Discussion LAUC-R members – NextGen UC LAUC Member/Librarian

Discussion LAUC-R members – NextGen UC LAUC Member/Librarian

May 1, 2012

http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/committees/pg/cpg-report-2011.pdf

* Comments below are not necessarily representative of every LAUC-R member but capture the main points of our discussion. (Verbiage shamelessly borrowed from UCM)

The discussion generated was vigorous, and may occasionally have drifted from the exact content of the document onto related topics.

Organizational Culture:

1.     Who is a LAUC Member?   With our numbers dwindling, we may want to reconsider the definition of a LAUC Member.  Possibly there would be a lot of benefit to including staff members pursuing or holding MLS degrees as well as certain other job classifications such as archivist or curator working in a library environment.

2.     Should we be seeking more specialization or more cross-training.  There is a somewhat mixed message.  There might be a specific place for each of these, but can we define that?  Training would likely be key either way.

3.     Are we a culture of “Good enough?” There is a lot of that creeping into our work lives.  Good Enough Cataloging, shrinking reference hours, patron created collections.  How can we maintain high quality?

4.     Clearly we seem to be going in the direction of cross-campus communication and cooperation, how can we improve communications so that we are even more collegial. 

a.     There are already examples of cross-campus cooperation in each area that can be used as models for communication improvement:

                                               i.     TS – SCP, Thai: Do all of the “players” know all of the players?  To whom do we report missing or problematic records?  Should we make this the responsibility of everyone who might encounter a record, or do we throw up our hands and say “whatever”?

                                             ii.     Reference - 24/7 chat reference.  Could we do better if we knew more about what was going on at other campuses?  Is that too much to expect?

                                            iii.     CD – Bib groups. Could anything be done to facilitate the more introverted among us in making contact with colleagues at other campuses?  Supported expectation.

5.     We have not really sat down to plan for services to distance education students even though this is imminent.  Do we have time to discuss those events for which we will need to plan?

6.     Staff shrinkages make it difficult to form thoughtful responses to current forces.

7.     We need to be very visible and knowledgeable on our campuses right now.  What can LAUC and Administration do to facilitate this?  Representation on committees? Campus Status?

8.     Grants were mentioned several times in the report.  Could we clarify PI status across campuses…once and for all?  Would grant workshops be useful? Facilitated?

9.     Cross-campus communication and cooperation as well as responding to the current world require a strong awareness and competence with technology.  We need to be able to explore new technology and developments without fear of being unsuccessful.  Can grants help support this?  How could our environment support this?

10.  One hindrance to cross-campus cooperation is the myriad of products we do or do not decide to buy across the system. Some projects we have discussed, such as ERM, remain mysteriously elusive, and some were purchased or created and never widely promoted. It might be useful to make a centralized tool wishlist and license list like CDL creates for bibliographic resources. When we are successful in selecting unified tools, we may be able to cooperate more effectively and speak with a single voice for necessary changes.

11.  Some of our most important channels of communications exist outside of the UC Library structure such as professional organizations.  Can campuses facilitate this?  Supporting memberships?

12.  We would like to be included in major system-wide decisions a little earlier than being presented with done deals, (e.g. duplicate reduction). Is this unique at UCR?

13.  We should be leaders in the profession.  Is this an acceptable goal in the current budget climate? What will it take to maintain a leadership role in the profession?

14.  How can we empower ourselves to be an active voice. (e.g. on UL searches and every other thing we feel like we could offer useful advice on). For instance the UCR Chancellor sends out a Friday letter.  Should we have a Thursday letter to the chancellor?  Or a Saturday letter?

15.  Creative thinking may need to be added to the prototype job descriptions in the document, since old models are giving way to new pressures. 

Collection Development/Reference

1.     How can subject outreach be facilitated on campuses?  It is difficult to strike and maintain rapport when one librarian serves more than a hundred faculty members or more than two-thousand students. Can we brainstorm ways to support this expectation?  For instance having more subject librarian involvement in faculty orientations, budgeting a “lunch with you librarian” (or coffee if lunch is too much for our dwindling budget). 

2.     How could outreach be done/facilitated across campuses?  Who would teach subject classes on a campus if the specialist was on another campus? Would any books remain on non-specialist campuses for general education?  Is there an example of a system-wide subject specialist now that we could use to understand this role (e.g. veterinary)?  How pervasive do we imagine this could be?  On a spectrum from Nematology to Psychology?

3.     It is clear from the report that the lines are blurring between Collection Development and reference, especially at the selector level.  Is this the case at all campuses?  Do all reference librarians have collecting responsibilities and all bibliographers have reference responsibilities?

4.     Ref - We agree that every newly hired reference librarian might be expected to do Digital Reference. However, this is a question of specialization vs. cross-training.  Would every librarian love chat reference?  Might some prefer it?

5.     CD- Are we paying attention to traditional responsibilities as we get busier with new ones (scholarly bibliographies)?  Should we take time to determine what functions are still relevant, and how to fulfill them most efficiently?

6.     Ref- Could we disappear all together if we keep shrinking at this rate?

7.     CD - How can we make PDA collections and deposit collections better than “good enough”?

8.     Can we afford to ignore the deficiencies in MELVYL any longer if the writing on the wall is that our local catalogs might go away (PDA implications as well).

Technical Services

1.     Can other parts of the organization be involved to make “good enough” really “good enough”?

2.     Lines between other units of the organization are blurring, but not necessarily with technical services. What role do (non-technical services) subject specialists have in technical services for their disciplines? Are technical services librarians frequently subject specialists? Do they do reference and/or instruction?

3.     PDA requires records to be quick, complete and have particular ISBN’s, or money is wasted.

4.     Who should demand better quality records from our vendors?

5.     There is a lot of general material in this excellent section of the report that can be looked at by all groups.

6.     The catalog is key to all parts of the organization.  We can’t ignore our NGTS emails.

Speaker video from 2011 LAUC Assembly - Gene Lucas, EVC-UC Santa Barbara

Gene Lucas, EVC Santa Barbara and Chair of SLASIAC, on SLASIAC draft documents and discussion prior to Interim Report to full SLASIAC committee on March 14, 2011.
719 Mb abruptly ends at 15 minutes MPEG-4
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waic7m3LYaM



LAUC 2011 Assembly playlist

Speaker video from 2011 LAUC Assembly - Bruce Miller, UL-UC Merced

R. Bruce Miller, UL Merced, on Librarian Distinguished Status and Next-Generation Technical Services (NGTS2).
2.83 Gb 50:38 running time MPEG-4
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgpA-T66vo



LAUC 2011 Assembly playlist

The Most Interesting of Experiments...

It's no secret that the attrition rate among Ph.D. candidates is huge. Given the amount of resources devoted to these programs, such a shortfall may be comparable to the problem of graduation rates for undergraduates for the welfare of universities. The question and the source of the proposed experiment is to figure out the cause of the higher failure rate in Ph.D. programs. This would be technically daunting to investigate. There are many factors that contribute to the success of a Ph.D. candidacy over a long period of time. There is no exit interview associated with failed candidates nor any attempt at assessment. Many reasons for failure to complete are of a personal nature and could not be released.

Yet, I suspect that possible answers to the question are well-known. The candidate is not smart enough would be one. The second one is that he or she lacks the determination to finish. A third would be external circumstances which can interfere. That's pretty much it for the most likely reasons. The fact is that most experienced faculty who have worked with Ph.D. candidates probably have a pretty firm sense of the most common causes of failure. If only this information could be communicated!

What if the underlying problem was not any of the above but was one of information management? Most Ph.D. projects, especially in the humanities and social sciences, involve processing and managing a great deal of information running into the hundreds of references. Working with them is not at all a trivial task and there is minimal guidance for this from faculty who expect the candidates to figure it out for themselves as has been done since time immemorial. Enter EndNote, bibliographic software designed to manage references as well as format them. By way of analogy, word-processing is a type of management software, yet the difference between it and a typewriter is enormous for the writing process. What if the same were true of the relationship between bibliographic managers and the ad hoc research methods assembled by individuals? The library could be at the forefront of high-level research that is the very summit of what universities produce.

Ambitious as this sounds, it is not even new. The program has essentially been done and reported on by Manchester Metropolitan University:

Harrison, Mary, Stephanie Summerton, and Karen Peters. "Endnote Training for Academic Staff and Students: The Experience of the Manchester Metropolitan University Library." New Review of Academic Librarianship 11 1 (2005): 31-40.

Is there a reason for the UC system not to investigate this?

Going Mobile

Social networking devices may be encroaching slowly but surely on library outreach. The UCDavis instruction department is exercised continuously in trying to improve its instruction. The most recent project had to do with a series of orientations for STEP students (acronym unknown) who go through a short summer course prior to starting their first year to gain extra preparation for college. The library is given one hour to provide an orientation. In deciding what to focus on during this limited time, the instruction staff decided to go retro in a sense. One theme of feedback for introductory instruction is that when all has been said and done about the databases and instruction technology, many students do not know how to physically retrieve a book. This basic task seemed like a worthy goal for the STEP instruction as well as a fun activity.

The next big question was verification. It is easy enough to send students out to all corners of the library on their treasure hunt, but how to check that they've done the job correctly? Having the students bring the books back physically was not an option when there are multiple classes to be run over several days. In fact, keeping the books undisturbed over this time was a problem all by itself. Checking the answers to a list of questions completed by the students was not an option either within the time constraints. So, how can the students give what in action films is called "proof of life" that they had found the correct book? Action films provided something of answer although the actual idea was described in the recent CARL conference. Have students take a picture of the book with their cell phones and show it to the instructor. This hinged up how many students had cell phones which they could use for this purpose. The answer, we found, was that all of them did. The exercise went very smoothly with almost everyone finding their book and the students displaying an extra thrill in using their cell phones with which they seem to be very competent. It's hard to forecast just how social networking technology can be used by libraries. But by adopting an alert, opportunistic posture, the odds are that librarians will find something and that these connections will emerge.

Summaries from the LAUC 2010 Southern Regional Meeting

All of this information was gathered at the time of the LAUC 2010 Southern Regional meeting titled, "The Future of Librarianship" on May 6, 2010. The meeting consisted of LAUC members from the southern UC campuses in addition to a few guests, such as the chair of the CPG committee, Matt Conner, and the current LAUC president, Lucia Diamond.

The meeting, which began with a talk by UCSD University Brian E. C. Schottlaender, was followed by a break out session of multiple groups. Each group was further broken up if a given topic had an excess of participants. We preferred to have groups smaller than 10, though some were larger. Groups worked on specific themes over a short period of time (about 45 minutes) during which librarians brainstormed observed trends, actions that might be taken as a result of such trends, and methods of measurement to ensure the success of those actions. Later we returned as a group to walk among all of the ideas written down to vote for what we though had merit. We had an extraordinary number of ideas that could be implemented. We saw that one way to use this information is to work backwards from the metrics discussed for each action and implement those that are doable in some sort of pilot fashion. More could be done with the remaining actions and trends over time as we uncover appropriate metrics.

Kristin Andrews, Ying Zhang, Rachel Shulman and I (Dana Peterman) used the original posters to identify those ideas that garnered the most votes. Those ideas that had two or fewer votes were not included here, though I did keep photos of the original data. We tried to make sure we understood what was meant for each suggestion, but it was difficult to do so. I later tried to make more sense of the original posters myself and placed them in rank order here. Each of the themes has been explained earlier in this blog, so I won't reiterate them here. You can see all of the photos of the posters at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpetermanus/sets/72157624012236068/ . The statements are followed by a number in parentheses that represents the number of votes that it got.

Twenty-First Century Skills
In this session, participants were asked to identify those skills that would be needed as necessary for the 21st century librarian.

Trends:
Librarians have fewer opportunities to provide input on administrative issues that affect them and their work. (10)
Librarians find that they must be generalists as well as specialists. (6)
Librarians need more and more training on cataloging and other skills less related to previous job functions, and to develop new skill sets. (5)

Actions:
Break down barriers that reinforce the hierarchical structure of libraries. (13)
Train all staff on emerging technologies. (11)
Teach people to be more adaptable and flexible . (11)
Build our project management skills. (9)
Teach technical skills, both electronic and computing skills, as well as cataloging skills. (8)
Teach people how to do marketing and outreach. (7)
Teach subject expertise. (7)
Teach people how to write grants and to fundraise. (4)

Measurements :
Learning and sharing among campuses on training increases. (16)
When there is a question as to the usefulness of a skill, skill set, or program, pilot studies are conducted. (10)
Usage data are acquired, posted and analyzed. (8)

Pedagogy
Trends:
There is more and more online instruction and digital content available. (9)
Libraries provide space for human contact .(4)

Actions:
Create marketing and branding resources – University Librarians need a “marketing czar”. (17)
Create greater communication mechanisms. (15)
Partner with faculty to provide support that is integrated with their teaching. (13)
Create digital services at the point of need. (12)
Provide library space to the university to facilitate partnerships with faculty. (7)
Create a suite of email lists, working groups for collaboration on tutorials, and/or subject guides (LibGuides). (6)

Measurements:
Survey stakeholders to see how of the actions mentioned above. (10)

UC 1-Copy Universe
Trends:
Economics make it tough to be part of shared projects. (13)
One copy doesn’t work for all materials, so there is a need for some redundancy despite our desire to economize. (6)

Actions:
Communication is key and will help libraries and librarians to make better decisions. (26)
Better communication between technical services and collection development. (23)
Develop parameters for single-copy purchase. (12)
Improve distribution for shared collections. (12)
Improve e-document delivery. (12)
Distribute collections budgets across the UC campuses centrally. (12)

Measurements:
Enhance circulation/Interlibrary loan (ILL) to handle situations in which “1 copy” is shared among 10 campuses.(8)
Assess ILL speed. (7)

Evaluation ourselves for promotion
Trends:
We getting so much busier that we have too little time for professional development. (8)
Must be both a generalist and a subject specialist to work effectively. (7)
We have a problem quantifying soft skills like collaboration (4)
Low salaries (4)
There should be a balance between criterion 1-4. (4)
Teaching is undervalued. (3)
Tedious bureaucratic procedures (2)

Actions:
Communication between ULs and LAUCs should be improved. There is a perception that ULs are not present and are out of touch at local LAUCs. (18)
Evaluate and streamline internal administrative processes (15)
Make the librarian review and reward process more reflective of what we really do day-to-day. (14)
Should have continuing education (in order of preference) - Management/supervision (4); Project management (4). (14)
Collect and analyze data for decision making (12)
Expand the definition of scholarly to include web 2.0 contributions. (9)
Create more uniformity in how criteria are applied and which are expected of a librarian. (8)
Succession planning, mentoring and training are needed. (6)
Learn how to emphasize our own impact. (6)
Create reading/study groups to discuss professional literature and develop papers.(6)
Increase the use of social networking tools to increase visibility with faculty and students. (5)
Skills to bridge IT and public services and other functions. (5)
Recognize and support membership and activities in alternative professional development organizations (e.g. technical and subject specialties). (4)
Professional should a voice in what is taught in library schools. (4)
Leadership development skill training. (4)
Create a LAUC review committee to review ALL campus librarians to create greater consistency for all. (4)
Create a grievance outlet, which faculty have. (4)
Have the 10 ULs meet with us at an annual meeting to improve communication. (4)
LAUC should issue state-wide recommendations for things like the number of review letters required. (4)
We should read or re-read position paper #5. (3)

Measurements:
UC library hits or downloads of presentations. (7)
Amount of Librarian research in eScholarship. (4)
Amount of UC-wide sharing of review process. (4)
Evidence of interaction with review initiator for concrete feedback (and criticism). (4)
Existence of peer review groups for de-briefing process. (4)
Add staff-to-staff "reference" questions to statistics we keep. (3)

Discovery and delivery
Trends:
Mobile technology in all areas. They are a part of the job environment. We will provide mobile devices for students to use. (21)
WorldCat local is complicated by how difficult it is to access electronic content and how difficult it is to determine local availability. (8)
Digital delivery of any digital content (e.g. UC pays for any request, like Questia articles). (6)
Problems reconciling local v. more union-like catalogs. (6)
UC wide, our instruction efforts focus on discovery. (5)
Patrons expect that electronic materials have replaced print. (3)
Challenge for us to help patrons in unfamiliar electronic environments via tools such as QP. (4)
Use of archives for undergraduate teaching and research. (4)
Using resource collection funding to support document delivery. (4)
Fee based delivery even though users expect free services. (3)
Federated searching that is less helpful than a user wants or needs. (4)

Actions:
conduct user assessments both ethnographic/surveys to better define specific user groups and user needs. (13)
More formal union catalog. Get back to basics and get WorldCat to listen to librarians. (11)
Work on current shared catalog first to get priorities and use of money right. (9)
Generally support WorldCat with major improvements and simplifications. (6)
Improve ILL with all partners, not just UCs. (6)

Measurements:
Conduct assessments and analyze results - map to gaps/causes in collections, interface, user education, etc. (9)
Continuous user assessment studies as WorldCat local evolves. (4)

The Ultimate Theory of Everything

Not our name.... Yet, this was the operating concept behind a body of theory of potential relevance to librarianship. It comes far afield from the realm of military strategy. Librarians have little to do with guns, bombs, and airplanes; probably the closest approach to this realm would be encounters with government agents attempting to enforce the Patriot Act against which the principles of our profession tend to align us in opposition. However, librarianship now, as seen in our discussion of the future, has everything to do with issues of survival. For this reason and out of a posture of free inquiry, it behooves us to look at whatever may be useful to the profession.

To understand the theory, it is important to understand the creator. This person was John R. Boyd, an Air Force officer who is virtually unknown. He began his career as a self-proclaimed "Top Gun" style fighter pilot after the Korean War who had a standing bet that any opponent starting out on the tail (dominant) position on his aircraft would have his role reversed within 40 seconds. He never lost. After completing the definitive tactical manual for air combat, he moved on to make major contributions to the design of the F-15 and F-16 fighter planes which have played a dominant role in national defense for the last decades. His ideas continued to evolve beyond aerial warfare to grapple with the very foundations of military theory. Along the way, his naturally abrasive personality grew positively eccentric. Already disliked by the Air Force for interfering with their airplane designs (though they embraced his results), Boyd took to roaming the Pentagon in a tattered bathrobe and slippers. For almost no reason at all, he was capable of collaring four star generals and shouting criticisms in their face in a shower of spittle. His profane fighter pilot's language would make secretaries weep, and his own supporters speculated that he "did not have both oars in the water." Yet out of his ruminations grew a body of theory of conflict in any form, and some hints suggest that his ideas were fundamental to the fabulous success of the U.S. military in its two Gulf Wars (in military terms anyway). At Boyd's funeral in 1997, the Air Force from whom he was almost completely estranged contributed 11 minutes to his eulogy. Nevertheless, the work of this shadowy figure on survival deserves the attention of librarians facing an uncertain future in a competitive environment.

There is no definitive written record of Boyd's ideas. They were delivered in idiosyncratic and near incomprehensible slide presentations lasting up to 13 hours. Only smaller, suggestive documents and secondary sources remain. The basis of his theory was three scientific concepts: 1) Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem 2) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and 3) Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From these he reasoned that any organization exists in an infinitely complex and dynamic universe. Thus, no organization can encompass within itself all the tools necessary to deal with the challenges it will encounter. To survive, the organization must continually adapt to its environment through a procedure which became formalized as the Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action Loop (OODA). In terms of the airplanes which were Boyd's original subject, the observation step involved perceiving a threat. The orientation step called for formulating a list of options for response--attack or flee, in which direction, and how. The decision step required choosing an option, and the final step was to execute it. With this formalism, the criteria for success was found to correlate almost exclusively with the SPEED with which the organization cycled through this process. In the airplane example, success did not depend on the speed, turning radius, range or any physical quality of the airplane nor the level of training, eyesight or particular attribute of the pilot, as one might suppose, but on the speed at which the system of pilot and airplane could run the decision cycle. The power of this theory lay in its broad application to any sufficiently defined organization whether it was the entire Marine Corps which formulated a new doctrine of maneuver based on this system, the entire military forces of the United States, or companies in the business world or sports teams all of which have found notable success with these ideas. The rhetoric surrounding the theory is more pervasive than one might realize. When former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for "getting inside the decision cycle" of terrorists following 9/11, he was virtually quoting Boyd's ideas.

So, the message for libraries to consider as they organize for the future is clear: Survival depends on the speed of decision cycling.

Boyd, J.R., 1976. Destruction and Creation.
http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION.AND.CREATION.pdf

Coram, R., 2002. Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Little, Brown, New York.

LAUC-SD Discussion on “Future of the UC Librarian” – July 13, 2010

LAUC members at UC San Diego met on July 13, 2010 to discuss The Future of the UC Librarian. The meeting was organized and facilitated by the LAUC-SD R&PD Committee. Prior to the meeting, we distributed the five topics discussed at the LAUC Southern Regional Meeting at UC Irvine. Along with the topics, we sent the trends identified at that meeting for each topic. During our meeting, we broke up into topic groups and the objective for each group was to 1) review the UCI trends and decide whether we agreed with them or not, 2) add any trends we thought were missing from the list, and 3) develop a list of actions. The results of the five discussions are attached.

LAUC-SD R&PD Committee
Karen Heskett
Patrick McCarthy
Annelise Sklar
Susan Shepherd (Chair)
Dominique Turnbow (Co-Chair)
Mary Wickline


TOPIC 1 –Preparing the current and future generations to work in 21st century settings


TRENDS
From the regional meeting at UC Irvine:
• Librarians are being given fewer opportunities to provide input on administrative issues that affect them and their work
• Librarians believe they must be generalists who can do all the new and old tasks done by librarians, but they are unable to do so
• Librarians need more and more training on technical (and management) issues to develop new skill sets

UC San Diego:
We agree with all above, and would include management training in the 3rd bullet as well.

UC San Diego Trends:

• Reference requests are dropping. We are having less contact with our users (chat reference excluded), but their reference needs are still there.
• Data curation will be huge. We need expertise.
• Scholarly publishing will increase.

UC SAN DIEGO ACTIONS:

• Training – the need for training will continue to increase.
o Management skills
o Technical skills (9)
o Cross-training within the library (7)
• Communication – we need to know more about:
o Campus trends (1)
o UC-wide initiatives (6)
o Our users needs and trends (1)
o And we need to information it while discussions are happening, not after decisions have been made (2)
• Collaboration
o Within the library (3)
o Across campus (3)
o UC-wide (3)


TOPIC 2 –Preparing the current and future generations to work in 21st century settings


TRENDS
From the regional meeting at UC Irvine:
• There is more and more online instruction and digital content available
• Libraries provide space for human contact

UC San Diego:
We agree with the above.

UC San Diego Trends:

• There is a push for tenured faculty to do instruction (lecturers have been laid off)
• Joint programs with other universities are increasing
• Increase in new undergraduate and graduate programs and degrees (2)
• Record numbers of students are coming into the library (7)
• The role of the university is changing. The undergraduate degree is becoming a commodity, i.e. a ticket to a good job. Libraries can help prepare students for the skills they will need at work, vs. academic skills and training received in their coursework. (15)

UC SAN DIEGO ACTIONS:

None identified – ran out of time.




TOPIC 3 – Acquiring unique materials assuming a UC one-copy universe


TRENDS
From the regional meeting at UC Irvine:
• Economics make it tough to be part of shared projects
• One copy doesn’t work for all materials
UC San Diego:
First, re the economics trend (above), it appears backwards to us. Economics (i.e. the budget) require shared project / one-copy universe.
Second, agree one copy is more difficult for some materials than others and consensus will be difficult.

UC San Diego Trends:

• Culture – changing the culture(s) will be the biggest hurdle. UCLA & UC Berkeley see themselves as the flagship campuses and are not willing to give up immediacy of local copy and are reluctant to carry lesser budgets of smaller campuses.
• Infrastructure – we do not currently have the infrastructure to support a one-copy universe. Processes are duplicative across campuses. We must change how we are organized.
• Technology – related to infrastructure, there must be a universal technology used at all campuses for collections & technical services
• Budget Disparities – in order to have a one-copy universe, there must be a “UC Libraries” budget that funds the universal system-wide (“Tier 1” level) one-copy. Funding must come from the top down in order for it to work.
• Interface – current interface is lacking
• Digital – as more resources become digital, one-copy will be easier to facilitate. Time is a factor in receiving materials from another campus (ex. Berkeley ILL is slow).

UC SAN DIEGO ACTIONS:

• Use UCLA & Berkeley’s desire to be perceived as the flagship campuses – make them central repository for shared physical collection, which would alleviate some campuses space issues.
• Coordinated weeding with validated quality (decision process) will be needed. Especially need a shared decision-making process on how retrospective weeding will occur. Cost & time to do weeding must be shared. SLRF closing makes coordinated weeding an imminent concern.
• Coordinated selection process across campuses is necessary – including across languages and formats.
• UC-wide shared approval plan for core collections that all campuses share (like history, literature). If no e-version of monograph, core print would be at all campuses with additional distributed copies available.
• Binding must also be coordinated system-wide with an eye to which copy is the unique copy that “deserves” top-quality binding
• Identify areas of expertise. Create more discipline-specific Tier 2 working groups (Latin American Studies has a working model).
• Decision rubric or process for determining when duplicate copies are necessary
• Shared print will require validating the quality of a copy and when & how it gets replaced, where cost comes from, how time is shared/used—must be a systemic process with the same criteria across campuses.
• Fund UC-wide resources from the top down. The one-copy available to all campuses must be funded first system-wide and not be part of individual campus’s budgets.
• Need a true system-wide federated search: across formats including the catalog, digital resources, special collections—include everything!
• Authentication & digital rights management across campuses must be managed.
• Knowing our community better is essential; promote awareness of system-wide collection strengths. Identify areas of expertise.
• Technical Services has expertise that should be utilized in facilitating this change.
• Special Collections has cultural barriers to digital repository (rights management, search interface lacking), but can selectively target what can be exposed. Even if it doesn’t circulate, serve up the metadata in federated search because there is value in knowing where it exists.


Topic 4 : Evaluating ourselves for promotion: what should count in the future

TRENDS
From the regional meeting at UC Irvine:

• We getting so much busier that we have too little time for professional development
• We have a problem quantifying soft skills like collaboration
• Tedious bureaucratic procedures (added this one to our list and got 2 dots)
• Low salaries
• Must be both a generalist and a subject specialist to work effectively
• Teaching is undervalued
• There should be a balance between criterion 1-4
UC San Diego Trends:

We mostly agreed with the trends above and would add the following trends:
• “hitting the ceiling” – need to consider decoupling Step 6 and “distinguished librarian” (11 dots)
• Things that should be given more weight in reviews
o Embedded librarians (7 dots)
o Liaison librarians (2 dots)
o Instruction (1 dot)
o Informal teaching experiences (e.g. consultations) (8 dots)
o Collaborating with faculty (5 dots)
We had a lengthy discussion about Criteria A-D (aka 1-4):
• Librarians are very busy and it is difficult to progress in B-D (aka 2-4)
• Appreciate that UC librarians can move up in salary without taking on more administrative responsibilities (12 dots)
• Appreciate that librarians can select activities within B-D (i.e. you don’t have to do everything)
• There is a perception that unspoken cultural and university librarian expectations impact reviews – (e.g. it is not clear what the UL really wants to see highlighted in files; there is an expectation to be involved in national organizations as one progresses through the steps, however it is not explicitly stated anywhere)
UC SAN DIEGO ACTIONS

Going forward, we would like to see:
• Generally, we would like to see more formal goal setting. We discussed the possibility of tying goals to reviews, but realized there would be a lot of issues related to how that would be implemented before we would feel comfortable with it. (7 dots)
• Reward creativity and innovation (11 dots)
• Reward “soft skills,” such as collaboration, communication and project management (we think that a successful project manager has to excel at “soft skills” (13 dots; one comment that “soft skills” does not mean “easy”)
• Reward initiative, process and effort, not only accomplishments (10 dots)


TOPIC 5 – Getting stuff where it needs to go: Discovery and delivery


TRENDS
From the regional meeting at UC Irvine:
• UC wide, our instruction efforts focus on discovery (5)
• WorldCat local is complicated by how difficult it is to access electronic content and how difficult it is to determine local availability. (8)
• Patrons expect that electronic materials have replaced print. (3)
• Mobile technology in all areas. They are a part of the job environment. We will provide mobile devices for students to use. (21)
• Challenge for us to help patrons in unfamiliar electronic environments via tools such as QP. (4)
• Use of archives for undergraduate teaching and research (4)
• Using resource collection funding to support document delivery (4)
• fee based delivery even though users expect free services (3)
• Digital delivery of any digital content (e.g. UC pays for any request, like Questia articles) (6)
• Federated searching that is less helpful than a user wants or needs (4)
• problems reconciling local v. more union-like catalogs. (6)

UC San Diego:
Mostly agree with all above.

UC San Diego Trends:

• Funding: (1)
• Bypassing library to get resources (e.g. Kindle books and other materials available for micropayments) (2)
• What to subsidize? (1)
o Pay to a determined threshold
• Does the user pay?
• Enhanced tools:
o Union vs local catalog – which to enhance? (5)
 Rare books/focus is on unique material—how do we include unique local info in WorldCat Local? (1)
 Connect multiple versions (5)
• otherwise too difficult for users (right now, records for print and e from different vendors are all separate
• Simply unified
• Marketing/purchasing journal articles rather than the entire journal
• User expectation for delivery is high
• Users want to use their own mobile devices (rather than ones the library provides) (15)
o We focus on developing apps to organize materials (4)
o Promote better (2)


UC SAN DIEGO ACTIONS:

• Develop tools and interfaces for user autonomy (13)
• Library get out of the way (e.g., stop putting up barriers that delay access) (5)
• More awareness of faculty and student expectations (5)
• Learn more about use of textbooks: faculty, students, bookstores (5)
• Make the process for making a decision transparent (i.e., is NextGen Melvyl Pilot here to stay? Who decides and how do we know?) (1)
• Call things “beta” not “pilot” (11)
• Develop texting reference (6)
• Provide things to people regardless of their technology level (4)
• Set realistic goals (4)
• More empirical data about our uses (e.g., what technology they own) (15)

UCIrvine Report

The Library Task Force at UCIrvine has issued a lengthy report which we can hardly fail to blog. Irvine faces the budgetary challenges that are familiar to the rest of the UC system and the profession as a whole, however, the recommendations take a surprising turn. Foremost among the ways to save money is in the area of buildings. The recommendation calls for eliminating 30,000 asf of space currently allocated to the library which amounts to the entire sixth floor of the science library in return for savings of between $720,000 and $1,000,000 annually. The money savings will be realized by eliminating the leasing fees from the library budget and transferring them to other campus units that will occupy this space.

This recommendation is particularly remarkable for its divergence from the experience of other UCs. At UCDavis for example, recommendations to reduce hours at the library branches was vetoed by the administration as failing to save money and hurting the students. Another effort to close the Physical Science and Engineering Library for approximately the same reasons given by the UCIrvine report was blocked by outrage from the faculty and their direct appeal to the chancellor. Some also speculated that the cost of closing PSE and transferring its collection would outweigh any gains to the budget. UCIrvine's plan will bear watching in view of these considerations.

Eliminating library space raises its own problems which the report acknowledges. Chief among them is the survey result that study space in the library is one of its most highly prized qualities for users, especially students. The value of space lies in a place of quiet to study, an area for intellectual exchange and a symbolic retreat. The report suggests reorganization of the available space and the conversion of other spaces outside the library such as the student center as alternative solutions.

The report also cites the need for improved document delivery of print resources. This correlates a submerged theme in other literature that the difficulties that users face with libraries are less in finding useful resources as is often mentioned but in the seemingly more mundane process of retrieving them. The case of print document delivery is one case of a more general problem of navigating among multiple libraries, interlibrary loan interfaces, and SFX links.

Finally, in the midst of budgetary woes, the report issues the somewhat surprising recommendation to hire more staff. The practice that has been in place (familiar at other UCs) has been to reorganize by closing positions vacated by attrition and consolidating staff, but the report claims that the process will be inadequate shortly if it has not already and erodes the library's effectiveness.

Thus, the report reverses two common themes of budget control by calling for a reduction in space and an increase in staff.

UCIrvine: Library task force report, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, 2010.

http://www.evc.uci.edu/budget/BudgetTaskForces%20Reports%20home.html

UCSD Libraries... status

LAUC-SD is holding a discussion on 13 July on “Future of the UC Librarian” regarding (1) Preparing the current and future generations to work in 21st Century settings; (2) The consequences of changing university pedagogy; (3) Acquiring unique materials assuming a UC one-copy universe; (4) Evaluating ourselves for promotion: What should count in the future?; (5) Getting stuff where it needs to go: Discovery and delivery.

The UCSD Libraries Strategic Planning Working Group is nearing completion of a draft strategic plan. ILL consolidation from multiple units into one unit will complete by September; document scanning continues in decentralized mode. In late May, UL Brian Schottlaender made a budget presentation to the Academic Senate Committee on Library, presenting our 5/10/15% budget reduction planning scenarios. He characterized their general reaction as "sober." The Committee Chair noted that the faculty will have to be made to feel the pain before they understand the magnitude of what the Libraries is up against. Campus decisions about reductions to the various divisions' support budgets have been made. Reductions are to be taken over the next three years and are not assessed evenly across divisions, ranging of 7% to 17%. Decisions about the budgets of the colleges will be made next, followed by decisions about "central service" budgets, including that of the UCSD Libraries. Since library staff know the budget reduction scenarios, waiting the campus decision about the Libraries’ three year budget is suspenseful.

July 1, 2010: Peter Brueggeman, UCSD Libraries

Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report

As part of the reports in the "The Digital Information Seeker" collection produced by OCLC, this one offers a list of observations. Desktop computers are ubiquitous among library users. Users have high expectations for rapid retrieval and will not pursue a reference that is difficult to retrieve. Researchers place high value on electronic journals but little on other digital resources. Librarians and researchers interviewed placed a high value on libraries for the foreseeable future. Respondents also suggested a more distinctive brand for libraries within their institutions.

Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research information Network: Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report, Research Information Network and Consortium of University Research libraries (CURL), London, 2007.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf

Researchers and discovery services: Behavior, perceptions and needs

This is another in a series of studies by OCLC to investigate user behavior. The angle of this one is to compare users at the beginning of their professional careers who have grown up in a digital environment with more senior people who have had to make the transition in their careers. Overall, the report claims that the similarities between the two were more striking than the differences and separate profiles did not emerge. Among the highlights of the findings were that users tended to start with internet tools like Google and then fall back to more traditional resources. The major source of dissatisfaction with library resources was the difficulty of retrieval wherein desirable information was not available through subscriptions. There was some difference between the sciences and the humanities with the sciences showing a higher level of satisfaction with the resources available and a higher level of comfort with the digital world. While journal articles were the most popular resources with 99.5% mentioning it as their primary resource, monographs were also popular with 83% naming them as their primary resource. These percentages add up to more than 100%, so it's not clear how this is possible. The report concludes by saying that access was more of an important issue than discovery.

Research Information Nework: Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs, Research Information Network, London, 2006.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf

After December There's Always May

This phrase was attributed to an anonymous German soldier at Stalingrad.... In the case of UC librarians, it relates to the May Revise of the state of California's budget. Coming off a year of budget struggles and cost-cutting measures, one of the major signposts for the budgetary future is the governor's May Revise to his proposed budget for the next fiscal year. This was favorable to UC although it was to be subjected to negotiation and revision by legislators. Nevertheless, a favorable May Revise was necessary since if the governor did not support higher education, it is unlikely that the legislators with their various constituencies would support it instead.

In the event, not only has the governor produced a favorable May Revise built around eliminating a one-time $350 million reduction to the UC budget from last year, but legislators have not opposed the governor's commitment to higher education. UCOP apparently feels confident enough to release a YouTube video featuring President Mark Yudof explaining the favorable aspects of next year's budget and encouraging more advocacy for the UCs by university staff to their legislators.

The YouTube video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1gXZVU6AE4

Have we really made it through the worst of the crisis? The irrepressible YouTube comments offer some skepticism about the president's announcement. The comments may all be true, however, it is still difficult to construe the announcement as bad news.

Sense-making the information confluence

This puzzling title in a series of studies by OCLC on user behavior asks questions similar to those of a recent UC Davis focus group on reference service. Most of the answers to the questions were fairly predictable or as the study puts it, "contextually based." In seeking for information, faculty, graduate students and undergraduates all consulted their peers and made use of library and information resources with a somewhat greater tendency to consult peers at a higher level of professionalism. All groups expressed satisfaction with the internet (read Google) and the library although the library came in for complaints for difficulty in retrieving information--as opposed to finding it. The recommendation from those surveyed was to improve the library resources by making them more like Google.

Dervin, B., Reinhard, C. D., Kerr, Z. Y., Song, M., and She, F. C.: Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase II: Sense-making online survey and phone interview study, Institute of Museum and Library Services School of Communication, Washington D.C. Columbus, OH, 2006.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf

Must Study....

We now see a second instance in what may be a trend of students responding to the UC budget crisis and reduced library services by making a demonstration about the library as place. In February, 2010, UCDavis students protested university budget reductions with a weekend sleepover in which they remained in the library from Friday until Sunday afternoon. Now, the L.A. Times reports that since June 1, Cal State L.A. students have been running a "People's Library" by setting up in front of the library doors when they close at 8pm and continuing through midnight.

Initially, the idea posed safety concerns and maintenance tried to drive away the students by shutting of their electricity. But as a result of discussions, the use of electric cords and other safety issues have been worked out, and the People's Library thrives. Organizers say they are surprised at the large turnouts on cold nights. Participants cite the need for electric power and quiet for study that are not available elsewhere for them. The library administration expressed sympathy but claimed that if the library were to extend its hours to accommodate students, services would have to be cut some other way to meet budget goals.

This protest and the similar one at UC Davis speak to the campus roles of libraries and seem to roll back attempts to minimize the importance of the library building as a part of its services.

Rivera, Carl. "Cal State L.A .Students Want to Study Past 8 Pm." Los Angeles Times 2010.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-calstate-library-20100607,0,1873030.story

Meltdown Librarianship

Here at UCR we are concerned with critical dimensions relating to the future of UC libraries not yet specifically addressed in this conversation. We will discuss two in this post, and others in the future:

* the global economic melt-down and what this will mean to us;

* why management should empower its librarian experts;

Our feeling is that coming to terms with the first and working towards the second will be crucial in moving forward effectively.


I. The Global Context

The global economic meltdown, and its local avatar the meltdown in California, has already had dire effects on the public sector. Its coffers are rapidly being drained. This has resulted in drastic cuts to public education at all levels. We in the UCs are painfully aware of this. The chances of a turnaround in the funding of the public sector any time soon are slim to none.

For the foreseeable future we will all be asked to do a LOT more with a LOT less.

What does this mean going forward? Specifically:

• Fiscal crisis means that centralization and consolidation of services both within and among UC libraries and CDL will be increasingly and quickly catalyzed on all levels. The Shared Print Initiative and Next Generation Technical Services are new projects taking a system-wide, consolidated approach.

• Similarly, competition among the campuses will need to stop. Campuses can no longer operate as separate fiefdoms. We can’t afford not to change the way we think. If we don’t realize much more substantial cooperation, many of our libraries will cease to function. Given the backdrop of the meltdown, it must be understood that vast savings could be realized if more meaningful system-wide cooperation and consolidation occurred in, for example, systems development, content acquisition efforts, bibliographic instruction development, and management roles -- much of which is replicated on each campus, largely redundant, and which would be much more effective if properly consolidated.

• The relationship between CDL and the campuses will need to be fine-tuned so that decision-making can be more clearly collective. Uncoordinated and redundant efforts in expensive systems development (NextGen vs. the III OPACs), for example, is wasteful, hugely expensive and will need to stop.

All of this means that re-training and development of new skill sets, a result of consolidation and centralization as well as keeping up with new technological capabilities and the evolution of our patrons into them, will have to occur at a level we have not seen before if we are to stay afloat, much less retain relevance to the scholarly and educational mission. Many of us will be doing new things. While change is hard, it can be managed, if properly done.

LAUC must play a role in order to ensure the best possible outcome - and the time to start is now.


II. Flattening UC Library Management

In order for our libraries to transmute less into more, becoming nimbler, smarter, and more effective in the process, we believe that management will need to become flatter, more transparent, more capable of taking calculated risks, more cooperative with other libraries and CDL, and generally better able to empower library/librarian expertise at all levels.

Why flatten the management structure so that all librarians are empowered?

Because we have the experience and the expertise. Because two heads are better than one. Because problems arise in an instant, and solutions will have to be devised and implemented in real time.

LAUC should help re-think UC Library management so it can become more effective by taking input from all levels of library management and staff, and consulting outside experts as proves valuable, in order to develop new, more effective and empowering modes and models. We are not the only major library system facing these challenges. That doesn’t mean we should sit back and wait for others to solve our problems.

UCR definitely has more to say. But we know that lengthy blog posts turn people off.

We leave you with this -- More than ever before, it is highly recommended that LAUC cohere, now, as the substantial advisory body it was meant to be; that it begin to take risks on the level of the challenges affecting us; that it address sensitive, core issues systematically; and, that it make substantial contributions towards developing sensible models of the future for UC libraries and librarians. It is important to note that it is within LAUC’s purview to advise not only ULs but Provosts, Chancellors and Regents as well. LAUC has a critical and unique perspective, and it is uniquely positioned to be a major contributor in the dialogue on UC Library futures. Lets rise to the occasion.

Heidi Hutchinson, Steve Mitchell, John Bloomberg-Rissman

No More Mr. Nice Guy

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that in the face of a 400% price increase by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG), the University of California has refused to accept the offer and without renegotiation may initiate drastic action including the suspension of subscriptions to all 67 journals, including Nature, published by the NPG. Furthermore, the California Digital Library (CDL) will initiate a boycott by UC faculty of publishing in any of those journals. UC faculty have a strong record consisting of thousands of articles contributed to the journals under discussion. With one of the largest journal publishers squaring off against the largest university system in the country, the case is seen as an important test of leverage in forming relationships between libraries and universities and information providers.


Howard, Jennifer. "UC Tries Just Saying No to Rising Journal Costs." The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12 2010.

http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-Tries-Just/65823/

WorldCat Local at the University of California: Usability Testing: Round Two, Fall 2009

As the name suggests, this report documents usability testing by NGMTS on WorldCat Local. The material is extremely detailed about moving a particular button here or there. Generally, one gets the impression that NGMTS is indeed addressing the issues of accessibility of electronic materials which loom large in library literature. The report itself states: "The most significant finding is that access to electronic resources is very substantially improved compared to our first round of Next Generation Melvyl Pilot tests, due largely to analysis and recommendations provided by UC about the priority of links."

Arcolio, Arnold, and Sara Davidson. Worldcat Local at the University of California: Usability Testing: Round Two, Fall 2009, 2010.

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/oclc_docs/NextGenMelylFindingsApril2010.pdf

Ghostlier Demarcations: Large-Scale Text Digitization Projects and Their Utility for Contemporary Humanities Scholarship

This report takes a closer look at the prospects for "digital humanities," a catchphrase embracing the potential for digitization to influence a large fraction of academic disciplines. In essence the promise of digitization lies in the electronic reproduction of full-texts that allows rapid access, searching, and combining of data. With language as its object of study, the humanities can benefit enormously from digital technologies that can speed up the analysis of language.

The study shows that the promise of digitization in theory is butting up against a number of barriers. Some are technological. Among the digitized collections in existence, it is easier to find works prior to 1923 than afterwards because of copyright conditions. There are problems with the quality of scanning stemming from the limitations of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology. Many documents are available in snippets. Collections do not overlap as much as one might suspect. In addition, there are financial restrictions on libraries. However promising the technology might be in future, there is insufficient funding available now to address the limits of digitization. It further appears that there are deeply ingrained cultural patterns in humanities research based in the use of print resources. For these reasons, the report, for the foreseeable future sees a mixture of print and electronic resources instead of a wholesale conversion to digitization.

Henry, Charles, and Kathlin Smith. Ghostlier Demarcations: Large-Scale Text Digitization Projects and Their Utility for Contemporary Humanities Scholarship. Washington D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2010.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2010/06/do-libraries-face-an-inevitable-digital-future-and-just-what-is-the-cost-per-volume-of-books-versus-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawLibrarianBlog+%28Law+Librarian+Blog%29

On the Cost of Keeping a Book

This article purports to respond to the claimed objection of many librarians to the cost of storing digital materials. The article proposes instead that the cost of a print collection is much larger than supposed and furnishes an argument in those terms for a migration to digital materials.

The method used in the paper is reminiscent of a professor I had in library school who stated that after years of work in the profession she had determined that administration was the place to be because this unit made things happen. It did so by having command of the budget, and the way to use a budget most effectively, she said, was to figure out how to price everything. If it moved it had a cost; if it didn't move it also had a cost. In reviewing costs for a print collection, the report makes the point that is becoming commonplace in discussions of collections that preservation (low cost) through high density storage is inversely related to access. If you preserve something, it is cheaper but less available. Should you decide to circulate an item in remote storage, the cost is greater than if the item had been kept in a collection. So a gray area of expense is figuring out some means of determining the circulation of items so as to store them appropriately. Incidentally, Brian Schottlaender, UL at San Diego, addressing the Irvine assembly, cited one study that claimed that having 11 print copies of an item in existence was the optimum number for balancing accessibility and permanence....

The report goes over costs of maintenance, cleaning of facilities, and staff as a function of facility size. There are also involved financial calculations such as the claim that an item that costs $3.00 per year to store in current dollars, costs $100 to store in perpetuity because of current federal interest rates.... The various calculations require a better head than mine to understand in the time frame available. As a subjective impression, the discussion has the same glib erudition one sees in videos of various executives hauled before the public to explain why their management was way off base and their assumptions dead wrong. However, the citations of various studies in support appears to be in order. It's a substantial document worthy of consideration.

Courant, Paul N., and Matthew "Buzzy" Nielsen. "On the Cost of Keeping a Book." Washington D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2010.


http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2010/06/do-libraries-face-an-inevitable-digital-future-and-just-what-is-the-cost-per-volume-of-books-versus-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawLibrarianBlog+%28Law+Librarian+Blog%29