The 148th

Fairmont Chateau Laurier 1 Rideau Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 16-19, 2006

Politics of Research Library Leadership: Mission, Identity, Constituency Creating Value: Society, University, Library Inside Out: Measuring Success for the Research Library The International Imperative Restrategizing the Provision of Bibliographic Services

Creating Value: Society, University, Library Friday, May 19, 2006 10:30 A.M. Macdonald Room

Introduced by James Neal, Columbia University Discussion Leaders Gerald Beasley Director, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library Columbia University Bob Byrd Director, Rare Book, Manuscript & Special Collections Library Duke University David Goldsmith Head, Acquisitions & Director of Licensing North Carolina State University Cynthia Fugate Director, Bothell Library University of Washington Background During the course of the ARL Research Libraries Leadership Fellows program, the fellows had the extraordinary opportunity to talk with the senior leadership of five large research universities. One common theme that emerged in these discussions with presidents and provosts was the problem of the changing societal perspectives on the role and value of universities. The session will consist of a brief panel presentation followed by a general discussion during which the fellows hope to learn from library directors about how they are meeting this challenge in their own settings and about their ideas for strategic action. There seems to be growing awareness and concern across ARL institutions that universities have not found the right language to express the complex and multilayered value of an educated citizenry to a democratic society. As society continues to question whether universities are a public rather than a private good, new ways of demonstrating the value of higher education must be found. Accrediting agencies, private and government funders, employers, and policy makers are more frequently demanding that achievement be measured via outcomes rather than inputs. In this context the academy has been struggling to develop its own authentic measures of achievement. At the same time, libraries are struggling to articulate their value to the higher education enterprise. Faculty are often unaware of the role of the library in providing access to electronic resources and assume that they use “the library” far less than they do. Many students seem satisfied relying more on Internet search engines and the open Web than on library-supported resources and tools. Discussion Questions In what ways is the value of your university to its community, its state, or society being challenged? What strategies are being used to respond to these challenges? What can libraries do, and what are they doing, to help research universities "reclaim their legitimacy"? How can libraries help research universities compete in the global marketplace? Through what channels can libraries best articulate their alignment with the larger higher education enterprise? In the age of amazoogle, what strategies and approaches are effective in demonstrating and communicating the value of the library to our universities? What arguments about purpose and alignment with the mission of the university will be effective?

Inside Out: Measuring Success for the Research Library Friday, May 19, 2006 10:30 A.M. L'Orangerie Room

Introduced by Betsy Wilson, University of Washington Discussion Leaders Kris Kiesling Elmer L. Andersen Director of Archives and Special Collections University of Minnesota Paul Conway Director, Digital Asset Initiatives Duke University Libraries Neil Rambo Associate Director, Health Sciences Libraries University of Washington Damon Jaggars Associate Director for Student and Branch Services University of Texas at Austin Libraries Beth Sandore Associate University Librarian for Information Technology Planning and Policy University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Background What difference does it make that research libraries exist? Indications that libraries are losing ground in the highly competitive information marketplace include the wild popularity of Google’s suite of search tools and digital content, the prevalence of peer-based social networking applications, as well as the findings of OCLC’s Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources. The ARL Index and LibQUAL+™ paint with numbers only part of the success picture. A provost at one of the RLLF host institutions told the Fellows that, from his perspective, "a library is successful if people use it." Part of our dilemma stems from the faith of librarians that the resources offered by research libraries have greater integrity and fidelity than digital resources in the open Web, while increasingly it seems that most users will be satisfied with "good enough." Success should be measured by how well research libraries make themselves essential to the core teaching, learning and research missions of their parent institutions. Building multifaceted collections is essential, of course, but libraries must also have an impact on learning outcomes and research productivity. Overcoming the inertia of traditional services while connecting ever more deeply with the campus community requires staff with new skills and different orientations. The research library’s core values may not change, but the way it works most certainly will. Discussion Questions What does a successful academic library look like? If the missions of research libraries and their parent universities are in a state of flux, as many claim, how can we hope to succeed? How do we hit a moving target? Beyond search and discovery... Are the activities and work being performed within research libraries aligned with the current (and future) teaching, learning, and research missions of the university? Are there other areas of learning and research we should be actively supporting beyond search and discovery? If competitors are doing this better than we are, why are we continuing to invest heavily in traditional search and discovery processes that are not used effectively and may be at the expense of becoming essential to our parent institutions. Are there more effective ways to be essential that would have lasting impact; e.g. Sakai, institutional repositories, etc.? If success is beyond effective search and discovery, what shape would it take? How do we realign internal resources – e.g., staff skill sets – to create the capacity to support these evolving processes while maintaining core services?

The International Imperative Friday, May 19, 2006 10:30 A.M. Palladian Room

Introduced by Paula Kaufman, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Discussion Leaders Victoria Owen Head Librarian University of Toronto at Scarborough Jill Parchuck Business Librarian (Head, Watson Library of Business & Economics) Columbia University Rebecca Graham Special Assistant for Strategic Initiatives, Harvard College Library Harvard University Steven Smith Associate Dean for Advancement, University Libraries Director & Wendler Professor, Cushing Memorial Library & Archives Texas A&M University Overview Higher education is presented with the benefits and challenges of globalization - as a curriculum topic, a student body and workforce driver, and a research expectation. What should the priorities of research libraries be in this environment? Research at Universities Universities are creating research institutes with the primary goal of fostering and supporting collaborative research projects on topics that affect the global community. These projects examine primary information concerning the governments, health conditions, cultures, climates, natural resources and economies of countries experiencing change or sustained problems. Projects receive funding from a variety of sources including governments, NGO’s, IGO’s, foundations, and corporations. The Students Universities are purposefully building diverse student bodies in recognition of both the demographics from which the students are drawn and the value brought by different perspectives to enrich the intellectual life of the academy. Students who actively engage with others who hold different world views enhance their academic and social development through these interactions. Targeted recruitment, co-op programs, and international development programs, are initiatives that build and build upon the global perspective. Curriculum Phrases such as “preparing students for the global economy” and “internationalizing the curriculum” are becoming commonplace in the vernacular of research universities. While most of these efforts have been focused on undergraduate curriculums, professional and graduate program websites and literature increasingly reflect similar influences. Discussion Questions What are academic libraries doing to ensure that we can provide speedy delivery of information to faculty doing research around the globe with partners from other countries? How do we build global collections of depth and breadth and develop the attendant skills required to manage them? Can we collaboratively build strong collections with international partners? What are we doing to ensure that we can provide researchers (faculty and students) with information concerning all countries and people of the world? What are we doing to ensure that we can provide current, accurate information and time series data on topics being researched? What are we doing to ensure that we can supply data and support data analysis, mapping and geographic information systems? What are we doing to ensure that librarians are aware of the research being conducted under the auspices of our universities? What are we doing to ensure that librarians are versed in the methods of research being used by faculty researchers? How do libraries tailor the delivery of services and instruction to a broad range of cultural groups? How do we design our facilities and services to promote curricular changes, cross-cultural study, and research groups? What roles have libraries embraced in curricular development? How might area studies activities be aligned with curricular changes? How will we develop a global information policy that will create and sustain a system that ensures the free flow of information and the ability of all to use and contribute to a global information society? How will we recruit and retain professional staff in a world of tightening immigration policies? How do we encourage our librarians and staff to engage in the global issues?

Restrategizing the Provision of Bibliographic Services Friday, May 19, 2006 10:30 A.M. Gatineau Room

Introduced by Gary Strong, University of California, Los Angeles Discussion Leaders John Riemer Head, Library Cataloging and Metadata Center University of California, Los Angeles Stanley Wilder Associate Dean, River Campus Libraries University of Rochester Lisa German Assistant Dean of Technical & Collection Services Pennsylvania State University William Garrison Associate University Librarian for Information Management & Systems Services Syracuse University Background Libraries are coming to realize that the tools they use to deliver bibliographic services lack the flexibility, speed, and power of Internet search engines like Google. The problem begins with silo-like databases, each with its own set of search protocols, content, and interfaces, but goes on to include the lack of intuitiveness or adaptability, and the virtual omission of choice-supporting data. It is not surprising that students prefer Google, but Google cannot lead them to the high-quality collections we provide for them. Fortunately, some emerging strategies hold the potential to put library-based searching back in the game, by making better use of existing MARC metadata, and through technological innovation, open-source system development, and systematic listening aimed at making library systems a better fit for how students and faculty work. Common themes among these strategies are unified views of diverse collections, coordinated vs. centralized operations, standards development, and collaboration of all kinds. Possible Discussion Questions The UC Bibliographic Services Task Force recently produced a report intended to articulate the problems presented by the online catalog, and to propose solutions. What are these recommendations, and how will they work? Is traditional cataloging expertise a good match for the sort of search/discovery/delivery tools that will be needed in the future? If not, what skills would work better? From a technological standpoint, the core online catalog has evolved little over the past 10 years, despite enormous changes in Internet searching. How can libraries move beyond the limitations of their ILSs? The Google mass digitization project is one non-library means of achieving library ends. How shall we work with such projects to advance our service goals? How do we reconcile the popularity of simple, immediate search results with the advanced searching needs of graduates and faculty? Is there really a difference between student and faculty search requirements? A Web 2.0 principle holds that ownership of a unique, hard-to-re-create source of data is a key competitive advantage. What are the implications of this principle for bibliographic services?

 

148th ARL Membership Meeting Home Page  |  148th Meeting Schedule  |  148th Meeting Attendance Questionnaire

© Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC Maintained by ARL Web Administrator Last Modified: May 12, 2005