Curt Rice: Beyond Open Access
The second speaker of the day was Curt Rice, the vice president of research and development at the University of Tromsø. The title of his talk was “Beyond Open Access”. The libraries should be policy-makers, Rice said. To be able to do that, we need more, broader and better knowledge and use it to make changes. We have to be in the lead and see developments in the field, and then recommend neccesary changes (report to the leadership of the institution – our opinions should be heard). Expertise is crucial, and we need to use it to create changes, first on a local level and then on a national level. Administration of Open Access (OA) publishing funds is one example of how libraries can be important collaborators in the institution. Rice told the story of a researcher who had published a number of articles, but then decided to start blogging about them. She blogged about the results in her research, but also about the mistakes she had made, goofs in the labs etc. = the human interest story. Her blog became very popular, and then she also started tweeting. Her articles are now the most downloaded and cited articles of her department. The researchers had approx. 15 times more downloads on the articles she blogged about vs. the ones she didn`t blog about. Access matters, and awareness matters, Rice said. In “Forskningsmeldingen” (a parlimentary report on research) there is much emphasis on OA publishing, and researchers are generally interested in it, but not if it compromises their academic freedom. Some see it as a problem, and although it may be a “philosophical” problem more than an actual problem, it should be discussed. Can we really ban certain journals because of their poor self-archiving or OA publishing systems? Researchers look for Impact Factor(IF).. There are major problems with the IF system, e.g.: 1.) retraction rates are on the rise, 2.) publication bias (only studies that show positive results get published..) When librarians say to the PhD student: How can we help you?, we can often position ourselves between the student and his/her tutor, and that requires great diplomatic skills, Rice said. Librarians need to work with the tutors.
There is no principal difference between OA publishing and traditional publishing when it comes to peer-review, Rice said, but the peer-review system is not working in its current state. The “closed” system makes it possible for reviewers to deliver shoddy and “unfinished” reviews. Transparancy is an issue that cannot be overlooked any longer. In one biomed journal (Rice couldn`t remember the name) there is now an open review process where all reviews are published openly, and other researchers can add comments. This is an important process-oriented change in this rather old-fashioned system.
We (meaning librarians and others) have to teach the PhD students how to use social media in a professional manner so that they can enhance their research and get it out to the market faster. Traditional publication takes a long time, and this makes the use of social media even more important. Librarians need more competence and knowledge on these issues. Only that way we can make research better so that we can make society better.
I think Curt Rice gave a good and inspiring talk, and I think he had some very good points. I wouldn`t have minded even more practical approaches and more stories from “real life”, but still.. a good presentation (and kudos for not using a Powerpoint presentation, and instead just walking around with his tablet. Much easier to keep the attention to what he was saying. Note to self..)
The launch of the website:
“PhD on track” was a collaboration between the University of Oslo (NO), the University of Bergen (NO), Aalborg University (DK), the National Library (NO), Bergen University College (NO) and the Norwegian School of Economics (NO). Representatives from the project group talked about their methods in planning and executing the website. Goals for the projects included: acquiring new knowledge about PhD students` information needs and habits, making a website of freely available modules (in English) and creating an awareness on the libraries` role in PhD training. The report that forms the basis of the website can be found here: http://www.ub.uio.no/om/skrifter/hefte08.pdf (in English) and here: http://www.ub.uio.no/om/skrifter/hefte07.pdf (in Norwegian).
The website consists of three modules: “Review and discover”, “Share and publish” and “Evaluation and ranking”. The website underwent user testing, and the project group found that users rarely use page navigation (other than the one on top of the page), they would rather scroll. This meant that the website had to have clearly marked headlines. The project group also found that they had to think about their jargon and try not to use that kind of “academic tribal language” that they had gotten used to. They also had to limit the amount of text on front pages, have short and well-written introductions and more in-depth subject-specific information. The users that tested the website didn`t use the search option. Many of them had bad experiences from other websites, and they were often afraid of being taken out of the site by searching. User-testing is vital, the project group explained, as it uncovers problems and errors, confirmes what has been well done and they got inputs on design as well.
The last part of the day were parallell sessions, and I chose to go to “Literature searching for PhD students” where we had a look at the “Review and discover” at the new website. I have a few notes from the session, but it was really more of a discussion on how to present search examples etc. so I don`t think I`ll write about it here. A few questions that were addressed were: Do we offer PhD students a bachelor course (only a little more advanced) or do we keep it to a real PhD enhanced level? What competencies should a librarian possess? What problems are there when it comes to PhD students` varying levels (concerning their prior knowledge) and e.g. expectations from international students vs. Norwegian/Danish students?
Bente Andreassen closed the conference by saying that developing courses on each institution is meaningless. We should collaborate and learn from each other. …and on that note it was over:) I spent a very interesting day, and I hope to be able to test the website properly soon.
I attended a conference last week where the website “PhD on track” was launched. It is a new resource to help PhD students with things like systematic search, referencing, publishing, co-authorship, marketing and sharing the research, open access issues and the weighted funding system in Norway, to mention some. The conference was divided into three main parts, where the launch was part two. Check out the website, (and look at the conference program) and I`ll write up my notes here (I tweeted too, and the hashtag that was used was #phdontrack).
Berit Hyllseth from The Norwegian assosiation of higher education institutions did a presentation on generic skills (or rather professional skills as she corrected herself to) that we expect PhD students to have or gain. Which skills should they possess? Interpersonal skills, organisational skills, research competensies, cognitive abilities, communication skills and enterprise skills were mentioned. Hyllseth also showed us the Vitae Researcher Developers Framework (RDF), a new framework that describes necessary skills and competensies that a PhD students should have. PhD students can use it as a personal development tool, to see where they need to learn more and put in more effort.
Norway is committed to the European Qualifications Framework, where the focus (for PhD students) is on the student`s knowledge and processes, not the research that they produce. Globalisation causes (among many other things) a higher demand for knowledge, and there is an emphasis on innovation and development, Hyllseth said. 74 percent of all persons with a PhD work in the public sector in Norway. This is a Norwegian phenomenon. In OECD countries most people with a PhD work in the private sector. We must focus more on the globalisation effect, Hyllseth said. It is not enough to educate researchers who have basic research skills and knows how to publish. An increasing number of people are enrolled in PhD programmes, and many are now studying part-time. We have to standardise programmes to facilitate researcher mobility. The research must also respond to the market`s needs. There is a paradigm shift in PhD education. The student can no longer expect to have a close relationship with his or her mentor because the mentor have more students to take care of than before. Are the PhD programmes bold enough to give us researchers that the society needs and wants?, Hyllseth asked rhetorically.
Hyllseth`s own data showed that while most PhD students (at the University of Oslo) were contented with their mentor and the guidance, they were less impressed with the courses and seminars. Many saw these courses as not very relevant and of low quality. The students expressed a wish for a broader choice of courses, and said that they wanted to learn more about academic writing, publishing and project management.
There is a need for better quality and a stronger collaboration between the different elements in the PhD training. There is also an expressed need for more interdisciplinary collaboration, but the faculties (at the University of Oslo) are autonomous and they decide how to build these training programmes and courses. There is no central management here.
We have to clarify the mentor`s role as someone who is jointly responsible for the student`s academic progress, we need better and more systematic use of external tutors and resources, a handbook for mentors as well as training measures to mentors. Hyllseth also recommended more partnerships with external institutions and a focus on marketing the value of PhD students and their knowledge.
More in part 2 (to come)
Well, the undergraduate students at all three faculties have now handed in their theses and the library is almost completely deserted today. Many are cramming for their exams, but I think some are also taking a well-deserved break (Constitution day tomorrow and with Whit coming up this weekend we can enjoy a longer weekend). I am usually very, vey relieved when the bachelor`s theses have been handed in because the weeks leading up to the deadline tend to be crazy busy. Freaked out students everywhere. But this year it was different – still lots of students (and some were very stressed), but most of them were patiently waiting in line to be helped and many only needed a little help to get it right. We (=the library staff) have talked about it several times this spring: When will the tsunami hit this spring? It always comes.. but this year it really didn`t. I think there are several reasons: a.) we arranged group tutor sessions where we had up to seven groups at once in the computer lab (=great success: the students loved it and it saved us a lot of time) b.) some of the students that have been resource-intensive earlier years have had better support in their first and second years and some of their issues on writing might have been solved earlier c.) faculty staff have attended more seminars and we have been working closer together – and I think therefore that some of the students` problems have been solved with their academic supervisor instead of in the library
– and there are probably other reasons as well…
Now, the theses have not been marked yet, so I have no idea on whether it has been a good thing that the tsunami never hit this year or not, but I really do hope that the students are getting more self-reliant and better at academic writing.
I have been fortunate enough to have been a part of the goup of academic supervisors for the nursing students this year. I have been to all of their meetings and have been invited to say something about the progress (seen from the library`s point of view) and have been able to discuss ideas and give my opinions as well as hearing those of the supervisors. It has been really useful to me (and I hope that my input has been valuable to the supervisors as well, of course). I feel like I can get things done and in a much better way when I am integrated in their fellowship, and I hope that I`ll be able to continue this working relationship with them.
In a couple of months this years bachelor`s theses should be registered in our institutional archive (only dissertations marked A, B or C and where the authors have sign a publication agreement can be published..). Lots of interesting subjects, so go on – have a look
Happy Constitution Day/ Whit weekend!
A small note in “Research Information” (Apr/May 2013) caught my attention. “Students lack basic information skills, says survey” was the heading. My first reaction to this was “Well – duh!” – nothing new here. I still found the original press release from Credo (the company that performed the survey) and I have signed up for a copy of the survey results (to be published in April).
Having taught information skills in this college for almost eight years I know I shouldn`t be surprised at anything here, but.. the survey found that 46 percent of the 1500+ respondents of the survey admitted looking for the Copyright symbol – as they used it for determining the accuracy of a source. Whaaaat?? (I am less surprised by the fact that over half of the respondents were unfamiliar with the purpose and basic characteristics of scholarly journals.)
Anyway – I look forward to read the rest of the results. Of course, Credo is a commercial company trying to sell solutions, so analysis and conclusions may be tainted by that, but still.. the data could be of interest.
As I mentioned in my last blogpost, I am really sorry to lose Google Reader. @fakelibstats tweeted: “75% of librarians are still stuck at the 2nd stage of grieving over the loss of Google Reader: anger.” Yup! I`m in that category..
Fortunately, some are better at getting over the loss and have started blogging and tweeting about good alternatives to Google Reader. Phil Bradley is one of them. I`ve had the pleasure to attend his “What Phil has found” session several times on Internet Librarian International so I`m not surprised that he has found alternatives:) Phil has blogged about 20 alternatives here and another 33 alternatives here. I`m going to look into it during the Easter Holidays. I hope (and believe) that at least one of the options will be a decent alternative. (Still angry at you, Google!)
This morning, while reaching for my tea and trying to keep my eyes open, I opened my Google Reader as I do on most mornings. This rutine of starting the day with my news and blog updates have been part of my life for the last five or six years. I cannot believe it has not been longer, for I can`t remember how I discovered interesting journal articles, blog posts etc. before Google Reader (and Twitter). Therefore, I had a facepalm moment this morning when I read that Google is using the axe on its Reader, and that it will no longer be available after July 1st. Nooooooo! Now, of course I am aware that there are plenty of other readers out there and that there really is no reason to sulk, but I liked Google Reader! I liked that it was accesible with my Google account (very important!), and I liked the simple interface of it. And now I have to find another..*deep sigh*
Maybe it`s a sign that I`m getting old when I want applications that work to continue working, but to me it makes no sense to discontinue a service that is used and liked. If Google wanted to discontinue something, they could have a look at Google+ (only thing great about that is “Hangouts”).
Read more about Google Reader alternatives on Mashables: http://mashable.com/2013/03/13/google-kills-google-reader/
R.I.P. Google Reader.
As I have said in part 1 and part 2 of my notes from my visit to LSE, I met a lot of dedicated people at the LSE library and the CLT (Centre for Learning Technology – where Jane Secker works). One of those people where Maria Bell, and I was happy that she took time out of a very busy schedule to talk to me.
Maria talked to me about the LSE library`s efforts on teaching information skills to students, and about their work with PhD students. She is not only responsible for the teaching programme – she is also a liaison librarian for the Department of Law and the European Institute. Maria talked about a course they offer students on a voluntary basis (i.e. not mandatory for the students). The course is open to all students, and it can last from 60 to 90 minutes. They also tailor special courses more directed at special groups, for example students on the master`s programmes.
The library has a very nice information skills training website that explains more about their teaching programmes. I will have a good look at it soon.
Maria talked about how all the academic support librarians maintain subject guides online for their departments/subjects. I found this very intersting. I have long thought about making subject guides for our students, but the thought of always trying to keeping them updated and “fresh” has stopped me from actually doing it. I have debated it with some co-workers, too, and I think we have decided against it for now, but it was interesting to learn from Maria that all the academic support librarians have access to publishing on their own subject webpages and can keep it updated themselves. Obviously, LSE is a much larger institution than GUC, and at GUC library, the responsibility for keeping the library website updates lies with one person, but still.. interesting. They have linked the subject guides in Moodle.
One thing that I`ll ask about here at GUC is how we prepare our PhD students for data storage for their research projects. Maria said that this was something that they include in their courses for PhD students. It was clear to me that this is something that the LSE library has thought a lot about, and – as I wrote in part 2 – it is to be the object to a pilot study. I look forward to hear more about their results. Maria also talked about how they include information about copyright issues to their PhD students. This is a subject of vital importance to researchers, and we have talked about how to include this information, not only to our PhD students, but also to students on master`s programmes.
The LSE library hands out small postcards where the PhD students can fill in information about their field of research, topics of interest etc. and they hand it in to their academic support librarian. They also check boxes if they are interested in being contacted by others who study something relevant to their topics of interest. I loved this idea! Will bring it up with the head librarian as something we could do here. Warwick university does something similar (in electronic version), called “research match”.
Another librarian that I was happy to meet in person (after having followed her on Twitter for a while), was Clare McClusky from York St. John University. She is an Academic Liaison librarian for the Faculty for Education and Theology there, and she has contributed in Jane Secker`s and Emma Coonan`s new book “Rethinking information litearcy” (I attended the book launch, btw. Thanks to Emma and Jane!). Clare was one of the speakers at last years LILAC conference, and I attended her session there. It was great to be able to discuss her ideas with her in person. Clare is an energetic and really dedicated librarian, and her energy was really contagious! We had a great discussion on strategies to teach IL and her work with ANCIL and other projects. One of the things Clare told me about was how differently the teachers at York St. John saw her role as a librarian. Some of the teachers regarded her as a valuable partner in their teaching efforts while others saw her as a mere service person who could be used for procuring books etc. It seems to me that these ideas are universal, and that librarians in all kinds of academic libraries have had similar experiences. Although I think we are moving forward with this issue and that we have come a long way, there are probably still people who would never see me as more than “the administration”, and who would never think of me as an “academic” partner. The very clear line between administration and faculty seem to fade a little to me, as there are now academics working in the administration and vice versa. Still, we have a way to go. The library seems somethimes to be in a difficult situation between the two. Although we (at GUC) are organised under the “joint administration”, we are really much closer related to the faculties – but we cannot be organised in one faculty seeing as we only have the one library and that we give service to all three faculties. So – we are stuck in the middle, and yet.. most of the time this works out well.
Clare told me about how York St. John University had made an information litearcy strategy already 10 years ago – very early on, but that it had taken three years to get it through various committes etc. and then they had to revise it a little before it could be used. When York St. John became a seperate university they had the chance to look at this with fresh eyes and a new set of ideas, and they now have a coordinator on the “intermediate level” (sorry – lack of better word.. all notes in Norwegian:) who makes sure that the communication flows better between levels in the institution. Good idea!
When Clare did her research about how the teachers regarded her role as a librarian, she used SCONUL`s seven pillars to explain her role, and after this she felt that she was more often included in the faculty and she saw some progress with regards to how the teachers regarded her role. I thought it was a very interesting idea that Clare went out to the teachers, gained an insight into how they perceived her and that way was given a chance to talk about it. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this, Clare!
The last day of my visit, librarians from Cardiff University came to LSE to give a talk on their Digidol project. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear their seminar as I had to leave after lunch to catch my flight. The event was recorded, however, and I hope to have a look at it soon.
As I hope these blogposts show, I had a great few days, and I want to thank Jane Secker and the rest of the CLT and Maria Bell and her team at the LSE library for arranging everything for me. I hope to see you in Norway some time! I`d also like to thank Emma Coonan (who I got to meet at the book launch:), Clare McClusky and Joe, Janet and Cathie (sorry – don`t remember last names..) from Cardiff who I got to have a very nice lunch with. Thanks!
As I said in part 1 – last week I visited London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where I met a set of dedicated and interesting people who all had something to share.
I was at LSE to hear more about what they do to teach information skills, and about ANCIL (“A new curriculum for information literacy”). Dr Jane Secker talked about ANCIL and how they spent time discussing what information literacy (IL) is and what they should call it. This didn`t surprise me at all. As I think I have said before on this blog – in my mind there is no real way of finding out what IL is, because there is no “it”. Some see it as a set of generic skills and others see it as a process to do with lifelong learning, and some say information literacy to describe finding and evaluating research results. Jane told me that in the beginning of their work with ANCIL, they had discussed the focus of information literacy, and what it should contain. Some had a very narrow view of this, and thought it was mostly about technology (and perhaps wanted to call it “digital literacy”), while others thought of it as a more holistic approach to finding and evaluating information. ANCIL is described at their blog and in more detail in Jane Secker and Emma Coonan`s new book, “Rethinking information literacy”. In short, the authors have made a model of 10 so-called “strands” (transition to higher education, becoming an independent learner, academic literacies, mapping the information landscape, resource discovery in your discipline, managing information, ethical dimension of information, presenting and communicating, synthesis and knowledge creation, and social dimension of information). The strands all start with the learner at the core and go through key skills, subject context, advanced information-handling and learning to learn. It`s an interesting model, and I look forward to reading more about each strand in the new book.
One of the things I found very interesting is how the LSE library is working to support the researchers. I had a very interesting talk with Natalia Madjarevic on how the LSE institutional repository works, her work on bibliometrics and the library`s new pilot project (to come) on data management for researchers. This is something of great importance, and I hope that they publish something on it later. How do researchers store their data? In the cloud? On their laptops? What happens to the raw data? I should ask about this here at GUC, too. Maybe we need to think about setting up a better solution for safe storage of data, or at least talk about it to our researchers to make sure that they have thought about how they manage their data sets?
Natalia also told me about how they have started using Summon as their library catalogue (for end-users), and how they have started teaching Summon to undergraduates, in stead of trying to get them to search all the various databases separate. This discussion on discovery tools is interesting – on the one hand those who say that teaching the students how to use a discovery tool is easier, they get better, more relevant results, and the librarians can spend more time on the more specialised search “needs”, and on the other hand there are those who say that discovery tools are just a fad, and that adding a layer is doing nothing for the students (and that Google Scholar does it better for free anyway..). LSE has bought Summon for a year and is now testing it.
Another thing Natalia talked about that I found interesting, was the way the LSE library works with bibliometrics. The librarians are sometimes asked to perform analysis, and they use Publish or perish for this. Analysis could include finding out how many citations an LSE researcher have gotten compared to other researchers in the same field, for example. This takes time and effort, but it is interesting for the school to compare themselves to similar institutions. The LSE library also have training sessions on bibliometrics for researchers. Hmmm… something to think about..
More from my visit to LSE to come in part 3.. (long days – I have plenty of notes:)
Once in a while, particularly if one is feeling a little disengaged or just in need of a fresh idea for work, it`s a great idea to go on a study trip. Of course, it is not always easy to get funding etc., but I was really lucky and got some funds from a project that I have been involved with (thanks!). And what better place to go than the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)? I have wanted to go for years, ever since I had it recommended on twitter, and I was really glad that Dr Jane Secker, a copyright and digital literacy adviser whos work I have been following for a while, was willing and able to arrange things for me there!
I was particularly interested in Jane`s work on “A new curriculum for information literacy”, known as ANCIL, and the LSE course “MY592: Workshops on information literacy” (for PhD students), but I also wanted to see the LSE library and hear more about their general teaching programs.
ANCIL is a research fellowship in two-phases. The first phase was conducted by Jane Secker (LSE) and Emma Coonan (Cambridge University Library). Emma wrote a report about the theory on teaching information literacy (IL) while Jane looked at what they should teach (in IL) and how. They read much, talked to experts and practitioners, and they found that, although teachers were interested in IL, they had a very narrow understanding of the term and they didn`t know what role the librarians could play in teaching information skills. What Emma and Jane did was new, and the research led to “A new curriculum on information literacy”. Two fellows, Helen Webster and Katy Wrathall at Cambridge, followed up on this with a second phase, looking at strategies to implement this new curriculum at several higher education institutions in the UK. This second phase was about trying to put the Jane and Emmas work into life. Wrathall and Webster worked at this from two different angles. Webster took the bottom-up approach, looking at how tutors could convey this to undergraduate students, while Wrathall took a top-down approach, finding out how the new curriculum could be implemented in the institution`s strategies.
Maria Bell, academic support librarian with responsibility for the IL teacing programs at LSE, did a survey on how IL was taught at LSE. She found that it varied greatly from department to department, and that many of the programs at LSE have few (or no) requirements as to writing academic essays etc. that would require the students to have information skills. Many of the programs only have (or at least only grade) traditional school exams.
A new report called “Undergraduate support at LSE: the ANCIL report” has just been published. The report looks at how the new curriculum is being implemented at LSE, the need for undergraduate support and how this is being delivered, and the roles of the academic support librarians. I read through this report briefly, and I found it very interesting. Some of the problems mentioned in the report seems universal. I`ll have another look at the report next. week.
… more about my visit in part 2 (to come)..