CINXE.COM

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>Hanging Together</title> <atom:link href="https://hangingtogether.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/</link> <description>the OCLC Research blog</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 20:06:35 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>  <item> <title>Building connections with publishers to bridge the OA discovery gap </title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Claire Holloway]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 19:42:11 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Open Access]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15839</guid> <description><![CDATA[Explore how libraries and publishers can collaborate to improve Open Access discoverability, breaking down barriers with better metadata, seamless access, and trust. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap/">Building connections with publishers to bridge the OA discovery gap </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignleft is-resized"><img decoding="async" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Hortus_Botanicus_Amsterdam._%28actm.%29_03.jpg" alt="" style="width:437px;height:auto"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Hortus Botanicus Amsterdam, Bridge 233. Agnes Monkelbaan, CC BY-SA 4.0 <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</a>, via Wikimedia Commons.</figcaption></figure></div> As a member of OCLC’s Publisher Relations Team, my colleagues and I serve as intermediaries, representing the needs of libraries in the publishing world and vice versa. This can feel like mediating between squabbling roommates or sometimes like pairing up lost gloves—a perfect fit, a meant-to-be. While it may be tempting to see only a dichotomy, two sides of a story, a chasm to be bridged (I could go on with the metaphors), we choose to focus on the commonalities between libraries and publishers, building connections instead of dwelling on the gap.   Much easier said than done.  Occasionally, we get the opportunity to put our idealistic views to the test and bring the publisher’s perspective to a seemingly library-specific issue, as we did in the recent OCLC Research report <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2024/oa-discovery/open-access-discovery-academic-library-users.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Improving Open Access Discovery for Academic Library Users</a>. I consulted with the report’s authors throughout the research process, offering alternative readings from a non-library view. This project shed light on common challenges, emphasizing that no single entity can tackle the enormity open access discovery on its own. The outcome is a report that is valuable to open access (OA) stakeholders outside the library, as well.  <figure class="wp-block-pullquote"><blockquote>“Truly improving the discoverability of OA publications requires all of the stakeholders involved to consider the needs of others within the lifecycle.”  </blockquote></figure> Libraries, publishers, technology providers, and aggregators all play a role in the lifecycle of OA publications. These many OA content workflows and responsibilities don’t exist in a silo, but rather integrate with and augment each other. Focusing solely on the library’s role would lose the assistance and efficiencies offered to the library by the others. As the penultimate line of the report states, “Truly improving the discoverability of OA publications requires all stakeholders involved to consider the needs of others within the lifecycle.”   Although the report is primarily aimed at librarians, the authors have thoughtfully identified significant findings from the study and emphasized key takeaways for publishers and other non-library stakeholders. These important points are visually highlighted using magenta boxes throughout the report. However, to provide even greater clarity for this specific audience, I have extracted a few of the most relevant points under the categories of Metadata, Access, and Trust, and offered brief explanations of their significance.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Metadata </h2> Consider the metadata that library staff identified as important for the discoverability of OA publications when identifying potential improvements in how metadata can be created, shared, harvested, and displayed. We all (should) know that metadata is important for all content discovery. Metadata that is used to discover traditional publications, such as author name, title, abstract, keywords, journal name, volume, issue, publication date, and subject are also important for the discoverability of OA publications. However, librarians also stated an additional need for persistent identifiers such as ISSN, ISBN, DOI, ISNI, ORCID, and ROR, to allow library systems to potentially make linkages between resources to further aid discovery and “reduce confusion among their users”(Improving Open Access Discovery, 13). Moreover, adding persistent identifiers into metadata for all types of content is good practice, as the recent report recommending a US national PID strategy describes. Not only do PIDs improve discovery, but they also support interoperability and automation, reduce administrative burden, improve research assessment and research integrity efforts, and save money when widely adopted.1 So, if you have any PIDs, add them in. If not, go get one… and add it in.  Users evaluate resources concurrently and iteratively as they search and access them. Both metadata and system capabilities need to support these simultaneous processes of discovery, evaluation, and use.   The absence or presence of metadata is the differentiator for discovery. Librarians asked that publishers include metadata about the use of peer review, publication version, and OA status (through the inclusion of license information) to help systems differentiate the content and enable users to better evaluate their resources of choice. OA publications may have multiple versions (such as the version of record, author accepted manuscript, or preprint), and these versions may be aggregated across various repositories, with only metadata available to differentiate them in search results. The completeness of the provided metadata will influence users in selecting a version. For instance, if one version clearly indicates that the content has undergone peer review and is the OA version of record, users may be inclined to choose it over a result with minimal context.  OA content that isn’t discovered doesn’t get used, and OA content that doesn’t get used doesn’t get supported by libraries. Therefore, publishers should provide the most complete metadata possible about OA content as well as partner with library staff to understand what metadata they would like to receive and help “authors understand the role that quality metadata plays in the discovery of their work.” (Improving Open Access Discovery, 35)   To find out more about how publishers can better create metadata about open access books, see EDItEUR’s application note “Open Access Monographs in ONIX” (both <a href="https://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%203/APPNOTE%20Describing%20Open%20Access%20monographs%20in%20ONIX%203.0%20and%203.1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">text</a> and <a href="https://www.editeur.org/files/videos/20240104%20OA%20products%20in%20ONIX%20720p.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">video</a>).   Ensure that article-level metadata is provided by all publishers, regardless of size. This makes it easier for library staff to add these OA publications to their collections to meet users’ needs.   Even the smallest OA publishers of either books or journals should ensure their metadata is thorough and shared with trusted aggregators such as <a href="https://www.doabooks.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DOAB</a> or <a href="https://doaj.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">DOAJ</a>. Those Open access platforms and others provide aggregated metadata to libraries in standardized formats that allow systems providers to efficiently index the content. These aggregators may require publishers to apply and be accepted before adding their metadata and content to the repository, but they also provide general advice to all publishers on creating high-quality metadata. Seek it out and follow it. These aggregators see metadata of all levels of quality every day and know what works.   When adding OA publications to knowledge base collections, clearly name the collection and identify what types of OA resources are in the collection and how much of it is OA. Provide this information consistently to help libraries identify the content they are looking for within the potentially duplicated records.  Knowledge bases are largely managed through the use of the KBART, or Knowledge Base and Related Tools file. NISO provides <a href="https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/kbart" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">more detailed information about the KBART format</a>, but in general, the KBART file is the special sauce that keeps the metadata record connected to the hosted content and the library’s catalog. This very library-centric data format can sometimes prove mysterious to publishers who focus on the title- or article-level metadata, but it is crucial in making collection development and management workflows run smoothly for libraries.   To help understand KBART, imagine a shipping container full of individual copies of physical books being sent to a warehouse. There is a shipping manifest pasted to the outside of the container that lists what books are found within. Without this manifest, the warehouse staff would have no idea what they are dealing with when they open the container, resulting in inefficient check-in processes and some unhappy staff. The KBART acts as this shipping manifest, itemizing the contents of a publisher’s digital collection and allowing the libraries to expediently add it to their catalog.   As the OA Discovery report points out, the choice to add OA content to a library catalog is not necessarily simple. Librarians weigh many factors when considering this work. So, make their job easier by providing thorough and consistent KBART files, and name your collections as clearly as possible. If the collection contains only open access content, then please say that in the collection name. Otherwise, the collection might be overlooked for consideration. Unclear labeling can lead to unhappy librarians, which is something nobody wants.  <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Access </h2> Providing seamless authentication to content behind a paywall saves users and library staff time and effort.   Studies about Information-seeking behaviors always get librarians excited, and the Open Access Discovery report doesn’t disappoint. You can see complete details within the report, but it finds, among other things, that users are most likely to search for scholarly peer-reviewed content first on a search engine, with the library catalog coming in third. The publisher’s website was further down the list in fifth place. So going straight to the publisher is not a common practice.  <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignleft size-full"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search.png"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="1224" height="998" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search.png" alt="Bar chart titled 'Where Users Normally Search for Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed Publications,' showing the count of respondents by search system. The categories and counts are: Search engine (390), Database (319), Library search page or catalog (202), Research sharing site (149), Publishers' website (126), and Institutional repository or portal (105). The total number of respondents was 450, and users could select all applicable categories. Categories with fewer than 50 responses were not included. For the original report, see Figure 4, page 14 at https://doi.org/10.25333/4xem-xr80 " class="wp-image-15862" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search.png 1224w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search-300x245.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search-1024x835.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Where-users-normally-search-768x626.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1224px) 100vw, 1224px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2024/oa-discovery/open-access-discovery-academic-library-users.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Improving Open Access Discovery for Academic Library Users</a>, Figure 4, p. 14. </figcaption></figure></div> After users navigated their search results and tried to access the digital full text they were seeking, they often faced barriers that had a negative impact on their experience. These barriers included the requirement for payment, unavailability through their library, and the need to log in—three barriers that are directly related to the traditional paywalled access model for scholarly publications.    Publishers should take note that the users’ most common response when hitting the barrier was to seek an OA version of that content. While logging in and accessing the content behind the paywall was a close second, it is significant that users chose to instead pivot to another version of the content. Of course, it’s also worth noting that users were more likely to give up on the content altogether than to ask a librarian for help or find the content in a physical format.  <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken.png"><img decoding="async" width="1224" height="1001" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken.png" alt="Bar chart titled 'Actions Most Likely Taken When Unable To Access Full Text,' showing the count of respondents for different actions. The most common actions are looking for an OA version (276), logging in with credentials (270), and looking on research sharing sites (231). Other actions include giving up (182), contacting the author for a copy (129), asking a librarian for help (96), requesting an interlibrary loan (62), and using a physical or print item (50). The total number of respondents was 423, and users could select multiple actions. Categories with fewer than 50 responses were not included. For the original report, see Figure 10, page 29 at https://doi.org/10.25333/4xem-xr80" class="wp-image-15861" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken.png 1224w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken-300x245.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken-1024x837.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Actions-most-likely-taken-768x628.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1224px) 100vw, 1224px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2024/oa-discovery/open-access-discovery-academic-library-users.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Improving Open Access Discovery for Academic Library Users</a>, Figure 10, p. 29</figcaption></figure> Publishers should support seamless authentication to their paywalled content to not only save the user and librarian time and effort, but to also ensure that the content they host is being used and found of value. Users don’t care about the business model supporting the content. They just want ready access to the content they are seeking. After taking the effort to make content discoverable, publishers need to make those last mile connections possible and support authentication through to their content, regardless of how that content is funded.  <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Trust </h2> This takeaway was highlighted for library staff, but is relevant to publishers as well:   Provide users more guidance about how to evaluate whether a scholarly publication is trustworthy, including reasons why it’s important to consider the journal, publisher, and author’s reputation in addition to whether the publication has been peer-reviewed.   Trustworthiness and reputation are important. Publishers, you know this. Librarians make a choice about what OA content they bring into their collections. They do not just have an open-door policy. If you support the publication and discoverability of high-quality open access content, make sure that you also support the libraries’ collection development processes around OA by following these three recommendations:   Be transparent. Make it easier for your reputation to be evaluated. Avoid marketing language that may sway the evaluator away from your intention. Fill your metadata with all the PIDs, funder information, and peer review information that you possibly can.  Be helpful. The Open Access Discovery report calls on libraries to educate users on how to publish OA as well as offer more holistic instruction on OA, like how “licensing and versioning work throughout the publication lifecycle, what different publishing models mean about how OA publications are created and funded, and how to determine what OA publications are trustworthy” (Improving Open Access Discovery,  31). Support libraries by communicating about your OA efforts more broadly. OA interactions should go beyond negotiating transformative agreements and include information to support user awareness of your OA efforts. This can help foster library-wide conversations around OA and lend credence to your trustworthiness.   Be trustworthy. The need to establish trust is a repeated refrain within this report. Trust is earned and libraries take actions based on this intangible feeling by analyzing tangible actions. By being transparent, providing helpful information, and building trust with library partners, you increase the likelihood of your OA content being readily added to their catalogs.  <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Final thoughts </h2> As publishers, librarians, and discovery partners continue to navigate the evolving landscape of open access, the myriad of publishing models and methods to discover content will continue to strain the sometimes-tenuous bonds between library and publisher. But collaboration remains key. All sides of the story are really just focused on getting the right information to the right user at the right time. Ultimately, improving metadata, streamlining access, and building trust are foundational in ensuring OA content is both discoverable and valued. But how do we measure the impact of these efforts? Usage data plays a crucial role in understanding how OA publications are accessed and utilized. In a follow-up post, we’ll delve into the significance of usage reporting, exploring how better analytics can help publishers and libraries alike make informed decisions that enhance discoverability and engagement.   The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap/">Building connections with publishers to bridge the OA discovery gap </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/building-connections-with-publishers-to-bridge-the-oa-discovery-gap/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Research rewind: reflections on hits from our back catalog</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chela Scott Weber]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Libraries]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Research Library Partnership]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15908</guid> <description><![CDATA[Over the next several months we are taking a look at the OCLC Research oeuvre, highlighting work that has stood the test of time, and discussing why these outputs were influential at the time of publication, and how they remain relevant and important. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog/">Research rewind: reflections on hits from our back catalog</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-full is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gold-Records.jpg"><img decoding="async" width="601" height="474" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gold-Records.jpg" alt="Color photograph of a wall of framed gold and platinum records." class="wp-image-15907" style="width:340px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gold-Records.jpg 601w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Gold-Records-300x237.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 601px) 100vw, 601px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"><a href="https://flic.kr/p/ttFDDk">Wall of Gold & Platinum Sales</a> by prayitnophotography on Flickr </figcaption></figure></div> December and January are always filled with “best of” content – lists of the music, movies, books, and television that captured our attention and won our admiration over the previous year. Well, it’s February now so we’re not going to do that. Instead, over the next several months members of the Research team are taking a retrospective look back at the OCLC Research oeuvre, highlighting work we think has stood the test of time, and discussing why these outputs were influential at the time of publication, and how, in many cases are, they remain relevant and important. I’ve been referring to this as our Greatest Hits project, but really it’s more of a revisit of the OCLC Research back catalog. As any musician who has retained their publishing rights can tell you, there’s deep value in the back catalog. Because it is the tried-and-true jams from the back catalog that we turn to when we need them – to <a href="https://youtu.be/NEvxLjxkEz8?si=PtdVanlTQWq-hD7J">hype yourself up</a>, <a href="https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/1336917771">push through the end of a work day</a>, <a href="https://www.thisamericanlife.org/339/break-up">get through a break-up</a>, <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqHJlrn38WP0KKFSYaDykR64c0dOsEjOC&si=w4mDSKlhDnMXWWYl">clean the house</a>, or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zzZWpBQQvU">have a good cry</a> – and thus that have staying power. Certainly, OCLC Research continues to produce new work, and we are excited about it! But we are proud to have work that stands the test of time and remains useful when people need it. So, we’ll devote some space here to the riches in our own back catalog that deserve reflection. Kate James will kick us off this month with a post about <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2009/metadata-is-the-interface.html">The Metadata IS the Interface: Better Description for Better Discovery of Archives and Special Collections, Synthesized from User Studies</a>. And later we will be revisiting the golden age of report naming at OCLC Research with posts about <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2008/beyond-silos-of-the-lams.html">Beyond the Silos of the LAMs: Collaboration Among Libraries, Archives and Museums</a> and <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2013/2013-03r.html">Tiers for Fears: Sensible, Streamlined Sharing of Special Collections</a>. We have all this and more in store for you. So stay tuned, don’t touch that dial.<a id="_msocom_1"></a> The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog/">Research rewind: reflections on hits from our back catalog</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/research-rewind-reflections-on-hits-from-our-back-catalog/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 4 February 2025</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Merrilee Proffitt]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 18:33:05 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[IDEA]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15916</guid> <description><![CDATA[In this edition: Black History Month and Black librarians; 2025 Day of Remembrance; the facts about book bans. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 4 February 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ The following post is one in a regular <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/tag/IDEA/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">series</a> on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by a team of OCLC contributors. <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="960" height="503" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15917" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image.png 960w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image-300x157.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image-768x402.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 960px) 100vw, 960px" /></a></figure> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Black History Month and Black librarians</h2> In the United States, February is Black History Month, a commemoration that <a href="https://asalh.org/about-us/about-black-history-month/">has roots</a> that go back to 1926 when Dr. Carter G. Woodson first established “Negro History Week” aligned with the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Many libraries and other cultural heritage institutions mark the month with events, a special focus on book and other collections, and more. The <a href="https://asalh.org/black-history-themes/">theme</a> for Black History Month in 2025 is “African Americans and Labor,” and in keeping with that theme a <a href="https://oc.lc/4bfUG4v">WorldCat.org list</a> focusing on the “History of African American Librarians” caught my eye. This list features not only books but articles, audio recordings, archival collections, and images. There is so much to learn and appreciate about the contributions of Black librarians, and this list is just a starting point. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/proffitt-merrilee.html">Merrilee Proffitt</a>. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">2025 Day of Remembrance</h2> On 19 February 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the removal of Americans of Japanese ancestry from Washington, Oregon, and California. 120,000 people were forcibly moved to one of ten concentration camps. Each February this event is observed as a Day of Remembrance as a way of reflecting on the experience of incarceration and its multi-generational impacts, as well as the importance of protecting civil liberties for all. The website of the <a href="https://jacl.org/day-of-remembrance">Japanese American Citizen League</a> lists many planned events for sharing and commemoration. Growing up in California, the remains of remote and desolate concentration camps and former “assembly centers” (mostly racetracks and fairgrounds) were physical reminders of the experiences of those who had been displaced. Stories of those who had been incarcerated were part of my childhood as well, but it is only more recently that these memories have been shared more openly. An upcoming <a href="https://www.janm.org/events/2025-02-18/ireicho-washington-dc-2025-day-remembrance">event</a> on 18 February at the US National Archives and Records Administration will help kick off the tour of the <a href="https://ireizo.org/ireicho/">Ireichō</a>, a book that lists the over 125,000 persons who were incarcerated. <a href="https://www.janm.org/exhibits/ireicho/venues">The tour</a> will include events at major incarceration sites and will allow many people to interact and engage with the book as part of a learning and healing experience. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/proffitt-merrilee.html">Merrilee Proffitt</a>. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The facts about book bans</h2> On 26 January, the <a href="http://www.ala.org/">American Library Association</a> issued a response to the US Department of Education’s assertions that book bans have been a “hoax” in an article entitled “<a href="https://www.ala.org/news/2025/01/book-bans-are-real?_zs=plxig1&_zl=rgF3A">ALA to U.S. Department of Education: Book bans are real</a>.” Citing the data that ALA has compiled, <a href="https://www.ala.org/bbooks/censorship-numbers">Censorship by the Numbers</a> breaks down some 1,247 censorship demands during 2023, by the target (including books, displays, programs, and films), by the source (such as patrons, parents, pressure groups, and elected officials), and by the type of library or institution. The book ban conversation is nothing new, and has been covered in many previous issues of IDEAs. But it is not just ALA that is covering this issue and giving resources. On 27 January, the free weekly online newsletter <a href="https://www.shelf-awareness.com/issue.html?issue=4895&utm_source=Choice+eNewsletter+signup&utm_campaign=8209db3d51-TIE+NEWSLETTER_012925&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7ef534065e-8209db3d51-538953085#m66396">Shelf Awareness</a> commented on the Department of Education’s actions, folding in responses from <a href="https://pen.org/press-release/pen-america-criticizes-alarming-and-dismissive-language-on-book-bans-by-u-s-education-department/">PEN America</a> and <a href="https://www.authorsagainstbookbans.com/authors-against-book-bans-response-to-the-department-of-educations-statement-supporting-book-bans-in-american-schools/">Authors Against Book Bans</a>. Contributed by Jay Weitz.The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 4 February 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-4-february-2025/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>ILL across borders: Insights from SHARES on sharing physical materials internationally</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Massie]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:41:01 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Research Library Partnership]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Resource Sharing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[SHARES]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15808</guid> <description><![CDATA[In the face of ever-rising costs, customs hurdles, and logistical headaches, the SHARES community came together to tackle the enduring challenges of international interlibrary loan—proving once again that uncertainty is best met with collaboration, creativity, and a little ILL magic. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally/">ILL across borders: Insights from SHARES on sharing physical materials internationally</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="724" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920-1024x724.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-15812" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920-1024x724.jpg 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920-300x212.jpg 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920-768x543.jpg 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920-1536x1086.jpg 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/flags-69190_1920.jpg 1920w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Image from <a href="https://pixabay.com/illustrations/flags-countries-states-world-69190/">Pixabay</a></figcaption></figure> In March 2020, in the early days of the pandemic, members of the SHARES resource sharing consortium started gathering weekly for informal virtual town halls. This week, nearly five years later, we convened our 238th SHARES town hall, with 30 attendees and no preset agenda. The sense of community that has developed around these sessions has been described by participants as welcoming, innovative, and fun — an ideal environment where staff from the most outward-facing department in the library can bond with peers, collaborate, teach, learn, and flourish. Previously, I’ve shared some significant, tangible outcomes from the town halls, such as the creation of the <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/the-international-ill-toolkit-a-classic-community-working-together-story/">International ILL Toolkit</a> by SHARES volunteers and a crowd-sourced set of <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/managing-interlibrary-loan-returns-and-overdues-during-the-pandemic-emerging-consensus-from-the-shares-resource-sharing-consortium/">preferred practices</a> around processing interlibrary loan returns and overdues. This time let’s explore the value of coming together within a trusted community to address a long-standing challenge that stubbornly resists definitive solutions. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Sharing physical library materials across borders</h2> Interlending library books and other physical formats internationally has always been fraught, and the obstacles to sharing across borders have stayed pretty much the same since I started working in ILL in 1983: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Ever-rising shipping costs</li> <li>Ineffective shipment tracking</li> <li>Customs complications</li> <li>Increased risk to the material</li> <li>Difficulty in identifying willing lenders</li> <li>Language issues, complicating communications</li> <li>Lack of effective, universally available payment options</li> <li>Lengthy, unpredictable request lifecycle</li> <li>Negative impact on the environment</li> </ul> Over the years, every step forward in international sharing—such as the development of the International ILL Toolkit, which compiles vetted contact and policy information on international suppliers along with request templates in over a dozen languages—has been tempered with a significant step back, like the new customs rules for all European Union countries which are erratically enforced. The challenges remain as persistent as ever. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The community came together to pool uncertainties, share strategies, and identify preferred practices</h2> SHARES’s governing body, the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/activities/shares/workgroups.html#execgroup">SHARES Executive Group</a> (SEG), noticed that international ILL issues had been coming up constantly in town halls throughout 2024 and launched a suite of interrelated activities: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Facilitated two special town halls in November 2024 devoted to discussing borrowing and lending physical items across borders, inviting SHARES members to come ready to share their challenges, successes, and questions</li> <li>Prepared a statistical analysis comparing SHARES international ILL activity in 2023 and 2024</li> <li>Gathered and shared information on current international shipping practices, issues, and aspirations from SHARES participants </li> <li>Drafted a new international ILL section that will soon be added to the SHARES Procedures Web page, documenting preferred practices and mitigation strategies</li> </ul> Top insights gleaned from these activities include: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Over 60% of SHARES libraries loaned a returnable item overseas in 2024, same as in 2023 (Note: 25 years ago, only 10% of SHARES libraries loaned returnable items overseas)</li> <li>Overseas shipping expenses when using carriers such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL have skyrocketed, with reports of $70 charges for one book not uncommon, but these carriers usually do well getting things through customs</li> <li>US Postal Service and Royal Mail are cheaper but offer poor tracking capabilities overseas</li> <li>Customs processing is the biggest wildcard, especially in European Union countries; you can do everything correctly and still have your package get stuck in customs, incurring delays and extra fees and in some cases resulting in items being returned to the sender undelivered</li> <li>ILL practitioners all over the world recognize the value in sharing research materials across borders and tend to be extremely patient and helpful in sorting out difficulties</li> </ul> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Biggest tip of all: mitigate</h2> Given the extra expense and risk of sharing physical items across borders, town hall participants strongly agreed: libraries should implement mitigation strategies to ensure that such items aren’t requested from international suppliers unless it’s the only way to fulfill the patron’s information need. Borrowers should: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Exhaust all domestic ILL sources before requesting physical items internationally</li> <li>Ask patrons if having the entire work in hand is critical, or if a scan of the index or table of contents might be a workable first step in identifying what portions of the work should be copied to fulfill their request</li> <li>If the entire work is needed, make sure the patron is willing to wait for the needed item to arrive from another country before you request it</li> <li>Consider purchasing an in-print title for your collection and user as this may be cheaper than paying the lending fee and shipping costs for an international loan (and allow you to be a new domestic lender for the title!)</li> </ul> Lenders should: <ul id="block-5a9bdabe-2d05-4822-ac38-97eea88476b9" class="wp-block-list"> <li>Provide a digital surrogate when licensing and copyright permit</li> <li>Offer to scan tables of contents or indexes of works you are unable or unwilling to ship</li> </ul> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Uncertainty loves company</h2> The SHARES community certainly didn’t solve all the vexing issues around sharing physical items across borders. But we shared plenty of tips, tricks, and data, reached consensus on preferred practices, affirmed the immense value of connecting library patrons with the global research materials they need, and supported each other in our shared calling of making ILL magic happen. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally/">ILL across borders: Insights from SHARES on sharing physical materials internationally</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/ill-across-borders-insights-from-shares-on-sharing-physical-materials-internationally/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Collective collections through collective wisdom </title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian Lavoie]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 20:05:16 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Collective Collections]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15824</guid> <description><![CDATA[Collective collections are strengthened through aggregated data and shared practitioner knowledge. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom/">Collective collections through collective wisdom </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignleft size-full is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Alt_Mark.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="722" height="753" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Alt_Mark.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15826" style="width:243px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Alt_Mark.png 722w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Alt_Mark-288x300.png 288w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 722px) 100vw, 722px" /></a></figure></div> Collective collections—the combined holdings of multiple institutions, analyzed and sometimes even managed as a single resource—have transformed both the stewardship and impact of library collections. OCLC Research’s latest work in this field highlights a key insight into operationalizing collections at scale: collective wisdom, in the form of aggregated data and shared practitioner knowledge, makes collective collections work. Our research shows that collective wisdom in these forms supports the sustainability and strategic management of shared monographic print collections.  OCLC Research has a long history of studies focused on collective collection analysis. The scope of this work is extensive, touching on the intersection of collective collections with a host of library strategic interests. A frequent topic addressed in this work is the role of collective collections in the cooperative management of monographic print collections – shared print programs. In a <a href="https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/24618">2020 College & Research Libraries article</a> summarizing some of our insights, we note that collective collection analysis supports local decision-making by making it system-aware:  “The system can be a group, a consortium, a region, or even all libraries everywhere. Knowledge about the collective collection helps libraries orient their local collection management decisions—such as acquisitions, retention, and de-accessioning—within a broader context. In this sense, the rising importance of collective collections illuminates a shift in the strategy of managing collections, in which local collections are seen not just as assemblies of materials for local use, but also as pieces of a larger systemwide resource.”  <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="aligncenter size-large is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="576" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection-1024x576.png" alt="A selection of collective collection studies from OCLC Research" class="wp-image-15835" style="width:392px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection-1024x576.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection-300x169.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection-768x432.png 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Collage-collective-collection.png 1300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a></figure></div> Much of the earlier work OCLC Research has done on collective collections has been of a descriptive nature, concentrating on what collective collections constructed in data look like in terms of size and scope. More recently, our emphasis has shifted to operationalizing collective collections: in other words, the practical aspects of making them a reality. For example, a few years ago we collaborated with the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) to publish <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2019/oclcresearch-operationalizing-the-BIG-collective-collection.html">a study that offered a framework and recommendations</a> on how BTAA could move toward greater coordination of their collective print holdings. Some of our most recent work looks at <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/library-collaboration-research/art-research-collective-collection.html">how art libraries could use collaborative approaches</a> to better support the stewardship and sustainability of their collective art research holdings. Our research complements a similar OCLC service focus on operationalizing collective collections. Choreo Insights and GreenGlass offer analytics solutions that, among other things, provide “system aware” decision support for managing collections. WorldCat, OCLC’s vast database of information about library collections, serves as a platform for libraries to register retention commitments for materials covered by shared print programs. Resource Sharing for Groups allows groups of libraries to streamline sharing of materials within their collective holdings. These services help bring collective collections to life as a core element of collection management strategy.  <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-large is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="449" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1-1024x449.png" alt="Stewarding the Collective Collection " class="wp-image-15827" style="width:333px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1-1024x449.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1-300x131.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1-768x336.png 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/217413_StewardingCollectiveCollection_Main_Stacked-1.png 1500w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a></figure></div> Our latest research continues the theme of operationalizing collective collections with the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/systemwide-library/stewarding-collective-collection.html">Stewarding the Collective Collection project</a>. This project extends OCLC Research’s considerable body of work on the role of collective collections in shared print programs<s>,</s> through two strands of inquiry:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>An Analysis of Print Retention Data in the US and Canada explores monographic print retentions registered in OCLC’s WorldCat database. This study analyzes over 100 million bibliographic records and 30 million retention commitment records covering libraries across the United States and Canada. </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>US and Canadian Perspectives on Workflows, Data, and Tools for Shared Print gathers insights from library leaders, shared print program managers, and collection, metadata, and resource sharing librarians on the key workflows associated with managing monographic shared print efforts, and the data and tools needed to support them.  </li> </ul> The results from the first strand of work were <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/systemwide-library/stewarding-collective-collection/Stewarding-collective-collection-data-analysis.html">recently published</a>. Findings from the second strand of work will be shared later this year.  The grand theme uniting both strands of the Stewarding the Collective Collection project is collective wisdom, achieved through two approaches:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Aggregated data </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Insights and perspectives from librarians </li> </ul> Aggregated data  Aggregated data is collective wisdom in the sense that it gathers the results of decentralized, local library decision-making, transforming it into strategic intelligence that informs future decision-making by individual libraries or groups of libraries. For example, library holdings data represents the results of acquisition/collection development decisions; similarly, the assignment of subject headings in original cataloging represents a local decision on how to describe an item’s contents. Aggregating holdings data from many libraries yields strategic intelligence by illuminating the contours and features of the collective collection, which in turn can inform both local and group-scale collection management strategies. Aggregating subject headings data in a cooperative cataloging environment can also yield strategic intelligence—for example, uncovering historical trends in descriptive practices that would benefit from new, more inclusive thinking.  Retention commitments data reflect another form of library decision-making—in this case, the decision to commit to steward a print publication, and (usually) make a copy or copies of the publication available for sharing. This commitment may be in effect for a finite period of time, or it may extend indefinitely. Often, these commitments are made in the context of a shared print program, leading to the creation of a shared print collection consisting of materials covered by retention commitments made by the program’s participants. The aggregation of retention commitments, such as those registered in the WorldCat database, provides valuable intelligence on the current state of stewardship of the collective print collection, including retention coverage, key gaps, and unnecessary duplication evident across current commitment patterns. This intelligence, in turn, can inform future decision-making on the renewal of existing commitments, or the creation of new ones. <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-full is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scc_report1-1.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="612" height="756" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scc_report1-1.jpg" alt="Stewarding the Collective Collection: An Analysis of Print Retention Data in the US and Canada (OCLC Report)" class="wp-image-15850" style="width:209px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scc_report1-1.jpg 612w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scc_report1-1-243x300.jpg 243w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 612px) 100vw, 612px" /></a></figure></div> The gathering of collective wisdom through analysis of aggregated retention data is the topic of OCLC Research’s new study, <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/systemwide-library/stewarding-collective-collection/Stewarding-collective-collection-data-analysis.html">Stewarding the Collective Collection: An Analysis of Print Retention Data in the US and Canada</a>. Exploring the retention commitments attached to the US and Canadian collective print monograph collection, as it is represented in WorldCat, led to findings that provide insight into the current state of retention coverage, as well as priorities for the shared print community to address in the near future, such as the imminent expiration of a significant fraction of current retention commitments. Insight and perspective  Insight and perspective are perhaps more conventional types of collective wisdom, in that they draw from and aggregate the “personal wisdom” of individuals—in this case, librarians who have shared their experiences and hard-earned lessons learned from participating in some activity. This knowledge is invaluable for other librarians facing similar scenarios and challenges as they formulate their own decision-making. For example, recent work by OCLC Research gathered and synthesized library experiences in collaborative partnerships, in the areas of <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2023/rdm-collaboration/rdm-library-collaboration-case-studies.html">research data management</a> and <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2023/sustaining-art-research/sustaining-art-research-collections-case-studies.html">stewarding art research collections</a>. As we note in one of these studies:  “Our interview-based approach elicited a wealth of invaluable perspectives, insights, and advice on library collaboration that we synthesized into a set of recommendations for libraries contemplating future collaborations. . . . Effective library collaboration is art as much as science. While concepts, frameworks, and theory are important for deepening our understanding of what makes collaborations successful and sustainable, we believe that sharing practical experiences of successful collaboration is also essential.”  We followed a similar approach for Stewarding the Collective Collection’s second strand of work, which explores workflows, data, and tools used to manage shared print collections for monographic materials. Questions addressed in the project include:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>What are the key workflows supporting stewardship of shared print monograph collections? </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>What data and tools are currently used to support these workflows? </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>What gaps in data, tools, or other resources exist, and how might addressing these gaps open new opportunities for collective stewardship of print collections? </li> </ul> To answer these questions, we gathered “collective wisdom” through individual and focus group interviews, as well as an online survey. We are in the process of analyzing and synthesizing this data, and we’ll be disseminating our findings through a variety of channels. Our hope is that these findings will provide libraries with a benchmark view of the current state of practice surrounding shared print workflows, data, and tools; help optimize practices having to do with collection evaluation and coordinated collection stewardship, both at the local and group level; and consolidate community views on data and functionality needs and priorities in the area of monographic shared print.  Collective wisdom drives conscious coordination  OCLC supports the gathering of collective wisdom and its transformation into strategic intelligence for libraries through a wide range of channels. Tools like Choreo and GreenGlass are one approach. Another is OCLC Research, which gathers collective wisdom through data-driven studies like its WorldCat-based collective collection analyses, but also through studies that collect and synthesize the perspectives and lessons learned from library practitioners. Many of these studies have been conducted under the auspices of the OCLC Research Library Partnership, which is itself a channel for assembling collective wisdom through its mission of bringing research libraries together around mutual interests.  Gathering collective wisdom through these and other channels is important because it informs stewardship of collective collections, which is itself a leading example of conscious coordination. <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/publications/2015/oclcresearch-esr-stewardship-2015.html">Conscious coordination is a concept OCLC Research introduced in a 2015 report</a>, where it is defined as “a strategy of deliberate engagement with—and growing dependence on—cooperative agreements, characterized by increased reliance on network intelligence (e.g., domain models, identifiers, ontologies, metadata) and global data networks.” Stewardship strategies based on conscious coordination are marked by four key features:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Local decisions about stewardship are taken with a broader awareness of the system-wide stewardship context—who is collecting what, what commitments have been made elsewhere in terms of stewarding various portions of the scholarly record, and how the local collection fits into the broader system-wide stewardship effort. </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Declarations of explicit commitments are made in regard to portions of the local collection, in which institutions acknowledge, accept, and undertake to fulfill explicit collecting, curation, and accessibility responsibilities for certain materials. Fulfillment of these responsibilities is seen as a commitment to an external stakeholder community. </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>A formal division of labor emerges within cooperative arrangements, with a greater emphasis on specialization. This will occur in the context of a broader, cross-institutional cooperative arrangement in which different institutions specialize in collecting, curating, and making available different portions of the scholarly record.  </li> </ul> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>More specialization in collecting activity must be accompanied by robust resource sharing arrangements that ensure relatively frictionless access to all parts of the collective collection, providing mutual assurance that materials collected by one institution will be made available to other partners, and vice versa. </li> </ul> Conscious coordination, as a strategy for managing collections and stewarding the scholarly record, underscores the importance of effective collaboration to meet shared objectives, as well as data-driven intelligence to fuel understanding of collective collections and how best to build, manage, and sustain them. In other words, it amplifies the need for collective wisdom—in the form of both aggregated data and collective insight and perspective—to inform decision-making and strengthen partnerships.  Turning collective wisdom into collective impact  Collective wisdom, in the form of aggregated data and insights from librarians’ experiences, are vital sources of intelligence that can help build and sustain shared print efforts and other types of collective collections. The Stewarding the Collective Collection project taps into the collective wisdom of the library community in the service of strengthening and sustaining shared print programs, and ultimately, amplifying the impact of both past and future investment in the collective print resource. Watch for more findings from this project throughout 2025! Thanks to my colleagues on the Stewarding the Collective Collections project – Inkyung Choi, Lynn Connaway, Lesley Langa, and Mercy Procaccini – for their comments on a draft of this post. Special thanks to Erica Melko for her usual editorial magic! The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom/">Collective collections through collective wisdom </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/collective-collections-through-collective-wisdom/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 21 January 2025</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Merrilee Proffitt]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:40:49 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[IDEA]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15819</guid> <description><![CDATA[In this edition: Best Practices for Queer Metadata; Libraries, Integration, and New Americans Project; Safe Routes and StoryWalk® blend together at the DC Public Library. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 21 January 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ The following post is one in a regular <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/tag/IDEA/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">series</a> on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by a team of OCLC contributors. <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignleft size-large is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-scaled.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="683" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-1024x683.jpg" alt="Sign in shop window printed on burlap fabric: "Come in, we're open and awesome"." class="wp-image-15818" style="width:353px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-300x200.jpg 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-768x512.jpg 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/jennifer-bonauer-6dRjp9oRxuU-unsplash-2048x1365.jpg 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@blondinator92?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Jennifer Bonauer</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/people-inside-building-with-come-in-were-open-and-awesome-sign-6dRjp9oRxuU?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a></figcaption></figure></div> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Queer metadata presentation at the OCLC Cataloging Community Meeting</h3> Bri Watson and Chloe Misorski will discuss the <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/12745720">Best Practices for Queer Metadata</a> at the 12 February 2025 virtual OCLC Cataloging Community Meeting. Watson and Misorski are members of the Queer Metadata Collective (QMDC), which consists of catalogers, librarians, archivists, scholars, and information professionals. Their best practices document covers the metadata treatment of queer people in Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums, and Special Collections (GLAMS). The best practices cover many aspects of metadata, including subject headings, name authority records, and description used in finding aids, exhibit labels, and other places. This presentation will be featured in the first hour of the event, which is a DEI panel. Other parts of the presentation will feature OCLC staff discussing topics related to our cataloging products and services. The Best Practices for Queer Metadata was released in June 2024. I have seen other excellent metadata best practices documents before, but this one is particularly impressive to me both because of the variety of metadata covered and types of institutions represented in the QMDC. I look forward to attending this presentation both to learn more about the document itself and how this diverse group was formed. Register <a href="https://www.oclc.org/en/events/2025/cataloging-community-meeting-february2025.html">here</a> to attend this free event or receive a link to the recording afterwards. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/james-kate.html">Kate James</a>. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Libraries, Integration, and New Americans Project</h3> <a href="https://lina.ischool.umd.edu/">Libraries, Integration, and New Americans</a> (LINA) is a three-year research project of the University of Maryland (OCLC symbol: UMC) College of Information (OCLC symbol: MDX), funded in part by the Institute of Library and Museum Services (IMLS). The LINA Project examines the approaches that immigrants take toward information behavior in the complicated United States environment and suggests ways for libraries to better engage with immigrant communities. Since February 2024, LINA has been publishing a monthly “<a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cjKqjJmz56VslMgJJ2fAyUI5oteqnE8f?usp=sharing">Policy & Media Digest</a>,” keeping track of changes to U.S. policies, news items, recent publications, and a summary of U.S. regional developments. The January 2025 “<a href="https://www.canva.com/design/DAGaalTDGWE/cvh1I9Tg_2hoedRBN-Mprw/view?utm_content=DAGaalTDGWE&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=uniquelinks&utlId=h1c7d42f01f#1">Digest</a>” is now available. In these rapidly changing times, it is astonishing how much vital and current information the LINA Project stuffs into a single two-sided (virtual) sheet. Each issue of the “Digest” features an interactive map that gives access to state-by-state statistics, resources, and other data from authoritative sources. The project website contains toolkits and other resources that help any library provide improved services to its communities of new Americans, as well as the means for library workers to sign up for its discussion list. Contributed by Jay Weitz. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Safe Routes and StoryWalk® blend together at the DC Public Library</h3> Two branches of the District of Columbia Public Library (OCLC Symbol: DWP) have implemented a mash up of Safe Routes and StoryWalk® an effort described in an engaging online report, “ <a href="https://new.express.adobe.com/webpage/xiMum5lyreb64">Safe Routes StoryWalk</a>”. The report shares details about the program design and implementation, as well as colorful illustrative images. The libraries were able to pilot their work through a grant from the District of Columbia Highway Safety Office. “To our knowledge,” the report says, the Safe Routes StoryWalk® project is the first of its kind.” The <a href="https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/">Safe Routes to School program</a> was created in 2005 and has been implemented in all 50 US states supported by federal and state funding. The program was based on the need to support all community members in safety but with recognition there was a need to target specific groups, “especially low-income communities, communities of color, and rural communities, where it is hard for anyone to safely and conveniently walk, bicycle, or get physical activity.” <a href="https://kellogghubbard.org/programs-events/storywalk/">StoryWalk®</a> was created in 2007 by Anne Ferguson of Montpelier, Vermont, in collaboration with former staff member Rachel Senechal, and is a registered service mark of the Kellogg-Hubbard Library. Like the Safe Routes project, StoryWalk® encourages movement and uses visual engagement outdoors to draw people to the library. Safe Routes StoryWalk® installations at DCPL Benning Library in Ward 7 and Bellevue Library in Ward 8 target the Wards’ predominantly Black neighborhoods which according to data are disproportionately impacted by traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Bringing these two programs together to increase safety and draw families to the library is just one example of how public libraries can work creatively to serve multifaceted community needs around literacy, movement, inclusion, and public safety. For more ideas on how libraries can work in this area, check out this WebJunction webinar: <a href="_wp_link_placeholder" data-wplink-edit="true">One Step at a Time: How Libraries Can Promote Healthy, Thriving, and Livable Communities</a>. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/proffitt-merrilee.html">Merrilee Proffitt</a>. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 21 January 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-21-january-2025/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 7 January 2025</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Merrilee Proffitt]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 22:35:40 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[IDEA]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15802</guid> <description><![CDATA[In this edition: IFLA guidelines for serving displaced persons; standing up for US libraries; Binghamton University honored for work in diversity and inclusion. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 7 January 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ The following post is one in a regular <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/tag/IDEA/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">series</a> on issues of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, compiled by a team of OCLC contributors. <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="626" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-1024x626.jpg" alt="Silhouettes of flying birds against an orange sky." class="wp-image-15801" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-1024x626.jpg 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-300x184.jpg 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-768x470.jpg 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-1536x940.jpg 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/barth-bailey-p72K-AvJrbQ-unsplash-2048x1253.jpg 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@7bbbailey?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Barth Bailey</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/birds-during-golden-hour-p72K-AvJrbQ?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a></figcaption></figure> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">New IFLA guidelines for serving displaced persons</h2> The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) recently published the <a href="https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/3696">IFLA Guidelines for Libraries Supporting Displaced Persons: Refugees, Migrants, Immigrants, Asylum seekers</a> to provide practical guidance for libraries supporting these groups. The guidelines define displaced persons as “persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence (whether in their own country or across an international border), in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised violence, and human rights violations or natural/human-made disasters. In the context of these guidelines, we refer as a whole to all these different groups: asylum seekers, immigrants, migrants, and refugees.” The guidelines cover services and programs for users, policies, staff training, and other topics. As these are broadly written for international use, libraries would use the guidelines as a starting point in the formation of their own policies and practices. There is clearly a need for this type of publication as there were over <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023">117 million people forcibly displaced in 2023</a>. There are many helpful recommendations including offering a working space to humanitarian organizations inside the library and creating pop-up library spots inside refugee camps and asylum centers. I wish the authors had explicitly acknowledged the differences between voluntary migration and displacement which is an involuntary migration caused by horrible conditions in the place people are leaving. While cultural and language differences may impact many immigrants and migrants, those who have been forcibly displaced are more likely to have additional disadvantages and special needs because of their displacement. Libraries are better able to serve displaced persons when staff understand the differences between these migration situations. I am guessing the authors of the publication chose to use the term “displaced persons” because it is not a legal term and many who do not legally qualify as refugees may have fled violence or extreme poverty and suffered terribly. I believe libraries will find this publication useful if they are mindful of these situational differences when reading the guidelines and reviewing resources cited in the bibliography. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/james-kate.html">Kate James</a>. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Standing up for US libraries in a new era</h2> All of us who treasure libraries and value the roles they play in a free and democratic society have been wondering how to prepare for the 119th United States Congress and the 47th President of the United States. On 15 January 2025 at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, the American Library Association Public Policy and Advocacy Office will offer “<a href="https://elearning.ala.org/local/catalog/view/product.php?productid=1428&_zs=plxig1&_zl=6nx0A">Standing Up for Libraries: The Next 100 Days</a>,” a webinar that is free for all ALA members. Although attendance is limited to 1000, a recording of the session will be available to ALA members through 30 January. ALA promises to “offer tangible steps for library advocates moving forward and preview upcoming legislation and litigation that will impact the library field.” Since 1945, the Public Policy and Advocacy Office has been the voice of libraries speaking to the government of the United States and keeping libraries and their advocates informed about government policies and actions. The office has been instrumental in furthering the interests of libraries and users in the realms of privacy, funding, copyright, government information, education, and related areas. Keeping informed and promoting library values remains as important as ever. Contributed by Jay Weitz. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Binghamton University Libraries honored for work in inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility</h2> Binghamton University Libraries was <a href="https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/5254/libraries-receive-diversity-equity-inclusion-honor">honored with the 2024 South Central Regional Library Council Prism Award</a>, which honors library workers or organizations for work in advancing for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice and Accessibility. This work includes implementing structural changes, actively becoming antiracist or reimagining policies to be inclusive. Binghamton Libraries have sustained several initiatives, ranging from fostering the library as a safe and inclusive space and place to diversifying collections. Binghamton University was one of a number of OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions we interviewed in order <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/casting-a-different-net-diversifying-print-monograph-collecting-in-research-libraries/">to better understand how research libraries are approaching diversifying collections</a>. It is great to see their work—which has been ongoing for some time—acknowledged in this way. Contributed by <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/proffitt-merrilee.html">Merrilee Proffitt</a>. <a id="_msocom_1"></a> The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025/">Advancing IDEAs: Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility, 7 January 2025</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/advancing-ideas-inclusion-diversity-equity-accessibility-7-january-2025/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Examining library structures to scale research support services: Insights from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable  </title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable</link> <comments>https://hangingtogether.org/examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Rebecca Bryant]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2025 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Research Library Partnership]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Research support]]></category> <category><![CDATA[research support roundtables]]></category> <category><![CDATA[RLP-roundtables]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15583</guid> <description><![CDATA[Reflections from a roundtable discussion on the challenges research libraries face in resourcing and scaling research support services--and implications for library organizational structures. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable/">Examining library structures to scale research support services: Insights from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable  </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ The following post is part of a <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/tag/RLP-roundtables/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">series</a> that documents findings from the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership/engagement/rlp-leadership-roundtables.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RLP leadership roundtable discussions</a>. Research libraries are experiencing increasing demand for research support services, such as open research and data management, <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/library-support-for-bibliometrics-and-research-impact-insights-from-an-rlp-leadership-roundtable/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">research analytics</a>, and systematic reviews, often <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/cross-campus-collaboration-in-research-support-insights-from-an-rlp-leadership-roundtable/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">in collaboration with other campus partners</a>. This presents significant challenges for effectively resourcing and scaling these services. <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-full is-resized"><a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership.html"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="330" height="155" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RLP-Logo-RGB-2.png" alt="RLG logo" class="wp-image-15720" style="width:253px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RLP-Logo-RGB-2.png 330w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RLP-Logo-RGB-2-300x141.png 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 330px) 100vw, 330px" /></a></figure></div> The <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP)</a> convened the Research Support Leadership Roundtable in October 2024 to discuss how libraries are making both incremental and large-scale changes to scale and resource their research support services. The roundtable included 45 participants from 37 institutions in four countries, who engaged in four separate discussions focused on the evolving landscape of research support: <figure class="wp-block-table"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Binghamton University</td><td>Smithsonian Institution</td><td>University of Nevada, Reno</td></tr><tr><td>British Library</td><td>Stony Brook University</td><td>University of Pittsburgh</td></tr><tr><td>Carnegie Mellon University</td><td>Syracuse University</td><td>University of Southern California</td></tr><tr><td>Clemson University</td><td>Temple University</td><td>University of Sydney</td></tr><tr><td>Colorado State University</td><td>Tufts University</td><td>University of Tennessee, Knoxville</td></tr><tr><td>George Washington University</td><td>University of Calgary</td><td>University of Texas at Austin</td></tr><tr><td>Getty Research Institute</td><td>University of California, Riverside</td><td>University of Toronto</td></tr><tr><td>Hofstra University</td><td>University of California, San Diego</td><td>University of Utah</td></tr><tr><td>Institute for Advanced Study</td><td>University of Delaware</td><td>University of Warwick</td></tr><tr><td>Monash University</td><td>University of Glasgow</td><td>Vanderbilt University</td></tr><tr><td>Montana State University</td><td>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</td><td>Virginia Tech</td></tr><tr><td>Ohio State University</td><td>University of Leeds</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rutgers University</td><td>University of Minnesota</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table></figure> Our conversations focused on library organization and staffing, and participants were asked to consider these framing questions: <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Briefly describe how research support services are currently staffed and provisioned in your library. (For example, is support provided by subject liaisons? Librarians in functional roles? A combination of the two? Other?)</li> <li>If there are challenges with the configuration, describe these. Where do you most need to grow?</li> <li>If you are examining changing operational structures, please describe. Are there models you are considering emulating? Why?</li> </ol> This post offers a synthesis of our discussions. <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership/engagement/rlp-leadership-roundtables.html">RLP leadership roundtables</a> observe the Chatham House Rule; no specific comments are attributed to any individual or institution. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">RLP libraries are innovating with library structures to scale research support</h2> Resourcing research support services at an adequate level is a universal pain point among RLP libraries. What differs is how libraries have organized their staffing and services to meet these needs, and we heard from RLP libraries that are structured across a spectrum of organizational configurations. At one end of that spectrum are libraries that rely primarily upon a decentralized cadre of subject liaisons to deliver research support. Liaisons provide a direct contact for users, roughly in parallel with the academic organization of the university. While most RLP institutions participating in the discussion rely on liaison librarians for some degree of research support, only a couple of institutions reported relying primarily upon liaisons to provide research support. And these libraries anticipate reconfiguration toward a mixed model as vacancies occur. At the other end of the continuum are libraries that deploy a centralized functional model. Here, service-oriented teams manage library tasks—such as research data curation, copyright consulting, or collection development—across all disciplines, rather than assigning multiple responsibilities to individuals within a single subject area. Duane Wilson notes in a recent historical literature review that since 2011, more libraries have moved to this model, with librarians focusing on specialized functions, such as collection development, scholarly communication, and research impact.<a id="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Indeed, 6 of 36 university libraries in the US, UK, and Australia participating in the roundtable have shifted to a functional model. Most libraries participating in the discussion, however, fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, with approximately two-thirds of institutions deploying a combination of these strategies. Library scholar Sheila Corrall has called this a “mixed structure,” with a combination of functional librarians supporting services like scholarly communications and data curation, and liaison libraries supporting one or more disciplinary areas.<a id="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> The growth of specialized research support services—such as scholarly communication, data management, and research impact—has further driven this shift, creating increasingly mixed or matrixed approaches to service delivery. <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="aligncenter size-full is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Spectrum-2.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="706" height="313" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Spectrum-2.jpg" alt="Graph showing a range of structures from decentralized subject liaisons to mixed structure to functional teams. " class="wp-image-15743" style="width:618px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Spectrum-2.jpg 706w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Spectrum-2-300x133.jpg 300w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 706px) 100vw, 706px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Research libraries organize research support across a spectrum of organizational configurations</figcaption></figure></div> Roundtable discussions revealed that many RLP libraries are experimenting with organizational structures to increase capacity for research support. While a few institutions have eliminated legacy liaison roles altogether, most are being “reorganised around the edges instead of completely discarding their old structure and beginning anew.”<a id="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"> Many RLP libraries are experimenting with organizational structures to increase capacity for research support </blockquote> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Most libraries use a mixed structure of liaison and functional roles</h2> Overall, roundtable participants expressed differing opinions about their continued use of a mixed organizational structure heavily reliant upon distributed subject liaisons. Many value how the liaison model supports collections-focused research and personalized support to faculty and students. But others expressed frustration with “historical positions” offering bespoke services that are neither scalable nor strategic. One public US university library described its research support services as having developed in an ad hoc manner, resulting in a mixed structure. While this decentralized environment has encouraged innovation and experimentation, the participant noted it was “neither coordinated nor strategic.” Recognizing the unsustainability of this arrangement, the library is reorganizing, with the intention of better addressing under-supported areas like research services. To scale within the existing liaison framework, several libraries are experimenting with team-based approaches. A private US institution, for example, organized its subject liaisons into functional teams like research impact and data services, but with mixed results. While each librarian has deepened their expertise by focusing on a specific functional service area, librarians struggled to do “double duty,” balancing functional responsibilities with subject expertise and networks—a challenge worsened by shrinking professional development budgets. Another public US institution tried a similar staffing configuration but found it unsuccessful, ultimately reorganizing liaison librarians into fully functional roles. Two other institutions are currently testing similar strategies. Several participants expressed disappointment with their library’s inability to scale research support services using the mixed model but see near term change as unlikely, due to a “lack of political will.” But another participant sees this matrixed structure “mostly working” to scale research support, as subject liaisons support a “middle zone” of service in an area like research data management, reserving the most specialized work for the dedicated RDM librarians. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits and challenges of a mixed organizational structure</h3> Peppered throughout our roundtable discussions were many comments about the benefits and challenges of the mixed organizational structure. Often, things that many perceived as benefits simultaneously present challenges. <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits</h4> <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Highly personalized services. Liaison librarians provide customized support, cultivating strong relationships with faculty and students.</li> <li>Library visibility in academic units. Subject liaisons work closely with colleges and departments and are well-informed about faculty activities.  </li> <li>Experimentation and innovation. A decentralized environment, where librarians enjoy high autonomy, can foster innovative services and approaches.</li> <li>Familiarity with the service model. Distributed teams of subject liaisons have been the status quo at academic libraries for over fifty years, and both librarians and users have a high degree of comfort with this model.</li> <li>Organizational resilience. Distribution of knowledge across a broad team can mitigate disruptions when vacancies occur.</li> </ol> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Challenges</h4> <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Lack of scalability. High touch, bespoke services cannot scale effectively and may result in duplicative efforts.  </li> <li>Uneven service quality. Many participants expressed frustration that service provision depends heavily upon individual librarians, leading to inconsistent experiences for patrons, an issue also frequently mentioned in the library literature.<a id="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a></li> <li>Lower visibility by campus administrative units. While high visibility in colleges/faculties is a benefit of deploying liaison librarians, the distributed model can obscure library activities at the institutional level, reducing visibility with campus leaders and units.</li> <li>Un-strategic deployment of resources. At least a dozen individuals described their structures as an obstacle to strategic alignment with institutional priorities, hampering responses to institutional changes.</li> <li>An entrenched legacy model that is difficult to change. This is the flip side of patron and librarian comfort with the service model. There are high switching costs to move to another model.</li> <li>Matrixed work can be difficult to coordinate. Functional specialists are meant to be centralized and work across disciplines, and liaisons are in direct contrast because they are subject experts; coordinating their activities is inherently complex. Poor communication across internal teams can create coordination gaps, leading to fragmented engagements and undermining the library’s organizational brand. To address this, one institution introduced cross-training to improve referrals, awareness, and workflows.</li> <li>“Double-duty” pressure. When subject librarians assume functional leadership roles, they may struggle to remain engaged, skilled, and networked in both subject and functional domains. While imperfect, this approach does offer a way to deepen research support expertise without radically restructuring the library.</li> </ol> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A few libraries are shifting to a functional or service-oriented model</h2> While most RLP libraries participating in this roundtable rely on a mixed structure, a few have transitioned to a functional or service-oriented model. These shifts, driven primarily by the need for greater scalability and strategic alignment with institutional priorities, can feel radical for both librarians and users. One UK institution adopted a functional model several years ago, driven by the need to create capacity for open access support. The change has been successful, providing better support to users, and with the additional benefit of helping library staff and services “feel more embedded in the university.” The library plays a larger role on campus and is now a part of institutional strategy and planning conversations. In the US, a public university also shifted to a functional model, reorganizing subject liaisons into two teams: student success (serving undergraduates) and research support and open scholarship (targeting faculty, researchers, and graduate students). The previous subject liaison model was seen as unsustainable. After a long period of consultation, another university library is transitioning from a liaison model which delivered quality one-on-one service to researchers but lacked scalability and agility. Seeking greater research support capacity, the library redistributed education, engagement, and research responsibilities across three functional teams. The research services team will be further subdivided into research impact and publishing support. <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-large is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="683" height="1024" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-683x1024.jpg" alt="Lego blocks" class="wp-image-15713" style="width:346px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-683x1024.jpg 683w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-200x300.jpg 200w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/sen-rgP93cPsVEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 683px) 100vw, 683px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@sen7?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Sen</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/a-close-up-of-many-different-colored-legos-rgP93cPsVEc?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a> </figcaption></figure></div> One participant described research libraries as being at a significant moment of change, as traditional liaison models—centered on collection development, information literacy, and reference support—are less effective as research support demands increase. Collection development work is also increasingly centralized. <a id="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>  To scale services for one large research university with more than 80,000 students and nearly 20,000 faculty and staff, the move to a functional model should support more agile, scalable service delivery, in response to institutional needs. The institution is implementing a tiered approach: ideally, 80% of support will be delivered via self-service access by users, followed by small-group workshops and, lastly, specialized high-touch support deployed strategically—not as the default. Most institutions that shifted to a functional model from a mixed structure described a fairly rapid transition, following extensive study and consultation. However, one public US institution made a gradual, decade-long transition from the liaison model, primarily by reallocating vacant liaison roles to more strategic functional roles in areas like research data management, scholarly communications, and teaching and learning. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Impacts on librarians</h3> Library reorganizations have significant impacts on workers, and roundtable participants described a gamut of responses from librarians during their reorganizations. While some librarians thrive, developing new skills and expertise, others struggle, grieving the loss of professional identities and fulfilling responsibilities. Re-skilling is also a challenge, as increased needs for professional development, training, and conference attendance often collide with institutional austerity measures. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Relationships and organizational intelligence</h3> A significant challenge reported by one public US institution was the loss of faculty relationships. Subject liaisons often attended departmental meetings and built deep connections. Structural changes can disrupt these relationships. Faculty members accustomed to contacting a familiar subject liaison may balk when asked to seek assistance through a general email address, and both users and librarians may quietly revert to using the former model. <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits and challenges of the functional model</h3> Like the mixed organizational structure, the functional model has both benefits and challenges: <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Benefits</h4> <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Scalability of service. Many participants see the functional, service-based approach as the only solution to the thorny problem of scaling support for large student and researcher populations. In general, these participants believe libraries must shift capacity away from time intensive personalized support.  </li> <li>Deepened research support. It’s not just about scaling services, but it’s also often providing a deeper level of expertise to library users. Deployment of functional specialists in areas like copyright, open research, and data management can offer greater expertise to campus communities.</li> <li>Alignment with institutional priorities. Functional teams allow libraries to strategically allocate staff and resources, aligning more effectively with institutional goals. The decentralized provision by subject liaisons was frequently described by participants as “un-strategic” or “uncoordinated.”</li> <li>Equitable distribution of work. Work for functional teams is triaged more centrally, with the benefit of assigning work more evenly and equitably, reducing reliance on individual initiative. These workflows can also support analysis and reporting of library activities.</li> <li>Visibility and engagement with campus units. Organizing activities into functional units enhances the library’s visibility to institutional leaders and campus partners, whereas a distributed service model may seem complex and opaque. This approach can support cross-campus <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/category/research-support/social-interoperability/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">social interoperability</a> and strengthens the library’s strategic role.</li> <li>Strategic campus partnerships. Closely related, functional teams can offer stronger frameworks for partnerships with other campus units. For example, one institution described how their functional research services team will focus on engagement and partnership through “central portfolios” with other campus units like the research office and graduate college. This partnership approach can help the library maintain alignment with institutional goals while educating stakeholders on the library’s evolving value proposition.  </li> </ol> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Challenges</h4> <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Weakened relationships with faculty and units. Faculty appreciate the personal relationships and high touch offered by the liaison model, and they are often reluctant to change. A less distributed model can also diminish library knowledge of college/faculty activities.</li> <li>Human impact. The transition can be difficult for some workers who may feel a loss of professional identity and purpose, and some will struggle to thrive.  </li> <li>Retraining needs. Many librarians must gain expertise in new areas, but professional development and training can be hampered by budget constraints.</li> <li>Reduced resilience. One participant described the functional model as creating “a single point of failure,” when expertise resides in one employee.</li> <li>New workflows. Previous ways of working may not adequately manage and distribute tasks. One institution has implemented an internal tracking/ticketing system for managing requests coming to a central email address.</li> <li>Hiring challenges. Some participants said they found recruitment for functional roles challenging, as candidates with technical and functional skills are also in high demand across other industries offering more generous compensation.  </li> </ol> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Final thoughts</h2> Reflecting on these roundtable discussions, I see an urgent need for libraries to evolve in a complex, rapidly changing environment. Research libraries, particularly those affiliated with prestigious research universities, must develop services that align with the institution’s research and teaching missions. Institutional complexity often slows change, especially when stakeholders are invested in established structures, relationships, and workflows. Many libraries continue to leverage legacy service models developed in an earlier era—when collection development, information literacy, and reference support were primary needs. These models predate online catalogs, WorldCat, the internet, digitized resources, linked data, e-books, and AI. In our leadership roundtable discussions, participants expressed a desire to explore new organizational structures. Yet, many acknowledged that near-term changes remain unlikely due to steep switching costs—the costs of shifting from one approach to another, such as new organizational structures, workflows, technologies, and relationships. Transitioning to new models demands effort, planning, political capital, change management, and patience. However, as my colleague Brian Lavoie has <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/moving-the-library-beyond-the-library-reflections-on-an-rlp-leadership-roundtable/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">written about elsewhere</a>, there are also status quo costs to consider. These arise from avoiding change and continuing existing practices. Roundtable participants delineated many switching costs in our discussion—things like limited capacity for research support, reduced visibility among stakeholders, uneven service provision, and difficulty strategically deploying resources to support institutional priorities. Switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher, with potential risks of diminishing the library’s value, autonomy, and access to resources.   <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"> Switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher. </blockquote> There’s no silver bullet. No universal solution will work for every library. Tradeoffs are inevitable, and each library must consider its strategic priorities, resources, work climate, and overall business needs. My hope is that our roundtable discussions—and this synthesis—provide support to research libraries as they navigate change. <hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/> <a id="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Wilson, Duane. “Constant Change or Constantly the Same? A Historical Literature Review of the Subject Librarian Position.” College & Research Libraries 85, no. 7 (November 1, 2024): 1035. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.7.1035" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.7.1035</a>. <a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Corrall, Sheila. 2014. “Designing Libraries for Research Collaboration in the Network World: An Exploratory Study”. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 24 (1): 17-48. <a href="https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9525">https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9525</a>. <a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Stueart, Robert D., and Barbara B. Moran. Library and Information Center Management. 7th ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007, 188. <a id="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Wilson, 11. <a id="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Wilson, 2. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable/">Examining library structures to scale research support services: Insights from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable  </a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://hangingtogether.org/examining-library-structures-to-scale-research-support-services-insights-from-an-oclc-rlp-leadership-roundtable/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Keeping up with next-generation metadata in archives and special collections</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/keeping-up-with-next-generation-metadata-in-archives-and-special-collections/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=keeping-up-with-next-generation-metadata-in-archives-and-special-collections</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Urban]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:06:22 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Archives and Special Collections]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence (AI)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Metadata]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Research Library Partnership]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category> <category><![CDATA[metadata managers focus group]]></category> <category><![CDATA[next generation metadata]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15696</guid> <description><![CDATA[OCLC RLP Metadata Managers discussed next-generation metadata needs for those managing specialized collections and archives, including backlogs, staffing, and systems. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/keeping-up-with-next-generation-metadata-in-archives-and-special-collections/">Keeping up with next-generation metadata in archives and special collections</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ Over the course of the past year, the OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP) <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/areas/data-science/metadata-managers.html">Metadata Managers Focus Group</a> has delved into challenges related to staffing, succession planning, and thinking about metadata changes. Metadata Managers planning group member Chloe Misorski (Ingalls Library and Museum Archives, Cleveland Museum of Art) highlighted that these challenges are particularly pronounced for staff managing specialized collections and archives, who often operate with smaller workforces and budgets than larger, general collections. To gain a deeper understanding of how these collection managers are navigating emerging next-generation metadata environments, we invited RLP cataloging and metadata colleagues in museum libraries, independent research libraries, art libraries and special collections or archives within larger campus networks. These are the metadata and cataloging colleagues of those who may be participating in broader discussions led by my RLP colleague Chela Weber as part of the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership/engagement/rlp-leadership-roundtables.html">Archives and Special Collections Leadership Roundtable</a>. We asked our participants to reflect on three prompts: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>How are you preparing for next-generation metadata and linked data?</li> <li>How are you developing new metadata workflows?</li> <li>What other factors are impacting your current metadata operations and planning?</li> </ul> Our discussions revealed a sense of apprehension stemming from the ongoing tension between the unique needs required of managing special collections and archives and the limited resources available, particularly in areas of cataloging and metadata management. <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1263" height="711" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web.jpg" alt="Ten-panel folding screen constructed of ink and silk depicting books and writing implements arranged on shelves." class="wp-image-15706" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web.jpg 1263w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web-300x169.jpg 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2011.37_web-768x432.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1263px) 100vw, 1263px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Books and Scholars’ Accoutrements, late 1800s. Yi Taek-gyun (Korean, 1808-after 1883). Courtesy The Cleveland Museum of Art, Leonard C. Hanna Jr. Fund <a href="https://www.clevelandart.org/art/2011.37">2011.37</a></figcaption></figure> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Backlogs</h2> Several participants expressed that their most pressing challenge is addressing backlogs that predate the pandemic and have grown in the subsequent years due to limited cataloging resources. Some participants noted that they were only now back to previous staffing levels and that their primary focus was on tackling these backlogs using existing practices rather than looking ahead to next-generation metadata practices. <blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"> finding time to look to the future is difficult when keeping up with the present is so challenging </blockquote> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workforce</h2> Many of our participants are still dealing with a wave of retirements and organizational changes. These impacts are widespread but particularly severe in areas requiring specialized knowledge for cataloging unique materials. Staff reductions and retirements have exacerbated backlogs, and new hires often only slow their growth rather than reduce them. Larger organizations have consolidated cataloging units, combining general and special cataloging staff. This has increased the workload for managers, who must re-imagine unit operations and provide growth opportunities for staff. Cross-training generalists to work with special collections is one strategy, but it brings challenges in balancing expertise levels across teams. Managers often secure term-limited positions for specific projects, but training these catalogers is time-consuming, and they frequently leave when their terms end. This lack of continuity burdens the development of good documentation for cataloging practices. Recruiting for term-limited positions is also difficult due to the unique needs of special libraries, leaving descriptions stagnant after funding or staff departures. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Workflows</h2> “Good enough” workflows: In the face of too much work and too few resources, many are working to define “good enough” workflows and standards for cataloging. Where, in the past, records for special materials may have been held back until they were “perfect,” resource limitations mean thinking about how to move records of sufficient quality forward. Identifying efficiencies: Others are taking a hard look at their workflows and identifying opportunities to find efficiencies. Staff at Princeton University Special Collections shared how they were finding efficiencies by developing a “MARC Factory” that takes spreadsheets provided by book dealers and converts them to MARC records “good enough” to bring into other cataloging workflows. This is also an interesting example of what we’ve been calling “<a href="https://hangingtogether.org/category/research-support/social-interoperability/">social interoperability</a>” because staff in cataloging, acquisitions, and book dealers participated in crafting a workflow that worked for each of them. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Systems</h2> Adding to existing challenges, several libraries are in the midst of system migrations. Even the smoothest implementations can cause additional disruptions, exacerbating issues related to staff shortages, backlogs, and reorganizations. Staff often need to freeze work, learn the intricacies of the new system, and rethink previous workflows. Some libraries that invested in bespoke or open-source systems (OSS) to handle their special materials are finding it difficult to maintain them in the face of reduced resources. These systems are frequently built on technology stacks that are continually changing and, therefore, need close attention to maintain them to prevent security breaches. Maintaining bespoke systems may require gaining buy-in from leadership who are competing for limited resources, even if they share the same goals. Consequently, libraries seek commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions requiring less maintenance. At the same time, several participants mentioned how Yale University’s LUX platform (a multi-system open-source integration) is providing leadership in this area, even if their own institutions cannot build or sustain a similar platform with internal resources. Abandoning a home-grown solution may come with other costs—if metadata in the source system is highly heterogeneous and not standards-based, it may need to be cleaned up to be migrated into new systems with less tolerance for creative descriptions. Even when moving high-quality metadata, work is required to ensure that the migration happens smoothly in ways that activate beneficial new features in the target system. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Next-generation metadata & artificial intelligence</h2> Despite the challenges of staffing, backlogs, and reparative metadata work, many participants noted that they continue to pay attention to developments around linked data by attending webinars, creating test accounts, and exploring new tools. As the market for library linked data tools is still emerging, many are taking a wait-and-see approach. When it is challenging to maintain existing systems and services, discussion participants find it difficult to consider extending workflows and financial obligations. Others continue to use home-grown solutions, especially for managing entities for digital and cultural collections that are not dependent on MARC-based workflows. For example, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has developed a portal that allows entities identified with multiple URIs to connect across LC/NAF, local data, and external resources. For several participants, artificial intelligence seems like a distant solution, especially for special materials. There is skepticism about whether existing chatbot services can produce good descriptions. Despite an interest in “good enough” records, AI-generated may not be worth developing the workflows needed to validate and remediate issues—especially for descriptions of special materials. Concerns are amplified for institutions with large archival collections of analog items. While the Library of Congress’s experiment on <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2024/11/could-artificial-intelligence-help-catalog-thousands-of-digital-library-books-an-interview-with-abigail-potter-and-caroline-saccucci/#:~:text=Catalog%20records%20are%20key%20to,to%20speed%20up%20description%20workflows.">the use of AI for cataloging ebook backlogs</a> is promising, it doesn’t overcome the hurdles faced by staff in archives and special collections. From the view of our participants, AI is drawing attention away from the day-to-day realities and complexities of cataloging workflows. While it may prove useful in the future, current applications of AI still need the guidance and expertise of catalogers who are knowledgeable about special materials. <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Next steps</h2> Multiple participants noted the value they’d found in <a href="https://oc.lc/stewardship-report">Total Cost of Stewardship: Responsible Collection Building in Archives and Special Collections</a>. Chela and I discussed how we might bring this resource to the attention of Metadata Managers and what it might help us to do based on the challenges reported in this session. We are currently planning a future round-robin as a follow-up. The Metadata Managers Focus Group will also take a closer look at emerging next-generation metadata workflows, starting with Activating URIs in linky MARC in January 2025 (see the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/events.html">RLP Events calendar</a> for dates and times). These sessions will be tied to follow-up conversations with OCLC colleagues who are building the future of cataloging. We hope to explore emerging use cases for how OCLC is bridging existing expertise and workflows that meets libraries where they are today – whether that’s in new editing environments or through a suite of APIs that enable creation and curation of linked data entities and descriptive relationships. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/keeping-up-with-next-generation-metadata-in-archives-and-special-collections/">Keeping up with next-generation metadata in archives and special collections</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Implementing an AI reference chatbot at the University of Calgary Library</title> <link>https://hangingtogether.org/implementing-an-ai-reference-chatbot-at-the-university-of-calgary-library/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=implementing-an-ai-reference-chatbot-at-the-university-of-calgary-library</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Rebecca Bryant]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:46:11 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence (AI)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Research Library Partnership]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Supporting Scholarship]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hangingtogether.org/?p=15625</guid> <description><![CDATA[Lessons learned from the University of Calgary implementation of a multilingual AI chatbot that combines an LLM with RAG technology. The chatbot offers fast, consistent, 24/7 support to users and has increased library productivity. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/implementing-an-ai-reference-chatbot-at-the-university-of-calgary-library/">Implementing an AI reference chatbot at the University of Calgary Library</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[ In 2021, the University of Calgary Libraries launched a multilingual reference chatbot by leveraging a commercial product that combines a large language model (LLM) with <a href="https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/what-is-retrieval-augmented-generation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)</a> technology. The chatbot is trained on the library’s own web content, including LibGuides and operating hours, and is accessed from the <a href="https://library.ucalgary.ca/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">library’s website</a>.   In a Works in Progress webinar hosted by the <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/partnership.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP)</a> on 20 November 2024, University of Calgary Library staff discussed the creation and implementation of the AI reference chatbot and shared lessons learned. Kim Groome, Information Specialist; Leeanne Morrow, Associate University Librarian, Student Learning and Engagement; and Paul Pival, Research Librarian–Data Analytics presented.  This blog post provides a summary of the webinar’s key points, but for a deeper dive, you can watch the full recording here:  <figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-vimeo wp-block-embed-vimeo wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper"> <iframe loading="lazy" title="Works in Progress Webinar: Lessons learned from implementing an AI reference chatbot at the University of Calgary Library" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/1033290437?h=608bd07719&dnt=1&app_id=122963" width="735" height="413" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture; clipboard-write"></iframe> </div></figure> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Project genesis </h3> Like many research libraries, the University of Calgary Libraries has offered live chat to users since the early 2010s, with information specialists staffing the service daily from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The pandemic catalyzed discussions about an AI chatbot, with many factors driving the conversation:   <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Surging demand for chat services. Chat usage spiked dramatically during the pandemic. While the library typically handled 500–900 live chats per month in 2019, this number skyrocketed to 3,077 in September 2020. </li> <li>Staffing constraints. The increased volume required additional staff and staff time to keep up with demand. </li> <li>Limited service hours. Staffed by humans, live chat was available during extended business hours, but this still left students without support during the late evenings or early mornings. </li> <li>Improved convenience. Even students visiting the library in person utilized the chat reference service. It was convenient and helped them maintain their study space during peak hours.  </li> <li>Automation potential for many questions. An analysis of live chat questions revealed a significant percentage of questions that were well-suited for automated responses. </li> <li>Alignment with institutional priorities. Implementing an AI chatbot aligned with the university’s commitment to student-centered initiatives and its strategic focus on enhancing student success. </li> </ul> The library team looked across the Canadian library ecosystem for examples but found limited adoption among other libraries<a id="_ednref1" href="#_edn1">.[i]</a> Instead, the library found that at UCalgary, the Office of the Registrar had already <a href="https://arts.ucalgary.ca/news/adorr-able-rex-helps-provide-247-student-support-online" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">implemented a chatbot named “Rex,”</a> leveraging technology provided by Ivy.ai. By building on this preexisting campus project, the library accelerated its own chatbot initiative, benefiting from shared resources and institutional experience.   <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Implementation </h3> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Assessing the usefulness of an AI chatbot </h4> Initial work included conducting an analysis of past reference chat questions to evaluate the automation potential of an AI chatbot. Kim Groome described exporting approximately 3,000 chatbot interactions recorded over a one-month period during the pandemic and coding the questions into themes like study/workspace, printing, and borrowing requests. Through this analysis, which took approximately 30 hours, the library determined that 14-24% of reference chat inquiries were directional (e.g., “where is …?”) and could potentially be handled by a chatbot. The coding was performed using Excel; use of Python by experienced coders could further expedite the work.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Training and testing </h4> After identifying a core set of common questions that could be effectively addressed by the chatbot, an eight-person library team began training and testing in April 2021, working with the vendor to increase consistency and quality of the chatbot answers. Testing was extended to other library staff members in July 2021. Recognizing the potentially infinite scope of user questions, the team avoided scope creep by initially focusing on a defined set of about fifty questions identified during their analysis.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Go-live </h4> <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignleft size-full is-resized"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="445" height="445" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-15680" style="width:302px;height:auto" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.jpg 445w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot-300x300.jpg 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot-150x150.jpg 150w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 445px) 100vw, 445px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">T-Rex chatbot avatar. Courtesy of University of Calgary Library.</figcaption></figure></div> The library’s chatbot launched on 16 August 2021, branded as “T-Rex” to differentiate it from the preexisting “Rex” chatbot offered by the registrar (note that the Rex is the <a href="https://godinos.com/staff-directory/rex-osaurus/430" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">official mascot</a> of UCalgary Dinos teams). Today T-Rex is one of six chatbots on the UCalgary campus, each operating on separate knowledge bases and answering questions 24/7.  <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Continuous improvement and maturity </h3> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Quality monitoring  </h4> Kim described how the library team continually assesses the quality of chatbot responses using anonymous weekly reports. The team rates the bot’s answers on a 1 to 5 scale, where 5 represents a perfect response.   <h5 class="wp-block-heading">Examples of the rating process </h5> Participants asked many questions we were unable to address during the webinar due to time constraints. Following the webinar, Kim offered these examples to address questions about the rating process:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>5/5 response: If patron asks, “Do you have databases for nursing”, the bot provides an accurate answer, earning a perfect score.  </li> <li>4/5 – 5/5 response: If patron asks for the specific nursing database, such as, “Where can I find CINAHL” (even if spelled incorrectly in six ways), the bot delivers an excellent response.  </li> <li>2/5 response: But if the patron asks a question like, “I want to find articles on the social effect of the opioid crisis what database would I use,” the bot will struggle. Even though the bot didn’t answer the question, the team would still scale it at 2/5 because the specific topic is not on the website—and therefore not in the “bot brain.” Since the chatbot hasn’t been trained on the topic, it cannot answer the question. If the bot interprets the phrase “find articles” and offers a response like “to find articles, please enter the topic in the library search box…”, then the response would be rated at 3/5 or even 4/5.</li> </ul> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Developing custom responses </h4> The team monitored user questions following go-live, identifying questions that would benefit from customized answers. For example,   <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>A frequent user query about access to the Harvard Business Review couldn’t initially be answered because access to the resource was embedded in a search tool outside the RAG’s scope. </li> <li>Misspellings were also common, such as for resources like PsycInfo.  </li> </ul> If any question was asked more than three times weekly in distinct transactions, the team would create a custom response to address it. Over the first year, the team spent about 5 hours each week creating 10-15 custom responses to these questions, incrementally improving the chatbot. For misspellings like the PsycInfo example, the team incorporated common misspellings like Psychinfo, pyscinfo, and psychinfo.  Monitoring the chat is important for identifying and immediately correcting any wrong responses. For example, a patron once asked, “Can I return a book that has already been declared lost,” and the bot responded, “No, you cannot return a library book that was recently declared lost.” This is obviously incorrect, and the response occurred because of information missing from the library website. But the issue is also complex, with at least fifteen different circumstances surrounding a lost item; adding a series of complex scenarios to the website was an imperfect solution. Instead, the team created a rule where any question that includes words like “lost” and “book” receives a customized qualifying statement: “If you need to contact library staff about a lost a book, or the lost book charge, please email: <email address>.” Similarly, for questions that mention the term “recall,” the bot will respond, “Recalls are a very special circumstance. <a href="https://library.ucalgary.ca/services/borrowing#recalls-1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Here is an FAQ for more information</a>.”  <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Maturity </h4> <div class="wp-block-image"> <figure class="alignright size-full"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="320" height="648" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15641" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot.png 320w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/T-Rex-chatbot-148x300.png 148w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 320px) 100vw, 320px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Screenshot of the T-Rex chatbot offered by the University of Calgary Library</figcaption></figure></div> The chatbot was further improved in February 2023 when a new GPT layer was added by the vendor, enabling the tool to generate its own responses to complement existing custom responses. Today the chatbot offers fast, consistent, 24/7 support that is accessible to a wide range of users and is WCAG 2.11 AA compliant. It knows over 2 million words—each form of a word is a new word (i.e., renew and renewing are two separate words)—and has over 1000 custom responses. T-Rex is very accurate for directional questions, and 50% of all questions receive a rating of at least 4/5.   T-Rex has exceeded expectations. Before launch, the implementation team estimated that the chatbot could answer 14-24% of reference chat questions, but today the chatbot answers about 50% of all questions with a rating of at least 4/5. This deflects half of all questions from live reference chat. This has been significant, as 1.5 FTE of staff time has been redirected to support more strategic, higher-level tasks. As a result, the library has reduced staffed desk hours, instead encouraging users to rely on the 24/7 chatbot for immediate assistance. There have been no staff reductions, just higher productivity.   Now that the chatbot is mature, it takes only about one hour per week to supervise and monitor the chatbot, primarily to confirm that it continues to work as expected. Updates, such as changes to library URLs, are efficiently managed using a simple Excel spreadsheet. The implementation of T-Rex was the library’s first AI effort. More recently, the library has collaboratively established the <a href="https://library.ucalgary.ca/services/caieli" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Centre for Artificial Intelligence Ethics, Literacy and Integrity (CAELI)</a>. Located within a campus branch library, CAELI supports student success by fostering strong digital and information literacy skills among UCalgary students.  <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons learned </h3> The UCalgary team shared several key insights from the project:   <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Use library web pages as the system of record. One of the very first lessons learned after go-live was that the chatbot would be unable to answer a question if the library didn’t have a webpage or FAQ that addressed the topic. While it could be tempting to update the chatbot’s responses directly, Kim advised against this approach because it would create duplicate maintenance points. Instead, she urged participants to consider the website as the system of record for chatbot content.  </li> <li>Leverage a team-based approach. Implementing the chatbot with a team-based approach increased resilience and reduced points of failure for the project.  </li> <li>Identify and respond to user expectations. Users preferred answers that connected them directly to the source they were looking for, rather than being directed to a webpage that required further navigation. Over time, the team refined responses to reduce the number of clicks required to reach specific information. </li> <li>Expect non-library questions. The team discovered that users would ask the chatbot many questions that the library RAG was unable to answer, such as, “When can I register for the spring semester?” In many cases, the bot can direct the user to one of the other relevant chatbots on campus (registrar, admissions, financial aid, career services, etc.) for appropriate answers. This is a significant benefit of an enterprise approach to adopting chatbot technology.  </li> <li>Think creatively about addressing non-library questions. The Calgary library recognized its role in supporting academic integrity, and it analyzed the chatbot data to learn more about the types of academic integrity questions students were asking. The library found that students were asking questions about reference styles, citation managers, plagiarism and detection software, and academic policies. These questions often arose late at night when live support was unavailable. In collaboration with the campus academic integrity coordinator, the library developed custom responses and added relevant campus content to its website, enhancing the chatbot’s ability to support student success.  </li> <li>Anticipate that there will be non-adopters. Some people prefer to interact directly with other humans and are unlikely to adopt chatbot technology. About 12-15% of library chatbot users still ask to speak to a human, even in cases where the chatbot could likely answer their question. Users can click through to “Connect to a Person” directly from T-Rex during regular service hours.  </li> </ul> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Library use of AI chatbots </h3> To understand webinar participants’ own use of and experiences with chatbots, we polled attendees during the presentation. Their responses provide anecdotal insights about library adoption of chatbots.   While webinar participants were clearly interested in chatbots, they weren’t necessarily strong users. Only about 40% of participants reported using chatbots on a daily or weekly basis; 27% reported never using GenAI chatbots.   <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="399" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235-1024x399.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15642" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235-1024x399.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235-300x117.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235-768x299.png 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235-1536x599.png 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081235.png 1822w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">RLP affiliate responses to poll about chatbot usage</figcaption></figure> Relatedly, nearly 50% of participants reported that they didn’t enjoy interacting with GenAI chatbots, although nearly as many had mixed feelings.   <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="409" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306-1024x409.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15643" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306-1024x409.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306-300x120.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306-768x307.png 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306-1536x614.png 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081306.png 1802w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">RLP affiliate responses to poll about enjoyment of chatbot interactions</figcaption></figure> <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Implementation of library chatbots  </h4> This webinar was useful for our RLP participants because we learned that few libraries had implemented an AI chatbot, but nearly 50% were considering it.   <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="400" src="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332-1024x400.png" alt="" class="wp-image-15644" srcset="https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332-1024x400.png 1024w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332-300x117.png 300w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332-768x300.png 768w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332-1536x599.png 1536w, https://hangingtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-11-20-081332.png 1807w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">RLP affiliate responses to poll about library adoption of AI reference chatbots</figcaption></figure> Is your library implementing an AI chatbot? Share a comment below or <a href="https://www.oclc.org/research/people/bryant-rebecca.html">send me an email</a>. I’m eager to learn more. Special thanks to the UCalgary Library team for generously sharing their experiences and insights so we can all learn from their innovative work.  <hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/> <a href="#_ednref1" id="_edn1">[i]</a> Julia Guy et al., “Reference Chatbots in Canadian Academic Libraries,” Information Technology and Libraries 42, no. 4 (December 18, 2023), <a href="https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16511">https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16511</a>. The post <a href="https://hangingtogether.org/implementing-an-ai-reference-chatbot-at-the-university-of-calgary-library/">Implementing an AI reference chatbot at the University of Calgary Library</a> appeared first on <a href="https://hangingtogether.org">Hanging Together</a>. ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>