Second edition of Marketing Your Library’s Electronic Resources is on the way

book coverWhat’s New Since the First Edition [this text is taken from the preface of the second edition]

We have learned so much from you since the writing of the first edition of this book and are grateful to those of you who took time to write to us about your experiences with the book, and to those who wrote reviews of the book. All of your feedback has been folded into this edition.

One of the things we heard from you is that it was helpful to see marketing plans from libraries, so that you didn’t feel like you needed to reinvent the wheel while creating your own. We agree that viewing different approaches to developing marketing plans can be valuable and so have included three more marketing plans in this edition. One of the marketing plans uses the brand new marketing plan report template we’ve created for you (download it as a Web Extra), to help you get to your own final marketing plan faster. Let us know how you like the template, and what tweaks to it you may suggest for a future edition.

Looking outside of our own home libraries, the world of e-resource management continues to move forward. The usage statistics standards group that we all rely on to compare the usage of one e-resource to another, Project COUNTER, is currently working on a draft of a new Code of Practice (and related SUSHI protocol), Release 5. To engage librarians in the development of these standards, and to provide a mechanism for asking questions about the use of them, the website http://www.usus.org.uk/ has been developed. Take a look for yourself to see how you may want to participate with this online community.

The TERMS (Techniques for Electronic Resource Management) group is in the process of reconvening to revise their work on the steps involved in managing e-resources. Their facebook page is at https://www.facebook.com/groups/174086169332439/, if you want to stay up to date with their progress.

There are lots of options to stay engaged with e-resources and marketing. As you find new opportunities you think we should know about, drop us a line! We enjoy observing and learning how to interact with the changing world of electronic resources right alongside you.

*** Can’t wait? Pre-order a copy of the book at http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=12016. ***

Posted in book | Leave a comment

The Evolution of the Personal Networks of Novice Librarian Researchers

Have you ever written something you’re really excited about? That was my mood while writing our latest article, “The evolution of the personal networks of novice librarian researchers.” Why so excited, you ask? It’s the first time in our field that we have observed how the networks of librarians who are new to conducting research change over time.

The population examined for the article is the Scholars of the program I co-direct, the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). Over the course of a year we asked each of the Scholars from the first cohort to complete an egocentric network survey at four different times during their IRDL year, about the current state of the people they talk to about research, and how those people may be connected to each other. To conduct the surveys we used the freely available software, EgoWeb 2.0 (https://github.com/qualintitative/egoweb). What we found was that the size of the research networks of the Scholars dramatically increased after the IRDL summer workshop and continued to evolve over the yearlong program.

We’re continuing to conduct these surveys with each cohort to see if comparisons to the network changes are observed across cohorts over time. If you’d like to read more about our research the article is at portalhttp://muse.jhu.edu/article/645353 , and there’s a free version stored in LMU’s institutional repository at http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/39/.

Citation: Kennedy, Marie R., David P. Kennedy, and Kristine R. Brancolini. 2017. “The Evolution of the Personal Networks of Novice Librarian Researchers.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 17(1): 71-89.

Posted in articles i'm reading, IRDL, writing | Leave a comment

Sometimes nice things happen

For the last few months every time I walked from the library to get my stress fix (a small bag of Flaming Hot Cheetos) from the campus bookstore I would pass by a light pole hung with a large banner of myself, as part of the LMyoU campaign. It’s been a total delight to get to be the face of the library for the 2017 cohort. Here’s a link to the website that has my picture and story, along with all of the other cohort members: http://lmyou.lmu.edu/marie-kennedy/. I really like the photograph that LMU staff photographer, Jon Rou, took of me.

Here’s what the banner looks like:

Marie Kennedy bannerIt’s nice to be recognized on campus for the award I won in 2014, the Ingram Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resources Management from Collection Management Section of the American Library Association’s Library Collections and Technical Services.

Posted in e-resource mgmt | Leave a comment

Marketing A-Z

To amuse myself I went to Google and typed in “Marketing is” and then added on the letters of the alphabet, one by one, to see how it auto-completed. Summary: LOL.

Posted in monkeys/bananas | Leave a comment

The editor of the Journal of Academic Librarianship says “we can’t do research”

In a confusing turn of events, there’s an editorial scheduled for the next issue (pre-print is available now) of a well-known library journal, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, about why practicing librarians can’t do research. It’s confusing because it leads off an issue that’s full of research articles written by practicing librarians. It’s also confusing because the piece is written by the editor herself, Elizabeth Blakesley.

When I saw the piece pop up in my RSS reader I read it right away. It is titled, “The Constraints of Practice, or We Work in Libraries, That’s Why We Can’t Do Research.” As the co-director of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL) I am familiar with the barriers that librarians may face when conducting research and was prepared to nod my head in affirmation at the perceived challenges this editor must have observed in her practice. Instead I was left shaking my head in disbelief that somebody in a position as editor and senior library administrator would publish such a thing.

To get a copy of the one-page editorial it will cost you $45 if you’re not a subscriber, so I won’t link to it here. I’ll highlight some of the things that stood out to me as I read through it. The editorial is six paragraphs long.

1. In the first of six paragraphs Ms. Blakesley nods to Wayne Wiegand’s 2016 Inside Higher Ed piece about how the “issues of reading and library as place have been just as important as others, but that none of the professional library education programs cover it.”

2. In the second paragraph Ms. Blakesley laments about the LIS research community, “I’m afraid that we don’t really exist.” She notes that “librarians are by and large practitioners.” In her opinion, choosing to pursue a PhD in LIS is not an advantage because “Jobs teaching in I-Schools were never all that plentiful, considering how few there were, and programs have shrunk over the years, as adjunct faculty have been increasingly hired to handle teaching LS courses, more LS curriculum is taught online, and programs have outright closed.”

3. In the third paragraph Ms. Blakesley writes that those with master’s degrees in library science who have positions in academic libraries have “wacky job titles like ‘Professor of Library Science’ because someone is trying to make us look equivalent to those professors of sociology, chemistry or English.” She notes that we write articles in order to get tenure and keep our jobs but that our training was about “rules and processes and sources.”

4. In the fourth paragraph Ms. Blakesley comments that as an administrator she feels that she often does not have complete enough information to know her library patrons (“throwing darts at a board”), but those libraries that do have that information have achieved it by obtaining budgets to hire anthropologists.

5. In the fifth paragraph Ms. Blakesley notes that “one of the most frustrating things is usage data.”

6. In the closing paragraph Ms. Blakesley comments that “it breaks my heart to see us make the same blunders again and again, just with new technologies wearing the dunce cap. As a library administrator, it breaks my heart that we still don’t have the tools we need to fully equip our services, assess ourselves and succeed completely.”

We know that academic and research librarians and their institutions derive well-established benefits from librarians conducting research: progress toward gaining promotion, tenure, and higher salaries; advancement in the profession and recognition; receptivity to change; increased skill in managing complex library operations through systematic study; and better service to and empathy with faculty researchers (Black & Leysen, 1994; Montanelli & Stenstrom, 1986). We also know that practicing librarians are conducting research, despite barriers (see http://irdlonline.org/project-info/irdl-scholar-works-completed/ for some great examples of recent work by IRDL Scholars). It seems, therefore, an affront to all we know about how practicing librarians are actually improving the profession to have a significant journal in our field led by someone with this defeatist attitude.

Posted in articles i'm reading, library | 2 Comments

An answer to the question, “How many databases?”

I’ve joked in the past about how to answer the question, “How many databases does your library have?” (comic at http://orgmonkey.net/?p=1325) It turns out it is quite difficult to define what a database is, depending on who is asking and what the purpose of the question is. We asked people around the library to define the term and they came up with some really good thoughts about what it means for a database to be marked as a database, for statistical purposes. For us it is an important distinction to make because we are annually requested to report numbers of databases, e-books, e-journals, and other e-formats as part of a collection of national library statistics. We want to get it right, and we want to be consistent from year to year.

Until now we had been making the determination annually. We would pull from our ILS a list of all of our e-resource records and decide which were databases and which were not. You can imagine that from year to year our decision would vary, depending on which version of the definition of database we were using at the moment. This process was time consuming, in addition to being inconsistent. The problem was perfect for a system-based solution, and here’s what we’ve come up with.

In our ILS, on the record for each of our e-resources, we have created a fixed field (re-purposed from an unused field we never activated when we implemented our e-resource management system six years ago) called Resource Count. When we create a new record we will give it one of the following codes (which relates to the meaning and definition):

Code Meaning Definition
– (a dash) Not yet evaluated No decision has been made about how to count this resource.
a Not counted We don’t want to include this resource in any of our counts of databases, e-journal collections, or e-book collections.
g Other We don’t want to count this particular resource because it is included in another count.
d Database Content is disaggregated; presented primarily at the article, chapter, page, or section level.
b E-book collection Monographic content is presented at the book (whole product) level.
j E-journal collection Journal content is presented at the issue or volume (whole product) level.
c Database AND E-journal collection Journal content is presented at both the article level as well as at the issue/volume level.
e Database AND E-book collection Monographic content is  presented at both the chapter/section level as well as the whole product level.
f Database AND E-journal AND E-book collection Journal and monographic content is presented at the small component level as well as the whole product level.

We’ve gone through all of our e-resource records and coded them, so when we are next prompted to report, for example, how many databases we have we can query the system to return a number that includes d, c, e, and f. Nice.

Posted in e-resource mgmt | 1 Comment