Anne Pietsch and Dr. Emma Shaw: Collecting development for collection development
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•226 views
University of Roehampton
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Anne Pietsch and Dr. Emma Shaw: Collecting development for collection development
Similar to Anne Pietsch and Dr. Emma Shaw: Collecting development for collection development (20)
More from Relationship Management in HE Libraries Group
More from Relationship Management in HE Libraries Group (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Anne Pietsch and Dr. Emma Shaw: Collecting development for collection development
- 1. Collecting Development for Collection Development Our journey so far Dr Emma Shaw Collection Development Librarian Anne Pietsch Head of Collections & Academic Engagement
- 2. ● University of Roehampton - About us ● Responding to change – Restructuring Library Services ● Case Study – Academic engagement with reading lists a new approach ● Work in Progress - Collecting Development
- 3. Our 64 acre parkland campus is located in the heart of south-west London 175 years old this year Our student population has changed significantly over the past 10 years New building programme Most research intensive modern university in last REF TEF Bronze
- 4. Responding to change – Restructuring Library Services 2016-17 ● TEF/NSS measures ● Designed and moved into a new library ● Opportunities presented by new technologies ● Working in partnership academic community ● Centralise Services ● Efficiencies - create streamlined and transparent processes
- 5. Responding to change – Restructuring Library Services Academic Achievement team Academic Engagement team Collection and Discovery Services team Customer Services Team
- 6. ● Talis Aspire since 2011 rolled out as a devolved model ● Workload not sustainable, no consistency , silo working, duplication of workflows in different teams ● No consistent approach to using data and reports generated from RLs ● Little understanding how departments engaged with the RL framework Case study – Academic Engagement with Reading lists framework : Pre -restructure
- 7. ●The RLF is now embedded in the University NSS/TEF action plan. ●We now support academcis to meet strategic priorities and work in partnership to achive this. ●Empowered staff across teams to be more connected to the outcomes for students. ●People are clear about how their work contributes directly to the strategic objectives of the University. Case study – Academic Engagement with Reading lists framework : post -restructure Autumn 2017
- 8. Reading list audit tool The action plan has produced measurable positive improvements with the implementation of the reading list frame work across all departments in October 2017.
- 9. Next Steps ● Gain a better understanding student use of reading list ● Focus on academic engagement through cycle of curriculum reviews ● Improve the quality of reading list ● Improving reporting tools to see a bigger picture and inform collection development and management decision
- 14. • Evidence + Engagement • Embed processes • Measure Impact
- 15. Questions and comments welcome Thank you!
Editor's Notes
- A wonderful green campus set in historic grounds with lakes, orchard, allotments, ducks 175 years old this year started as teacher training college in 1840 4 colleges 10 academic departments Growth by 50% over 5 years to 16,000 students 8000 partnership students in the UK and abroad partnership students in the UK and abroad Our student population has changed significantly over the past 10 years, Growth by 50% over 5 years to 16,000 students 8000 now very diverse cohorts, 141 languages spoken, first in their families to enter HE New building programme New Library Hall of residence Conference centre Benchmarks
- in 2016/17 Library Services underwent a significant restructure No siginificant restructure for many years but addition of new services, techgnologies and ways of working Changed Priorities Drivers New Library- new ways iof working New focus on Retention, Student Engagement , Reading list Framework, Budgets Opportunities presented by new technologies to review workflows /efficiencies Need to Improve relationships/communication with academic departments and the student body Centralise Services across the Univertsity Make processes to manage and develop collections more streamlined and transparent
- One of the most significant changes was the move to functional roles in the subject librarian team which resulted in the creation new teams and centralised approaches to delivering services. We created post of Collection Development Librarian to oversee collection development and management and support AE team with data requirements Customer Services Team (first line student support, responsible for learning environment, stock management) Academic Achievement team (focus on learner development , includes new role of Achievement Librarian) Academic Engagement team ( focus on working with academic colleagues on strategic matters, NSS Action Plans, Curriculum reviews, partnerships. Open Access) Collection and Discovery Services team (focus on content, reading lists, subscriptions, LMS)
- Lack of engagement Academics never took ownership and reading list became to be seen as an ordering tool The University of Roehampton approved a reading list strategy in July 2015. Library Services and academic colleagues agreed further shared guidelines in a Resource List Framework (RLF) in 2016. Not a bibliography bot for directed weekly reading , embedded in moodle Culture of Silo working resulted in inefficient workflows and duplication of effort e.G Digitisation service run by front line team, no join with reading lists ,duplication of workflows Subject librarians routinely created and populated lists for academics. Our acquisitions team had no clear guidance on how to make purchasing decisions and no real stake in reading lists beyond ordering Not able t0 respond strategically. Very focused on operational matters. For example din not make good use of available data to check for progress success factors , inform development
- Library Services were asked to review and prepare statistics that indicated compliance with the RLF, and for Library Services to re-engage with academic colleagues to implement the framework consistently across all programmes. One of the actions for academic departments was to carry out a “full review of all reading lists for semester one to ensure they comply with University policy ….” Our engagement team now free to support academic colleagues in embedding the RL framework consistently.. E.g. Audit of compliance with RLF at module level initiated by the department and supported by Academic engagement team and Collections team. Empowered the collection development team to be more connected to the outcomes for students. Less focus on hitting service levels for acquisitions, more on RL quality and student experience and the teams stake in this. Our collection development team now has a clear decision matrix about purchasing martial, deal directly with academics and takes responsibility for digitisation and enhanced RL services. They work closely with the AE team but no longer refer to them for decision making. Better service and tuan around times.
- Library Services have created an audit tool to help departments identify module reading lists that may present cause for concern. We have been able to provide this information to support colleagues to do this consistently across all programmes.And this is now used to report to the VC on the NSS/TEF action plan. This uses a traffic light system, indicating reading lists that are not recognisably organised into sections, for weekly or topical reading and assesses how many essential readings are in each section. This enables us to get a broad understanding of how reading list are constructed and/or comply with the framework. Helps the engagment team to work woith departmetns to target specific modules. We can also see if a module uses the TI, how digitised texts are used etc. all useful infor to start a converstion for our AE librarian . Unlike before we can provide this information to al departments .
- UX approaches., Best formed reading list my still have no users,.. Why? Ae there patterns? What needs to change? AE team ensure RLF is applied into the future and consistently . Make it work for the department. Advocacy… Collections team to improve consistency and processes. Work with Talis on developments Emma's Role to really create a bigger picture view to help us manage and develop collection that meet the needs of out users.
- Review of the Collection Development Policy & Guidelines. Existing policies were heavily reliant on SLs. Need to streamline (and un-complicate) (semi-) automate decision making One size (has to) fit all Eliminate the need for consultation, minimise exceptions.
- Developed new matrices for purchasing and stock management. Aim to streamline and standardise purchasing across departments and make purchasing easier for the team. Stock management – same goals - and to semi automate processes. Currently developing a Collection Profiling project to categorize stock – so stock management tasks can be semi-automated and embedded in workflows. See: Ruth Elder Applying a collections categorisation framework: a pilot project at the University of York: https://blog.mimas.ac.uk/ccm/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/06/CM@HullElderpresentation.pdf
- CD decisions, balancing act between key elements, with RLs at the heart. New RL framework was introduced earlier this year. Key aim to improve UX & standardise the RL experience across modules and depts. Current project linking RL data + use + cost - How is RL content being used and what is it costing to resource? Some conflicting findings – some RL resources are not being (well) used. We need to find out why.
- Crucial to understand why a resource not being used - and then seek to make a difference. It’s the “Why?” that provides us with insights which can be actionable. This is where collaborations are needed. In isolation this data is meaningless (as is CD without AA and AE). Engagement is an essential part of this process. Cycle is repeatable, ongoing, iterative.
- Evidence isn’t everything - evidence + engagement = value beyond content / impact on UX Ambitions – embed processes, and measure impact Engage with other data sources such as Registry (e.g.. Link to student attainment).