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)

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)

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

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

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

Social Networking Arrives

Both UC Berkeley and UCSF have launched programs for accessing their websites from small mobile devices to increase accessibility to their collections. UCSF offers a range of capabilities for patrons accessing remotely. UC Berkeley allows patrons to search the library catalog with their cell phones and copy citations directly into the phones. More about each program can be found here:

UCSF

http://m.ucsf.edu/

UC Berkeley

http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b15767323~S1

Lightning Tech Talks

The LAUCD Program Committee at UC Davis recently held a program (5/28) of Lightning Tech Talks to highlight new technologies among librarians. The format, allowing 5 minutes for each presentation and questions, was based on the recent trend in conferences for "Pecha Kucha" a Japanese term translated literally as "chit-chat." It is designed to cut through padding and present information rapidly and informally. Less indeed proved to be more as the hour designated for the event was filled to bursting with presentations and questions. In light of the professional calls for social networking and other forms of communication technology, it was interesting to view the tools used by librarians. As a general observation, it appeared that librarians are indeed active and innovative in their use of technology. Tools included a use of Google Forms as a spreadsheet; innovative uses of twitter; tools for arranging and holding meetings over distances, time zones, and language barriers; debugging tools for web pages; cataloging tools and more. A link to the event is provided below. However, much of it had to do with professional work and communication between other professionals, a breakout technology to interact with the vast activity of social networking among students and patrons did not appear and has yet to be found.

A wiki page for the event can be found at:

http://staff.lib.ucdavis.edu/wiki/index.php/Program_Committee/Lightning_talks

College students' perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources

This is a subset of a broader study that is focused on college students. This group tends to use the library more than other groups although, according to their own statements, less than before as a result of the internet. An overwhelming percentage began with internet search tools before moving to the library. A higher percentage than other populations use the library for studying. College students also retain a faith in the value of a library as an ideal and a potential source of valuable information. Their biggest recommendation is to make the library more physically convenient. More details can be found at:

De Rosa, Cathy. College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Center, 2006.

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

Perceptions of libraries and information resources

This summarizes a report commissioned by OCLC on user behavior gathered from around the world. It draws its results from a worldwide survey and amounts to a hymn to the information explosion. Users report satisfaction with the internet and a preference for it over the library for its rapid, convenient access to information that is considered satisfactory. Conclusions for libraries consist of:

(1) Libraries are perceived as being about print books.

(2) Libraries should better advertise their presence and could offer different formats and content.

(3) Libraries are advised by the respondents to increase their collections.

A longer summary of the report can be found at:

De Rosa, Cathy. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the Oclc Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2005.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf

UCDavis: Discussion of the Future

Future of UCDavis Libraries


1. Reference

a. Need to identify the population we are serving recognizing that there are different needs for each e.g. instruction for on-campus undergrads vs. information for community members throughout the state of California; patrons throughout the world

b. Need to define the reference service; for example does it include outreach functions as well as service to individual users.

c. Currently an evaluation/assessment program for reference has been sketched out that includes surveys at the reference desk and a plan for focus groups. After some delays this program is scheduled to resume in May 2010. Some issues for the evaluation effort include:

* identifying user needs and behaviors and their variations between campuses

* differentiating between the wants that users express and the needs that we can identify as professionals

* making full use of the data collected on user behavior; details tend to be compressed or eliminated in the way that the data is compiled

* a more sophisticated analysis of the data is necessary

d. The defining development of the last couple years in reference has been a reduction of service points in which the government documents, information, and bioag desks have been closed and their staff consolidated at the former hss desk which now serves as the reference desk of the Shields Library. Some discussion remains on the extent to which this has been done at the other branch libraries. Issues regarding consolidation are:

* driven by budget reduction to compensate for attrition now and in the near future

* reduction in demand for reference depending on which numbers are used

* lack of availability of librarians to users

* inefficiency in terms of increased off-desk reference

* dilution of subject expertise

* lack of responsiveness to subject users

e. Alternatives

* chat reference - working with remote campuses not efficient; staffing issues pose a barrier to more service

f. Optimal future:

* relating reference service to the overall mission of the library and university

* more elaborate training for reference personnel

* exploration of technologies for remote reference such as chat reference and online tutorials and guides

* an expectation of a new hybridization of reference with instruction, access services, and other units

* restoration of subject-specific service points


2. Relationship with Information Providers

a. Need to question the relationship between librarians and vendors

* the role of finances

* interface design

* types of pressure to be deployed on vendors to gain better service and products; working on the advisory board of a product can be fruitful

* Davis has a large cluster of liaisons with vendors

* additional usage data from vendors necessary

b. The distributed model at both the library and the particular vendor can cause challenges. For example, the parties who are involved in the negotiation are often different than those who have direct experience with user interaction, or, on the vendor side, are involved with development of the product.

* the interest of universities and database providers does not coincide and needs to be better understood; vendors want more money, libraries want better service

* the role of open access materials needs to be considered: free vs. good; a tendency for quality sources to be disregarded in favor of free ones; Google, Wikipedia; lack of permanence and control of resources; the details of the Google digitization effort are relevant

c. The role of instruction in promoting web sources through source evaluation techniques is important for users

d. The trend in this area appears to be towards outsourcing with its pluses and minuses

* implications for the future of interlibrary loan

e. Optimal Future: More influence with database vendors to provide user-friendly products at lower prices. Single interface for all databases. Finding role for ILL in future when more material available as e-books and restricted. Need to preserve fair use. Work to turn the University into more of an information provider through e-scholarship e.g. journals, research units, and conferences. Marketing of these products is important. The university can produce textbooks and instructional materials for students, and the library can assist with best practices.


3. Personnel

a. Outgrowths of the budget crisis

* more work is expected in the same time interval as before

* subject divisions are being eroded

b. New relationship between librarians and non-librarian staff; e.g. "library professional" is a super LA-5

* work needs to be done on succession planning and mentoring

* An issue is to consider at what point it is necessary to rehire as opposed to reassign positions within the library

c. New opportunities for professional development of staff.

* Request P.I. status for librarians as many grants for AF employees are not accessible as P.I. status is required before applying for the grant (travel grant).

* pathways for coursework and additional degrees

* manage tension between generalist/specialist

d. Optimal Future: As the lowest-staffed library in the UC system, Davis needs an increase in personnel to preserve the level of expertise necessary for a post-doctoral institutions. The current system of consolidation and reduction of personnel results in bad referrals and inefficiency. Regardless of the ingenuity in doing more with less, there is a level of staffing, we can't below without a critical loss in quality. More support needs to be given for staff to pursue formal training and certification.


4. Technology

a. communications technology: e.g. libguides, Second Life, chat reference, Skype (bibliographer groups), Facebook, YouTube,

* new hardware to support communication and mobility (headsets, microphones, webcams for live video, choice of laptop vs. desktop computer)

* training & technology support for new project initiatives and content creation: opportunity to explore the use of new and old technologies in a "sandbox environment" to foster our in-house creativity, collaboration and peer-to-peer learning (requires rethinking of budget and time allocations, initiated by librarians with systems support)

* security/permissions issues stand in the way of using some useful technologies; (these restrictions, in some cases, originate at the campus level)

* social networking may not be relevant to the library's future; publicity tools not reference

* tutorials limited by rapid change of databases which make them irrelevant; tutorials may be viable if limited to major resources or perhaps as links to tutorials by vendors

* library chat for each reference desk: needs to be localized to campus rather than current 24/7 which brings in questions throughout the system; chat should incorporate text messaging

* Next Generation: inadequacy of Next Generation interface; overwhelming resource which floods the user with information; retain local catalog with local notes, easy search of UCDavis titles; improved accuracy/precision of a local catalog

b. preservation/archiving technology: currently lack infrastructure to support digitization (produce, access), onsite; increased coordination necessary with CDL

* benefits to a shared workflow in cataloging and preservation throughout the system

* shared cataloging (CDL) being overwhelmed; need improved coordination between campuses; revamped so that process expedited with equal contributions; a SWAT team approach necessary to deal with backlogs

c. Instructional technology

* Endnote offers opportunities for new involvement with research practices

* use of clickers under consideration

d. optimal future: local catalog, improved infrastructure to support digitization; shared cataloging; mobile versions of catalog and small mobile applications to support general library research (undergraduates)


5. Collections

a. system vs. local collections

* books need local/core collections; system-wide collection for journals only

* approval plans under review; trend in libraries is to evaluate usage of print monograph similar to electronic resource review; changes in scholarly monograph publishing may signal evolution of approval or blanket plan to something more patron-driven for time of need for certain categories of material

* analysis of unique aspects of collection especially regard to the lack of permanence in digitized collections

b. reduce local footprint

* cannot reduce the footprint but must expand to support growth of programs at the university and larger volume of publications; ebook vendors are not available for this purpose; the local collection needs to be able to support growth.

* On the other hand, SOPAG collection space planning report claims that no more space is available. Libraries need to reach a 0% growth rate within five years to fit within available space. Long-term plans call for de-duplication of system holdings.

* cuts have already put significant strain on preservation and binding. More money and personnel will be needed in future to maintain the materials that we have.

c. optimal future: Physical constraints require a streamlining of collections throughout the system, but local collections should be shaped to support growth of programs on campus as much as possible.


6. Buildings

a. consolidation

* space already tight before the proposed closure of PSE

* while the Davis libraries have not reduced hours in response to budget cuts like other UC campuses, the hours are already low; they should be restructured to match times of student use

b. Rearrangement of space

* information commons forming on the first floor where there are no reference desks

* partnership with other entities to support a visual media commons (space, hardware, software, librarians and technical assistants) integrating media access and creation with media literacy topics taught by librarians.

* more group study rooms are necessary and more outlets for laptops

* fundraising: the building can provide sources for funds with the sale of merchandise, food, and space rentals for outside events.

c. optimal future: preserve the space that we have and redesign for efficiency to enable enhanced study environment for students and sale of products to generate funds for the library.


7. Campus Roles

a. Instruction

* UWP instruction

* integrated courses, subject specialists

* Re: Search Start paper consulting service

* classes for Learning Skills Center: STEP, term paper workshops

* orientations for new students and graduate students in all departments

* online tutorials and other tools under development

* EndNote to teach research and citation management at all levels.

* subject specialists given new freedom to design subject guides.

b. Outreach

* liaison work

* marketing

* advertising with fliers/ads to dorms

* reference service

* campus committees: academic federation committees, campus administrative advisory committees, LAUC

* webpage: blogs

* consulting: technical services (meta-data, preservation); archives/special collections

c. Optimal future:

* continued robust activity in existing areas

* sponsored seminars with academic focus; cultural events

* library research awards: writing contests

* formalizing/institutionalizing instruction with credit classes,

* technology: mobile bulletin boards in library lobby

* expansion into new areas of service: EndNote to improve research skills


8. Library Networks

a. ILL UCs

b. shared cataloging within UC

c.national cooperative cataloging

d. UCs repository of research programs in the state by act of legislation

e. CDL participation in national/international digitization

f. expansion outside of organizational boundaries to regional operations e.g. to include CSUs, other consortia

g. chat reference - national/international networks

h. networks to include public libraries, community colleges

i. Networks are driven by cost savings and have adverse effects on local institutions. As an example Google Books does not digitize anything with individual copyright. Many networked efforts pose problems in areas of preservation, omission, poor-quality of work

j. Optimal future - continued expansion in scale and cooperativity of networks with attention to preserving local specificity of collections.


9. Organizational Cultures

a. Communication issues with library administration

* Structure of library bureaucracy needs to reexamined; the library management contrasts with the rest of academia in remaining static while deans and department heads rotate

* There needs to be improved lines of communication

* Quicker responses

* administration counterclaims: communication efforts ignored, need two-way communication with timely input to administration in the spirit of the Principles of Community; difficult, unavoidable decisions should not be cause for shooting the messenger

* dangers of toxic self-perpetuating culture of negativity and inaction among librarians/staff

* free-form committees offer advantages over rigidly agenda-driven ones

* previous discussion indicates an information bottleneck in the practice of filtering communications from administration to staff through department heads; suggested remedies were to publish all minutes and to use notation clearly indicating action items, this has been unevenly adopted.

* need to consider ways to create an innovative environment that is proactive and encourages a sense of creativity and freedom to explore solutions to our challenges

* need to find ways to cultivate library community for example through social events such as ice cream socials and planned retreats

b. Communication with systems

* claims that Systems restricts access to technology and does not respond adequately to requests

* counterclaims that Systems acts to maintain security and must deal with technical challenges that are not apparent outside

c. Optimal future

* Improved communication with regular face-to-face meetings among parties involved e.g. Systems representation on RISC.

* A "Velvet Revolution" of an improved communal culture with frequent social activities

UCLA: Discussion of the Future

Summary of LAUC-LA Informal Meeting 4/7/10

Diane Mizrachi, LAUC UCLA Division Chair

This year, Statewide LAUC has initiated a dialog among its members on topics of interest to our future. On April 7, 2010, approximately 25 LAUC-LA members met for an informal meeting to look at two specific issues and how they impact the future and can be improved upon. The first issue is ensuring and improving upon the value of librarian professional expertise by the university community, and the second looks at the development of a new generational catalog – Next-Gen Melvyl. Below is a summary of our discussions.

In the values discussion we identified what specific expertise we posses and want to be valued for, and then created a list of suggestions. These questions may seem obvious but it is important from time to time to take stock of what we do and what we would like others to value about what we do. At the LAUC Southern Regional meeting at UC Irvine on May 6, UCSD UL Brian Schottlaender discussed a study he did recently of academic library job postings which reflects the evolution of skills and knowledge needed in our profession. These kinds of studies and introspection are important for us when visualizing and planning towards the future of libraries and librarianship.

Discussions identifying our expertise seemed to cluster around three general areas: expertise we have acquired through our studies in MLIS/MIS programs and on-the-job experience, subject expertise, and collaborations.

What we do and expect to be valued for:
• Our expertise above the layman acquired through our professional training and experience:
o Knowing how information is organized, stored, accessed
o Fluency in all sorts of information tools and resources,
o Knowledge of information vocabulary, collections
o Organizing, classifying information, integrating and evaluating
o Recognition of the "Invisible substrate" principle (by Marcia Bates): people don't realize that there's a science to information organization - having subject expertise doesn't necessarily mean one knows how to organize it best for retrieval & use
o Long term commitment to viability and direction of our collections, researchers have a short-term view.
o Library instruction to end-users and staff:
 we plan, prepare, implement and evaluate our library instruction--help people learn how to learn
o Expertise with e-resources - licensing, acquiring, delivering, & maintaining are more complex than with print
o Scholarly communication issues & intellectual property
 faculty perspective--where they publish affects what we can buy in the future
 student perspective—plagiarism
o Training new librarians, new professionals and interns
o Functional expertise as important as subject expertise--undergrad services, metadata, cataloging, etc.
o Because we have mental models of information organization from our training, we can apply these models to new situations
o Create new standards--technical services; how to fix something when broken; integrating new materials into existing;

• Subject expertise
o Subject specialty becoming more important as general surfing becomes easier & more possible.
o Language expertise – our ability work with information in a multitude of languages
o tension between librarians who may make recommendations related to specific subject areas, and those who don't--partly dependent on subject expertise of the person--e.g., synthesizing information

• Collaborations
o The more we work with faculty and students the more they respect us.
o We offer different perspectives on information than researcher – more holistic
o Networking to other collections & libraries
o Groups with different expertise work together
o Bringing people into shared spaces (web, 2nd life), commons


Current and Future Needs and Suggestions
• We get questions from the larger community because we’re UCLA. We need to be valued for our role in the community as a whole.
• Need an atmosphere where ideas and creativity can flow without fear of reprisal
• Every grant should have a dollar amount and librarians written in as personnel
• More investment in preservation of digital data
• Need to highlight our instruction expertise to make this expertise more visible.
• Partner with faculty in teaching classes
• Increase collaboration and partnering across library, campus and off-campus communities
• Partner with businesses to improve search functionality--cataloging, instruction--librarian as search engine
• Find a mechanism for librarians to serve on relevant faculty committees
• Need greater communication to the university community about what we do and our value
• Great publicity and marketing of librarians
 Personalize the librarians so we’re not just an institution
• Greater extension of the integration of IL into the general curriculum
• Investigate the adoption of the Management and law Library models of integrating/embedding librarian into other departments
• Encourage more transparency between librarians & administration and vice-verse
• Create a forum for non-LAUC library specialists (e.g. may be MLIS holders but position not in librarian series)
• LAUC should take a bigger role in reminding admin that we are here to advise them on services and policies--check in with us--we are the ones who work directly with users and want to provide assistance in making decisions
• Implement student fees for library services (address student-fee to library services)
• Education
• Information universe is increasing in complexity, not decreasing
 Continue professional training and development
• We need to keep updated with newest developments in searching, licensing, purchasing of information in all formats

Questions for Further Discussion
• Should we re-think our status and promote acquiring faculty status?
• Merging and changing of units and roles has created fewer opportunities for librarians to lead nationally and internationally--less subject specific areas--e.g., government docs, how can we reverse this?
• Collocation principle has slipped – do we even still value that? Libraries would say yes but how do we convey that?

Issue 2: Next-Gen Melvyl

Pros:
• faceted searching; many international institutions are listing their materials; one place to search for information, books, journals, articles
• Only catalog that offers my library, UC libraries, OCLC libraries, all libraries
• Will be possible to see all in-process records
• Each campus may adapt default display
Cons:
• federated search doesn't look for articles from all dbs we license

What are the most important pieces of advice that you would give to the designers of Next-Gen Melvyl?
• Implement an Authority Control for author listings
o Attend to the de-duping problem
• Implement Browse Headings Searches for authors & subjects (like our current OPAC)
• Change display from relevance to alphabetical by author name or subject heading
o Sort facet searching by author name or other reasonable way, not by # of records
• Provide guidance on how to search vernacular for materials published in non-Latin scripts
• Make smaller icons, so less scrolling needed
• If reporting locally, UCLA materials should be the default display
• Implement options for focused searches--Catalog only, Catalog + articles, Articles only
• Include RLF paging mechanism
• Include notice to users that it doesn't search all licensed databases
• Make it easier to find E-books:
• Add types of searches--
o search for specific item--e.g., Nature (journal)
o Call number
o better book series searching
o Searching: known item or subject – “start of” for titles, subjects, & keyword in subject
• Graphic design of records daunting--info spread out all over page; hard to figure out what sort of item you're looking at
• Ability to select items from search list to email, rather than have to go into record to email
• Option to display brief or detailed record
• Allow log-on users to do customize their displays

UL's Corner: Merced

R. Bruce Miller, University Librarian

1. Reference
What constitutes reference services when all users ask Google and are satisfied with the results? Why would anyone go to the library for reference help? How can we become more involved in developing more sophisticated, semantic-based online access to scholarly information?

2. Library relationships with information providers
Some information providers exist in order to make a profit. Others are non-profit and seek only to cover expenses. Regardless of motivation, the costs are real. We are in a symbiotic relationship in which there is no gain in forcing a provider out of business and that is not sustainable if the library faces costs for which there the budget is insufficient. How can we ensure, for the information providers, that necessary business costs are met and that profits are commensurate with value received and, for the library, that allocated funds can be used for the greatest benefit for our users?

3. Personnel
Increased outsourcing and greater reliance on end-user self service reduces the need for library staff who do routine and repetitive tasks. Those who do work in the library must be highly capable and empowered professionals. How should we develop existing staff and librarians to better prepare them for increased professional responsibility?

4. Technology
Essentially all incoming freshmen own a laptop and most of them also have smart phones. Within a few years, all of our constituents will have mobile computing capabilities that enable full access to the resources of the library, any time and any place. In this context, what is the role of the library in providing technology?

5. Collections
The complete content for the bulk of our journal collections is effectively online. Within a few years, the majority of our monograph collections will also be online. Additionally, our users will have online access to large quantities of scholarly monographs not held within the UC Libraries via HathiTrust. With such ready access to this vast amount of materials, will users abandon use of information resources within the UC Library Collection that are not online? If yes, what should we do differently?

6. Buildings/Facilities
If all users have personal computers with ready access to the Internet and library services and information resources are available online 24/7, why will any users come to a library building?

7. Library campus roles
Librarians comprehend the issues that surround complete life-cycle curation for digital assets. What is the role of the library in working with faculty and students before, during, and after the creation of digital scholarly information resources?

8. Library networks
“Network” is a very broad term that could include OCLC, professional associations, consortia, and even individual professional relationships. One can make a case that the value of a network is directly correlated with provision of access to information resources. How can we weave together myriad information resources that reside in balkanized information systems so that the end user can easily seek information and still be reassured that their search has been thorough?

9. Organizational Cultures in libraries
See comment and question above in 3. Personnel.

UL's Corner: Irvine

The UC ULs and library directors have offered to share their thoughts on the nine topic areas that have defined out discussion of the future of librarians and libraries at UC, and the UL's Corner will post the contribution of the campuses as they come in. The LAUC Committee on Professional Governance would like to thank the ULs for their participation. This edition comes from Irvine thanks to:

Carol Ann Hughes, Associate University Librarian, Public Services

Deborah Stansbury Sunday, Associate University Librarian, Administrative Services

1. Reference - As statistics for reference desks drop and e-reference
grows, at what point should we stop drop-in reference desk assistance
and depend on electronic means?

2. Library relationships with information providers - How do we
demonstrate that their current pricing models are counterproductive in
terms of keeping us, their customers, able to control costs effectively?

3. Personnel - How do we build capacity across existing staff without
overburdening them?

4. Technology - To what extent/at what rate do libraries need to
incorporate social networking capabilities into our services in order to
maintain relevancy to our community of users?

5. Collections - How do we assure that we have the right amount and
kinds of space for both physical and electronic collections?

6. Buildings/Facilities - How can we best be persuasive in the campus
conversation about the scarcity of prime real estate on central campuses?

7. Library campus roles - How do we convey the "value proposition" of
libraries to faculty beyond that of a 'buying club' (which is their
growing perception of us according to the recent Ithaka report.)

8. Library networks - How do libraries leverage our membership in
multiple networks to get a satisfactory return on investment?

9. Organizational cultures in libraries - The culture of most internal
library functions is changing as the work changes, but at a difference
pace in different units. How can we best help staff develop
complementary goals and help them keep moving collaboratively across
units as these changes occur?

LAUC-SB Future of Librarians in the UC discussion

Statewide LAUC has charged CPG to discuss the future of librarians within the UC. LAUC-SB had an animated discussion of the issue on April 21. The following notes are from that discussion.

The UC Library Collection white paper as it stands now does not really focus on the role of librarians. It spells out the future of libraries but not librarians. Are librarians still subject specialist or collection managers? And how does this affect reference and other duties that we currently perform? If this is the way we are going in UC, what does it mean to be a librarian?

OCLC Research Report and ITHAKA Faculty survey both indicate an eroding role of librarians in academia. It’s a good barometer for how librarians are perceived by faculty and the outside world. The library was perceived in very high terms as a buyer of information but lower and lowering value as a gateway function. This negative perception of librarians is smaller than 20% but that percentage has doubled since the last survey in 2006. One way to approach the discussion is from the outside looking in.

What librarians need to do is better advertise or expose the role of the librarian in the role of gatekeeper. We are the ones purchasing access to all the content and as such we are doing a good job of quality control. One issue is that many faculty and graduate students is that they think they’re doing enough. They are finding enough materials through Google scholar or Google books. Are there things we have always done that we don’t need to do anymore? Since we are competing with someone who does it better? Then this is an issue of marketing and how we are putting ourselves out there.

These faculty also know who the big names are in their fields and need to be kept track of. However, in terms of interdisciplinary research, faculty don’t necessarily know who the big names are outside their direct field. The faculty will most likely go to faculty in the other departments rather than to the library to find out what they’re missing.

The faculty think that they can get to the information if they want and whenever they want regardless of whether there are librarians or who the librarians are. One reason faculty approach librarians is when they fail to find what they are looking for. That allows librarians to skip the first 20 steps of the reference interview. The big problem though is that faculty are failing earlier than they are aware of. If this is true, how are graduate students and undergraduate students faring?

It’s a cycle that’s difficult. We don’t want to withhold information so that patrons must come into the library because they won’t care. They just won’t use any information that is not easily available. But by making everything easily available, we also fuel the misperception that librarians are irrelevant in the use of libraries.

When you look at the future of libraries and librarians, it seems that a lot of the most exciting things are happening at CDL. That makes the role of libraries and librarians at places like UCSB that much more precarious. However, CDL has always drawn on the expertise of librarians at UCSB and tried to keep us involved. They will most likely keep on doing this. We can also take the initiative and find places within CDL that are open to us to make bigger contributions than we have in the past. Also, keep in mind that CDL has always been a very small operation and has a very small staff. They need the librarians at the campuses to participate in all of their endeavors. No one can do it by themselves anymore and this is especially true of the UC Library system. We need to keep looking for partners and funding sources to keep all of our projects moving forward.

The building as a place to study is not important to faculty but students find a place to study very relevant for their needs.

Perhaps one way to go is to become data repositories as opposed to document repositories. That would mean that many librarians need formal training in mining that data. It is its own specialty. There are requests coming in from graduate students and faculty and it’s an area that most librarians are not currently specialists in. It’s all somewhat similar to what we’re currently doing in terms of pointing people in the right direction. Perhaps this is an esoteric position where not all the campuses need or have data librarians. Perhaps 2 or 3 libraries have these positions who act as reference points for all librarians to confer with as the need arises.

Perhaps what will happen is that librarians will move out of individual libraries to CDL. One need that is on the radar at UCSB is to find out where libraries and librarians fit into the world of publishing.

CDL does not serve faculty or students directly so they particularly vulnerable to budget cuts during times of budget difficulties. What they do is manage things at a system wide level.

eScholarship program, platform and services have been set up. The role of advocacy and outreach is something CDL has been doing but something we can do as well.

What can LAUC do? We can respond. We can let faculty know how we fit into their comments and suggestions for the library. We can rewrite our job descriptions and continue to advocate for ourselves. What do we see our jobs to being in these scenarios? What does this tell us about where we need to concentrate? What do we need to actually make us function?

If you were writing your replacement’s job description, what needs do you think should be met that aren’t being met currently? What will job descriptions, new position postings look like in the future? We’ve got training series currently in the works for the coming year regarding collection management and scholarly communication.

Questions for the UCI South Regional Assembly

1. Reference and Instruction
Which aspects of reference and instruction do you see as ongoing functions of librarians?
Which aspects do you see fading away?
Which aspects do you see evolving, and how?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider in relation to reference and instruction?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

Possible article of interest for this discussion: Beck, Clare. 1991. "Reference Services: a Handmaid's Tale." Library Journal 116 (7):32-38.

Contrast the Beck article with the item cited in the UCSF blog posting (2/10/10) on the LAUC blog: Kaufman, Paula. 2009. "Carpe Diem: Transforming Services in Academic Libraries"
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/12032

2. Relationship to information providers
What differences do you see now between librarians and non-librarian information providers?
In what ways do you see these differences evolving?
In what practical ways can librarians draw attention to and demonstrate these differences?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

3. Library Personnel
What do you see, generally, as the current functions of library personnel?
How do you see these functions and responsibility for them evolving?
In what practical ways can librarians demonstrate their value in analyzing and making recommendations regarding the roles and functions of library personnel?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

4. Technology
Which aspects of technology do you see as ongoing functions of librarians?
Which aspects do you see fading away?
Which aspects do you see evolving, and how?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider in relation to technology functions?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

5. Collections
Which aspects of collections do you see as ongoing functions of librarians?
Which aspects do you see fading away?
Which aspects do you see evolving, and how?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider in relation to collections functions?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

6. Library Buildings
In which ways are librarians and physical library spaces linked, currently?
In which ways do you see this evolving?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider regarding physical library spaces?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

7. Campus Roles
How does your campus view the role of librarians, currently?
In which ways do you see this evolving?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider regarding their campus roles?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

8. Library Networks
What do you see as the current role of librarians at your institution regarding library networks?
In which ways do you see this evolving?
What are some practical approaches librarians should consider regarding their campus roles?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

9. Organizational Culture
Librarians:
Which aspects of organizational culture at your institution affect your work directly?
Which aspects are supportive?
Which aspects are obstacles?
In what practical ways should the organization change to meet your evolving professional needs?
Please rank each on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest & 5 being highest.

Discussion Group 4: Technology

Recorder: Phoebe Ayers, psayers@ucdavis.edu
Group members: Amy Chatfield, Rebecca Hyde, Phoebe Ayers, Lucia Orlando

Notes:

• Areas of technology:
o Making technology a separate area of discussion is problematic, because it affects every area of our jobs, and every topic of discussion -- from public computers in the building, to the way we access our information resources, to how we help patrons, etc. Technology is a major driver that bears on every one of the topics discussed.

• Adopting technologies to provide:
o just because a technology is new and shiny -- do we have to adopt it? should we adopt it? (do people really search databases from their iphones on the bus? maybe!)
o for instance, are online books really preferable? Many (most) people seem to still prefer physical books

• Information product interfaces:
o how do you get technology to give people the best results?
o how do we work with database interfaces, google, etc., to help patrons get the best results? Should we work more on information design?
o our own websites (mobile interfaces)

• How far do we want to go to meet people in the library with technologies they use?
o for instance, why don't we have unlocked public computers? (this varies between campuses)
o library facebook, twitter? do people actually want/need this?

• Front end and back end technologies
o technology means both the front end that the patron sees (the website and the back end that we work with, e.g. sfx
o should we concentrate on making the back end better, as well as our sites?

• Instruction
o should we team up with campus systems to teach classes about technologies (word, excel, etc)?
o one barrier to offering nice computers and software to the campus population are expectations of support -- we might have to train people/ support it
o library technology bootcamp? could we offer focussed, serious programs? (like ICSPR bootcamp for social science grad students)
o but we also need to teach basic library skills -- how to use a catalog
o we make a lot of assumptions that students know how to use computers, and tech because they are young, but that might not be true at all

• Technology programs
o for something like e-science -- it's a big, expensive problem; we could help make connections between people
o should something like escience be something that should be worked on centrally, like the CDL; we don't have money, resources, expertise -- but people like local technology programs for the prestige, like local data archives
o something like the ICSPR -- they store datasets and articles based on the data; institution based out of michigan