Volume 13, Number 4, 2018

EN:

This paper discusses how a small volunteer library changed after attending a symposium on Indigenous Librarianship and metadata. It provides an introduction to the Aboriginal Teacher Education Program Library, how it was formed, and the decision making process behind it. The paper goes on to summarize key points from speakers at the Making Meaning Symposium, and how they challenge the choices made by volunteers. The results have all been positive, and continue to shape discussions about how to best implement what was learned.

When we think we know, we think we own something, and we take away from what it represents. - Ambrose Cardinal, personal communication

EN:

Objective - This research studied the recent literature of two professions, library and information studies (LIS) and research administration (RA), to map the priorities and concerns of each with regard to research support. Specifically, the research sought to answer these research questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences emerging from the LIS and RA literatures on research support? (2) How do librarians and research administrators understand and engage with each other’s activities through their professional literatures? (3) Do Whitchurch’s (2008a, 2008b, 2015) concepts of bounded-cross-boundary-unbounded professionals and theory of the “third space” provide a useful framework for understanding research support?

Methods - The research method was a content analysis of journal articles on research-related topics published in select journals in the LIS (n = 195) and RA (n = 95) fields from 2012-2017. The titles and abstracts of articles to be included were reviewed to guide the creation of thematic coding categories. The coded articles were then analyzed to characterize and compare the topics and concerns addressed by the literature of each profession.

Results - Only two (2.2%) RA articles referred to librarians and libraries in their exploration of research support topics, while six (3.1%) LIS articles referred to the research office or research administrators in a meaningful way. Of these six, two focused on undergraduate research programs, two on research data management, and two on scholarly communications. Thematic coding revealed five broad topics that appeared repeatedly in both bodies of literature: research funding, research impact, research methodologies, research infrastructure, and use of research. However, within these broad categories, the focus varied widely between the professions. There were also several topics that received considerable attention in the literature of one field without a major presence in that of the other, including research collaboration in the RA literature, and institutional repositories, research data management, citation analysis or bibliometrics, scholarly communication, and open access in the LIS literature.

Conclusion - This content analysis of the LIS and RA literature provided insight into the priorities and concerns of each profession with respect to research support. It found that, even in instances where the professions engaged on the same broad topics, they largely focused on different aspects of issues. The literature of each profession demonstrated little awareness of the activities and concerns of the other. In Whitchurch’s (2008a) taxonomy, librarians and research administrators are largely working as “bounded” professionals, with occasional forays into “cross-boundary” activities (p. 377). There is not yet evidence of “unbounded” professionalism or a move to a “third space” of research support activity involving these professions (Whitchurch, 2015, p. 85). Librarians and research administrators will benefit from a better understanding of the current research support landscape and new modes of working, like the third space, that could prove transformative.

EN:

Objective – This paper presents a Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model (LACMM) that can assist library managers to improve assessment. The process of developing the LACMM is detailed to provide an evidence trail to foster confidence in its utility and value.

Methods – The LACMM was developed during a series of library benchmarking activities across an international network of universities. The utility and value of the LACMM was tested by the benchmarking libraries and other practitioners; feedback from this testing was applied to improve it. Guidance was taken from a procedures model for developing maturity models that draws on design science research methodology where an iterative and reflective approach is taken.

Results – The activities decision making junctures and the LACMM as an artifact make up the results of this research. The LACMM has five levels. Each level represents a measure of the effectiveness of any assessment process or program, from ad-hoc processes to mature and continuously improving processes. At each level there are criteria and characteristics that need to be fulfilled in order to reach a particular maturity level. Corresponding to each level of maturity, four stages of the assessment cycle were identified as further elements of the LACMM template. These included (1) Objectives, (2) Methods and data collection, (3) Analysis and interpretation, and (4) Use of results. Several attempts were needed to determine the criteria for each maturity level corresponding to the stages of the assessment cycle. Three versions of the LACMM were developed to introduce managers to using it. Each version corresponded to a different kind of assessment activity: data, discussion, and comparison. A generic version was developed for those who have become more familiar with using it. Through a process of review, capability maturity levels can be identified for each stage in the assessment cycle; so too can plans to improve processes toward continuous improvement.

Conclusion – The LACMM will add to the plethora of resources already available. However, it is hoped that the simplicity of the tool as a means of assessing assessment and identifying an improvement path will be its strength. It can act as a quick aide-mémoire or form the basis of a comprehensive self-review or an inter-institutional benchmarking project. It is expected that the tool will be adapted and improved upon as library managers apply it.

EN:

Objective – This paper aimed to analyze worldwide research on evidence based librarianship (EBL) using Social Network Analysis (SNA).

Methods – This descriptive study has been conducted using scientometrics and a SNA approach. The researchers identified 523 publications on EBL, as indexed by Scopus and Web of Science with no date limitation. A range of software tools (Ravar PreMap, Netdraw, UCINet and VOSviewer) were utilized for data visualization and analysis.

Results – Results of the study revealed that the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) occupied the topmost positions regarding centrality measures, clearly indicating their important structural roles in EBL research. The network of EBL research in terms of the degree of connectedness showed low density in the co-authorship networks of both authors (0.013) and countries (0.214). Seven subject clusters were identified in the EBL research network, four of which related to health and medicine. The occurrence of the keywords related to these four subject clusters suggested that EBL research had a greater association with the setting of health and medicine than with traditional librarianship elements such as human resources or library collection management.

Conclusion – This study provided a systematic understanding of topics, research, and researchers in EBL by visualizing the networks and may thus inform the development of future aspects of EBL research and education.

EN:

Objective – This article describes how librarians systematically compared different e-book platforms to identify which features and design impact usability and user satisfaction.

Methods – This study employed task-based usability testing, including the “think-aloud protocol.” Students at the University of Colorado Boulder completed a series of typical tasks to compare the usability and measure user satisfaction with academic e-books. For each title, five students completed the tasks on three e-book platforms: the publisher platform and two aggregators. Thirty-five students evaluated seven titles on nine academic e-book platforms.

Results – This study identified each platform’s strengths and weaknesses based on students’ experiences and preferences. The usability tests indicated that students preferred Ebook Central over EBSCO and strongly preferred the aggregators over publisher platforms.

Conclusions – Librarians can use student expectations and preferences to guide e-book purchasing decisions. Preferences may vary by institution, but variations in e-book layout and functionality impact students’ ability to successfully complete tasks and influences their affinity for or satisfaction with any given platform. Usability testing is a useful tool for gauging user expectations and identifying preferences for features, functionality, and layout.