http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/03/PIP-Library-Typology-Report.pdf
http://blog.mendeley.com/academic-life/from-distant-admirers-to-library-lovers/
p. 4
typology is a statistical analysis that clusters individuals into groups based on certain attributes; in this case, those are people’s usage of, views toward, and access to libraries.
Public library users and proponents are not a niche group: 30% of Americans ages 16 and older are highly engaged with public libraries, and an additional 39% fall into medium engagement categories.
Americans’ library habits do not exist in a vacuum: Americans’ connection—or lack of connection—with public libraries is part of their broader information and social landscape. As a rule, people who have extensive economic, social, technological, and cultural resources are also more likely to use and value libraries as part of those networks. Many of those who are less engaged with public libraries tend to have lower levels of technology use, fewer ties to their neighbors, lower feelings of personal efficacy, and less engagement with other cultural activities.
Life stage and special circumstances are linked to increased library use and higher engagement with information: Deeper connections with public libraries are often associated with key life moments such as having a child, seeking a job, being a student, and going through a situation in which research and data can help inform a decision. Similarly, quieter times of life, such as retirement, or less momentous periods,
http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf
p. 4 new and rapidly changing technologies, an abundance of digital information in myriad formats, an increased understanding of how students learn evolving research methods, and changing practices in how scholars communicate and disseminate their research and creative work.
Engagement requires an outward focus
A liaison who understands how scholars in a particular discipline communicate and share
information with one another can inform the design and development of new publishing services, such as
digital institutional repositories.
Liaisons cannot be experts themselves in each new capability, but knowing when to call in a
colleague, or how to describe appropriate expert capabilities to faculty, will be key to the new liaison role.
an increasing focus on what users do (research, teaching, and learning) rather than on what librarians do (collections, reference, library instruction).
hybrid model, where liaisons pair their expertise with that of functional specialists, both within and outside of libraries
p. 6 Trend 1: Develop user-centered library services
Many libraries are challenged to brand such a service point, citing a “hub” or “center” to refer to services that can include circulation, reference, computer support, writing assistance, and more.
For liaisons, time at a reference desk has been replaced by anticipating recurrent needs and developing
easily accessible online materials (e.g., LibGuides, screencasts) available to anyone at any time, and
by providing more advanced one-on-one consultations with students, instructors, and researchers who
need expert help. Liaisons not only answer questions using library resources, but they also advise and
collaborate on issues of copyright, scholarly communication, data management, knowledge management,
and information literacy. The base level of knowledge that a liaison must possess is much broader than
familiarity with a reference collection or facility with online searching; instead, they must constantly keep up
with evolving pedagogies and research methods, rapidly developing tools, technologies, and ever-changing
policies that facilitate and inform teaching, learning, and research in their assigned disciplines.
Librarians at many institutions are now focusing on collaborating with faculty to develop thoughtful assignments
and provide online instructional materials that are built into key courses within a curriculum and provide
scaffolding to help students develop library research skills over the course of their academic careers
p. 7 Trend 2: A hybrid model of liaison and functional specialist is emerging.
Current specialist areas of expertise include copyright, geographic information systems (GIS), media production and integration, distributed education or e-learning, data management, emerging technologies,
user experience, instructional design, and bioinformatics.
At the University of Guelph, the liaison model was abandoned altogether in favor of a functional specialist
approach
p. 8 Trend 3: Organizational flexibility must meet changing user needs.
p. 9 provide education and consultation services for personal information management. Tools, workshops, websites, and individual consults are offered in areas such as citation management, productivity tools, managing alerts and feeds, personal archiving, and using social networking for teaching and professional development.
p. 11 data management, knowledge management and scholarly communication
digital scholarship
p. 12 Liaisons need to be able to provide a general level of knowledge about copyright, data management, the need for metadata and the ontologies available in their disciplines.
p. 13 Liaisons need to be able to provide a general level of knowledge about copyright, data management, the need for metadata and the ontologies available in their disciplines.
p. 16 replacing the traditional tripartite model of collections, reference, and instruction
These six categories are:
- Textual Works and Musical Compositions
- Still Image Works
- Audio Works
- Moving Image Works
- Software and Electronic Gaming and Learning
- Datasets/Databases
From: Scanlon, Donna [mailto:dscanlon@loc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:34 AM
To: ‘lita-l@ala.org’
Subject: [lita-l] Library of Congress Recommended Format Specifications
The Library of Congress announces the availability of its Recommended Format Specifications, a document describing the hierarchies of the physical and technical characteristics of creative formats, both analog and digital, which will best maximize the chances for preservation and continued accessibility of creative content. Creators and publishers have also begun to employ a wide array of intangible digital formats, as well as continuing to change and adapt the physical formats in which they work. The Library needs to be able to identify the formats which are suitable for large-scale acquisition and preservation for long-term access if it is to continue to build its collection and ensure that it lasts into the future.
The Library was able to identify six basic categories of creative output, which represent significant parts of the publishing, information, and media industries, especially those that are rapidly adopting digital production and are central to building the Library’s collections: Textual Works and Musical Compositions; Still Image Works; Audio Works; Moving Image Works; Software and Electronic Gaming and Learning; and Datasets/Databases. Technical teams, made up of experts came from across the institution bringing specialized knowledge in technical aspects of preservation, ongoing access needs and developments in the marketplace and in the publishing world, were established to identify recommended formats for each of these categories and to establish hierarchies of preference among the formats within them.
The Library will be revisiting these specifications on an annual basis. The creation and publication of these recommended format specifications is not intended to serve as an answer to all the questions raised in preserving and providing long-term access to creative content. They do not provide instructions for receiving this material into repositories, managing that content or undertaking the many ongoing tasks which will be necessary to maintain this content so that it may be used well into the future.
The Recommended Format Specifications are available at http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/. For more information, please contact Ted Westervelt [thwe@loc.gov].
Donna Scanlon
Electronic Resources Coordinator
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540
eMail: dscanlon@loc.gov
Phone: (202) 707-6235
http://eresources.loc.gov
Are you a user of Course Builder, Course Design Accelerator, Learning Activity Library…
Ken Miller (kwmiller@stcloudstate.edu) and I sat today as part of our Technology Week gatherings and were wondering how faculty is using these tools.
We won’t to hear other faculty how they integrate Learning Objectives and Outcomes through the process of building a D2L Course using Course Builder.
https://medium.com/@allisonjaiodell/why-i-left-academic-libraries-26e2a63c8bf2
Why I Left Libraries
Data Architecture: I was an active member of the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee, the ARLIS/NA Artists’ Books Thesaurus project, and an OCLC initiative on Web archiving metadata. I used to contribute to development of international schemas, controlled vocabularies, and content standards for free, as a service activity. Meanwhile, I could have earned $134,677 as a data architect.
Web Development: I developed applications and customized discovery layers to help library patrons find resources. I learned several markup and scripting languages in order to take on this extra work for the library, in the hot-hot pursuit of grant funding to list on my CV. I could have earned $88,285 as a front-end developer (the folks who use HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to build the parts of a website that you see), or $101,021 as a back-end developer (the folks who work with APIs, and transfer data to/from databases).
Data Engineering: Libraries are constantly integrating data from publishers, digitization projects, legacy catalogs, union catalogs, and more. I became a whizz at data wrangling and transformation. I developed countless data pipelines and ETL processes to combine disparate data streams. I should have been earning $112,935 as a data engineer.
User Experience Research: To inform cataloging guidelines, and to better design catalogs and finding aids to meet user needs, I spent a lot of time in libraries researching information-seeking behaviors. I became intimately familiar with Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. I ran focus groups, conducted usability tests, and led card-sorting exercises in order to gather insights on how to improve our discovery interfaces and their navigation. As a user experience researcher outside of libraries, I could have earned $140,985.
Fundraising: As a special collections professional, I was routinely asked to give tours and host events, with the goal of building relationships with donors. I cultivated skills in storytelling, and learned to quickly craft narratives about my projects’ efficacy and impact. As an academic and a gig worker, I helped develop numerous grant applications, and served as a principal investigator on several large-sum projects. Overall, I honed techniques that are crucial to fundraising and philanthropy. In the nonprofit sector, I could have earned between $98,765 as a development manager and $102,546 as a director of development.
Project Management: In libraries, I never had less than five major projects going at once. I oversaw several large-scale database and website migrations, making sure that each of my team members’ contributions were completed in sequence and on time, while I myself served as a project contributor. In the tech sector, I could have been working as a project manager — someone whose sole job is to hold others accountable to the development timeline — and earned $87,086.