View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Academic Support”: Data and Response
Mellon Design Event
May 11, 2006
Project Team
• Wendy Pradt Lougee, University Librarian, Principal Investigator
• CLA Dean & Associate Dean (Planning and Technology)
• Karen Williams, Associate University Librarian • Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow• Kate McCready, Librarian Project Coordinator• Two Graduate Research Assistants• Digital Library Development Lab Programming Support:
– John Butler, Director– Paul Bramscher– Shane Nackerud– Jen Tantzen
Project Focus & Goals
• What are the discipline-specific and general needs for facilities, information content, services, tools & expertise that support research in the humanities and social sciences?
• Identify research support services for humanities & social sciences
• Explore the needs for new services--physical and virtual
• Improve library services that directly support research• Identify discipline-specific needs, areas of common
interest
Project Strategy• Interviews with faculty from 16 CLA departments :
African and African American Studies, American Studies, American Indian Studies, Anthropology, Asian Languages and Literatures, Chicano Studies, Classical and Near Eastern Studies, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, English, French and Italian, Geography, German, Scandinavian, and Dutch, History, Political Science, Sociology, Spanish and Portuguese Studies
• Focus groups with graduate students• Survey of CLA faculty and graduate students
(target audience ~1200, over 50% response rate)
Key Question Areas• Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What
usage trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment?
• Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research?
• Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where?
• Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?
Key Question Areas• Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What usage
trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment?
• Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research?
• Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where?
• Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?
Where Researchers Work:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
a. Home b. Office c. UniversityLibraries
d. Non-UArchives
e. OtherInstitutions
Faculty Graduate Students
Research Methodologies Used:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
a. A
rchiv
al
b. T
extu
al Ana
lysis
c. Hist
oriog
raph
y
d. E
thno
grap
hy
e. E
xperim
enta
l
f. Fiel
dwor
k
g. L
inguis
tic
h. O
ral H
istor
y
i. Quan
titativ
e
j. Sta
tistic
al
Faculty Graduate Students
Research Materials Used:
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
a. P
ublis
hed
Mat
erial
s
b. Im
ages
and
Pho
tos
c. D
ata
Sets/
Statis
tics
d. In
terv
iews
e. A
udio
Record
ings
f. Vid
eo/F
ilm R
ecor
ding
s
g. E
phem
era
h. A
rtifa
cts
Faculty Graduate Students
Research is Interdisciplinary b/c of:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
a. Literature b. Methods c. Collaboration d. NotInterdisciplinary
Faculty Graduate Students
Methods Somewhat/Not Effective For:
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
a. M
ater
ial O
rgan
iz...
b. N
otes
c. K
eepi
ng u
p w
/ Fie
ld
d. D
isse
min
atio
n
e. E
ditin
gf.
Trac
king
Sou
rces
Faculty Graduate Students
Major/Moderate Problem Finding and Acquiring Materials:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
a. O
bsur
e Top
ic
b. T
oo F
ew S
ourc
es
c. To
o M
any S
ourc
es
d. U
L Far
Away
e. O
rgan
izatio
n of
UL
Faculty Grad Students
Faculty Finding Aids:
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
i. Dept. Resources/Collections
h. Librarian (online)
g. Librarian (in-person)
f. Library Stacks
e. Other Institutions
d. Search Engines
c. Bibliographies/Citations
b. Online Scholarly Databases
a. Library Catalog
Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not At All Important
Faculty Visits To Library Buildings:
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
a. Check out books
b. Browse stacks
c. Access print journals
d. Seek assistance
e. Use computers
f. Study or read
g. Use archives
h. Request ILL
Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never
Faculty Visits to www.lib.umn.edu:
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
a. Access online indexes
b. Access online journals
c. Request Lumina to U
d. Request ILL
e. Renew books
f. Seek research assistance
Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never
Discovery: General Themes
• As a result of the highly interdisciplinary nature of faculty and graduate students’ work (more than 90% of faculty consider their work interdisciplinary), as well as the diverse types of materials and media they consult, scholars need better methods of addressing the specificity and uniqueness of their research topics.
• Faculty find their methods only adequate when it comes to identifying obscure sources, keeping up with their field (and various fields), and organizing the materials they do acquire.
• Faculty and graduate students are extremely comfortable with electronic sources for their research (from articles to artifacts) and with electronic forms of communication (email).
• Despite the preference of electronic research materials, archival research is one of the top three research methodologies employed (after textual analysis and historiography), and nearly 80% of faculty consider browsing shelves at the Library to be extremely or somewhat important. (Although, almost 75% of faculty report that they browse Library stacks only monthly or occasionally.)
• Graduate students report a pronounced need for training in research practices, especially in the areas of archival research methodologies and grant funding opportunities and procedures.
What is the Most Challenging?
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
a. AcquiringMaterials
b. IdentifyingMaterials
c. ManagingResources
Faculty Graduate Students
Citation Management Systems By Area:
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
1. Refworks, Endnote,etc.
2. Word-processingprogram
3. Paper-basedsystem
Humanities Area Studies Social Sciences
Methods of Storing Print Materials:
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
1. File or store physically 2. Scan
Faculty Graduate Students
Methods of Storing Digital Materials (pdfs, word, xls, jpg, etc):
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
1. Make hard copy 2. Save as digital copy
Faculty Graduate Students
Methods of Sharing Source Materials:
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%
a. H
aven
't Sha
red
b. H
ard
Copies
c. Em
ail
d. P
hone
/FAX
e. M
eetin
gs o
r Con
fere
nce
f. W
ebsit
e
Faculty Graduate Students
General Themes: Gathering• Faculty report that it is easier to identify needed research materials and sources than it is to
actually acquire them (23% vs. 42%).
• Graduate students nearly the same amount of difficulty identifying materials and acquiring them (35% vs. 32%).
• Humanities and Social Science researchers have been slow to embrace electronic or web-based programs for managing citations (Refworks) and prefer word processing methods (although there is greater adoption among social scientists).
• Faculty and graduate students report having inadequate methods for organizing and storing their research materials.
• Researchers amass unique and potentially valuable research collections that are inaccessible to other researchers.
• Faculty are aware that they need innovative ways to manage their research collections. A few engage in scanning activities, but methods are generally haphazard, idiosyncratic, and dependent on word processing-based lists.
• 93% of faculty would use assistance with acquiring materials. 70% would use assistance with general organization and preservation of research materials.
Collaborative Working Groups:
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
a. S
ingle
colle
ague
b. M
ult. C
ollea
gues
c. Cam
pus
rese
arch
...
d. N
on-U
gro
up
e. S
ame
Disc.
f. Diff.
Disc
.
Faculty Graduate Students
68.5% of faculty work collaboratively
Obstacles to Working Collaboratively:
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
Faculty Graduate Students
Researchers Would Use Assistance With:
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
a. B
iblio
grap
hies
b. In
dexi
ngc.
Pre
serv
atio
nd.
Dat
a co
llect
ion
e. O
rgan
izat
ion
f. P
rese
ntat
ions
g. A
naly
sis/
synt
hesi
s
h. E
ditin
g
Faculty Graduate Students
The University Libraries are Very Important/Important For:
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Faculty Graduate Students
Q18. Importance of U Libraries to Faculty:
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not At All Important
Researchers wish that the University Libraries would provide more secure study spaces for grad students, online access to outside archival collections or finding aids, easier
interface for using Lumina to U and interlibrary loan, direct collaboration with librarians on research projects, and more.
Desired Library Services
0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%
10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%
General Themes: Creation• Humanities and Social Science researchers are not accustomed to thinking of the
Libraries as partners in the production of their scholarship.
• Nearly 69% of faculty say they work collaboratively.
• Over 70% of faculty who participate in collaborative research work indicate they work with colleagues at other institutions. The number one obstacle to working collaboratively is distance from colleagues (45%).
• Nearly 80% of both faculty and graduate students consider the Libraries as playing an important role in the development of technology.
• The Libraries have a special opportunity to support collaborative research projects and to bridge the distance between colleagues. The use of technology is key to this effort.
• Approximately 66% of faculty and graduate students would use assistance with creating presentations.
• Graduate students would benefit from a stable physical space within the Libraries where they can work collaborative and individually
Methods of Sharing Ideas:
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%
a. E
b. M
eetin
gs o
r Con
fe...
c. Pho
ne/F
AX
d. H
ard
Copies
e. W
ebsit
e
f. Hav
en't S
hare
d
Faculty Graduate Students
Methods of Sharing Drafts and Co-Authored Works:
0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%
a. E
b. H
ard
Copies
c. M
eetin
gs o
r Co.
..
d. H
aven
't Sha
red
e. W
ebsit
e
f. Pho
ne/F
AX
Faculty Graduate Students
General Themes: Dissemination
• Faculty consider themselves very effective at disseminating their research.
• Graduate students find dissemination challenging. Only a third consider their methods effective.
• Graduate students also have a greater need than faculty for assistance with editing.
• Most faculty and graduate students rely on email or face-to-face interactions to share ideas.
• Faculty depend on traditional venues for publishing and dissemination: paper journals (and the occasional electronic journal), books, and conferences and professional meetings.
Discover
Structured Finding
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
Mellon 060328
Discover
Gather
Structured Finding
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
Collecting
Organizing
Acquiring
Mellon 060328
Discover
Gather
Create
Structured Finding
Reviewing & Rating
Writing Annotating
Analyzing
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
Collecting
Organizing
Acquiring
Mellon 060328
Describing
Discover
Share Gather
Create
Structured Finding
Data Sharing
Reviewing & Rating
Writing Annotating
Rights
Publishing
Analyzing
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
Collecting
Organizing
AcquiringTeaching
Mellon 060328
Describing
Discover
Share Gather
Create
Structured Finding
Data Sharing
Reviewing & Rating
Writing Annotating
Rights
Publishing
Analyzing
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors => H/SS Data
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field.
87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields
43% - Problem: Too Few Sources
85% - Important: Browsing Stacks
56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies
Collecting
Organizing
AcquiringTeaching
43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts
73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials
39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials
35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials
37% - Have Unique Research Collection
52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other
Institutions
Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations
67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations
68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively
56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research
46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance
from Colleagues
60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy
Mellon 060331
53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources
57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic
Describing
76% - Share ideas via Emalior in Person
Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/Expertise
43% - Problem: Too Few Sources
Discover
Share Gather
Create
Structured Finding
Data Sharing
Reviewing & Rating
Writing Annotating
Rights
Publishing
Analyzing
Serendipitous Finding
Primitives => Behaviors => Services
Keeping Current
Collaborative Finding
49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field.
87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields
85% - Important: Browsing Stacks
56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies
Collecting
Organizing
AcquiringTeaching
43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts
73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials
39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials
35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials
37% - Have Unique Research Collection
52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other
institutions
Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations
67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations
68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively
56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research
46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance
from Colleagues
60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy
53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources
57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic
Describing
Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/ExpertiseU Knowledge Map
Customized Search
Archives ID & Mining
Current Awareness-RSS TOC MNCAT Archives/UDC - Lit. databases
Browsing Tool
Scholar’s Horizon
Current Awareness-RSS - TOC - MNCAT - Archives/UDC - Lit. databases
COLLECTOR’S TOOL
Integrated Request Processes
Grants ManagerFile StorageU Goals
Annotation Tools
Copyright, Schol. Comm. Decision Tools
Collaborative File Space
Shared, Group Info Mgmt. Sys.
Feeds, Bookmarks,Object Sharing
Course Support & Integration
Digital Conservancy
43% - Problem: Too Few Sources
Recommender Sys.
Focus for the Future
• Identify and pursue changes in physically-based services: use of Library spaces, book delivery, and more• Develop online research methodologies tutorial for graduate students• Identify areas of potential collaboration between CLA and Libraries with respect to support services • Pilot online research communities• Develop model to integrate tool-based research services in an online context
Online Research
Environment for Scholars -
Prototype
Each “Primitive”:
•Discover•Gather•Create•Share
has a Separatepage…
For More Information
• Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow– email: [email protected]
• Kate McCready, Library Project Coordinator– email: [email protected]
• John Butler, Director, Digital Library Development Lab– email: [email protected]