Upload
barnaby-newton
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presenter:Karla Hahn, Association of Research
Libraries
Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital
Scholarly Communication
Why a study of new model works?
Membership:123 Research LibrariesUnited States and Canada
2007 ARL members reported spending on: Library materials: $9.6 million median ($1.2 billion total) Serials: $6.6 million median ($820 million total) Electronic resources: $4.7 million median ($536 million total).
3
About ARL
http://www.arl.org/sc/models/ model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml
The study:ARL
Designed and funded studyOrganized field study and data collection
IthakaField study support Targeted interviews with resource developersReport by Nancy Maron and Kirby Smith
For more information: http://www.arl.org/sc/models/model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml
Study GoalsIdentify range of examples of new model
works,High level overview of the emerging
landscape, Encourage librarians and faculty members
to share information and perspectives about the current array of new model works,
Support librarians in building relationships and developing outreach programs that advance new kinds of scholarly works.
2008 Study Timeline
February FundingMarch Recruitment & Training
MaterialsApril Launch of Data CollectionJune 15 Close of Data CollectionNovember 10 Report Released
Role of the Field Team: Data GatheringContact and conversation with facultyGathered names of possible resources from
the faculty who use themResponsible for vetting the resources
recommended by faculty, according to criteria outlined by ARL
Responsible for entering the names and information about the resources into a central web-based database
Field Study Phase
Key issues:
Framing “new model publications”Launching conversationsEngaging volunteers
Participation
Librarians>300 individuals46 institutionsUS and CanadaLiberal arts
colleges to research institutions
Faculty8.2 approached per
librarian1.75 interviewed
per librarian
Institutional participation
3 Partner/Pilot testing institutions
14 additional institutions
The experience of talking with faculty
How participants identified their conversation partner
Someone I knew from prior work together 69.6%
Someone I wanted to begin a working relationship with 21.4%
Someone I knew was interested in new communication technologies
37.5%
Someone I knew was involved in producing traditional publications- e.g., an editor or editorial board member.
25.0%
Someone I knew was involved in producing new kinds of publications- e.g., e-journals, e-books
25.0%
Someone who owed me a favor because I had helped her/him in the past.
16.1%
Someone who is an opinion leader in the department 16.1%
Recommended to me by someone else 10.7%A designated faculty liaison to the library or had some other formal assignment to work with the library. 5.4%
“It wasn't until we had a fairly unstructured conversation that many faculty remembered sites they use. Initially several said they didn't use newer modes of scholarly communication, when in fact they did.”
Study participant
What was most valuable?“Having a formal structured reason to begin a
conversation that encompassed some of these issues. I have been wanting to do this for almost a year, but this study gave me the impetus to actually make meetings and get them done in a short period of time.”
“The conversation as a whole helped me to gain a better understanding of [how] this faculty member does research and how he expects his students to do research.”
“Learning specific ways this faculty member keeps current in her field.”
“Faculty discussing the way they work, moving from literature to lab to data analysis to publishing and discussion, but not always in that order.”
“Learning about both faculty members' positive views on electronic publications as ways to share scholarly and professional research/ideas/news. Although I had previous conversations with both faculty members, my discussions with them about new model publications made me see them as advocates for scholarly communication practices such as open access publishing.”
Relationship building Agree
Strengthened my relationship with the faculty member
67%
Has made it more likely that I will contact the faculty member in the future
62%
Has made it more likely the faculty member will contact me in the future
60%
Gave me a deeper understanding of how communication practices are changing in a discipline
43%
Gave me ideas for new ways I can work with her/his department
41%
Challenged my assumptions 30%
Challenged the faculty member's assumptions 22%
The new models faculty identified
Why focus on “original” and “scholarly” resources?
ARL wanted to learn more about those resources that were likely to be: New in their applications of the capabilities
of a digital environmentTuned to needs of scholars and researchersAimed primarily at advancing the
dissemination of new research and scholarship
Limitations of using this qualitative approachNeither census nor statistically
representative sample.Difficult to control conditions under which
questions were posed to faculty. Some data (for example, on sustainability
methods used) is difficult to obtain and verify by direct observation, without further detailed questioning of project leaders.
What the approach provided:Mechanism for identifying a reasonably
large number of examples from a wide range of disciplines and fields
Ability to focus on resources that have been “adopted” by some scholarly community
Examples of digital resources faculty consider innovative
Hypotheses about trends regarding the types of digital resources used in different disciplines
By the numbers
355 entries for resources
240 cited resources we identified as both original and scholarly
206 unique scholarly original resources
Analysis based on
Assessment of resource entries in databaseDirect observation of sites named by
facultyIn-depth interviews with project leaders
from 11 sample cases
Types of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=206)
E-only journalsMost frequently reported content typeReported evenly across humanities, social
sciences and STM fieldsMost are Open AccessSome examples of innovation, though
some features are slow to gain wide adoption
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments
Reviews
Innovate in terms of speed to releaseBenefit from lack of space restrictionRapid and frequent publication encourages
users to visit the sites frequently or adopt notification functions
Bryn Mawr Classical Review
Preprint and working paper servers
Provide quick access to new workLargest servers are the oldest ones and
dominant in their fields: arXiv and SSRN, both cited by multiple faculty members
Faculty cited frequent usage of these sitesSignificance of disciplinary culture in
influencing strong growth of these resources
PhilSci Archive
Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and Annotated Content
Broad-ranging projects, often mixing primary documents and scholarly annotation
Some reference works benefit from a more decentralized creation of content
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Data-based resources
41 resources named, mostly in STM fieldsFaculty cited similar overall usage strategy:
“intensely while working on a project, rarely otherwise”
Many are grant-supported, some entirely soSome large dynamic projects based on
user-contributed data
eBird
Blogs
15 blogs were cited by faculty, and blogs appeared as an element in 29 other resources as well
Appeared across all disciplinary groupsFaculty mainly reported daily or weekly usageNot just for chat, but real scholarly discussionMost blogs in this sample did not seem to use
any revenue generating model, since hosting costs tend to be low
PEA Soup
Discussion lists
21 resources named were discussion listsThree-quarters of these were traditional
listservsFourteen are in the humanitiesUsers cited them for allowing them to
“keep in touch with everyone, all the time”Not at all a cutting-edge technology, but
still very popular
H-France Forum
Professional and academic hubs
34 resources in the collection were classified as hubs
Larger sites, with many content and communication features, where faculty cited the benefit of the site as being a “one-stop shop.”
Often supported by academic societies or professional associations
Alzheimer Research Forum
Patterns and Trends
Discipline trends
Presence in nearly all categories, from journals, to data to reference
Multimedia expands
Examples of all content types showed up across a wide range of disciplines, though some trends emerged
Innovation in new and “old”
Evidence of ongoing experimentation with revenue models for many projects, while others rely almost entirely on volunteer labor and contributions in kind
Experimentation with revenue models
Older projects show significant innovation; creating legitimacy and building audience takes time
Strong influence of tradition Significance of disciplinary normsPeer review still extremely importantEstablishing trust and credibility through
reputation and quality is vitalEvidence of some reluctance of faculty to
adopt some innovative features
SustainabilityMany are grant supportedOr very inexpensive (blogs, disc lists) in
terms of direct costsEven big players with grants for many years
are interested in other means of reliable support
Today’s environmentLibrarians and faculty are interested in
sharing their understandings of new mechanisms for reporting scholarship and research and engaging in scholarly discourse.
There are many kinds of works out there and in “wide use”.
No discipline has gotten a lock on innovation.
Much remains to be learned from and about new models.
Karla Hahn [email protected]://www.arl.org
48