Two recent reports provide some insight into the higher education landscape:
The 2014 Inside Higher Ed Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology reported on the results of a survey of 2,799 faculty members and 288 campus technology administrators about online education. Among the findings are that only 9 percent of faculty members strongly believe that online education can be equivalent to in-person courses. The value of MOOCs appears to be questionable, and there's some doubt about the usefulness of digital humanities. There was no mention of the role or impact of the library on online education. Nevertheless, a very interesting report.
The Leadership Board for CIOs has conducted an annual survey of CIOs for the past several years. The 2014 Survey of Chief Information Officers provides a complete picture of technology in higher education institutions. The survey was sent to nearly 1,000 CIOs in April and May, 2014, and the response rate was 23%. Sixty percent of the respondents were from public institutions; 37 percent from private, non-profits; and 2 percent from for-profit institutions. Information collected in the survey included institutional and CIO characteristics; financial and budget planning; IT organization and governance; consumerization of IT; administrative computing: academic technologies, MOOCs, and innovation; infrastructure, networking and security; cloud computing and big data; institutional standards; and new and emerging technologies. One item of interest was how few higher education institutions are relying on open source products for administrative computing needs (0 percent). As the report states, "[m]ost institutions prefer [enterprise resource planning] vendor-provided systems that are tightly integrated and under the control of their institution, as opposed to outsourced solutions" (p. 18). Libraries were mentioned twice. Centralized management of library services takes place in 17 percent of responding institutions, and 38 percent of them reported some library applications that were cloud-based.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Friday, December 26, 2014
"Using GTD to Get Things Done at Your Library," by Robin Hastings
Robin Hastings. "Using GTD to Get Things Done at Your Library." Computers in Libraries 31:8 (2011): 23-26.
I recommend reading this article to give you an introduction to David Allen's Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity (GTD). Originally published in 2001, GTD has remained a bible of sorts for productivity junkies. Allen offers reams of helpful advice about how to get and stay organized and keep on top of all the things you have to do at work and in any other part of your life. Hastings provides a nice intro to this book and applies the lessons learned to our particular library environment. I haven't had a chance to review GTD on this blog yet (it's on the list!), but in short, I agree completely with Hastings assessment of the high value of GTD when applied at work.
I recommend reading this article to give you an introduction to David Allen's Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity (GTD). Originally published in 2001, GTD has remained a bible of sorts for productivity junkies. Allen offers reams of helpful advice about how to get and stay organized and keep on top of all the things you have to do at work and in any other part of your life. Hastings provides a nice intro to this book and applies the lessons learned to our particular library environment. I haven't had a chance to review GTD on this blog yet (it's on the list!), but in short, I agree completely with Hastings assessment of the high value of GTD when applied at work.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
The Value and Impact of Data Sharing and Curation, by Neil Beagrie and John Houghton
Neil Beagrie and John Houghton. The Value and Impact of Data Sharing and Curation: A Synthesis of Three Recent Studies of UK Research Data Centres. (Jisc, 2014).
This was a very interesting study of three data centers to determine their value and impact in relation to their cost. The authors identified data centers in three disciplines: the humanities, social sciences and science. They were the Economic and Social Data Service, the Archaeology Data Service, and the British Atmospheric Data Centre. Key findings include that use of the data centers resulted in a significant increase in research, teaching, and studying efficiency; the value of the data centers exceeded the investments made in them; and the data centers increase the measurable returns on investment.
Their recommendations include (p. 23):
This was a very interesting study of three data centers to determine their value and impact in relation to their cost. The authors identified data centers in three disciplines: the humanities, social sciences and science. They were the Economic and Social Data Service, the Archaeology Data Service, and the British Atmospheric Data Centre. Key findings include that use of the data centers resulted in a significant increase in research, teaching, and studying efficiency; the value of the data centers exceeded the investments made in them; and the data centers increase the measurable returns on investment.
Their recommendations include (p. 23):
- Continue support for the data centers
- Develop the methods used to study them further
- Promote the standardization of usage statistics
- Study the value and impact of other aspects of the research data curation infrastructure
- Conduct more granular analysis
- Track changes longitudinally
- Study the broader value and impact of data collections
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
"Five Years of Empirical Research in the Area of Technical Services," by Natalia Gelber
Natalia Gelber. "Five Years of Empirical Research in the Area of Technical Services: An Examination of Selected Peer-Reviewed Journals, 2007-2011." Technical Services Quarterly 30:2 (2013): 166-186.
Author Gelber analyzed 256 articles from 21 peer reviewed journals to determine the type of empirical research conducted, the subjects of the research, and whether the topic influenced the type of research methods used. The top four journals represented in the study were Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Library Resources & Technical Services, Technical Services Quarterly, Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, Serials Librarian, Library Collections Acquisitions and Technical Services, and Serials Review, ranging from 17 to 65 articles. The remainder of the 21 journals had fewer than 10 articles each.
Findings revealed that 53.5 percent of articles were sole-authored, 28.5 percent had two authors, 11.7 percent had three authors, and 4.3 percent had four authors. Only a tiny portion had more than four authors. The great majority of the authors were practitioners (94.5 percent); only 3.1 percent were academics. U.S. authors predominated, representing over 85.5 percent of the total, and 70.7 percent of the research settings were in academic libraries. Only 3.1 percent of the research incorporated end-users into the research.
The most commonly used type of research was the case study, with 61.7 percent of the total. Another 21.9 percent of the research consisted of surveys. Qualitative data analysis was more common that quantitative (54.7 percent vs. 27.3 percent), and only 18 percent was mixed qualitative and quantitative. The top topics were electronic resources management, discovery of materials in the online catalog, cataloging policies and practices, and acquisitions. (Collection development as a topic was eliminated from this study.) The third research question was not able to be answered because there weren't enough examples of all of the research methods to make it statistically significant.
I find it interesting but not surprising that the two most common types of research are the case study and the survey. (Literature reviews and historical reviews were eliminated from this study.) As the researchers are most likely to be practitioners, it seems to me that the most meaningful research they conduct and share with others is 1) how we did something and what we learned from it, and 2) how is everyone else doing this and what can I learn from their experiences? In fact, whenever I'm faced with a new challenge at work and I want to read up on the issue, I do a literature review to see what others have done and how it worked for them.
I found Ms. Gelber's research very interesting. I was surprised at some of the journal titles that ended up on her list (see the article, p. 173, for the full list). I had to look up one of the research methods that she listed: the Delphi Method, which consists of two or more rounds of experts responding to questionnaires. After each round the summaries of the questionnaires are shared with them to see if their own responses change; after several rounds, the conclusions are expected to be more reliable. It's used more in business forecasting, although I can see that it would be interesting to apply to technical services or more general library futures forecasting.
Author Gelber analyzed 256 articles from 21 peer reviewed journals to determine the type of empirical research conducted, the subjects of the research, and whether the topic influenced the type of research methods used. The top four journals represented in the study were Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Library Resources & Technical Services, Technical Services Quarterly, Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, Serials Librarian, Library Collections Acquisitions and Technical Services, and Serials Review, ranging from 17 to 65 articles. The remainder of the 21 journals had fewer than 10 articles each.
Findings revealed that 53.5 percent of articles were sole-authored, 28.5 percent had two authors, 11.7 percent had three authors, and 4.3 percent had four authors. Only a tiny portion had more than four authors. The great majority of the authors were practitioners (94.5 percent); only 3.1 percent were academics. U.S. authors predominated, representing over 85.5 percent of the total, and 70.7 percent of the research settings were in academic libraries. Only 3.1 percent of the research incorporated end-users into the research.
The most commonly used type of research was the case study, with 61.7 percent of the total. Another 21.9 percent of the research consisted of surveys. Qualitative data analysis was more common that quantitative (54.7 percent vs. 27.3 percent), and only 18 percent was mixed qualitative and quantitative. The top topics were electronic resources management, discovery of materials in the online catalog, cataloging policies and practices, and acquisitions. (Collection development as a topic was eliminated from this study.) The third research question was not able to be answered because there weren't enough examples of all of the research methods to make it statistically significant.
I find it interesting but not surprising that the two most common types of research are the case study and the survey. (Literature reviews and historical reviews were eliminated from this study.) As the researchers are most likely to be practitioners, it seems to me that the most meaningful research they conduct and share with others is 1) how we did something and what we learned from it, and 2) how is everyone else doing this and what can I learn from their experiences? In fact, whenever I'm faced with a new challenge at work and I want to read up on the issue, I do a literature review to see what others have done and how it worked for them.
I found Ms. Gelber's research very interesting. I was surprised at some of the journal titles that ended up on her list (see the article, p. 173, for the full list). I had to look up one of the research methods that she listed: the Delphi Method, which consists of two or more rounds of experts responding to questionnaires. After each round the summaries of the questionnaires are shared with them to see if their own responses change; after several rounds, the conclusions are expected to be more reliable. It's used more in business forecasting, although I can see that it would be interesting to apply to technical services or more general library futures forecasting.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Stylish Academic Writing, by Helen Sword
Helen Sword. Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. 220 pages. ISBN 9780674064485.
Author Helen Sword read and analyzed 1,000 articles published in academic journals in 10 disciplines to determine what constitutes stylish academic writing. She also studied 100 recently-published style guides to see where they agreed and differed on points of academic writing style. In Stylish Academic Writing she shares what she's learned about what makes a good article. In fourteen chapters she discusses voice, sentence construction, titles, hooks, jargon, article structure, citation style, creative academic writing, and more.
Two of the chapters speak most to me: the one on voice, and the other on citation style. They both speak to pet peeves of mine. The first is when an author has to mangle their writing to avoid using the first person. Much of the writing in library science is reporting on a project or case study, in which the author is simply telling a story about how a project was launched, carried out or successfully completed. It makes no sense to not be able to use the first person when telling this story. But if you look at much of the library science literature, you'll see many of these stories told in a way that puts a distance between the reader and what's being shared. This makes the article harder to read, and less interesting. Articles should be written in a way that conveys all of the important information that the author is trying to share, but in a way that will increase readership. Writing in the first person can help with that goal. Sword advocates for the use of the first person when possible.
My second pet peeve has to do with citation styles that require the author to put names, dates, and sometimes page numbers in parentheses right in the text. When I read an article that has a lot of citations, I sometimes find it difficult to follow the threads of a sentence or paragraph through all of these parenthetical citations. The simple use of endnotes, identified with a superscripted number, avoids this problem. Sentences and paragraphs with the simple numbered indication of an endnote are much easier to read and comprehend than one with the citations in parentheses interrupting the flow. Again, the goal is to share information and increase the readership of each article, and a simpler citation style does that. Sword supports the use of simpler citation styles that don't interrupt the flow of the article.
While I'm only highlighting two issues in this review, Sword's book is full of good advice. She illustrates all of her chapters with both good and bad examples so readers can understand what makes good writing, and what hinders comprehension. I believe this book would be useful to all academics who want to improve their writing.
Author Helen Sword read and analyzed 1,000 articles published in academic journals in 10 disciplines to determine what constitutes stylish academic writing. She also studied 100 recently-published style guides to see where they agreed and differed on points of academic writing style. In Stylish Academic Writing she shares what she's learned about what makes a good article. In fourteen chapters she discusses voice, sentence construction, titles, hooks, jargon, article structure, citation style, creative academic writing, and more.
Two of the chapters speak most to me: the one on voice, and the other on citation style. They both speak to pet peeves of mine. The first is when an author has to mangle their writing to avoid using the first person. Much of the writing in library science is reporting on a project or case study, in which the author is simply telling a story about how a project was launched, carried out or successfully completed. It makes no sense to not be able to use the first person when telling this story. But if you look at much of the library science literature, you'll see many of these stories told in a way that puts a distance between the reader and what's being shared. This makes the article harder to read, and less interesting. Articles should be written in a way that conveys all of the important information that the author is trying to share, but in a way that will increase readership. Writing in the first person can help with that goal. Sword advocates for the use of the first person when possible.
My second pet peeve has to do with citation styles that require the author to put names, dates, and sometimes page numbers in parentheses right in the text. When I read an article that has a lot of citations, I sometimes find it difficult to follow the threads of a sentence or paragraph through all of these parenthetical citations. The simple use of endnotes, identified with a superscripted number, avoids this problem. Sentences and paragraphs with the simple numbered indication of an endnote are much easier to read and comprehend than one with the citations in parentheses interrupting the flow. Again, the goal is to share information and increase the readership of each article, and a simpler citation style does that. Sword supports the use of simpler citation styles that don't interrupt the flow of the article.
While I'm only highlighting two issues in this review, Sword's book is full of good advice. She illustrates all of her chapters with both good and bad examples so readers can understand what makes good writing, and what hinders comprehension. I believe this book would be useful to all academics who want to improve their writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)