Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ACRL SC 101: Engaging Faculty

506

Published on

Presented at the ACRL Scholarly Communication 101 Road Show at The Ohio State University in Newark, Ohio on June 7, 2011; sponsored by the Academic Library Association of Ohio (ALAO) and OhioLINK

Presented at the ACRL Scholarly Communication 101 Road Show at The Ohio State University in Newark, Ohio on June 7, 2011; sponsored by the Academic Library Association of Ohio (ALAO) and OhioLINK

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
506
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Existing publishing models restrict rather than encourage free flow of information
  • Models had to be: Scholarly,, involved some kind of evaluation, peer review, original, faculty choices. UBC, Cornell, UofWash.
  • JOVE – video and articles (note that this is not open access – it was, but found too expensive; now allows sponsored articles) Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) has a two-stage peer review process: Initial peer-review assures the basic scientific and technical quality for papers published in ACPD. Subsequent interactive discussion and public commenting by the referees, authors and other members of the scientific community is expected to enhance quality control for papers published in ACP beyond the limits of the traditional closed peer-review. Also in cases where no additional comments from the scientific community are received, a full peer-review process in the traditional sense, but in a more transparent way, is assured before publication of a paper in ACP. Encyclopedia of Life: Constantly updated, dynamic, open, linked with many other resources Valley of the Shadow: is a digital archive of primary sources that document the lives of people in Augusta County, Virginia, and Franklin County, Pennsylvania , during the era of the American Civil War. Walt Whitman Archive – edited online ‘volume’ of all whitman’s works that are scattered in archives all over the world Vivo – facebook for scientists – emerging initiative funded by NIH that originated in Cornell Library All point to notions of authorship and scholarship that are rapidly changing
  • Slide can be used to prompt discussion about things that influence faculty
  • Hand out exercise conversational openers activity. Ask them individually to look this over for a minute. The intention is to show participants that opening a conversation with a researcher on some aspect of scholarly communications is an extension of the liaison role. Simply be curious about their research activity as a lead in to discussion.
  • Transcript

    1. ENGAGING FACULTY AROUND NEW MODELS Molly Keener Wake Forest University ACRL Scholarly Communication 101
    2. Why engage with faculty? <ul><li>Because they are the producers and the consumers of the products of scholarly communication </li></ul><ul><li>Because they edit journals, sit on editorial boards, provide peer review, and are officers of scholarly societies </li></ul><ul><li>Because they are the movers behind many new models of scholarship ( often because of their own frustrations with the traditional model ) </li></ul><ul><li>Because they can make change in ways that libraries struggle to do on their own </li></ul>
    3. Why Do Faculty and Researchers Publish? To make an impact – we want our research to make a difference. To build a reputation. To engage with other scholars. To secure grant funding To fulfill institutional and organizational expectations. Professional advancement. To make money. Others?
    4. Why do faculty develop new models of scholarship? <ul><li>A reaction to the restricted flow of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open science, blogs, open access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to CURRENT research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Note: not all new models are open! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A reaction to traditional models of control </li></ul><ul><li>Technology enables them to do things they couldn’t before </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Free flow of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supports distributed scholarship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research doesn’t fit into traditional models </li></ul>
    5. Highlights from the ARL / Ithaka Report http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf <ul><li>While some disciplines seem to lend themselves to certain formats of digital resource more than others, examples of innovative resources can be found across the humanities, social sciences, and scientific/technical/medical subject areas . </li></ul><ul><li>Most original scholarly work operates under some form of peer review or editorial oversight . </li></ul><ul><li>Some of the resources with greatest impact are those that have been around a long while. </li></ul><ul><li>Some resources serve very large audiences, some are small & tailored to niche groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Innovations relating to multimedia content and Web 2.0 functionality appear in some. </li></ul><ul><li>Projects of all sizes--especially open-access sites and publications--employ a range of support strategies in the search for financial sustainability . </li></ul>
    6.  
    7.  
    8. What’s the faculty point of view? <ul><li>What are the practices in a particular discipline? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the scholarly society(s) approach scholarly publishing and communication? </li></ul><ul><li>What’s the culture in the department and college? </li></ul><ul><li>What are promotion and tenure requirements? </li></ul>
    9. Drivers for change? Drivers for status quo?
    10. Tool: Environmental Scan <ul><li>Purpose: Understand the scholarly communication environments for particular disciplines and help to identify advocates and allies within the faculty. </li></ul><ul><li>Collect Information Like: </li></ul><ul><li>Who on the faculty are editors? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the major scholarly societies? What are their policies on author rights? Open access? </li></ul><ul><li>Have any of the major journals published papers about scholarly communication in the field? </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a disciplinary repository? Is it well used? </li></ul><ul><li>Do the common funders have open access mandates? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the tenure and promotion codes in the department? </li></ul>
    11. <ul><li>Wake Forest University </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>University of Kansas </li></ul>In the trenches…
    12. Other Strategies Discuss scholarly communication issues (especially author rights) with graduate students and work with your Graduate College. Engage with the research offices on campus about funder open access policies. Share knowledge of copyright, legislative issues, and other current events that may have direct impact. Bring faculty advocates from other campuses to speak. Give faculty examples of changes and new models from other similar disciplines.
    13. What else can we do? <ul><li>Include scholarly communication in subject librarians jobs & service models </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiate for Green OA with publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Consider supporting OA author fees </li></ul><ul><li>Education around copyright and author rights </li></ul><ul><li>Have an institutional repository? Get more people involved – catalogers, subject librarians, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide technical and organizational infrastructure for publishing journals and other content </li></ul>
    14.  
    15. Responding to Authors activity <ul><li>Be ready to explore with authors! </li></ul>
    16. Resources <ul><li>ARL Environmental Scan Outline and Tools </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.arl.org/sc/institute/fair/scprog/scprogc.shtml </li></ul><ul><li>Univ. of Minnesota Environmental Scan Example </li></ul><ul><li>https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/SurveyPartOne </li></ul><ul><li>https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/ScanPartTwo </li></ul><ul><li>ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/ </li></ul><ul><li>Create Change – ARL, SPARC, and ACRL </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.createchange.org/ </li></ul>
    17. Attribution <ul><li>Slide 3: BookCase http://www.flickr.com/photos/markhillary/ </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 8: Faculty Member - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeeperez/ </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 12: Researchers - http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandialabs </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 14: Slow - http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboyke/ </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 16: Curiosity - http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiliodelprado/ </li></ul><ul><li>All photos used under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license </li></ul><ul><li>This work was originally created by Sarah L. Shreeves and Joy Kirchner and was last updated by Molly Keener on June 6, 2011. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ </li></ul>

    ×