Notes on LAUC-SB “Next Gen LAUC” Discussion Session.

Notes on LAUC-SB “Next Gen LAUC” Discussion Session. Permission to post was granted by Yolanda Blue, LAUC-SB Representative to LAUC Committee on Professional Governance.

Introductory message:

LAUC-SB held 2 feedback sessions. The first session was part of our membership meeting on January 4. There was a lot of discussion and comments. We decided to schedule a second meeting on March 7. For the second meeting, there were breakout groups covering issues and concerns regarding Reference/Instruction; Collection Development; and Technical Services. In addition we discussed in each group professional governance, professional development and trends for the future. The different facilitators for each group took draft notes.

Summary from Reference and Instruction meeting, "Next Gen LAUC", Wed. Mar. 7

Professional Governance:

                - There was a general consensus that we should reach out more to the Library folks outside the Librarian series who:

                                (a) have an MLS (or equivalent)

                                (b) are working on one, or

                                (c) are thinking about working on one.

                They can't vote or be officers (without major changes to the bylaws), but they could participate in programs and projects.

                Suggested actions:

                Put out a call via the "Library" listserv for persons in the categories above to self-identify, and add them to the "lauc-sb-plus" listserv, so that they'll get all the news and invitations.  At present, about the only person who is "plus" on the listserv is David Gartrell, but there are several other possible.

                Supervisors of non-librarian staff would have to be encouraged to allow their people to participate in these programs.  The new AUL for Organizational Development and Effectiveness could help with this.

                - More use could be made of internships, either for UCSB students interested in pursuing library careers, or for local non-UCSB students who are pursuing the MLS through distance learning.

                Suggested actions:

                Contact campus Career Services for assistance with UCSB student internships.

                Put out a call on the listservs of library schools doing distance degree programs.

Professional Development:

                - There are lots of meetings/workshops/classes out there at which the Library should have some representation, but many fall through the cracks.

                Suggested actions:

                Create an open calendar of meetings (using the Library Wiki, perhaps?) so that everyone can see a list of upcoming meetings/workshops/classes events.  It would help members coordinate travel - both in terms of travel sharing and room sharing, and also in terms of "I'll cover this meeting if you cover that meeting."  It would also help the library administration to identify programs we should be sending a representative.

                More and more meetings (both conferences and committee meetings) are being held virtually.  This trend is likely to continue.  We should encourage more participation this way.

                Suggested action:

                Investigate where RPD could allow members to use their prof. dev. funds to pay for organization memberships. Since frequently one need not attend meetings to be active in a society, this might allow some members to broaden their professional activities.

                - New and prospective librarians need more help to get professionally involved.

                Suggested actions

                Have RPD promote mentorship in this area, offering opportunities through the expanded "lauc-sb-plus" list (see above.)

Reference and Instruction

                - We need more help in developing Outcomes for library instruction and evaluating learning effectiveness.

                Suggested actions

                Reach out to Educational Psychology faculty and/or the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education for assistance.

                - The Library (along with the rest of the campus) is periodically evaluated by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).  Can we make use of these evaluations?  The next one is coming up in 2013, we believe.

                Suggested actions

                Review the last WASC library evaluation, especially the Educational Effectiveness document, and see if there are recommendations we haven't yet and should implement.

                - More should be done to encourage "thinking outside of the box".

                Suggested actions

                Encourage members (with time and administrative support) to form cross-departmental ad hoc committees/working groups/task forces to pursue innovative projects.

                - We need to (at least) keep up with the technologies being used by our patrons.

                Suggested actions

                The Library should acquire new devices (especially in the area of tablet and other mobile devices) for librarians to experiment with in delivering library services.

                The new AUL for Information Technology should be encouraged to find ways to give librarians more control over their own workstations so that we can try new software without having to make the IT support team jump through hoops to get it installed.

Summary from Collection Development meeting, “Next Gen LAUC, 3/7

Trends in Collection Development

  Issues and concerns (discussion points for explorations)

-          Go beyond patron driven acquisition of packages (PDA)(not to be patron driven)

-          What are collection manager’s role regarding big packages (small publishers do not get represented in big packages

-          University Press approval plans circumventing individual selecting

-          Massive licenses are being looked at by CDL / UC budget strategies

-          UC looking at contracting out (there are less collection managers)

-          Administration may decide – collection management is very expensive

-          The need for discovery tools to browse virtually online table of contents, previews and indexes for faculty research

The need for good online tools to enhance research decision making by faculty

(Caveat – Publishers will calibrate how much they will show) What are publishing the trends?

                

-          Scholarly communication (life cycle advocacy roles)

Scholarly communication requires experience in:

-          consultation roles for collection managers, faculty liaison, outreach, specialized reference services and student advisement (graduate students/undergraduates who need help with topics)

                -      setting up deposit account

                -      helping faculty create accounts

               (caveat: how to determine the number of FTEs needed)

-          Being realistic that advocacy roles may be more limited

-          Collection Development Committee (CDC) vs.California Digital Library (CDL) (looking at the big picture) ? There are different lines of responsibility which makes it more challenging

-          CDC should focus on the best collections we can get for our user community

  Proposed actions:

                 librarians must articulate

-           Individual selections and the need for enhanced roles for subject specialists not as much for generalists (example: Janet buys 99% through GOBI which allows selections titles

-          How do we address what method is cost effective (big packages)

-          How to deal with large packages (serials and books)

-           It is critical to support specialized areas which are unique on each campus

-          How to address new campus specializations (curricular programs i.e. criminal justice and chicano gangs)   

-          The value of collection management

-          The work of subject specialists is very important and there is a slimmer staff.

-          Core collections do not require specialization

-          Parameters, and set up profiles for the 9 campuses

-          Sharing monographs as a possibility for collaborations

-          A strategic plan for collection development

-          How to make electronic browsing more successful to meet collection needs?

-          Enhanced records, more collaborative collection building (profiling – e book packages allow for more collaboration)

-          Should there be a bibliographer as a subject specialist on each campus? For example at UCSB there is a need for a Germanist.

               -       Should there be a regional specialist that serves more than one campus with that       

                       level of expertise. The specialist would be located on one campus. This specialist

                       could create e-online guides, visit campuses once a year, and create an online tool

                       for conversations with faculty.

-          Balancing workloads

-          JSC survey for faculty

Recommends online purchase subscriptions

 

            

Next Gen UC Librarian Feedback – LAUC-SB – March 7, 2012

TECHNICAL SERVICES-ISSUES/NEXT STEPS TO IMPLEMENT

·         More routine, less challenging work is being out-sourced, what  is left is the more complex, challenging work.

·         Technology, judgement & skill sets.

Professional Governance/Organization

·         We are pushing the librarian work out of the series and pushing it down.

·         Our job responsibilities include so many different kinds of tasks/disciplines/skill sets now that it is hard to concentrate on any one task – lots of gear switching.

·         Since we have more LAVs and Systems Programmers doing high level work, it makes sense to bring them into more major discussions  that currently only LAUC members participate in.

Professional Development/Continuing Education

·         We can promote workshops and formal training, however, we need to be able to attend professional training and meetings ourselves. The library should be paying for librarians to attend these trainings/workshops and not expect it to come out of our $1,000 professional development fund.

Trends in library services that go beyond what we already do

·         Copyright/Licensing issues – including Risk management, Access to Administration – indemnification and other parts of the license. – There is a need to start to put a strategic focus on our approach to Intellectual Property.

·         Digital Preservation – including maps & images

·         Setting up a methodology  for doing shared cataloging across the UC Libraries (eg. Tibetan cataloging)

Other comments:

·         We have lost over 1 FTE of professional level cataloging

·         We need to be able to provide access to our highly visible and well-received Special Collections program.

·         We want the support and recognition for technical services from Administration.

·         We have an increasing amount of Online Resources

·         RDA/FRBR implementation  date by the Library of Congress is set for March 31, 2013. We need more training than the Study Group we have formed in the Cataloging Department.

·         Need standards for the 1 record UC uses from OCLC.

Next Generation Melvyl at UC--Patricia Martin Presentation

Patricia Martin, Director of Bibliographic Services at CDL, is speaking about the implementation of Next Generation Melvyl at UC.

She begins with a summary of key findings from the 2005 Bibliographic Services Task Force report:

• Focus on what users want--Users care about delivery as much as discovery
• Reduced click streams key, even at expense of good description

In this light, remember that Next Generation Melvyl is meant for end users. Expert searchers, such as librarians, can still use First Search.

Still need to understand user behavior--do people click on something because it's at the top of the list or because it's what they want?

Need to define collections in new ways; print-digital distinction blurring. Also, unique special collections are more widely available.

Embed services where users are, such as learning environments, Web sites, desktops, and other applications.

Meet user needs and solve user problems. Try something, assess it, and change quickly if needed.

We need more Clickstream analysis and eyeball tracking to better understand user behavior.

The Ubiquitous Librarian is a strong proponent of innovative uses of Twitter in libraries. He recently joined staff at UCSB.

Librarians are a distinct class of users; will always have tensions between needs of end users and those of librarians.

Many reasons to partner with OCLC:

• Amazing record base--140 million records, 60 million in queue
• Similar visions/goals/interests
• Chance to leverage investment across institutions

Status of pilot: Melvyl still outpaces WorldCat Local. However, it hasn't fully been promoted and isn't always highly visible on library web pages.

10% of searches return no results at present. Could suggest alternate spellings in future.

Pilot: 10 campus specific views and 1 UC-wide view. Only one ILS represented per campus, which is sometimes a problem.

Interoperability with UC eLinks and Request is crucial; so far better success with UC eLinks than Request, in pilot.

Future task: Mining authority records for recommender services, a la Amazon.

For large record sets, retrieval speed will need to improve. Changes in the works.

Pilot to be extended until all outstanding requirements are met by OCLC--Request, multiple ILS's at one campus, retrieval speed. No firm time for when pilot concludes; "Melvyl not going away just yet."

Schottlaender's "On the Record" presentation

Additional reports and presentations from the Spring Assembly May 7, 2008.

Brian Schottlaender (UCSD) "On the Record"; The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

The Library of Congress, in response to the evolving information and technology environment, convened the Future of Bibliographic Control Working Group to examine the future of bibliographic description in the 21st century. As a member of the working group, Schottlaender will discuss the group’s final report and the implications and ramifications of the report or the UC libraries.

Referred to in presentation:
On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
presented: January 9, 2008

Thomas Mann. “'On the Record’ but Off the Track” - a response on behalf of the Library of
Congress Professional Guild

LC’s Cataloging Policy and Support Office has issued decisions regarding LCSH
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pre_vs_post.pdf

Future of Bibliographic Control

Presented by Brian Schottlaender of UCSD. The Library of Congress convened the Future of Bibliographic Control Working Group to examine the future of bibliographic descriptions in the 21st century. Schottlaender is discussing the group's final report and the implications and ramifications of the report for the UC Libraries.

Poor guy, he gets to follow Stephen, lunch and will speak about cataloging!

His speech could be titled Cataloging 3.0 - it's all about being more collaborative, fast,

Charge was to present findings at how bibliographic controls could affect access and management. Public hearings March - July 2007. Held at Google, Library of Congress and ALA headquarters. Invited 20 presentations speaking as individuals or on behalf of institutions. Draft report issued in November of 2007. Issued for public comment. Reviewed with LC management and presented to LC staff. Presentation was web cast. Report was revised quite substantially. Final report was presented January 2008.

Audience is LOC, others in the bibliographic sphere, policy and decision makers.

3 Guiding Principles:

• Redefine bibliographic control, embraced it all, not just codex based
  
• Redefine a bibliographic universe, libraries are but one group of players. We need to interact with commercial and other sectors. LOC needs to rely on us as much or more than we rely on them.
  
• Redefine the LOC in such a way that the Library can determine when it needs to be the sole provider and when it can delegate bibliographic control.

Economic axiom: amount of money, time, trouble or lives already sunk into a particular endeavor is not a valid argument for continuing the endeavor or expenditure associated with that endeavor.

RDA is the successor to AACR2. It's being developed in isolation and in groups.

One recommendation - be less agnostic about cataloging rules. Strong recommendations about getting some user behavior to learn how to best to bibliographic authority work.

Cataloger group at Netflix wants to share their work with us and we certainly want to take advantage of all this work being done but they need tools to do this.