I posted previously about the sounds I like to listen to when I’m writing. Based on your recommendations I added quite a bit to add to the rotation. I am smitten with Moby’s Long Ambients (http://moby.com/la1/) – thanks for the suggestion, Mark!
I knew with the latest iPhone OS update it was going to break one of my favorite apps, FM3 Buddha Machine; I updated, and it sure enough did break. It’s nonfunctional at the moment, but they’re working on fixing it. In the meantime I started listening to their Soundcloud station. They even have a piece called Monkey Mind, so of course I had to tell you about it. Here’s a link: https://soundcloud.com/christiaan-virant/fistful-of-buddha-03-monkey.
I think a lot about the accessibility of our library’s licensed e-resources. Sure, if there’s not already a clause in a license agreement about compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, we request that it be added. But what does that actually mean for our patrons? There are levels of accessibility, and simply having a clause in the license agreement doesn’t guarantee that our patrons will be able to satisfactorily view/hear/navigate the content.
I worked with our library’s e-resources licensing consortium to ask them to start collecting Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) when initiating conversations with a new vendor. I appreciate our consortium’s willingness to do this, as it gives its member libraries information up front about the expected use of the e-resource for patrons with disabilities. I’m just one person concerned about this, I don’t have much power to affect change. But groups of people concerned about this, banded together, could.
And then I bumped into a particularly large group of people concerned about this, the Big Ten Academic Alliance. Here’s what they’ve accomplished so far (this is grabbed right from their site):
Because of the group:
- The Big Ten libraries have funded a pilot to provide selected vendors with third-party accessibility evaluations. Evaluations, along with any responses provided by vendors, are posted on the E-Resources Testing page. This program provides vendors with the information and opportunity to improve the accessibility of their products and gives members of the library community information about the accessibility of these works.
- The Big Ten Academic Alliance has also adopted model accessibility license language that can be found on the Standardized Accessibility License Language page. Library e-resource vendors may be approached about inserting this (or similar) text into BTAA Library consortial licenses or institutions’ individual licenses to ensure these contracts address accessibility concerns.
The stuff on their site is freely available, go check it out! I especially like that they note standardized language to use when negotiating accessibility in a license agreement. And that tab on the site about the accessibility testing they’ve done on vendor e-resources, posting the results publicly? Awesome!
An exciting new article I read today aligns with some thoughts I’ve had about the development of academic research networks. The article (cited below) looks carefully at the addition and loss of people in individual research networks, a process called “churn.” The article categorizes churn in research networks as either exploratory or exploitative, in which an individual researcher develops ties to new people or severs old relationships (exploratory), or depends on existing ties (exploitative).
The article examines the research networks of a group of scientists over time, to see if the addition/loss of people in those scientists’ networks has an effect on production (measured outputs in this article are publications, grant submissions, successful grant submissions, and grant dollar amounts). A couple of interesting findings: adding new people to one’s research network did not have a significant effect on the number of publications a researcher completed, but a severing of old relationships did; network size had a positive effect on the number of publications completed. They suppose that, “larger networks may also lead to a diversity of ideas.” (p. 8)
I think these findings are especially meaningful to those who are young in their research productivity. We found in our own work, for example, that the networks of the novice librarian-researchers who participate in the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship have active, developing networks, with a lot of churn (cited below). Of course one would expect this at the outset of a research career, but it is useful to think that the addition of new people and the size of one’s network may be able to help these librarian-researchers get to their goals (publications) more efficiently.
Kennedy, Marie R., David P. Kennedy, and Kristine R. Brancolini. 2017. “The Evolution of the Personal Networks of Novice Librarian Researchers.” portal 17(1): 71-89.
Siciliano, Michael D., Erich W. Welch, Mary K. Feeney. 2017 (in press). “Network exploration and exploitation: Professional network churn and scientific production.” Social Networks. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.07.003
I’ve joined our university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) as an alternate member and received a copy of a member handbook to read to prepare myself. (1) I enjoyed reading through the handbook to get a refresher on the history of an IRB as well as to think through the mechanics of how an IRB functions. This book goes deeper than the human subjects training I’ve taken as a researcher, and the concept described in chapter 1-4 (Principles of the Belmont Report) that caught my attention and held it is beneficence.
Now sure, it’s common sense that I wouldn’t want to harm my human research subjects but I don’t think I’ve been prompted in my research career to consider what beneficence is really about, maximizing the potential benefit for my subjects. To consider: is there a way to design my future research projects that intentionally brings about good for my subjects as a direct result of participating in the research? This is a justice issue, at its heart, and the Belmont Report has a section specifically on justice, right after the section on beneficence (see https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html#xbenefit). The concepts of beneficence and justice, and how they are enacted in the research process, are surely more nuanced than I am describing here. I wanted to share the idea with you so that may consider it in your own next research design. Let me know what you think, and how you imagine this may take shape in your own work.
(1) Amdur, Robert, and Elizabeth A. Bankert. Institutional Review Board Member Handbook, 3rd edition. 2011. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.