items their customers did not request and did not meet their needs,” (emphasis added).

A SEA CHANGE This diagram illustrates how materials washed up unevenly at certain NPL branches

The author does not discount floating outright, but states that it is “not for everyone,” and he makes several recommendations for librarians to essentially be more smart about their floating collections.  These ideas include limiting circulation periods and renewal options for high-demand titles, increase the frequency of notifying patrons when their items are in, thus reducing the amount of time that items sit on the shelf waiting to be picked up, and “relocating underperforming (sic) items that were needed at other branches rather than unnecessarily moving popular (holds driven) material.”

The point is, there is value in looking at what our patrons do (what they request) to shift collections, but librarians should not abandon their responsibilities entirely.  This is true of demand-driven acquisitions.  Opening a collection to any and all titles available could result in a collection that includes material outside the scope of the needs of the majority of the patrons.  Managing a DDA collection takes a lot of work to ensure the selections are within the scope of the library’s responsibilities, and are of the appropriate levels.  Enabling the patrons to make specific title-by-title selections can improve the collection.  Initial examination of our DDA collections have shown that post-selection usage was greater for these titles than titles selected by librarians without direct requests from patrons.

I’m excited to read about such efforts to base decisions on careful analysis of evidence rather than cursory looks at selected data.

Data, data everywhere in the news

Struggling to consider my blog topic this week, the problem being too many stories to choose from, I was struck by how many stories were about data.  Aha…a topic!

First, there were announcements of data sets, some from libraries and some not. What is interesting about these announcements is the diversity of scope.   Open Data is proliferating and new data sets are appearing daily.  A search of “open data” in Google News limiting to “past week” brings 31 pages of results.

• Database of Learning Assessments – “the only open data source to provide standardised information on public examinations and national learning assessments conducted around the world. It currently contains information for about 100 assessments and will be updated later this year.”
• Walt Crawford made his data from his extensive analysis of Open Access journals available for download (properly anonymized, of course)
• The Open Syllabus Project, which not only provides access to the references in over a million college course syllabi, but calculates a measure that indicates the depth of the of the items references and generates a network of these citations.
• World Health Organization’s Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children

There are also announcements of meta-search systems or portals, including the Open Science Framework Share portal, government initiatives (federal, statewide (California, Texas), and even cities (data.AustinTexas.gov, NOLA), and international development.  I also saw a number of items about tools (data visualization, portal systems), conferences (Big Data Science, All Things Open), as well as training and development initiatives, like the Knight News Challenge to create open data training programs and integration of research data at the Purdue University Libraries, and the report on sustaining library-based research data repositories from OCLC Research.

Finally, Open Data in the news:

• Zika emergency puts open data policies to the test – and this item from Nature that describes how this didn’t go without a hitch.
• Value and impact of Open Data – an analysis of the European Bioinformatics Institute’s open data.
• Response to NEJM’s editorial comment regarding “data parasites”

The timing of all this news is not surprising…Open Data Day is approaching (March 5th), after all.  Like hundreds of other institutions, UNT Libraries is planning its own Hackathon Day.  But even taking this into consideration, there appears to have been a great surge in the term “open data”.  It will be interesting to see how this trend changes over time.

 

Assessing the evolving library collections

Lorcan Dempsey from OCLC^® Research recently revisited their 2014 publication on library collections (Collection Directions: The Evolution of Library Collections and Collecting), emphasizing the “facilitated collection” aspect of their report.  This refers to the idea that the networked environment reduces the need for libraries to maintain external resources (the “outside-in” style of physical collections).  Instead, facilitated collections are “a coordinated mix of local, external and collaborative services are assembled around user needs,” including selected (perhaps, indeed, “curated”) lists of external or freely-available resources, the shift from “just-in-case” to “just-in-time” selection, and the greater reliance and participation in shared collections.

The report’s take on the continuum of “shared” collections is interesting.  This ranges from the “borrowed collection” (what we typically consider resource sharing networks with their expedited deliveries), to “shared print” (which we typically associate with collaborative collections), to “shared digital” (think, HathiTrust), and onto the “evolving scholarly record”, which its increase in sharing of not only the “final outcomes” of research, but also the intermediate products (e.g. data sets, working papers, preliminary reports, etc.).

So, as I always ask when considering models of library collection development, how would such collections be assessed?  Rather than focusing on what is owned or even “available”, when assessing any service, it is best to start at the end goal of the service – in this case, to “meet research and learning needs in best way”.  Indeed, as I realized when I prepared for my interview for my current position (Collection Assessment Librarian), collection development is as much a service to library users as reference and instruction.  And the service is focused on the users, not the items in the collection.

Assessing Collections as a Service

Dempsey refers to this evolution to “collections as a service” as the result of the shift from the “‘owned’ collection” to the “‘facilitated’ collection”, which itself impacts the “organization, stewardship and discovery” of the collections.  I found particularly intriguing the reference to ‘collection strategist’ job advertisement, which noted reflects a shift of emphasis to the “allocation of resources and attention”.  While this may have always been inferred as a responsibility of collection development librarians, the overt references suggest an increase in focus.  Collection assessment provides the information needed to make these “strategic” decisions. Thus, the information that is gathered needs to be directly or indirectly to the end goals of the collection.

The end goal mentioned in this report is to “meet research and learning needs in best way”.  The goals of the individual libraries may be worded differently, but often incorporate similar ideals.  For the purposes of this post, I’d like to break down this goal to determine how best to assess a collection.

“Meet…needs”

What does “meet…needs” mean?  What does it entail?  How could it be assessed?  Key terms I consider include “available”, “accessible”, “discoverable”, “findable”, “usable”, “transformable”.  Most of these remind me of the Four User Tasks associated with the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR):  find, identify, select, and acquire.  As you can see, though, the word “transformable” goes beyond that fourth task of acquiring, suggesting that the needs of researchers and students is to incorporate the information resources into their activities and transform them into new knowledge.  One simple example is the ability to import citations or references into papers and other outputs.  More complex examples are available in the rising field of digital humanities, where whole texts are available for analysis and transformed into network diagrams.  So, to assess a collection regarding this aspect of the goal, here are some key measures (not comprehensive):

• Accessibility – Percent of collection that meets ADA requirements for accessibility for all users
• Availability – Percent of collection that is available online versus via local use only
• Discoverability – Rate of collection added to the main library search systems per year
• Findability – Rate of requests for materials owned that are mistakenly requested through interlibrary loan.
• Usability – Percent of resources that meet usability benchmarks (this should include physical resources, not only Web-based)
• Transformability – Percent of resources that can be easily incorporated into differing formats and communication modes

“research and learning needs”

While the above measures describe the ability of a library to meet the needs in terms of delivery and accessibility, they do not measure how well the collection meets the needs conceptually.  Formats, subjects, perspectives, sources, depth, scope and breadth are all reflected in this aspect of the goal.  This requires an understanding of what, conceptually, the needs are, which requires an understanding of the work being conducted at the institution, as well as the institutions goals and vision.  An emphasis on curriculum support, particularly in the traditional classroom-lecture sense, would require different sources, formats and depth than an emphasis on original research.  There will most likely be differences in this emphasis between subject disciplines (e.g. a history department with a PhD program, versus a Spanish department that offers only conversational language courses).  This is similarly true with scope – that history department may focus on American history (or even Southern United States), while the Literature department supports a world literature program.  Formats are notoriously tribal, with some disciplines continuing to rely on more traditional formats (print, even microform) and others have nearly completely transformed to digital.

“in best way”

OK, here is the most subjective part of assessment – after all, how can you define “best way”?  Best for whom?  Some of the perspectives include those of the students, the teaching faculty, the researchers, the librarians, the library administration, the campus administration, and the community.   Best in what ways?  Ease (see above notes on delivery), subject (see above notes on needs), financially, efficiency are a few of the key terms I can think of.  The priorities of these should be understood before attempting a comprehensive assessment – a financially-strapped institution may require greater emphasis on efficiency or even raw costs.  And even within each of these factors, how would you determine which way is best?  Cost-per-use is a common measure of efficiency, but which is better – Cost-per-session?  Cost-per-search?  Per record viewed?  We use the measure that most closely meets the user’s needs of the resource.  What about financially?  A resource that costs 50% of the materials budget and an inflation rate of 7% may be highly efficient (CPU less than $10), but is unsustainable for a budget that is flat.  Assessing collections relative to this part of the overall goal requires consensus on the perspectives and priorities of the competing aspects of defining “best”.

Final thoughts

Assessing or evaluating library collections which are constantly evolving requires concepts which can be applied more broadly than traditional methods.  Thus, the number of microforms is a measure that is much less relevant today than it was thirty (or even fifteen) years ago.  Conversely, success rates of users finding the resources needed for their purposes (perhaps measured at the time of visit to a library (physical or virtual)) could be applied as long to an “owned collection” or a “facilitated” one.  Finally, measures should be developed that put the object into perspective or context.  This could be relative to benchmarks set by the library or the field, comparisons with peers, or against the population of users.

Open Data for LIS Research

This blog is a venue devoted to improving the utility and effectiveness of libraries, librarianship, and librarians through careful study.  This inevitably involves data, a word that has recently become hot, indeed, dare I say, sexy?  Data Science has seen tremendous growth in jobs and university programs, and there is a substantial rise in the use of the term on the Web (BTW – I found this really cool tool, Google Trends – more about that in another post).  Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed several interesting posts and projects regarding data that would be particularly useful for LIS.

Despite years of growth in databases and data management, gathering, sharing and using data is still a difficult job (hence the the demand).  Walt Crawford has been gathering and analyzing data on Open Access journals for the last several years.  After releasing his latest book, he decided to also make the data available for others.  Apparently it was not an easy task.  Even just providing a link to the spreadsheet requires the end-user to have Excel (or a program that can import Excel).  And this is data that has already been “cleaned” – gathered from disparate sources, standardized, organized, and, of course, anonymized.

Also coming to my attention recently is the Open Syllabus Project, about which I first read in the NY Times.  This piece also caught the attention of Joseph Esposito, who wrote about it on the SPSS Scholarly Kitchen.  Like Joseph, I was quite excited about this idea – “A new dataset can lead to new insights…” – but primarily from a collection development/assessment viewpoint.  And I was thrilled to see my institution in the list.  Possible uses that have flitted across my brain include list-checking and peer-comparisons.  Interestingly, this data set is dependent upon other openly-available data sets, notably the Harvard Library Open Metadata and JStor (see the FAQ).

Another, more tangentially-related piece that I saw was a post about systematic literature reviews.  This is a method of research that is very common in clinical medicine, and one about which my medical librarian readers likely know much.  Indeed, many of them collaborate with clinicians as they prepare clinical trials or meta-analyses of clinical trials, and conduct their own studies.  I’ve never understood why this method has not been taken up more emphatically by those in our profession.  True, there are a lot of literature reviews, but the most comprehensive listing of LIS Systematic Reviews, while numerous, is a pittance compared with the traditional style.  The systematic nature of the literature review requires extensive knowledge of the organization of literature in the field of interest, which, of course, is one of the foundations of our field.

All of these postings made me wonder about the availability of data for LIS research.  There are already rich sources of data that are open right now (and have been available for a long time), including: PubMed, WorldCat (this is sort of mixed open & not-so-open), Google (too numerous to link), NCES Library Survey, IMLS’ Public Libraries in the United States Survey.  But there could be more.  Much more.

One of the most frustrating aspects of trying to analyze collections and their use is having limited benchmarks and theoretical bases.  Data is still too inaccessible – locked in silos behind expensive firewalls (e.g. Web of Science, WorldCat Collection Evaluation System, etc.), or within proprietary database systems that are extremely difficult to share (most ILS’s), or within library/institutional administrations not willing to to share (are we really so competitive that we need to keep our funding & expenditures secret?), or perhaps a myriad of other reasons.  Joseph noted that the value of the Open Syllabus project was that “it gathers a great deal of information together in one place, where it can be analyzed.”  This is the value of Open Data.  This project has given me hope for the future.

The Cost of “Doing More With Less” | Library Babel Fish

We have less funding for the things that really matter while paying much more to compensate for austerity policies.

Source: The Cost of “Doing More With Less” | Library Babel Fish | Inside Higher Ed

Key statements that stood out to me include:

When we’re told to do more with less, we end up building a costly apparatus for generating income while cutting things that actually support the organization’s mission. That distorts everything.

and…(emphasis added)

The public becomes distrustful of higher education because it costs too much – because we aren’t sharing those costs collectively – and it’s warping the academy.

and more closely to the focus of this blog…(again, emphasis added)

…we are trapped in a strange world where everyone needs to publish more to prove their worth.  That requires more access to more research, even for small institutions, so we’ve outsourced much of our collection building, first to aggregators of electronic journals who can provide us the most for the money; now to individual publishers as we stretch our budgets by buying access to one article at a time for one user at a time. There’s nothing collective about it. Temporary access for individuals comes at the expense of access for many and access in the future.

Not wanting to excise any more of the short post, I will summarize the final argument as an appeal for libraries to participate in new models of scholarly communication that more effectively share the costs.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Ms. Fister’s argument about collective good and shared costs.  These attempts at austerity and reduced taxation do benefit only those with the most money and, therefore, the most power.  And the policies could indeed worsen our society in the long run by increasing the disparity of classes of people.

Being at the center of a shift in collection development from “just-in-case” to “just-in-time”, I’ve had my own concerns.  At this time, I am ambivalent about the potential consequences of either philosophy.  The result of the traditional method of speculative purchasing of permanent ownership of material has been collections that remain largely unused, especially so for the largest collections.  (I would be interested in comparing the efficiency (as measured by the rate of uses) of smaller versus larger collections.) It is no wonder that we consider the alternative of “renting” access.  By shifting our focus from serving collections to serving our patrons, we have adjusted our expectations of what our collections should be and do.

I also understand how this shift has adjusted the balance of power in the publisher and library relationship.  No longer is the relationship simply seller and purchaser…what is sold is merely access, not ownership.  Thus, the seller continues to retain control over the content, with the purchaser (libraries) being beholden to the demands of the seller.  Of course, there is still one card that libraries have in their hand…we can cancel.  But, because we rent the access, the library is left with no access at all – to the past as well as in the future.  This is the “ace in the hole” that providers hold over libraries.

The difficulty is striking that balance of developing collections that meet the immediate and short-term needs of the patrons and the long-term needs of the broader community (local and global).  We as librarians and other professionals closely associated with scholarly communications are still feeling our way to this balance.