7th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference (QQML2015) 26-29 May 2015, IUT-Descartes University, Paris, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
It is our pleasure to invite you in Paris (IUT-Descartes University) for the 7th Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries International Conference (QQML2015, http://www.isast.org) which is organized under the umbrella of ISAST (International Society for the Advancement of Science and Technology).
This is the seventh year of the conference which brings together different disciplines on library and information science; it is a multi–disciplinary conference that covers the Library and Information Science topics in conjunction to other disciplines (e.g. innovation and economics, management and marketing, statistics and data analysis, information technology, human resources, museums, archives, special librarianship, etc).
The conference invites special and contributed sessions, oral communications, workshops and posters.
Target Group
The target group and the audience are library and archives professionals in a more general sense: professors, researchers, students, administrators, stakeholders, librarians, technologists, museum scientists, archivists, decision makers and managers.
Main topics
The emphasis is given to the models and the initiatives that run under the budget restrictions, such as the Information Management and the innovation, the crisis management, the long-term access, the synergies and partnership, the open access movement and technological development.
The conference will consider, but not be limited to, the following indicative themes:
- 1. Information and Knowledge Management
- 2. Synergies, Organizational Models and Information Systems
- 3. Open Data, Open Access, Analysis and Applications
- 4. Multimedia Systems and Applications
- 5. Computer Networks and Social Networks,
- 6. Health Reference and Informatics
- 7. Information Technologies in Education
- 8. Decision making in service innovation
- 9. Data Mining, content analysis, taxonomies, ontologies
- 10. STM information development
Special Sessions – Workshops
You may send proposals for Special Sessions (4-6 papers) or Workshops (more than 2 sessions) including the title and a brief description at: secretar@isast.org or from the electronic submission at the web page: http://www.isast.org/abstractsubmission.html
You may also send Abstracts/Papers to be included in the proposed sessions, to new sessions or as contributed papers at the web page: http://www.isast.org/abstractsubmission.html
Registrations are registration forms are available from: http://www.isast.org/qqml2015registration.html
Contributions may be realized through one of the following ways
a. structured abstracts (not exceeding 500 words) and presentation;
b. full papers (not exceeding 7,000 words);
c. posters (not exceeding 2,500 words);
In all the above cases at least one of the authors ought to be registered in the conference.
Abstracts and full papers should be submitted electronically within the timetable provided in the web page: http://www.isast.org/.
The abstracts and full papers should be in compliance to the author guidelines: http://www.isast.org/
All abstracts will be published in the Conference Book of Abstracts and in the website of the Conference. The papers of the conference will be published in the website of the conference, after the permission of the author(s).
Student submissions
Professors and Supervisors are encouraged to organize conference sessions of Postgraduate theses and dissertations.
Please direct any questions regarding the QQML 2015 Conference and Student Research Presentations to: the secretariat of the conference at: secretar@isast.org
Important dates:
First call of proposals: 29th of September 2014
Deadline of abstracts submitted: 20 December 2014
Reviewer’s response: in 3 weeks after submission
Early registration: 30th of March 2015
Paper and Presentation Slides: 1st of May 2015
Conference dates: 26-29 May 2015
Paper contributors have the opportunity to be published in the QQML e- Journal, which continues to retain the right of first choice, however in addition they have the chance to be published in other scientific journals.
QQML e- Journal is included in EBSCOhost and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals).
Submissions of abstracts to special or contributed sessions could be sent directly to the conference secretariat at secretar@isast.org. Please refer to the Session Number, as they are referred at the conference website to help the secretariat to classify the submissions.
For more information and Abstract/Paper submission and Special Session Proposals please visit the conference website at: http://www.isast.org or contact the secretary of the conference at : secretar@isast.org
Looking forward to welcoming you in Paris,
With our best regards,
On behalf of the Conference Committee
Dr. Anthi Katsirikou, Conference Co-Chair
University of Piraeus Library Director
Head, European Documentation Center
Board Member of the Greek Association of Librarians and Information Professionals
anthi@asmda.com
Professor Joumana Boustany
Local Chair
Université Paris Descartes – IUT,
143, avenue de Versailles –
75016 Paris
joumana.boustany@parisdescartes.fr
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
by Kevin Smith, M.L.S., J.D., Lisa A. Macklin, J.D.,M.L.S., Anne Gilliland, JD, MLS
thread Wk 1 – T2: Copyright: Shortened or Lengthened? – PART 1
Follow the money” was mentioned as a way to understand the concept of copyright and copyright law
Copyright lengths should be shortened. Term lengths like these rarely benefit actual people. They benefit corporations, be it publishers or things like Disney.
Karen Lightner: I can see the usefulness of bringing the US into line with the Berne Convention, so that we are in line with other nations’ laws. But the additional 20 years we have added for individuals and the incredibly long period for corporations goes against, I believe, what the founding fathers intended when they specified for a limited time.
Edwin A Quist: There are collections of so-called production music issued with licenses to be used for educational videos. We have at least two sets of these in our music library (in various styles: rock ,classical, world, electronic, etc.) — but don’t expect great art! Also WikiMedia Commons has some CC licensed music.
Brad Whitehead: I have no quarrel with protecting corporate trademarks — Disney characters or Nike swooshes, etc. — but maintaining monopolies on creative works for such extended periods primarily enriches publishers with no benefit to the creators.
Nicholas Theo: There are definitely works created where it can be next to impossible to find the owner, or their descendant 20 years after the creation of the work. I have also witnessed when you do track these people down that they want an exorbitant sum of money for permission to use their creation even when there has been absolutely no interest in it. In the end no deal is made. On the other hand I work with two small non profit organizations whose body of work is of value. The material is actively used, and the body of work is a core asset for the organization. What happens to each organization once the copyrights expire? One organization faces this reality in 2015. The Internet permits an environment where decades of work may be used, and in some instances in ways the original material was never intended to be used. For instance, written passages can be misquoted and there will no longer be a legal mechanism to halt this practice.
Karen Case: I would be curious to know if the Youtube video with Mozart would have been removed if the link was made private.
Susan Martel: I think about The Hobbit which was published in 1937. The author, Tolkien, died in 1973, and I remember his books being popular in the seventies and the eighties. It was fairly recently that movies were made based on his books. It seems fair (and I hope that it is the case) that he left a great legacy behind to his family so that they could continue to receive income from his work. If Tolkien’s works were in the public domain by the time the movies were made, it is just an easy way for those working in the movie industry to become even wealthier without having to pay anything to the author or his beneficiaries. Not all works have the kind of potential that Tolkien’s did, but without a crystal ball to predict the future it may be difficult to predict accurately what works will have continued success for generations and which will just be a flash in the pan.
Charles N. Norton: There is something called “Good Faith” effort that many archives hold to that tends to be the “standard” when trying to use copyrighted material for educational use, but it really only applies when you know who the copyright holder is and for whatever reason they simply do not respond to your requests. It does not remove the authors rights and, in fact, many times one does end up having to remove shared material after the fact because the copyright holders finally does get around to denying permission.
Lesli Moore: I’m glad to see some discussion about Open Access to works. Perhaps instead of shortening the term, creators can circumvent the terms by offering open access using Creative Commons.
Jef Gielen: There are pros and cons. Do we find it reasonable that heirs take benefit from a work they did not contribute to at all ? To me, this is not evident. On the other hand, the copyright can be in hand of foundations trying to continue the work of an author – e.g. by means of scholarships. That’s another story ..
Resources:
Here is a complete list of all the suggested readings for the Copyright for Educations and Librarians Course. Click here for a downloadable PDF version of the Suggested Readings that contains the full URL links.
Week 1
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Please scan the section headings to gain a general idea of the structure of the law.
- United States Copyright Office website, at http://copyright.gov/. Please read circular #1, “ Copyright Basics.”
- James Boyle, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. PDF book version. Please read Chapter One, “Why Intellectual Property?”
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapters 1 & 2.
- Kevin Smith & Lisa Macklin, Handout on “A Framework for Analyzing any Copyright Problem.”
Week 2
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Please read sections 101 through 106 and section 109.
- United States Copyright Office website, at http://copyright.gov/. Please read circulars 9 (“Work Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act“) and 21 (“Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarian”).
- Peter Hirtle, “Copyright and the Public Domain in the United States,” online chart.
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapters 3 & 4.
- “Copyright Law & Public Domain,” a series of short essays from NOLO, Law for All, at.
Week 3
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Available at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/. Please read sections 108 and 110.
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapter 6.
- Peggy Hoon, “The Original TEACH Act Toolkit.”
- Creative Commons website at . Please read the “Choose a license” page and “About the Licenses“.
- Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries, “The Basics of Getting Permission” athttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/introduction/getting-permission/.
- “Permissions,” Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University Libraries.
- David R. Hansen, Copyright Reform Principles for Libraries, Archives, and Other Memory Institutions, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming 2014).
Samples:
OPTIONAL – Resources on music copyright:
Sources for examples:
For the history behind the controversy over “The Lion Sleeps Tonight,” listen to these three YouTube videos:
Week 4
A former SCSU faculty asked me to help her with literature regarding online learning; she is applying to teach complete online somewhere in the South.
Hey Plamen, Do you have any reading suggestions regarding teaching online? I am applying for a job at ?????? and the program is completely online. I want to be current with the literature if I happen to get an interview.
Hey ???,
It is a simple question, with ever growing complex answer. 2013 was announced as the “MOOC” year and that term literally killed the tag “online education.” Most of the literature on online teaching now is subdued one way or another under MOOC.
However, there are still authors, who are widely cited as “foundational.” E.g.: Susan Ko, Paloff and Pratt
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. Taylor & Francis.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2010). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community. John Wiley & Sons.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the Online Learner: Resources and Strategies for Faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541040.files/Moore%20Theoretical%20Basis%20for%20Distance%20Education.pdf
Moore, M. G. (2013). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge.
There is a long list of articles, which I am collecting through the years. You can peruse them and choose any further readings, if you want…
Adolphus, M. (2009). USING THE WEB TO teach information literacy. Online, 33(4), 20-25.
Andersen, M. H. (2011). The world is my school: Welcome to the era of personalized learning. Futurist, 45(1), 12-17.
Borja, R. R. (2004). New player in online school market pursues profits. Education Week, 24(15), 8-8.
Brooks-Kirkland, A. (2006). Podcasting for learning. School Libraries in Canada (17108535), 25(4), 44-48.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a european empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565.
de Freitas, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2010). Editorial: Crossing boundaries: Learning and teaching in virtual worlds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 3-9.
Department of education report: Its importance, one year later. (cover story).(2010). Distance Education Report, 15(12), 1-7.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108-122.
Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach. Computers & Education, 55(2), 652-662.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Miltenoff, P. (2011). Technology and globalization in higher education., 2535-2538.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
Kim, P., Ng, C. K., & Lim, G. (2010). When cloud computing meets with semantic web: A new design for e-portfolio systems in the social media era. British Journal of Educational Technology,41(6), 1018-1028.
Kolowich, S. (2009). MIT tops world ranking of university web sites. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(24), A15-A15.
Leach, J. (2008). Do new information and communications technologies have a role to play in the achievement of education for all? British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 783-805.
Levine, A., Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope : A portrait of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mangu-Ward, K. (2010). Teachers unions vs. online education. Reason, 42(4), 44-50.
Nistor, N., & Neubauer, K. (2010). From participation to dropout: Quantitative participation patterns in online university courses. Computers & Education, 55(2), 663-672.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom. Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Ramig, R. (2009). Social media in the classroom. Multimedia & internet@schools, 16(6), 8-10.
Schiller, K. (2009). Augmented reality comes to market. (cover story). Information Today, 26(11), 1-46.
Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067-2077.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Wang, H., & Shao, M. (2008). Desire2Learn for quality matters., 1335-1339.