Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in Spring 2009
Introduction
This paper together aims to provide library professionals particularly beginning librarians increased understanding about cataloging electronic resources. In particular, this paper a) presents an overview of electronic resources and the importance of cataloging electronic resources, b) explores selection criteria, and c) presents issues and concerns related to cataloging electronic resources.
Overview of Electronic Resources
The Anglo- American Cataloging Rules (AACR), 2005 Update as cited by Weitz (2006) defines an electronic resource as a "Material (data and/or program(s)) encoded for manipulation by a computerized device. This material may require the use of a peripheral directly connected to a computerized device (e.g., CD-ROM drive) or a connection to a computer network (e.g., the Internet)." This definition does not include electronic resources that do not require the use of a computer, for example, music compact discs and videodiscs.
The Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources/Library of Congress (n.d.) provides two ways of accessing electronic resource, namely a) direct access, and b) remote access. Direct access is the term used to characterize access to an electronic resource resident in a carrier such as a computer disk or a CD-ROM that a user physically inserts into a computer, usually a microcomputer. Remote access, on the other hand, refers to access to an electronic resource resident in a carrier that a user cannot physically handle, i.e., a resource accessed, processed, executed remotely. Remote access involves connection through a computer network and is usually referred to as "online" access.
The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules2 (AACR2) defines remote access to mean that no physical carrier can be handled. Remote access can only be provided by use of an input-output device (e.g., a terminal), either connected to a computer system (e.g., a resource in a network), or by use of resources stored in a hard disk or other storage device.
For the purpose of this paper, the focus of discussion will be mainly on remote access electronic resources i.e., online resources accessed over a computer network such as the Internet.
Importance of Cataloging Electronic Resources
Šauperl and Saye (2009) underscore the reasons why libraries have begun to catalog web sites and Internet resources. These are to make more resources available to users, and help users retrieve valuable information from the Internet. Hsieh-Yee (2000) adds that it is worthwhile to catalog important Internet resources for users because such efforts add value to the resources by collocating materials, facilitating access, and saving time.
Weber (1999) states that Internet resource provides the most current available information on a given topic. He argues that cataloging electronic resources could serve a great number of users simultaneously. In addition, the Internet resource does not require users to visit the library and guarantees 24-hour access to a resource.
Selection Criteria for Cataloging Internet Resources
The inclusion of Internet resources into the collections of libraries is an evolving process. Weber, in an article written in 1999 has cited several criteria in selecting Internet resources for cataloging such as pricing, stability of resources, duplication, and licensing which remain relevant 10 years after.
Price. According to Weber, the cost of an Internet resource is much greater than that for a comparable print resource. Increased price of Internet resources can be justified if they offer greater possibilities for service and the potential of increased use by patrons. Libraries should also consider added costs for subscriptions, licenses, enhancements or upgrades. Likewise, purchase of additional hardware/software, its maintenance and storage are primary considerations when making selection decisions regarding Internet resources.
Appropriateness of an electronic resource. The need, quality, and presentation of information which the Internet resource provides should be properly considered, according to Weber. Their relevance to existing subject areas in the collection and their relationship to resources already available in the collection are additional considerations. Further, ease of use by patrons, the degree and type of assistance that librarians will provide to patrons, and user education and training are important factors in selection decisions (Weber).
Stability of Internet resources. According to Weber, stability of Internet resources should be a standard part of the selection process. This also includes vendor’s reliability and business record, commitment to continued support for a product, vendor produced documentation, and availability of customer support.
Libraries should closely examine whether a vendor delivers precisely what has been promised (full-text, full-image, with abstracts, or full-text without charts or other relevant illustrations that might be present in the print version). Concerns regarding maintenance and frequency of updating are also important.
Duplication. Libraries, according to Weber may choose an electronic resource that duplicates another resource currently in the collection (print, microform, or CD-ROM). Duplicate copies of Internet resources may be acquired when networking or other alternatives are not possible. In addition, a library may choose to provide a product or service in more than one format.
Licensing. Licensing is a major consideration in the selection and purchase of Internet resources since it determines type and level of service provided by the vendor. Weber raise the concern that licensing can restrict a library’s ability to provide interlibrary loans, number of on-site users, ability to provide access to remote users, and the ability to download or print information from a given resource.
Challenges and Issues and Concerns related to Cataloging Internet Resources
According to Šauperl and Saye (2009), cataloguing of internet resources is difficult mainly because of the dynamic nature of this medium. Many resources change their URLs, change their content so that the description in the catalog record does not describe the web site accurately, or disappear entirely.
Weber (1999) also states that Internet resources cannot be described in concrete terms in the manner used for books since information about a resource is likely to change quickly and more frequently. For example, Internet resources such as search engines may be purchased by another company which may greatly change the type of information provided, depth of coverage, and indexing, among others. Aggregator databases for electronic journal titles may add or drop titles with each update or new version.
Meanwhile, Morgan (n.d.) asserts that there several obstacles preventing a library's ability to add bibliographic records of Internet-based serials to its OPAC. The first is the dynamic nature of the Internet, and therefore, the dynamic nature of the serials. Too often, the "file not found" errors have been found on local computers as well as remote Internet-based computers. If a library were to rely on the addition of uniform resource locators (URL) in the 856 fields of MARC records, then librarians may spend much of their time tracking down "broken" URLs. Hopefully, the concept of the uniform resource identifier (URI) will come to fruition and reduce this problem.
Conclusion
Cataloging electronic resources is a work in progress. It is in state of flux. Guidelines and standards will continue to evolve as libraries gain more experience in dealing with Internet resources.
The decision to catalog Internet resources presents challenges and opportunities to both libraries and library and information science professionals. Decisions shall continue to be made as to what types of Internet resources will receive cataloging, and what information should be included in the bibliographic record.
The principles of information organization and cataloging would continue to guide LIS professionals in organizing electronic resources. Catalogers must remain flexible, and recognize that cooperation and collaboration with other LIS professionals would become increasingly important.
References
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition, 2002 Revision. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://desktop.loc.gov/
Harvard University Library. (2004). Cataloging Internet Resources: Monographs.
Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://hcl.harvard.edu/technicalservices/policies/cataloging/internet_resources.pdf
Hsieh-Yee, I. (2000). Organizing Internet resources: teaching cataloging standards and beyond. OCLC Systems and Services. 16 (3), 130-143. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from Emerald Full Text Article
Library of Congress. Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER). Use of Fixed Fields 006/007/008 and Leader Codes in CONSER Records. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/ffuse.html
Library of Congress (2003). MARC 21 Formats: Guidelines for the Use of Field 856. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.loc.gov/marc/856guide.html
Library of Congress (n.d.) Draft Interim Guidelines for Cataloging Electronic Resources. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmb19_4.html
.
Morgan, E. L. (n.d.). Cataloging Internet Resources: A Beginning. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://infomotions.com/musings/cataloging-resources/
Šauperl, A and Saye, J. D. (2009). Have we made any progress? Catalogues of the future revisited. Journal of Documentation, 65(3), 500-514. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from Emerald Full-Text Article
Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources (SULAIR). (n.d.). Guidelines for Cataloging Internet Resources. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://www-
Weber, M. B. (1999). Factors to be considered in the selection and cataloging of Internet resources. Library Hi Tech, 17(3), 298 – 303. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from Emerald Full Text Article
Weitz, J. (2006). Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines.
Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresourc es/default.htm
Yale University Library (n.d.). Cataloging Online Integrating Resources. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/mst/marc/oir.html#hld
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Folksonomy
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written Spring 2010
A folksonomy refers to a system of classification derived from the practice and method of collaborative tagging to annotate and categorize content. Coined from the terms folk and taxonomy by Internet developer Thomas Vander Wal, folksonomy is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging.
Around 2004, folksonomies became popular on the Web as part of social software applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation. Tagging, which is one of the defining characteristics of Web 2.0 services, allows users to collectively classify and find information. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.
A significant feature of a folksonomy is that is composed of terms without hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships between these terms. Unlike formal taxonomies and classification schemes where there are multiple kinds of explicit relationships between terms, folksonomies are user-generated tags which cluster tags based on common URLs. Folksonomies are set of terms that a group of users tagged content with and they are not a predetermined set of classification terms or labels.
Folksonomy illustrates collective intelligence at work. Some of the identified advantages identified with folksonomies in organizing the web include: inclusiveness, currency, discovery potential, self-moderation, insights into user-behavior, spirit of sharing and community cohesion, usability, and low cost. Some of the disadvantages are: no synonym control, lack of precision, lack of hierarchy, lack of recall and susceptibility to gaming or spamming.
Sources:
Folksonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy
ODLIS —Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science by Joan M. Reitzhttp://lu.com/odlis/odlis_t.cfm
Courtney, N. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond: innovative technologies and tomorrow’s users. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Paper written Spring 2010
A folksonomy refers to a system of classification derived from the practice and method of collaborative tagging to annotate and categorize content. Coined from the terms folk and taxonomy by Internet developer Thomas Vander Wal, folksonomy is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging.
Around 2004, folksonomies became popular on the Web as part of social software applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation. Tagging, which is one of the defining characteristics of Web 2.0 services, allows users to collectively classify and find information. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.
A significant feature of a folksonomy is that is composed of terms without hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships between these terms. Unlike formal taxonomies and classification schemes where there are multiple kinds of explicit relationships between terms, folksonomies are user-generated tags which cluster tags based on common URLs. Folksonomies are set of terms that a group of users tagged content with and they are not a predetermined set of classification terms or labels.
Folksonomy illustrates collective intelligence at work. Some of the identified advantages identified with folksonomies in organizing the web include: inclusiveness, currency, discovery potential, self-moderation, insights into user-behavior, spirit of sharing and community cohesion, usability, and low cost. Some of the disadvantages are: no synonym control, lack of precision, lack of hierarchy, lack of recall and susceptibility to gaming or spamming.
Sources:
Folksonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy
ODLIS —Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science by Joan M. Reitzhttp://lu.com/odlis/odlis_t.cfm
Courtney, N. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond: innovative technologies and tomorrow’s users. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Digital Preservation
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in Spring 2009
Introduction
This paper aims to provide enhanced understanding of digital preservation as an integral part of project planning for a digital imaging initiative. It will a) present the definition and rationale for digital preservation, b) discuss strategies towards digital preservation, and c) identify some institutions implementing digital preservation strategies.
Definition of Digital Preservation
Digital preservation refers to series of managed activities undertaken to ensure continued access to digital resources for as long as necessary (Alemneh and Hartman, 2002). It is essentially about preserving access over time (Digital Preservation Coalition). Likewise, it also refers to actions required to maintain access to digital materials beyond the limits of media failure or technological change (van Horik, 2005).
Rationale for Digital Preservation
The purpose of digital preservation is to maintain the ability to display, retrieve, and use digital collections in the face of rapidly changing technological and organizational infrastructures and elements (Cornell University Library, 2003).
There are many reasons for the need to preserve digital materials. Technology obsolescence of hardware or software is a major concern. It is generally regarded as the greatest technical threat to ensuring continued access to digital material (Digital Preservation Coalition).
Likewise, storage media can simply decay or malfunction, a process known as bit rot, which can lead to serious losses of information. This can affect digital data to varying extents, from single character omission, to scrambling of information, or to a major loss of data (Grindley, 2009).
Organizational issues like withdrawal of funding and general institutional instability are valid concerns for digital collections. Organizations merge and fold, and as a result, digital collections and whole data sets can become ‘orphaned’ as institutional priorities, interest and incentive to deal with digital materials change (Grindley, 2009).
Strategies toward Digital Preservation
A number of digital preservation approaches are being implemented to address the problem of digital objects not being accessible in the future. These strategies include preservation, emulation, and migration.
The technology preservation strategy is concerned with the preservation of the original software and hardware that was used to create and access the information. It is based on preserving the technical environment that runs the system, including software and hardware such as operating systems, original application software, media drives, and the like (van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
The technology emulation strategy involves the re-creation of the technical environment required to view and use a digital collection. This is achieved by maintaining information about the hardware and software requirements so that the system can be reengineered. Through this strategy, future computer systems emulate older, obsolete computer platforms as required. Emulation is the process of imitating obsolete systems on future generations of computers (van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
In the digital information migration strategy, digital information is re-encoded in new formats before the old format becomes obsolete. Its purpose is to preserve the intellectual content of digital objects and to retain the ability for clients to retrieve, display and use them considering the prevailing technology changes (Digital Preservation Coalition).
Migration involves transferring digital information from one hardware and software setting to another or from one computer generation to subsequent generations. Migration can also be format-based, to move image files from an obsolete file format or to increase their functionality. For example, migration has been used for electronic text, image, and database applications by the computing industry and a number of data archives and centers for decades (Grindley, 2009; van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
Institutions undertaking Digital Preservation
A number of organizations are implementing a wide range of activities related to the preservation of digital objects. These include libraries, archives, and to some extent, museums.
Within the library community, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) carries out activities under the caption ‘Long term retention of digital research materials (van Horik, 2005). For example, the University of North Texas has began digital imaging and preservation projects in 1997 and has developed partnerships with Federal and State agencies to house digital collections (Alemneh and Hartman, 2002).
Some of the Digital Projects at UNT Libraries include the Government Documents Department Project namely a) Federal Documents Projects (CyberCemetery), b) State Documents Projects (Texas Register ,Gammel‘s Laws of Texas, Texas Electronic Depository Library Project), and Portal to Texas History Project. It also includes digital preservation initiatives for the Music Library, Archives Collections, and for the Dissertations and Theses.
Archives around the world are also spearheading work on digital preservation. The European ERPANET project, whose partners originate mainly in the archival world, is a European Initiative to establish a virtual clearinghouse and knowledge base in the area of preservation of cultural heritage and scientific digital objects. In the Netherlands, the project ‘digitale duurzaamheid’ (digital longevity), initiated by the Dutch National Archives and the Ministry of the Interior, is testing alternatives for the digital archiving of government documents (van Horik 2005).
In Australia, the PANDORA (Preserving and Accessing Networked Documentary Resources of Australia) project has successfully established an archive of selected Australian online publications, developed several digital preservation policies and procedures, drafted a logical data model for preservation metadata, and outlined a proposal for a national approach to the long-term preservation of these publication (Cornell University Library, 2003).
Museums and other cultural heritage institutions are also utilizing digital technology to create digital surrogates of rare, unique and valuable collections. A few are now implementing digital preservation for their digital collection.
Conclusion
Digital preservation is a vital component in digital imaging. It is huge task that requires concerted actions among international, national and local institutions. Preservation strategies and policies should be put in place; otherwise, most of the digital data produced today may not be usefully accessed by future generations due to technological obsolescence, data loss and other concerns.
References
Alemneh, and Hartman, C.N. (2002). Meeting Digital Resources Preservation Challenges: University of North Texas Libraries Initiative. PowerPoint presentation at the LITA Conference, October 13, 2002.
Cornell University Library. (2003). Moving theory into practice: digital imaging tutorial. Retrieved March 5, 2009 from: http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/contents.html;
http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/preservation/preservation-01.html
Digital Preservation Coalition. Preservation Management of Digital
Materials: The Handbook (www.dpconline.org/graphics/handb). Retrieved March 5, 2009 from
http://www.dpconline.org/docs/handbook/DPCHandbookDigPres.pdf
Grindley, N. (Feb2009). Saving for the future. Research Information, Issue 40, p13-14, 2p. Retrieved March 5, 2009 from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text.
van Horik, R. (2005). Permanent pixels: Building blocks for the longevity of digital surrogates of historical photographs. The Hague. (PhD Dissertation). Retrieved March 6, 2009 from http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20051103.pdf
Paper written in Spring 2009
Introduction
This paper aims to provide enhanced understanding of digital preservation as an integral part of project planning for a digital imaging initiative. It will a) present the definition and rationale for digital preservation, b) discuss strategies towards digital preservation, and c) identify some institutions implementing digital preservation strategies.
Definition of Digital Preservation
Digital preservation refers to series of managed activities undertaken to ensure continued access to digital resources for as long as necessary (Alemneh and Hartman, 2002). It is essentially about preserving access over time (Digital Preservation Coalition). Likewise, it also refers to actions required to maintain access to digital materials beyond the limits of media failure or technological change (van Horik, 2005).
Rationale for Digital Preservation
The purpose of digital preservation is to maintain the ability to display, retrieve, and use digital collections in the face of rapidly changing technological and organizational infrastructures and elements (Cornell University Library, 2003).
There are many reasons for the need to preserve digital materials. Technology obsolescence of hardware or software is a major concern. It is generally regarded as the greatest technical threat to ensuring continued access to digital material (Digital Preservation Coalition).
Likewise, storage media can simply decay or malfunction, a process known as bit rot, which can lead to serious losses of information. This can affect digital data to varying extents, from single character omission, to scrambling of information, or to a major loss of data (Grindley, 2009).
Organizational issues like withdrawal of funding and general institutional instability are valid concerns for digital collections. Organizations merge and fold, and as a result, digital collections and whole data sets can become ‘orphaned’ as institutional priorities, interest and incentive to deal with digital materials change (Grindley, 2009).
Strategies toward Digital Preservation
A number of digital preservation approaches are being implemented to address the problem of digital objects not being accessible in the future. These strategies include preservation, emulation, and migration.
The technology preservation strategy is concerned with the preservation of the original software and hardware that was used to create and access the information. It is based on preserving the technical environment that runs the system, including software and hardware such as operating systems, original application software, media drives, and the like (van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
The technology emulation strategy involves the re-creation of the technical environment required to view and use a digital collection. This is achieved by maintaining information about the hardware and software requirements so that the system can be reengineered. Through this strategy, future computer systems emulate older, obsolete computer platforms as required. Emulation is the process of imitating obsolete systems on future generations of computers (van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
In the digital information migration strategy, digital information is re-encoded in new formats before the old format becomes obsolete. Its purpose is to preserve the intellectual content of digital objects and to retain the ability for clients to retrieve, display and use them considering the prevailing technology changes (Digital Preservation Coalition).
Migration involves transferring digital information from one hardware and software setting to another or from one computer generation to subsequent generations. Migration can also be format-based, to move image files from an obsolete file format or to increase their functionality. For example, migration has been used for electronic text, image, and database applications by the computing industry and a number of data archives and centers for decades (Grindley, 2009; van Horik, 2005; Digital Preservation Coalition).
Institutions undertaking Digital Preservation
A number of organizations are implementing a wide range of activities related to the preservation of digital objects. These include libraries, archives, and to some extent, museums.
Within the library community, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) carries out activities under the caption ‘Long term retention of digital research materials (van Horik, 2005). For example, the University of North Texas has began digital imaging and preservation projects in 1997 and has developed partnerships with Federal and State agencies to house digital collections (Alemneh and Hartman, 2002).
Some of the Digital Projects at UNT Libraries include the Government Documents Department Project namely a) Federal Documents Projects (CyberCemetery), b) State Documents Projects (Texas Register ,Gammel‘s Laws of Texas, Texas Electronic Depository Library Project), and Portal to Texas History Project. It also includes digital preservation initiatives for the Music Library, Archives Collections, and for the Dissertations and Theses.
Archives around the world are also spearheading work on digital preservation. The European ERPANET project, whose partners originate mainly in the archival world, is a European Initiative to establish a virtual clearinghouse and knowledge base in the area of preservation of cultural heritage and scientific digital objects. In the Netherlands, the project ‘digitale duurzaamheid’ (digital longevity), initiated by the Dutch National Archives and the Ministry of the Interior, is testing alternatives for the digital archiving of government documents (van Horik 2005).
In Australia, the PANDORA (Preserving and Accessing Networked Documentary Resources of Australia) project has successfully established an archive of selected Australian online publications, developed several digital preservation policies and procedures, drafted a logical data model for preservation metadata, and outlined a proposal for a national approach to the long-term preservation of these publication (Cornell University Library, 2003).
Museums and other cultural heritage institutions are also utilizing digital technology to create digital surrogates of rare, unique and valuable collections. A few are now implementing digital preservation for their digital collection.
Conclusion
Digital preservation is a vital component in digital imaging. It is huge task that requires concerted actions among international, national and local institutions. Preservation strategies and policies should be put in place; otherwise, most of the digital data produced today may not be usefully accessed by future generations due to technological obsolescence, data loss and other concerns.
References
Alemneh, and Hartman, C.N. (2002). Meeting Digital Resources Preservation Challenges: University of North Texas Libraries Initiative. PowerPoint presentation at the LITA Conference, October 13, 2002.
Cornell University Library. (2003). Moving theory into practice: digital imaging tutorial. Retrieved March 5, 2009 from: http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/contents.html;
http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/preservation/preservation-01.html
Digital Preservation Coalition. Preservation Management of Digital
Materials: The Handbook (www.dpconline.org/graphics/handb). Retrieved March 5, 2009 from
http://www.dpconline.org/docs/handbook/DPCHandbookDigPres.pdf
Grindley, N. (Feb2009). Saving for the future. Research Information, Issue 40, p13-14, 2p. Retrieved March 5, 2009 from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text.
van Horik, R. (2005). Permanent pixels: Building blocks for the longevity of digital surrogates of historical photographs. The Hague. (PhD Dissertation). Retrieved March 6, 2009 from http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20051103.pdf
Are issues related to gender and stereotyping still relevant in LIS?
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written Fall 2008
Introduction
This paper a) explores some gender issues and stereotypes in the library and information science (LIS) profession, b) defines some terms to enhance understanding of these issues, c) presents researches and articles that examine gender issues and stereotypes as they relate to LIS, and, d) provides some affirmative actions and initiatives to address gender concerns.
Definition of Terms
Glass ceiling refers to an invisible barrier that prevents women from breaking through or reaching the peak of their professions. It is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women “at the top” (J. C. Williams, 2004). Maternal wall refers to a barrier that that blocks women’s career by their decision to have children. Like the glass ceiling, maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable (faculty) jobs (J. C. Williams).
Glass escalator, on the other hand, refers to an invisible pressure for men to move up in their professions. Hultin (2004) defines glass escalator as the upwardly mobile career path of men working in typically female occupations that equally qualified women can hardly enjoy in such occupations.
Gender stereotyping is a generalized perception or image by a group of people towards another group that can lead to false assumptions, negative impressions or discrimination.
Female Librarian’s Glass Ceiling and Maternal Wall
According to the Library Journal Placements and Salaries Survey 2008 reported by Maatta (2008, ¶ 2), women make up 80% of the new members of the LIS workforce. Women comprise 72.9% in academic libraries, 68.9% in government libraries and 67.4% in other agencies and organizations while dominating the school library media positions (93.9%).
However, compared to women’s over-all representation in the library science profession, the proportion of women in upper-level management positions in libraries is low (Voelck, 2003, p. 394). Voelck adds that while librarianship is a women-dominated profession, glass ceiling persists. Men often occupy the highest level decision-making administrative positions and tend to predominate in top-level administrative positions in larger public libraries and in large, academic libraries.
Likewise, the issue of salary gap between male- and female librarians continues to exist (Sverdlin, 2008). Maatta (¶ 1) further reports that the average yearly salary for female librarians is $ 41,731 while male librarian’s average salary is $45,192. Several authors suggest that this can be attributed to maternal wall; women have less earning power due to situations such as less seniority or fewer work hours as a result of child care responsibilities which tend to fall on women (Anderson, n.d.; J. C. Williams, 2004).
An interesting finding by Voelck (pp. 400-401) gives the implication that it may be difficult for women to balance the high demands of work and family. In her study on gender-based differences in management styles of academic library managers, she found that male and female respondents were remarkably similar in demographic and personal characteristics except on marital status. Of the females, 46.7% were single, 33.3% married, and 20% divorced. Thus, more than one-half (66.7%) were unmarried. However, only one of the 13 male respondents was single, the rest of the respondents, (92%) were married, although one said he is separated.
Male Librarian Stereotypes and Glass Escalator
Piper and Collamer (2001, p. 406) state that men in the library profession are in a complex situation. They experience stereotyping, invisibility, and even discrimination (Gatly, 2004; Gordon, 2004; C. Williams, 1992). Stereotypes of librarians in popular culture have resulted in many male librarians feeling limited or even ostracized as a result of their occupational title.
Male librarians encounter negative stereotypes when they come into contact with clients and people outside of work. They often experience stereotypes that they are gay or asexual or that they are unable to get a better job. Men who work with children may be thought to be pedophiles (C. Williams).
They also feel tension as minority members of a female dominated profession (Gordon, ¶ 7). They feel “invisible”, mainly due to the perception of librarianship as "women's work", male librarianship goes unrecognized, and "male" issues on the job are largely ignored (Gatley, p. 5).
Some male librarians also experience the escalator effect, where “men are pushed into managerial positions against their will” (C. Williams). Some men are "tracked" into areas within their professions which are considered more legitimate for men, such as being pushed into administration when they are much more interested in research and service-oriented jobs (C. Williams).
Librarian Stereotyping in Books
Another gender issue in LIS is librarian stereotyping in books. Peresie and Alexander (2005) examined whether portrayal of librarians in young adult literature supports or rejects the negative librarian stereotyping through content analysis of young adult fiction books.
They found that overall, among the young adult books reviewed, librarians were portrayed in a “more negative or neutral light”. Some of the librarian characters were made fun of or ridiculed by the students and often depicted as having no life outside of the library. Thirteen of the seventeen librarians (76 %) portrayed in the stories were female, which reinforce the general stereotype that librarianship is a feminized profession.
Affirmative Actions and Initiatives
While much remains to be done, gender and stereotyping have been recognized as relevant and legitimate issues in LIS through research and scholarly discussions.
Ingold (2007) cites efforts and initiatives to empower women and men in the library profession and their patrons. For example, academic libraries allocated budget lines for acquiring new works of feminist scholarship, designated subject liaisons to emerging women's studies programs, and some established separate libraries or reading rooms on gender studies. Likewise, youth librarians made it a point to acquire materials and generate programs that would appeal to girls as well as boys. Anderson (n.d.) also states that gender awareness can be integrated in collection development, cataloguing, and providing patrons access to gender-fair materials.
Peresie and Alexander state that so much more needs to be done to dispel the current stereotypes about librarians. They argued that more positive portrayals of male librarian characters in young adult novels could encourage more males to enter the profession by decreasing its feminized perception.
Gatley, on the other hand maintains that combating stereotypes lies not in improving the image of the male librarian, or the image of the female librarian, but in the advancement and betterment of librarianship as a whole. Similarly, Gordon adds that the changing LIS environment requires diversity. By having people from different genders, sexual orientation, generations, races, ethnic backgrounds, and social classes, the library is better equipped to serve its patrons.
References
Anderson, K. (n. d.). Why does feminism matter in library and information studies?
Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.gslis.mcgill.ca/marginal/mar8-2/feminism.htm
Gatley, R. (2004). The invisible librarian. Mr. Lady, the Male Librarian. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/03-04-wt2/www/r_gatley/invisibility.htm
Gordon, R. S. (2004, June). NextGen: The men among us. Library Journal. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA423789.html
Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Work and Occupations, 30, (1), 30-61. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/30
Ingold, C. (2007, Fall). Introduction: Gender issues in information needs and services. Library Trends, 56, (2), 299-302. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from Project Muse.
Maatta, S. (2008, October). Inside the library gender gap: An exploration of why women rule libraries except when it comes to pay. Library Journal. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6604387
Peresie, M. & Alexander, L. B. (2005, Fall). Librarian stereotypes in young adult literature. Young Adult Library Services. 4, (1), 24-31. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from Academic Search Complete.
Piper, P. & Collamer, B. E. (2001, September). Male librarians: Men in feminized profession. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, (5), 406-411. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Academic Search Complete.
Sverdlin, T. (2008, October). Wage discrepancies and gender in librarianship. LibGig LLC. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.libgig.com/wages
Voelck, J. (2003). Directive and connective: Gender based differences in the management styles of academic library managers. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3, 393-418. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Project Muse.
Williams, C. L. (1992) "The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the 'female' professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/hdh9/e-reserves/Williams_- _The_glass_escalator_PDF-1.pdf
Williams, J. C. (2004, November-December). Hitting the maternal wall. Academe. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/researchcntr/Article5_121406.pdf
Paper written Fall 2008
Introduction
This paper a) explores some gender issues and stereotypes in the library and information science (LIS) profession, b) defines some terms to enhance understanding of these issues, c) presents researches and articles that examine gender issues and stereotypes as they relate to LIS, and, d) provides some affirmative actions and initiatives to address gender concerns.
Definition of Terms
Glass ceiling refers to an invisible barrier that prevents women from breaking through or reaching the peak of their professions. It is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women “at the top” (J. C. Williams, 2004). Maternal wall refers to a barrier that that blocks women’s career by their decision to have children. Like the glass ceiling, maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable (faculty) jobs (J. C. Williams).
Glass escalator, on the other hand, refers to an invisible pressure for men to move up in their professions. Hultin (2004) defines glass escalator as the upwardly mobile career path of men working in typically female occupations that equally qualified women can hardly enjoy in such occupations.
Gender stereotyping is a generalized perception or image by a group of people towards another group that can lead to false assumptions, negative impressions or discrimination.
Female Librarian’s Glass Ceiling and Maternal Wall
According to the Library Journal Placements and Salaries Survey 2008 reported by Maatta (2008, ¶ 2), women make up 80% of the new members of the LIS workforce. Women comprise 72.9% in academic libraries, 68.9% in government libraries and 67.4% in other agencies and organizations while dominating the school library media positions (93.9%).
However, compared to women’s over-all representation in the library science profession, the proportion of women in upper-level management positions in libraries is low (Voelck, 2003, p. 394). Voelck adds that while librarianship is a women-dominated profession, glass ceiling persists. Men often occupy the highest level decision-making administrative positions and tend to predominate in top-level administrative positions in larger public libraries and in large, academic libraries.
Likewise, the issue of salary gap between male- and female librarians continues to exist (Sverdlin, 2008). Maatta (¶ 1) further reports that the average yearly salary for female librarians is $ 41,731 while male librarian’s average salary is $45,192. Several authors suggest that this can be attributed to maternal wall; women have less earning power due to situations such as less seniority or fewer work hours as a result of child care responsibilities which tend to fall on women (Anderson, n.d.; J. C. Williams, 2004).
An interesting finding by Voelck (pp. 400-401) gives the implication that it may be difficult for women to balance the high demands of work and family. In her study on gender-based differences in management styles of academic library managers, she found that male and female respondents were remarkably similar in demographic and personal characteristics except on marital status. Of the females, 46.7% were single, 33.3% married, and 20% divorced. Thus, more than one-half (66.7%) were unmarried. However, only one of the 13 male respondents was single, the rest of the respondents, (92%) were married, although one said he is separated.
Male Librarian Stereotypes and Glass Escalator
Piper and Collamer (2001, p. 406) state that men in the library profession are in a complex situation. They experience stereotyping, invisibility, and even discrimination (Gatly, 2004; Gordon, 2004; C. Williams, 1992). Stereotypes of librarians in popular culture have resulted in many male librarians feeling limited or even ostracized as a result of their occupational title.
Male librarians encounter negative stereotypes when they come into contact with clients and people outside of work. They often experience stereotypes that they are gay or asexual or that they are unable to get a better job. Men who work with children may be thought to be pedophiles (C. Williams).
They also feel tension as minority members of a female dominated profession (Gordon, ¶ 7). They feel “invisible”, mainly due to the perception of librarianship as "women's work", male librarianship goes unrecognized, and "male" issues on the job are largely ignored (Gatley, p. 5).
Some male librarians also experience the escalator effect, where “men are pushed into managerial positions against their will” (C. Williams). Some men are "tracked" into areas within their professions which are considered more legitimate for men, such as being pushed into administration when they are much more interested in research and service-oriented jobs (C. Williams).
Librarian Stereotyping in Books
Another gender issue in LIS is librarian stereotyping in books. Peresie and Alexander (2005) examined whether portrayal of librarians in young adult literature supports or rejects the negative librarian stereotyping through content analysis of young adult fiction books.
They found that overall, among the young adult books reviewed, librarians were portrayed in a “more negative or neutral light”. Some of the librarian characters were made fun of or ridiculed by the students and often depicted as having no life outside of the library. Thirteen of the seventeen librarians (76 %) portrayed in the stories were female, which reinforce the general stereotype that librarianship is a feminized profession.
Affirmative Actions and Initiatives
While much remains to be done, gender and stereotyping have been recognized as relevant and legitimate issues in LIS through research and scholarly discussions.
Ingold (2007) cites efforts and initiatives to empower women and men in the library profession and their patrons. For example, academic libraries allocated budget lines for acquiring new works of feminist scholarship, designated subject liaisons to emerging women's studies programs, and some established separate libraries or reading rooms on gender studies. Likewise, youth librarians made it a point to acquire materials and generate programs that would appeal to girls as well as boys. Anderson (n.d.) also states that gender awareness can be integrated in collection development, cataloguing, and providing patrons access to gender-fair materials.
Peresie and Alexander state that so much more needs to be done to dispel the current stereotypes about librarians. They argued that more positive portrayals of male librarian characters in young adult novels could encourage more males to enter the profession by decreasing its feminized perception.
Gatley, on the other hand maintains that combating stereotypes lies not in improving the image of the male librarian, or the image of the female librarian, but in the advancement and betterment of librarianship as a whole. Similarly, Gordon adds that the changing LIS environment requires diversity. By having people from different genders, sexual orientation, generations, races, ethnic backgrounds, and social classes, the library is better equipped to serve its patrons.
References
Anderson, K. (n. d.). Why does feminism matter in library and information studies?
Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.gslis.mcgill.ca/marginal/mar8-2/feminism.htm
Gatley, R. (2004). The invisible librarian. Mr. Lady, the Male Librarian. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.slais.ubc.ca/COURSES/libr500/03-04-wt2/www/r_gatley/invisibility.htm
Gordon, R. S. (2004, June). NextGen: The men among us. Library Journal. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA423789.html
Hultin, M. (2003). Some take the glass escalator, some hit the glass ceiling? Work and Occupations, 30, (1), 30-61. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/30
Ingold, C. (2007, Fall). Introduction: Gender issues in information needs and services. Library Trends, 56, (2), 299-302. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from Project Muse.
Maatta, S. (2008, October). Inside the library gender gap: An exploration of why women rule libraries except when it comes to pay. Library Journal. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6604387
Peresie, M. & Alexander, L. B. (2005, Fall). Librarian stereotypes in young adult literature. Young Adult Library Services. 4, (1), 24-31. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from Academic Search Complete.
Piper, P. & Collamer, B. E. (2001, September). Male librarians: Men in feminized profession. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, (5), 406-411. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Academic Search Complete.
Sverdlin, T. (2008, October). Wage discrepancies and gender in librarianship. LibGig LLC. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.libgig.com/wages
Voelck, J. (2003). Directive and connective: Gender based differences in the management styles of academic library managers. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3, 393-418. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Project Muse.
Williams, C. L. (1992) "The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the 'female' professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/hdh9/e-reserves/Williams_- _The_glass_escalator_PDF-1.pdf
Williams, J. C. (2004, November-December). Hitting the maternal wall. Academe. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/researchcntr/Article5_121406.pdf
Information Seeking Process
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written Spring 2009
Article reviewed:
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. 1993. The information search process. In Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [ch. 3: 33-53]
Dr. Carol Collier Kuhlthau is presently Professor II Emerita at the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers University.
In the article written in 1993, Kuhlthau described in detail the Model of Information Search process (ISP) which evolved out of an exploratory study which she earlier reported in 1985 and 1988. The study involved 25 senior high school students who were given assignments to write two research papers. The students’ journals, search logs, pieces of writing and answers to a questionnaire provided details on the information search process used. Case studies of six of the participants through interviews, timelines, and flowcharts provided additional information.
Based from this exploratory study, Kuhlthau identified six stages in the information seeking process, namely task initiation, topic selection, prefocus exploration, focus formulation, information collection, and search closure. She described information seeking as complex process that occurs in a series of sequential stages, each stage represents the task most appropriate to moving the process to the subsequent stage.
Kuhlthau characterized the first stage, initiation as the stage when a person becomes aware that information will be needed to “complete an assignment”. The person feels uncertain and apprehensive. The next stage, selection is when a person has chosen an idea, topic, or problem. At this point, the person is now less uncertain, and feels a sense of optimism and a readiness to start the information search process.
The third stage, the exploration process, which Kuhlthau considers the most difficult stage, is when students (or information seekers) become confused when they encounter “inconsistent or incompatible” information. It is at this point that information seekers may become discouraged, express feelings of doubt and plan of abandoning their search process. The fourth stage, focus formulation, which is considered as the turning point, is when a focused perspective is formed, uncertainty decreases and confidence grows in the search process.
The fifth stage, collection is when information relevant to the topic is gathered. At this point, the information seeker feels a sense of direction; his/her uncertainty diminishes and becomes interested and deeply involved in the search process. The last stage, search closure is when the search is completed and information seekers prepare to present or use their findings. They experience relief and a sense of satisfaction if the search process is successful or disappointed if they feel that the search was a failure.
Kuhlthau states that these six stages of the ISP encompass “the affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), and the physical (actions).
Reading through the ISP made me realize my own experience during an information search, like uncertainty, apprehension, optimism, confidence, and just plain relief when the task is completed. In simple routine tasks, where the goal is to answer a simple question, people may not go through the six stages in their information seeking, but in complex tasks, people may experience the stages described in the ISP model.
Paper written Spring 2009
Article reviewed:
Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. 1993. The information search process. In Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [ch. 3: 33-53]
Dr. Carol Collier Kuhlthau is presently Professor II Emerita at the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers University.
In the article written in 1993, Kuhlthau described in detail the Model of Information Search process (ISP) which evolved out of an exploratory study which she earlier reported in 1985 and 1988. The study involved 25 senior high school students who were given assignments to write two research papers. The students’ journals, search logs, pieces of writing and answers to a questionnaire provided details on the information search process used. Case studies of six of the participants through interviews, timelines, and flowcharts provided additional information.
Based from this exploratory study, Kuhlthau identified six stages in the information seeking process, namely task initiation, topic selection, prefocus exploration, focus formulation, information collection, and search closure. She described information seeking as complex process that occurs in a series of sequential stages, each stage represents the task most appropriate to moving the process to the subsequent stage.
Kuhlthau characterized the first stage, initiation as the stage when a person becomes aware that information will be needed to “complete an assignment”. The person feels uncertain and apprehensive. The next stage, selection is when a person has chosen an idea, topic, or problem. At this point, the person is now less uncertain, and feels a sense of optimism and a readiness to start the information search process.
The third stage, the exploration process, which Kuhlthau considers the most difficult stage, is when students (or information seekers) become confused when they encounter “inconsistent or incompatible” information. It is at this point that information seekers may become discouraged, express feelings of doubt and plan of abandoning their search process. The fourth stage, focus formulation, which is considered as the turning point, is when a focused perspective is formed, uncertainty decreases and confidence grows in the search process.
The fifth stage, collection is when information relevant to the topic is gathered. At this point, the information seeker feels a sense of direction; his/her uncertainty diminishes and becomes interested and deeply involved in the search process. The last stage, search closure is when the search is completed and information seekers prepare to present or use their findings. They experience relief and a sense of satisfaction if the search process is successful or disappointed if they feel that the search was a failure.
Kuhlthau states that these six stages of the ISP encompass “the affective (feelings), the cognitive (thoughts), and the physical (actions).
Reading through the ISP made me realize my own experience during an information search, like uncertainty, apprehension, optimism, confidence, and just plain relief when the task is completed. In simple routine tasks, where the goal is to answer a simple question, people may not go through the six stages in their information seeking, but in complex tasks, people may experience the stages described in the ISP model.
Evaluation and Libraries
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in Fall 2009
Definition of Evaluation
Trochim (2006) defines evaluation as the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object. He adds that evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object, where object could refer to a program, policy, technology, person, need, or activity. Evaluation involves collecting and sifting through data, making judgments about the validity of the information and of inferences derive from it, whether or not an assessment of worth or merit results.
More specifically, evaluation identifies and gathers data about specific services, programs, or activities, establishes set of criteria by which success can be assessed, and determines the quality of the service or activity and the degree to which the service or activity accomplishes stated goals and objectives (Van House et al., 1990 in by McClure 1994). Matthews (2007) suggested evaluation process includes assessing library users and nonusers, physical collection, resources, and services.
Purpose of Evaluation
Library system and its components are evaluated for several reasons. According to Powell (2006), evaluation is done to account for the use of resources, describe impact, increase efficiency, support planning activities, and support decision-making. In addition, Powell notes that evaluation is conducted to determine how clients or beneficiaries are affected by the program, fulfill grant requirements, make decisions to continue or terminate programs, document program history, and provide feedback, among others.
Nitecki (2004) also notes that a frequently cited reason for conducting a program evaluation is to fulfill a requirement for grant funds. Grant evaluation is required for grant accountability or advocacy to government or other institutional funding officials.
McClure (1994), Bawden (1990) and Wilson all share the view that resulting data from performance evaluation could be used to assess how well the system meets its objectives or to justify use of resources and provide basis for future funding request. Evaluation contributes in making informed decisions and in justifying services. Kebede (1999) also states that data from evaluation activities could be used to justify worth/value and resources utilized, improve competitiveness for obtaining financial support, and enhance internal efficiency and services provided to library users.
According to Trochim, most evaluations are intended to provide "useful feedback" to various groups of audiences including sponsors, donors, client-groups, administrators, staff, and other stakeholders. Trochim notes however that the relationship between an evaluation and its impact is not an easy and straight-forward one. Studies that seem important may not necessarily and immediately influence short-term decisions, and studies that seem to have no influence at first can have a delayed impact when the right conditions arise. Still, Trochim believes that the major goal of evaluation is to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback.
Data Collection Methods
Nitecki (2004) expresses the view that techniques for gathering data for program evaluation in library and information sciences (LIS) are drawn from both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Most commonly used methods among library evaluators include surveys, interviews, observation, and counting. Sources of library program information comprise of written records, computer-generated counts or transaction logs, and observations or responses that have been self-reported or collected from participants or observers.
Hernon and Nitecki (1999) find merit in multiple data collection methods since such methods might produce a wider range of research evidence methods, offer depth and insights, as well as cross validation of the findings. Nitecki (2004) adds that while there is no single recommended method for gathering data, experts recommend, and experiences confirm that multiple techniques used in evaluation contribute to richer and complementary information toward making more informed decisions. Multiple techniques of data collection provide concurring evidence that increase the validity and credibility of the findings, as well as cross validation of results (Fletcher, et al 2006).
Gajda and Jewiss (2004) state that narrative and/or numerical approaches can document effectiveness of the program’s activities and services. Individual or focus group interviews, open-ended survey questions, and observations of the program in action are some methods that can be used to gather narrative information. Gajda and Jewiss further state that information about a program’s quality can be gathered using close-ended survey questions such as the Likert scales that are commonly used to obtain numerical ratings from survey respondents about the quality of a program.
Library professionals use survey methodologies, whether mailed, telephoned, or more recently, distributed via the Web or by electronic mail (Nitecki 2004). Survey is a means to collect information that is available from no other source - when the information should come directly from people: descriptions of their values, attitudes, habits, and background characteristics (Jerabek, et al 2002). Jerabek et al add that once a survey has been designed in print, it can easily be converted to an electronic format. The easiest electronic format is e-mail based. By using a web-based form, surveys may be filled out online. When this form is submitted, results are sent to a pre-determined e-mail address.
Hiller (2001) affirms that surveys offer the benefit of obtaining quantifiable data from large populations at reasonable costs, but they should be employed in the right situation. Surveys should be designed from the user perspective. Questions should be short, simple, and clear to the user. Likewise, respondents should be properly motivated for them to complete the survey.
In designing surveys, Gajda and Jewiss (2004) recommend that program’s outcomes and indicators be revisited to develop questions that address what researchers want to know and what information they want to capture.
References
Bawden, D. 1990. User-oriented evaluation of information systems and services. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Gajda, R. and J. Jewiss. 2004. Thinking about how to evaluate your program? these strategies will get you started. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9(8). URL: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=8 (viewed January 22, 2010).
Hernon, P. and D. Nitecki. 1999. Evaluation Research: Editorial. Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(6):429.
Hiller, S. 2001. Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends 49(4): 605-625.
Jerabek, J.A., L. M. McMain, and J. L.Van Roekel. 2002. Using needs assessment to determine library services for distance learning programs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply 12(4).
Kebede, G. 1999. Performance evaluation in library and information systems of developing countries: A study of the literature. Libri 49:106–119. URL: http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/1999-2pp106-119.pdf (viewed February 13, 2010).
Kelsey, M. E. 2006. Education Reform in Minnesota: Profile of Learning and the Instructional Role of the School Library Media Specialist. School Library Media Research 9. URL: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume0 9/kelsey_educationreform.cfm (viewed February 16, 2010).
McClure, C. R. 1994. User-based data collection techniques and strategies for evaluating networked information services. Library Trends 42(4):591-607.
Matthews, J. R. (2007). The evaluation and measurement of library services. West Port, CT: Library Unlimited.
Nitecki, D. A. 2004. Program evaluation in libraries: Relating operations and clients. Archival Science 4 (1-2):17-44.
Powell, R. R. 2006. Evaluation Research: An overview. Library Trends 55(1):102–120.
Trochim, W. M. K. 2006. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. URL: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (viewed August 28, 2009).
Wilson, T. Evaluation strategies for library information systems. URL: http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/evaluation85.html (viewed August 27, 2009).
Paper written in Fall 2009
Definition of Evaluation
Trochim (2006) defines evaluation as the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object. He adds that evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object, where object could refer to a program, policy, technology, person, need, or activity. Evaluation involves collecting and sifting through data, making judgments about the validity of the information and of inferences derive from it, whether or not an assessment of worth or merit results.
More specifically, evaluation identifies and gathers data about specific services, programs, or activities, establishes set of criteria by which success can be assessed, and determines the quality of the service or activity and the degree to which the service or activity accomplishes stated goals and objectives (Van House et al., 1990 in by McClure 1994). Matthews (2007) suggested evaluation process includes assessing library users and nonusers, physical collection, resources, and services.
Purpose of Evaluation
Library system and its components are evaluated for several reasons. According to Powell (2006), evaluation is done to account for the use of resources, describe impact, increase efficiency, support planning activities, and support decision-making. In addition, Powell notes that evaluation is conducted to determine how clients or beneficiaries are affected by the program, fulfill grant requirements, make decisions to continue or terminate programs, document program history, and provide feedback, among others.
Nitecki (2004) also notes that a frequently cited reason for conducting a program evaluation is to fulfill a requirement for grant funds. Grant evaluation is required for grant accountability or advocacy to government or other institutional funding officials.
McClure (1994), Bawden (1990) and Wilson all share the view that resulting data from performance evaluation could be used to assess how well the system meets its objectives or to justify use of resources and provide basis for future funding request. Evaluation contributes in making informed decisions and in justifying services. Kebede (1999) also states that data from evaluation activities could be used to justify worth/value and resources utilized, improve competitiveness for obtaining financial support, and enhance internal efficiency and services provided to library users.
According to Trochim, most evaluations are intended to provide "useful feedback" to various groups of audiences including sponsors, donors, client-groups, administrators, staff, and other stakeholders. Trochim notes however that the relationship between an evaluation and its impact is not an easy and straight-forward one. Studies that seem important may not necessarily and immediately influence short-term decisions, and studies that seem to have no influence at first can have a delayed impact when the right conditions arise. Still, Trochim believes that the major goal of evaluation is to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback.
Data Collection Methods
Nitecki (2004) expresses the view that techniques for gathering data for program evaluation in library and information sciences (LIS) are drawn from both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Most commonly used methods among library evaluators include surveys, interviews, observation, and counting. Sources of library program information comprise of written records, computer-generated counts or transaction logs, and observations or responses that have been self-reported or collected from participants or observers.
Hernon and Nitecki (1999) find merit in multiple data collection methods since such methods might produce a wider range of research evidence methods, offer depth and insights, as well as cross validation of the findings. Nitecki (2004) adds that while there is no single recommended method for gathering data, experts recommend, and experiences confirm that multiple techniques used in evaluation contribute to richer and complementary information toward making more informed decisions. Multiple techniques of data collection provide concurring evidence that increase the validity and credibility of the findings, as well as cross validation of results (Fletcher, et al 2006).
Gajda and Jewiss (2004) state that narrative and/or numerical approaches can document effectiveness of the program’s activities and services. Individual or focus group interviews, open-ended survey questions, and observations of the program in action are some methods that can be used to gather narrative information. Gajda and Jewiss further state that information about a program’s quality can be gathered using close-ended survey questions such as the Likert scales that are commonly used to obtain numerical ratings from survey respondents about the quality of a program.
Library professionals use survey methodologies, whether mailed, telephoned, or more recently, distributed via the Web or by electronic mail (Nitecki 2004). Survey is a means to collect information that is available from no other source - when the information should come directly from people: descriptions of their values, attitudes, habits, and background characteristics (Jerabek, et al 2002). Jerabek et al add that once a survey has been designed in print, it can easily be converted to an electronic format. The easiest electronic format is e-mail based. By using a web-based form, surveys may be filled out online. When this form is submitted, results are sent to a pre-determined e-mail address.
Hiller (2001) affirms that surveys offer the benefit of obtaining quantifiable data from large populations at reasonable costs, but they should be employed in the right situation. Surveys should be designed from the user perspective. Questions should be short, simple, and clear to the user. Likewise, respondents should be properly motivated for them to complete the survey.
In designing surveys, Gajda and Jewiss (2004) recommend that program’s outcomes and indicators be revisited to develop questions that address what researchers want to know and what information they want to capture.
References
Bawden, D. 1990. User-oriented evaluation of information systems and services. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Gajda, R. and J. Jewiss. 2004. Thinking about how to evaluate your program? these strategies will get you started. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9(8). URL: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=8 (viewed January 22, 2010).
Hernon, P. and D. Nitecki. 1999. Evaluation Research: Editorial. Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(6):429.
Hiller, S. 2001. Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends 49(4): 605-625.
Jerabek, J.A., L. M. McMain, and J. L.Van Roekel. 2002. Using needs assessment to determine library services for distance learning programs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply 12(4).
Kebede, G. 1999. Performance evaluation in library and information systems of developing countries: A study of the literature. Libri 49:106–119. URL: http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/1999-2pp106-119.pdf (viewed February 13, 2010).
Kelsey, M. E. 2006. Education Reform in Minnesota: Profile of Learning and the Instructional Role of the School Library Media Specialist. School Library Media Research 9. URL: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume0 9/kelsey_educationreform.cfm (viewed February 16, 2010).
McClure, C. R. 1994. User-based data collection techniques and strategies for evaluating networked information services. Library Trends 42(4):591-607.
Matthews, J. R. (2007). The evaluation and measurement of library services. West Port, CT: Library Unlimited.
Nitecki, D. A. 2004. Program evaluation in libraries: Relating operations and clients. Archival Science 4 (1-2):17-44.
Powell, R. R. 2006. Evaluation Research: An overview. Library Trends 55(1):102–120.
Trochim, W. M. K. 2006. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. URL: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (viewed August 28, 2009).
Wilson, T. Evaluation strategies for library information systems. URL: http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/evaluation85.html (viewed August 27, 2009).
Disaster Preparedness and Libraries
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in February 2010
Disasters and their Damage to Libraries
The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a disaster as “a situation or event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering” (Below, Wirtz, and Guha-Sapir 2009). The Center specifies that for a disaster to be entered into the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), at least one of the following criteria must be met: 10 or more people reported killed; 100 or more people reported affected; declaration of a state of emergency; call for international assistance.
According to Below, Wirtz & Guha-Sapir, there are 2 generic categories for disasters, namely, natural and technological. The natural disaster category is divided into six disaster groups: Biological, Geophysical, Meteorological, Hydrological, Climatological and Extra‐Terrestrial, which in turn cover 12 disaster types and more than 30 sub‐types. For example, the 2004 Tsunami is classified as a natural disaster (disaster generic group) falling under “Geophysical” disaster group, with “Earthquake” as disaster main-type, and “Tsunami” as disaster sub-type. Likewise, the 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar is categorized as a natural disaster under a “Meteorological” disaster group, under “Storm” disaster main-type, and “Tropical Storm” as disaster sub-type.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as cited by Zach & McKnight (2010) defines disaster “as a non-routine event that exceeds the capacity of the affected area to respond to it in such a way as to save lives; to preserve property; and to maintain the social, ecological, economic, and political stability of the affected region.” Zach & McKnight delineate disasters from emergency situations wherein disasters are widespread events that affect more than a single institution or a single user group. Zach & McKnight further state that in disasters, assistance to affected population may not be available immediately since those who could offer help may be affected by the disaster as the rest of the population. Likewise, in such disasters, help from outside sources could take a considerable length of time to arrive, which could result in a “breakdown of the social structure.”
According to the Library of Congress, hurricanes bring destruction to library collections in numerous ways. High winds, flying debris, continuous rain and rising waters break windows, scatter and tear papers and documents, and overturn and hurl bookshelves. Rain or flood water causes the paper in the books to expand, loosens book bindings, and dissolves inks, colorants and other components of letters, prints, photographs and books. Dirty and contaminated flood waters deposit soil, mud and silt on books and other library collections. Further, residual dampness from rain or flooding leads to mold growth causing health problems and more harm to books and papers.
Disasters like earthquakes cause immense loss of lives and leave many people homeless. They destroy infrastructures, collapse library buildings and destroy collections. As pointed out by the Library of Congress, earthquakes toss books and documents from bookshelves and file cabinets. Collections are scattered, crushed or soiled. Collapsing buildings bury collections under furniture, beams, dirt and yard debris, and leave collections exposed to wind, rain or snow. Ensuing fires and floods often cause further damage. Structural collapse may cause fire damage to collections while water damage occurs from fire hoses and sprinklers, or broken water or sewer pipes.
According to the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (2010), the January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake destroyed the oldest library in Port au Prince. The Bibliothèque Haïtienne des Pères du Saint Esprit at the Saint Martial College collapsed. The earthquake also caused heavy damage to the Library of Saint Louis de Gonzague. Both libraries contained very old collections dating from the 16th century including manuscripts brought to Haiti by the missionaries who came from Europe.
Fire, another type of disaster, damages collections in several ways. As noted by the Library of Congress, fire can burn collections completely, or scorch, discolor or soil print materials by soot and smoke. Water used to put out fires can stain, discolor, or cause ink or color bleeding. Water from hoses and sprinkler systems also causes some materials to stick together or leads to mold growth. The fire at University of New Mexico Library burned in less than one hour the anthropology and southwest history titles which were the result of “one hundred years of collecting in these subject areas”( Gugliotta 2006).
Library requirements and services after disaster
Restoring library services in a prompt manner helps promote normalcy and ensures among users the library’s commitment to the community during disaster recovery. To restore and rebuild libraries after a disaster, libraries need funds, facilities, personnel, equipment and computers, new furnishings, communication facilities, arrangement of free access to databases, and technical support and services including interlibrary loan services (McHone-Chase 2010; Washington 2006). In certain cases, students may also need tutoring and homework assistance (Dickerson 2007).
Just as important, Washington underscored the major role of acquisitions in restoring library collections after a disaster. She stressed the need for continued purchase of quality books and other print resources to support the curriculum and assist in rebuilding a quality library collection.
Disaster Preparedness and Planning
Disasters are unpredictable in their nature, occurrence, and severity. While disasters cannot be prevented, their impact on library services might be minimized with well thought-out, organized planning (McHone-Chase 2010).
According to Wong and Green, disaster preparedness, in the context of library setting, refers to a situation wherein libraries are adequately prepared to prevent severe library damage from potential disasters. Thus, libraries have the responsibility to develop disaster plans based on the disasters most likely expected.
Wong and Green further state that disaster planning involves planning, prevention, response, recovery, preparedness, and training. It entails the whole process from developing a disaster preparedness manual, implementing procedures during disaster response, to managing communications with disaster assistance companies, vendors, insurance companies, and media during disaster. Similarly, Lindell & Perry (1992) as cited by Chua, Kaynak, & Foo (2007) stated that disaster management can be described as a cycle with four interrelated stages, namely, preparation, response, recovery, and mitigation.
A critical phase in library disaster planning and management is the recovery phase. Its major purpose is to facilitate the resumption of library operation and delivery of services. At this stage, response activities continue but the library disaster recovery team will coordinate with the local disaster response companies towards restoring limited library operations and services (Wong & Green). Chua, Kaynak, & Foo mentioned that during the recovery phase, post-disaster efforts such as sheltering, resettlement, donation management, utilities restoration, and infrastructure reconstruction are steps towards restoring normalcy to the disaster areas.
References
Paper written in February 2010
Disasters and their Damage to Libraries
The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a disaster as “a situation or event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering” (Below, Wirtz, and Guha-Sapir 2009). The Center specifies that for a disaster to be entered into the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), at least one of the following criteria must be met: 10 or more people reported killed; 100 or more people reported affected; declaration of a state of emergency; call for international assistance.
According to Below, Wirtz & Guha-Sapir, there are 2 generic categories for disasters, namely, natural and technological. The natural disaster category is divided into six disaster groups: Biological, Geophysical, Meteorological, Hydrological, Climatological and Extra‐Terrestrial, which in turn cover 12 disaster types and more than 30 sub‐types. For example, the 2004 Tsunami is classified as a natural disaster (disaster generic group) falling under “Geophysical” disaster group, with “Earthquake” as disaster main-type, and “Tsunami” as disaster sub-type. Likewise, the 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar is categorized as a natural disaster under a “Meteorological” disaster group, under “Storm” disaster main-type, and “Tropical Storm” as disaster sub-type.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as cited by Zach & McKnight (2010) defines disaster “as a non-routine event that exceeds the capacity of the affected area to respond to it in such a way as to save lives; to preserve property; and to maintain the social, ecological, economic, and political stability of the affected region.” Zach & McKnight delineate disasters from emergency situations wherein disasters are widespread events that affect more than a single institution or a single user group. Zach & McKnight further state that in disasters, assistance to affected population may not be available immediately since those who could offer help may be affected by the disaster as the rest of the population. Likewise, in such disasters, help from outside sources could take a considerable length of time to arrive, which could result in a “breakdown of the social structure.”
According to the Library of Congress, hurricanes bring destruction to library collections in numerous ways. High winds, flying debris, continuous rain and rising waters break windows, scatter and tear papers and documents, and overturn and hurl bookshelves. Rain or flood water causes the paper in the books to expand, loosens book bindings, and dissolves inks, colorants and other components of letters, prints, photographs and books. Dirty and contaminated flood waters deposit soil, mud and silt on books and other library collections. Further, residual dampness from rain or flooding leads to mold growth causing health problems and more harm to books and papers.
Disasters like earthquakes cause immense loss of lives and leave many people homeless. They destroy infrastructures, collapse library buildings and destroy collections. As pointed out by the Library of Congress, earthquakes toss books and documents from bookshelves and file cabinets. Collections are scattered, crushed or soiled. Collapsing buildings bury collections under furniture, beams, dirt and yard debris, and leave collections exposed to wind, rain or snow. Ensuing fires and floods often cause further damage. Structural collapse may cause fire damage to collections while water damage occurs from fire hoses and sprinklers, or broken water or sewer pipes.
According to the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (2010), the January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake destroyed the oldest library in Port au Prince. The Bibliothèque Haïtienne des Pères du Saint Esprit at the Saint Martial College collapsed. The earthquake also caused heavy damage to the Library of Saint Louis de Gonzague. Both libraries contained very old collections dating from the 16th century including manuscripts brought to Haiti by the missionaries who came from Europe.
Fire, another type of disaster, damages collections in several ways. As noted by the Library of Congress, fire can burn collections completely, or scorch, discolor or soil print materials by soot and smoke. Water used to put out fires can stain, discolor, or cause ink or color bleeding. Water from hoses and sprinkler systems also causes some materials to stick together or leads to mold growth. The fire at University of New Mexico Library burned in less than one hour the anthropology and southwest history titles which were the result of “one hundred years of collecting in these subject areas”( Gugliotta 2006).
Library requirements and services after disaster
Restoring library services in a prompt manner helps promote normalcy and ensures among users the library’s commitment to the community during disaster recovery. To restore and rebuild libraries after a disaster, libraries need funds, facilities, personnel, equipment and computers, new furnishings, communication facilities, arrangement of free access to databases, and technical support and services including interlibrary loan services (McHone-Chase 2010; Washington 2006). In certain cases, students may also need tutoring and homework assistance (Dickerson 2007).
Just as important, Washington underscored the major role of acquisitions in restoring library collections after a disaster. She stressed the need for continued purchase of quality books and other print resources to support the curriculum and assist in rebuilding a quality library collection.
Disaster Preparedness and Planning
Disasters are unpredictable in their nature, occurrence, and severity. While disasters cannot be prevented, their impact on library services might be minimized with well thought-out, organized planning (McHone-Chase 2010).
According to Wong and Green, disaster preparedness, in the context of library setting, refers to a situation wherein libraries are adequately prepared to prevent severe library damage from potential disasters. Thus, libraries have the responsibility to develop disaster plans based on the disasters most likely expected.
Wong and Green further state that disaster planning involves planning, prevention, response, recovery, preparedness, and training. It entails the whole process from developing a disaster preparedness manual, implementing procedures during disaster response, to managing communications with disaster assistance companies, vendors, insurance companies, and media during disaster. Similarly, Lindell & Perry (1992) as cited by Chua, Kaynak, & Foo (2007) stated that disaster management can be described as a cycle with four interrelated stages, namely, preparation, response, recovery, and mitigation.
A critical phase in library disaster planning and management is the recovery phase. Its major purpose is to facilitate the resumption of library operation and delivery of services. At this stage, response activities continue but the library disaster recovery team will coordinate with the local disaster response companies towards restoring limited library operations and services (Wong & Green). Chua, Kaynak, & Foo mentioned that during the recovery phase, post-disaster efforts such as sheltering, resettlement, donation management, utilities restoration, and infrastructure reconstruction are steps towards restoring normalcy to the disaster areas.
References
Below, R., A. Wirtz, and D. Guha-Sapir. 2009. Disaster category classification and peril: terminology for operational purposes. Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and Munich Reinsurance Company. URL: http://cred.be/sites/default/files/DisCatClass_264.pdf [viewed May 18, 2010]
Chua, A. Y. K., S. Kaynak, and S. S. B. Foo. 2007. An analysis of the delayed response to Hurricane Katrina through the lens of knowledge management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(3): 391–403.
Dickerson, L. 2007. Capitalizing on a disaster to create quality services: some lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Public Library Quarterly 26 (1/2):101-115
Fletcher, L. E., et al. 2006. Rebuilding after Katrina: a population-based study of labor and human rights in New Orleans. URL: http://www.payson.tulane.edu/research/reports/pdf/report_katrina.pdf [viewed January 30, 2010].
Gabe, T., et al. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Social-demographic-characteristics of impacted areas. Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. URL:
http://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/crsrept.pdf [viewed February 15, 2010].
Gugliotta, T. 2006. Fire at University of New Mexico Library. Public Library Quarterly 25(3/4): 61-69.
Hartzell, G. 2003. Why should principals support school libraries? Teacher Librarian 31(2). URL: http://www.oelma.org/documents/RIF%20Article.pdf (viewed February 21, 2010).
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2010. News and developments regarding libraries in Haiti. URL: http://www.ifla.org/en/news/news-and-developments-regarding-libraries-in-ha-ti [viewed May 18, 2010]
Kelsey, M. E. 2006. Education reform in Minnesota: profile of learning and the instructional role of the school library media specialist. School Library Media Research 9. URL: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/ volume09/kelsey_educationreform.cfm (viewed February 16, 2010).
McHone-Chase, S. M. 2010. The role of interlibrary loan in disaster preparedness and recovery. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 20(1): 53-60.
The Library of Congress. Emergency preparedness: hurricane response and recovery. URL: http://www.loc.gov/preserv/emergprep/hurricane.html [viewed May 10, 2010]
The Library of Congress. Emergency Preparedness: earthquake response and recovery. URL: http://www.loc.gov/preserv/emergprep/earthquake.html [viewed May 10, 2010]
The Library of Congress. Emergency preparedness: fire response and recovery.
URL: http://www.loc.gov/preserv/emergprep/fire.html [viewed May 10, 2010]
United States Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Final audit report: Audit of Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) immediate aid to restart school operations (Restart) controls and compliance. Atlanta Audit Region.
Washington, I. 2006. Rebuilding a high school library collection after Hurricane
Katrina. Public Library Quarterly 25(3/4):159-178.
Wong, Y. L., and R. Green. 2006. Disaster planning in libraries. Journal of Access Services 4 (3/4): 71-82.
Zach, L. and M. McKnight. 2010. Special services in special times: responding to changed information needs during and after community-based disasters. Public Libraries 49 (2): 37-43.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Information Seeking Behavior of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper Written in Spring 2009
Introduction
This paper aims to provide enhanced understanding on the information-seeking behavior of social science scholars, scientists, and researchers. It will a) define some terms and provide the typologies of social science data users; b) present research studies on information seeking behavior of social science scholars and researchers; and c) highlight researches that examine the preferred information strategies, channels, and sources of this particular user group.
Definition of Terms
Scholars, scientists and researchers are diverse group of professionals. Their common attribute is their use of information. As stated by Allen (1977 in Robin, 1981) the scientists’ principal goal is a published paper which is a systematic compilation of the inputs of the information processing system, then 'made available to other scientists to employ in their work’.
Social science is composed of diverse fields of study. As defined in the Dictionary of the Social Sciences (2002), it is an academic discipline concerned with the study of the social life of human groups and individuals including anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography, history, political science, psychology and sociology.
Meho and Tibbo (2003) qualifies that a social science scholar is a member of one, or a combination of two or more, of the following academic sub-disciplines: anthropology, area studies, communication, economics, education, geography, history, political science, psychology, public administration, sociology, and women’s studies.
Meanwhile, Robbin (1981) has categorized social science data users into six typologies, namely: a) fact-finder; b) bottom-liner and trend-seeker; c) negotiator-transformer; d) bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformer; e) high priest; and f) scientist-sage. According to Robbin, fact-finders need specific numerical data, which represent facts such as population size. They need to locate a body of data (or a data base) which contains this fact or an easily understood series of numbers and to retrieve the numbers. This type of user has few analysis needs. Bottom-liner and trend seekers generally search for facts or numbers to make generalizations about certain conditions or processes. They need discrete data items which can then be summarized, classified, or sorted to reduce them to manageable groups.
On the other hand, Robbin describes negotiator-transformers as gatherers and transformers of numbers. They do not initiate the process, but are responsible for searching and selecting data according to predetermined requirements of a project. Once the data are gathered, negotiators-transformers transform or reformat data or prepare them to be linked to other data. The bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformers are those with computer experience. They are likely to interact with the support staff in some phase of their work.
The high priests, as articulated by Robbin, are those individuals who make judgments about reliability, quality, and acceptable degree of error. In the social sciences, they are the statisticians responsible for selecting appropriate statistical techniques and interpreting the results of statistical analysis. Finally, the scientist-sages, according to Robbin, are those who evaluate the results of statistical data analysis. Their goal is organize the 'bottom lines' or outputs to produce information and knowledge. They make qualitative judgments about the relevance of these outputs to the research questions posed at the beginning of the research process. Policy makers whose policy and actions are in part based on the selection of relevant evidence derived from statistical data are also included in the category of scientists-sages.
Information-Seeking Behavior of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers
Ellis (1989) studied the activities and perceptions of academic social scientists at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Ellis used informal semistructured interview among 48 scholars consisting of psychologists, educationalists, economists, sociologists, historians, geographers and political scientists. He analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach. From the results, Ellis identified six major categories to cover the characteristics of the information seeking patterns of social scientists, namely a) starting, b) chaining, c) browsing, d) differentiating, e) monitoring, and f) extracting.
According to Ellis, starting refers to seeking information on a new topic and gathering initial relevant information. Starting includes activities that form the initial search for information such as identifying sources that could serve as starting points of the search. These could be familiar sources used before or less familiar sources that can provide relevant information. These initial sources can lead to, or suggest, or recommend additional sources or references. Following up on these new leads from an initial source is the activity of Chaining.
Chaining, as clarified by Ellis, refers to following references in a work to its cited works (backward) and finding new citations to this work (forward). Backward chaining occurs when pointers or references from an initial source are followed, while forward chaining identifies and follows up on other sources that refer to an initial source or document. The next category, according to Ellis is browsing which refers to undirected information seeking activity. It is looking for information in a casual way, which by exploration could lead to chance discovery of information in areas of interest to the user. Browsing involves looking through tables of contents, lists of titles, subject headings, names of organizations or persons, abstracts and summaries. Next to browsing is differentiating is the process of discriminating between information sources using specific criteria. During differentiating, the information seeker filters and selects from among the sources by taking note of the differences between the nature and quality of the information offered.
Monitoring, as described by Ellis is the process of keeping abreast of developments in areas of research interests. By monitoring, the information seeker concentrates on core sources of information which may include personal contacts and publications. Extracting refers to working systematically through sources to identify relevant material of interest. An information seeker is able to achieve extracting by directly consulting the source, or by indirectly looking through bibliographies, indexes, or online databases.
Another study conducted on the information seeking behavior of social scientists and researchers was conducted by Meho and Tibbo (2003), with the aim of updating Ellis's study on social scientists to the era of the World Wide Web. In the study, Meho and Tibbo described and analyzed the information-seeking behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations. For their participants/respondents, they selected scholars and researchers from different countries and from different social science disciplines. Sixty scholars participated in email interviews, and five scholars were interviewed face-to-face. The participants came from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Turkey, Bangladesh, Finland, Israel and the Republic of Ireland.
Based on their findings, Meho and Tibbo extended Ellis's model with four additional information seeking activities, namely: a) accessing, b) verifying, c) networking, and d) information managing. Accessing, as clarified by Meho and Tibbo, refers to obtaining the materials or the identified information objects. Verifying is checking the accuracy of the found information while networking refers to communicating and maintaining a close relationship with people and organizations. Information managing, according to Meho and Tibbo, refers to filing, archiving, and organizing the information objects information seekers use in research.
Further, Meho and Tibbo proposed four stages in the information seeking process of social scientists: searching, accessing, processing and ending. The searching stage is the period of identifying and gathering relevant materials while the accessing is the stage of obtaining needed materials or gaining access to information sources. At the processing stage, researchers analyze and synthesize the obtained information and write the final product. The ending stage indicates the end of a research project cycle.
Bronstein (2007) studied the role of the research phase in information seeking behavior of Jewish studies scholars to address two research questions: a) Which of the information-seeking activities proposed by Ellis's behavioural model are used by Jewish studies scholars in their academic work? b) Is there a relationship between the information activity used by the researcher and the stage of the research? The study consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews in which participants were asked to talk about any activities in their research work that had an information component.
Bronstein found that among Jewish studies scholars browsing library books and journals is an important aspect of their information search. They browse library stacks for new books and journals during the initial phase of their information seeking activity to stay current in their respective field of expertise. Further, Bronstein found that the information strategy of "networking” or the informal communication with colleagues, as elucidated by Meho and Tibbo (2003) is common among the participants/respondents. The participants have a close network of colleagues that represent a major channel of information for keeping up-to-date.
Information Strategies, Channels, and Sources of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers
In the same study reported by Meho and Tibbo (2003), it was revealed that scholars studying stateless nations relied more on “their personal collections, fieldwork, other libraries, and archives than their own university library collection.” Equally important were grey literature and archival material, as well as contacts and acquisitions through friends and colleagues. They obtain essential material for general background and material for theoretical purposes from their respective university libraries. For additional materials, they search special libraries and collections, research- and national libraries. Online materials and the use of email provided great help in their research.
In another study, Wang (2006) reported the result of his research entitled “Interdisciplinary and Cross-cultural Study on Information Behaviors of Academic Researchers in the Internet Era” among 65 researchers in the United States (55 participants) and China (10 participants). In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted among researchers in higher education from Computer Science, Engineering, Information Science, Journalism, and the humanities.
Wang found that the most commonly used Internet information and communication technologies (IICTs) for research are the World Wide Web, email, database, e-journal, online library catalog (OPAC), and digital library. New IICTs such as wiki and instant messaging are not yet widely adopted for research. The study also found that academic researchers in Computer Science and Engineering are early adopters of the Internet for research and are heavy users of digital sources while researchers in the humanities tend to use less digital resources. Wang added that Chinese academic researchers in Computer Science rank the Web much less important than email, digital library, and electronic journal. They also use slightly less digital resources than their US counterparts.
In the study of Bronstein (2007) among Jewish studies scholars, he found that participants are selective in their use of electronic channels for current awareness. They still prefer to use print channels unless the electronic channels provide a tangible benefit to the research process or shorten their information search. To keep up-to-date with current literature, participants use traditional information activities of browsing library stacks and tracking citations. Bronstein added that while participants are knowledgeable of different electronic channels available to them, they will consider using them only if they are convinced that these channels will have a direct benefit on their research efforts.
Conclusion
This paper discusses the information seeking behaviour of social scientists, scholars, and researchers by reviewing selected literature and research studies. Their preferred information strategies, channels and sources are also presented. Understanding the information seeking behavior of social scientists, scholars and researchers is necessary in planning, developing and implementing information systems for this particular user group.
References
Bronstein, J. (2007, April). The role of the research phase in information seeking behaviour of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s behavioural characteristics. Informationresearch, 12 (3). Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html
Dictionary of the Social Sciences. (2002). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation 45 (3). 171-212.
Meho L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1641/pdf
Robbin, A. (1981). Strategies for improving utilization of computerized statistical data by the social science community. International Journal of Social Science Information Studies, 1, 89-109. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2295/01/RobbinStrategiesForImprovingUtilization SSIS1981.pdf
Wang, P. (2006). Information behaviors of academic researchers in the Internet era: An interdisciplinary and cross-cultural study. Delivered at the 1st International Scientific Conference: The Information Technology to Science, Economy, Society & Education (Cultural Center of Tripoli, Greece, 16-17 September 2006). Retrieved March 26, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1664/01/eRA_PeilingWang.pdf
Paper Written in Spring 2009
Introduction
This paper aims to provide enhanced understanding on the information-seeking behavior of social science scholars, scientists, and researchers. It will a) define some terms and provide the typologies of social science data users; b) present research studies on information seeking behavior of social science scholars and researchers; and c) highlight researches that examine the preferred information strategies, channels, and sources of this particular user group.
Definition of Terms
Scholars, scientists and researchers are diverse group of professionals. Their common attribute is their use of information. As stated by Allen (1977 in Robin, 1981) the scientists’ principal goal is a published paper which is a systematic compilation of the inputs of the information processing system, then 'made available to other scientists to employ in their work’.
Social science is composed of diverse fields of study. As defined in the Dictionary of the Social Sciences (2002), it is an academic discipline concerned with the study of the social life of human groups and individuals including anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography, history, political science, psychology and sociology.
Meho and Tibbo (2003) qualifies that a social science scholar is a member of one, or a combination of two or more, of the following academic sub-disciplines: anthropology, area studies, communication, economics, education, geography, history, political science, psychology, public administration, sociology, and women’s studies.
Meanwhile, Robbin (1981) has categorized social science data users into six typologies, namely: a) fact-finder; b) bottom-liner and trend-seeker; c) negotiator-transformer; d) bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformer; e) high priest; and f) scientist-sage. According to Robbin, fact-finders need specific numerical data, which represent facts such as population size. They need to locate a body of data (or a data base) which contains this fact or an easily understood series of numbers and to retrieve the numbers. This type of user has few analysis needs. Bottom-liner and trend seekers generally search for facts or numbers to make generalizations about certain conditions or processes. They need discrete data items which can then be summarized, classified, or sorted to reduce them to manageable groups.
On the other hand, Robbin describes negotiator-transformers as gatherers and transformers of numbers. They do not initiate the process, but are responsible for searching and selecting data according to predetermined requirements of a project. Once the data are gathered, negotiators-transformers transform or reformat data or prepare them to be linked to other data. The bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformers are those with computer experience. They are likely to interact with the support staff in some phase of their work.
The high priests, as articulated by Robbin, are those individuals who make judgments about reliability, quality, and acceptable degree of error. In the social sciences, they are the statisticians responsible for selecting appropriate statistical techniques and interpreting the results of statistical analysis. Finally, the scientist-sages, according to Robbin, are those who evaluate the results of statistical data analysis. Their goal is organize the 'bottom lines' or outputs to produce information and knowledge. They make qualitative judgments about the relevance of these outputs to the research questions posed at the beginning of the research process. Policy makers whose policy and actions are in part based on the selection of relevant evidence derived from statistical data are also included in the category of scientists-sages.
Information-Seeking Behavior of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers
Ellis (1989) studied the activities and perceptions of academic social scientists at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Ellis used informal semistructured interview among 48 scholars consisting of psychologists, educationalists, economists, sociologists, historians, geographers and political scientists. He analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach. From the results, Ellis identified six major categories to cover the characteristics of the information seeking patterns of social scientists, namely a) starting, b) chaining, c) browsing, d) differentiating, e) monitoring, and f) extracting.
According to Ellis, starting refers to seeking information on a new topic and gathering initial relevant information. Starting includes activities that form the initial search for information such as identifying sources that could serve as starting points of the search. These could be familiar sources used before or less familiar sources that can provide relevant information. These initial sources can lead to, or suggest, or recommend additional sources or references. Following up on these new leads from an initial source is the activity of Chaining.
Chaining, as clarified by Ellis, refers to following references in a work to its cited works (backward) and finding new citations to this work (forward). Backward chaining occurs when pointers or references from an initial source are followed, while forward chaining identifies and follows up on other sources that refer to an initial source or document. The next category, according to Ellis is browsing which refers to undirected information seeking activity. It is looking for information in a casual way, which by exploration could lead to chance discovery of information in areas of interest to the user. Browsing involves looking through tables of contents, lists of titles, subject headings, names of organizations or persons, abstracts and summaries. Next to browsing is differentiating is the process of discriminating between information sources using specific criteria. During differentiating, the information seeker filters and selects from among the sources by taking note of the differences between the nature and quality of the information offered.
Monitoring, as described by Ellis is the process of keeping abreast of developments in areas of research interests. By monitoring, the information seeker concentrates on core sources of information which may include personal contacts and publications. Extracting refers to working systematically through sources to identify relevant material of interest. An information seeker is able to achieve extracting by directly consulting the source, or by indirectly looking through bibliographies, indexes, or online databases.
Another study conducted on the information seeking behavior of social scientists and researchers was conducted by Meho and Tibbo (2003), with the aim of updating Ellis's study on social scientists to the era of the World Wide Web. In the study, Meho and Tibbo described and analyzed the information-seeking behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations. For their participants/respondents, they selected scholars and researchers from different countries and from different social science disciplines. Sixty scholars participated in email interviews, and five scholars were interviewed face-to-face. The participants came from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Turkey, Bangladesh, Finland, Israel and the Republic of Ireland.
Based on their findings, Meho and Tibbo extended Ellis's model with four additional information seeking activities, namely: a) accessing, b) verifying, c) networking, and d) information managing. Accessing, as clarified by Meho and Tibbo, refers to obtaining the materials or the identified information objects. Verifying is checking the accuracy of the found information while networking refers to communicating and maintaining a close relationship with people and organizations. Information managing, according to Meho and Tibbo, refers to filing, archiving, and organizing the information objects information seekers use in research.
Further, Meho and Tibbo proposed four stages in the information seeking process of social scientists: searching, accessing, processing and ending. The searching stage is the period of identifying and gathering relevant materials while the accessing is the stage of obtaining needed materials or gaining access to information sources. At the processing stage, researchers analyze and synthesize the obtained information and write the final product. The ending stage indicates the end of a research project cycle.
Bronstein (2007) studied the role of the research phase in information seeking behavior of Jewish studies scholars to address two research questions: a) Which of the information-seeking activities proposed by Ellis's behavioural model are used by Jewish studies scholars in their academic work? b) Is there a relationship between the information activity used by the researcher and the stage of the research? The study consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews in which participants were asked to talk about any activities in their research work that had an information component.
Bronstein found that among Jewish studies scholars browsing library books and journals is an important aspect of their information search. They browse library stacks for new books and journals during the initial phase of their information seeking activity to stay current in their respective field of expertise. Further, Bronstein found that the information strategy of "networking” or the informal communication with colleagues, as elucidated by Meho and Tibbo (2003) is common among the participants/respondents. The participants have a close network of colleagues that represent a major channel of information for keeping up-to-date.
Information Strategies, Channels, and Sources of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers
In the same study reported by Meho and Tibbo (2003), it was revealed that scholars studying stateless nations relied more on “their personal collections, fieldwork, other libraries, and archives than their own university library collection.” Equally important were grey literature and archival material, as well as contacts and acquisitions through friends and colleagues. They obtain essential material for general background and material for theoretical purposes from their respective university libraries. For additional materials, they search special libraries and collections, research- and national libraries. Online materials and the use of email provided great help in their research.
In another study, Wang (2006) reported the result of his research entitled “Interdisciplinary and Cross-cultural Study on Information Behaviors of Academic Researchers in the Internet Era” among 65 researchers in the United States (55 participants) and China (10 participants). In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted among researchers in higher education from Computer Science, Engineering, Information Science, Journalism, and the humanities.
Wang found that the most commonly used Internet information and communication technologies (IICTs) for research are the World Wide Web, email, database, e-journal, online library catalog (OPAC), and digital library. New IICTs such as wiki and instant messaging are not yet widely adopted for research. The study also found that academic researchers in Computer Science and Engineering are early adopters of the Internet for research and are heavy users of digital sources while researchers in the humanities tend to use less digital resources. Wang added that Chinese academic researchers in Computer Science rank the Web much less important than email, digital library, and electronic journal. They also use slightly less digital resources than their US counterparts.
In the study of Bronstein (2007) among Jewish studies scholars, he found that participants are selective in their use of electronic channels for current awareness. They still prefer to use print channels unless the electronic channels provide a tangible benefit to the research process or shorten their information search. To keep up-to-date with current literature, participants use traditional information activities of browsing library stacks and tracking citations. Bronstein added that while participants are knowledgeable of different electronic channels available to them, they will consider using them only if they are convinced that these channels will have a direct benefit on their research efforts.
Conclusion
This paper discusses the information seeking behaviour of social scientists, scholars, and researchers by reviewing selected literature and research studies. Their preferred information strategies, channels and sources are also presented. Understanding the information seeking behavior of social scientists, scholars and researchers is necessary in planning, developing and implementing information systems for this particular user group.
References
Bronstein, J. (2007, April). The role of the research phase in information seeking behaviour of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s behavioural characteristics. Informationresearch, 12 (3). Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html
Dictionary of the Social Sciences. (2002). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation 45 (3). 171-212.
Meho L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1641/pdf
Robbin, A. (1981). Strategies for improving utilization of computerized statistical data by the social science community. International Journal of Social Science Information Studies, 1, 89-109. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2295/01/RobbinStrategiesForImprovingUtilization SSIS1981.pdf
Wang, P. (2006). Information behaviors of academic researchers in the Internet era: An interdisciplinary and cross-cultural study. Delivered at the 1st International Scientific Conference: The Information Technology to Science, Economy, Society & Education (Cultural Center of Tripoli, Greece, 16-17 September 2006). Retrieved March 26, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1664/01/eRA_PeilingWang.pdf
Qualitative research in library and information professional education.
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in Spring 2009
Article Reviewed:
Grover, Robert. 1992. Qualitative research in library and information professional education. In Qualitative research in information management, ed. Jack D. Glazier and Ronald R. Powell, 187-200. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
[Chapter 12).
Written in 1992, this article stressed the importance of research to the library and information science (LIS) profession. Grover started off by pointing out that LIS education is a professional program, and as such it possesses and shares a body of knowledge, skills, and attitudes unique only to the LIS profession.
According to Grover, research is important to a profession; it provides new insights, brings vitality, and adds to the development and progress of a profession. Further, Grover noted that research contributes to the knowledge base used by professionals to solve problems. Through research, LIS professionals remain current on the issues and problems in their profession, and “familiarity” with research enables them to solve problems in a logical and accurate manner.
Grover stated that there are three categories of research based from LIS literature: a) basic research which is “purely theoretical”; b) applied research which is conducted to develop generalizations (theory) aimed at understanding the practice of the LIS profession, among others; and c) action research which gathers data to address specific issues and problems in the library.
In the practice of the LIS profession, Grover mentioned that LIS professionals like medical doctors must perform several functions: a) diagnosis- which is the analysis and identification of the problem (through observation, interview, or needs assessment); b) prescription- which is aimed at providing advice, recommendation, and information; c) treatment-which is the provision of a service or information; and d) evaluation -or the assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment. Of the four functions, “diagnosis” and “evaluation” employ data-gathering or research methods.
The continuum of data-gathering methods which LIS professionals can use for “diagnosis” and “evaluation” are: a) common-sense or intuitive method- which is pre-planned obtained through “gut-feel” during normal activities; b) impressionistic approach – obtained through brainstorming (“sharing of impressions”), and scanning; c) systematic methods- which are planned and structured activities like observation, and interview; d) scientific methods which involve formal data gathering approaches such as historical, experimental and survey studies.
Given its importance, Grover cited ways to mainstream research into the LIS curriculum such as providing opportunities for students to conduct research as part of their courses, participating in research forums and colloquium series, and inviting researchers and scholars to promote the importance of “creativity and research”.
The article is very instructive. While this was written 17 years ago, the information are still valuable and Grover’s points and observations remain valid. Given my academic and professional background in research, I am drawn to the article because of the new insights and concepts that I would learn, particularly as it applies to LIS research.
Paper written in Spring 2009
Article Reviewed:
Grover, Robert. 1992. Qualitative research in library and information professional education. In Qualitative research in information management, ed. Jack D. Glazier and Ronald R. Powell, 187-200. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
[Chapter 12).
Written in 1992, this article stressed the importance of research to the library and information science (LIS) profession. Grover started off by pointing out that LIS education is a professional program, and as such it possesses and shares a body of knowledge, skills, and attitudes unique only to the LIS profession.
According to Grover, research is important to a profession; it provides new insights, brings vitality, and adds to the development and progress of a profession. Further, Grover noted that research contributes to the knowledge base used by professionals to solve problems. Through research, LIS professionals remain current on the issues and problems in their profession, and “familiarity” with research enables them to solve problems in a logical and accurate manner.
Grover stated that there are three categories of research based from LIS literature: a) basic research which is “purely theoretical”; b) applied research which is conducted to develop generalizations (theory) aimed at understanding the practice of the LIS profession, among others; and c) action research which gathers data to address specific issues and problems in the library.
In the practice of the LIS profession, Grover mentioned that LIS professionals like medical doctors must perform several functions: a) diagnosis- which is the analysis and identification of the problem (through observation, interview, or needs assessment); b) prescription- which is aimed at providing advice, recommendation, and information; c) treatment-which is the provision of a service or information; and d) evaluation -or the assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment. Of the four functions, “diagnosis” and “evaluation” employ data-gathering or research methods.
The continuum of data-gathering methods which LIS professionals can use for “diagnosis” and “evaluation” are: a) common-sense or intuitive method- which is pre-planned obtained through “gut-feel” during normal activities; b) impressionistic approach – obtained through brainstorming (“sharing of impressions”), and scanning; c) systematic methods- which are planned and structured activities like observation, and interview; d) scientific methods which involve formal data gathering approaches such as historical, experimental and survey studies.
Given its importance, Grover cited ways to mainstream research into the LIS curriculum such as providing opportunities for students to conduct research as part of their courses, participating in research forums and colloquium series, and inviting researchers and scholars to promote the importance of “creativity and research”.
The article is very instructive. While this was written 17 years ago, the information are still valuable and Grover’s points and observations remain valid. Given my academic and professional background in research, I am drawn to the article because of the new insights and concepts that I would learn, particularly as it applies to LIS research.
Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Written Spring 2009
Article Reviewed:
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49(4), 605-625.
In the article, Hiller compares and contrasts the design, content, methodology, and administration of the a) surveys used by the University of Washington Libraries (UW Libraries) to assess the effectiveness of the programs and services rendered by the UW Libraries to faculty and student research, teaching and learning, and b) UW Libraries’ participation in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)-sponsored LibQual+ pilot (survey) conducted in 2000. The article also provides the similarities and differences between the results of the UW Libraries surveys and the LibQual+ pilot in terms of over-all satisfaction, collection importance, the library as a place, and remote use of library services and resources, among others.
The large scale surveys conducted by UW Libraries among faculty and students was designed to determine a) who the library users and potential users are; how and why the library is used (or is not used); what sources are used for library- related information; what faculty and students’ library-related needs are; and, how satisfied faculty and students are with the libraries. The survey instrument was pilot-tested, and mailed to faculty and to random, nonstratified sample of graduate- and undergraduate students. An incentive was offered to participate. Reminders/follow-ups were also made.
The UW Libraries was one of the 12 libraries that participated in the ARL-LibQual+ pilot, a Web-based survey which utilized a standardized instrument. It had 41 questions which covered the areas/dimensions of accountability, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, access to collections, and library as a place. Demographic data were also collected. The survey design and methodology was handled/managed by a group from Texas A and M University where a SERVQUAL-based survey has been used several times. Separate mailing lists for faculty and students (graduate and undergraduate) were created. A cover letter from the Director of the UW Libraries was sent by email to each participant, with information about the survey, the reasons for UW’s participation, and the URL (link) where respondents could complete the survey.
The UW Libraries’ survey generated a much higher response rate compared to the LibQual+. The low response rate for the LiBQual+ was attributed to “survey length, complexity (three-column response), perceived redundancy, technical problems, and behavioral issues related to Web-based survey”, among others (p.620).
The surveys gave interesting results. In terms of over-all satisfaction, both the UW Libraries and LibQual+ surveys obtained similar results. The faculty had the highest satisfaction while undergraduate students, the lowest. The LibQual+ survey emphasized the importance of library collections and information resources for faculty. Faculty use of the library is primarily collections driven, while students view the library as a place to do work, including finding and using information resources (p. 616). In addition, both the UW Libraries’ and LibQual+ surveys revealed the shift toward remote use of library services (rather than physically visiting the library), user self-sufficiency, and the increased importance of electronic resources.
The article is very instructive. I fully agree with Hiller that user communities and their needs are diverse hence these should be considered in survey design and administration; and, b) surveys should be short, simple, and clear to the users, and that complex research questions may be answered more adequately by other data collection instruments. I also agree that while standardized survey tools are useful, there are local issues that are better addressed using local/institutional efforts and initiatives.
Written Spring 2009
Article Reviewed:
Hiller, S. (2001). Assessing user needs, satisfaction, and library performance at the University of Washington Libraries. Library Trends, 49(4), 605-625.
In the article, Hiller compares and contrasts the design, content, methodology, and administration of the a) surveys used by the University of Washington Libraries (UW Libraries) to assess the effectiveness of the programs and services rendered by the UW Libraries to faculty and student research, teaching and learning, and b) UW Libraries’ participation in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)-sponsored LibQual+ pilot (survey) conducted in 2000. The article also provides the similarities and differences between the results of the UW Libraries surveys and the LibQual+ pilot in terms of over-all satisfaction, collection importance, the library as a place, and remote use of library services and resources, among others.
The large scale surveys conducted by UW Libraries among faculty and students was designed to determine a) who the library users and potential users are; how and why the library is used (or is not used); what sources are used for library- related information; what faculty and students’ library-related needs are; and, how satisfied faculty and students are with the libraries. The survey instrument was pilot-tested, and mailed to faculty and to random, nonstratified sample of graduate- and undergraduate students. An incentive was offered to participate. Reminders/follow-ups were also made.
The UW Libraries was one of the 12 libraries that participated in the ARL-LibQual+ pilot, a Web-based survey which utilized a standardized instrument. It had 41 questions which covered the areas/dimensions of accountability, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, access to collections, and library as a place. Demographic data were also collected. The survey design and methodology was handled/managed by a group from Texas A and M University where a SERVQUAL-based survey has been used several times. Separate mailing lists for faculty and students (graduate and undergraduate) were created. A cover letter from the Director of the UW Libraries was sent by email to each participant, with information about the survey, the reasons for UW’s participation, and the URL (link) where respondents could complete the survey.
The UW Libraries’ survey generated a much higher response rate compared to the LibQual+. The low response rate for the LiBQual+ was attributed to “survey length, complexity (three-column response), perceived redundancy, technical problems, and behavioral issues related to Web-based survey”, among others (p.620).
The surveys gave interesting results. In terms of over-all satisfaction, both the UW Libraries and LibQual+ surveys obtained similar results. The faculty had the highest satisfaction while undergraduate students, the lowest. The LibQual+ survey emphasized the importance of library collections and information resources for faculty. Faculty use of the library is primarily collections driven, while students view the library as a place to do work, including finding and using information resources (p. 616). In addition, both the UW Libraries’ and LibQual+ surveys revealed the shift toward remote use of library services (rather than physically visiting the library), user self-sufficiency, and the increased importance of electronic resources.
The article is very instructive. I fully agree with Hiller that user communities and their needs are diverse hence these should be considered in survey design and administration; and, b) surveys should be short, simple, and clear to the users, and that complex research questions may be answered more adequately by other data collection instruments. I also agree that while standardized survey tools are useful, there are local issues that are better addressed using local/institutional efforts and initiatives.
Trends and Issues related to Image Indexing
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written Spring 2010
Paper written Spring 2010
There are two major approaches in image analysis and representation of subject. These are text-based image retrieval (TBIR) and content-based image retrieval (CBIR). Text based image retrieval, also known as context based descriptive approach, has long been used by librarians, curators, and archivists to provide access to image collections through manual assignment of text descriptors and classification codes. The context-based descriptive approach uses verbal language, either drawn from a controlled vocabulary or extracted from the natural language. This method involves humans in manually providing captions, keywords, and other descriptions of image data for indexing and retrieval.
Classification Systems in Image Indexing
Early attempts were made to apply existing general classification system, such as the Dewey Decimal system or the Library of Congress Subject Headings, to an image collection. These attempts have generally not been successful and led to the conclusion that such systems provide a sparse language for image indexing, particularly in image content description. Indexing tools geared towards more general image access are found to lack unique attributes associated with visual materials. Thus, several approaches have been developed to provide precise indexing tools to meet the needs of specialized communities of researchers and provide access at a high level of specificity.
Thesaurus-based Image Indexing System
There are three thesaurus-based image indexing systems, namely: the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), the ICONCLASS (derived from “iconography” and “classification”), and the TELCLASS.
The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) provide a controlled vocabulary for the visual arts and architecture. The AAT provide “terminology describing physical attributes, styles and periods, agents, activities, materials and objects; and the terms themselves are derived from existing glossaries, subject lists, thesauri, reference works and scholarly monographs, as well as from the subject expertise of art historians and architects”. AAT is a controlled vocabulary to describe and index cultural heritage by providing structured terms relating to images in art, culture, and architecture. Likewise, the AAT can be used as useful tool for cataloging and research.
The second thesaurus-based system, ICONCLASS is a scheme intended to provide a “consistent classification of all the subjects which mankind has succeeded to portray”. It has 17 volumes; each volume has a textual description of a particular subject, theme or motif to be found within nine primary divisions of fine art relating to Religion and magic; Nature; Human being, man in general; Society, civilization, culture; Abstract ideas and concepts; History; Bible; Literature; and Classical mythology and ancient history. ICONCLASS uses alphanumeric classification codes and notations, wherein each notation provides the advantages of indexing using both controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. While ICONCLASS is a powerful tool, it is very complex to use and is not suitable when “describing ordinary images of common objects”.
The third thesaurus-based system, TELCLASS was developed at BBC-TV Film and Videotape Library for use with television broadcast material (Baxter and Anderson). It consists of alphanumeric codes and associated terms, arranged within six main groups, namely: verbal, schematic, actuality, simulation, technical, and formal.
Concerns related to Text-based Image Retrieval
One major concern related to text-based image indexing is the subjectivity of the indexer. Two indexers are likely to provide two different terms to describe an image, and that the same indexer is likely to index “an image differently at different times”. As such, wide disparities occur in keywords given to the same image. Another concern raised regarding text-based image indexing is that it is very labor-intensive.
The issues and problems related to text-based image retrieval have contributed to the emergence of techniques of retrieving images through features such as color, texture, and shape, known as content-based image retrieval (CBIR).
Content-based Image Retrieval (CBIR)
Content-based image retrieval as the method of indexing and retrieving images based on automatic processing of textual information and of the image itself. Through CBIR, images are retrieved from large collections based on image’s features that are automatically extracted from the image itself. There are three levels of image properties analyzed via the content-based approach: a) primitive features such as color, shape, and texture; b) logical features such as the identity of objects presented, and c) abstract characteristics of the images shown. Through content-based indexing systems, images are indexed without the use of words and are described not with textual elements but rather by the use of content descriptors such as color, texture, shape or form.
The use of automatic machine-processing techniques in image retrieval was derived from research in pattern recognition to "parse" basic attributes within images such as color, texture, and shape. While not expected to solve the more general problems of image retrieval, these techniques could be in retrieving subsets of specific visual attributes or as useful tools for segmenting large image collections or for retrieving specific image configurations.
Advantages and disadvantages of CBIR
Several advantages have been cited in using CBIR for image analysis and retrieval such as ease in extracting features from the image, ability to change extracted features to other form such as histogram, and ease in building an automatic process. However, disadvantages of CBIR including difficulty in getting the semantic meaning of images form low level features, unknown usability in handling real-life images, and difficulty in choosing the features for extraction.
Sources:
Baxter, G. and Anderson, D. (1996). Image indexing and retrieval: some problems and proposed solutions. Internet Research. 4, 67 – 76.
Chu, H. (2001). Research in image indexing and retrieval as reflected in the literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. 52 (12), 1011-1018
Conduit, N. and Rafferty, P. (2007). Constructing an image indexing template for The Children's Society: Users' queries and archivists' practice. Journal of Documentation, 63 (6), 898-919.
Jeong, K.T. (2002). A common representation for multimedia documents. Unpublished dissertation, University of Texas, Denton, Texas.
Jörgensen, C. Image Indexing: An Analysis of Selected Classification Systems in Relation to Image Attributes Named by Naïve Users http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/1/OCC/2003/06/12/0000003507/viewer/file1.html
Menard, E. (2007). Image indexing: How can I find a nice pair of Italian shoes? 34 (1) 21-25.
Menard, E. (2009). Images: indexing for accessibility in a multi-lingual environment -- challenges and perspectives. Indexer, 27 (2) 70-76.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Browsing and its importance in information seeking
Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper written in Spring 2008
Introduction
Browsing is an undirected information seeking activity. It is looking for information in a casual way, which by exploration could lead to chance discovery of information in areas of interest to the user.
Browsing is important; it gives people opportunity to develop and prioritize information about a subject they are not familiar with, to keep current with news and developments, to gather information for making initial decisions, and to obtain an over-all view of a subject matter or a whole information material.
This paper enables the reader to a) understand browsing and its importance in information seeking, b) identify factors that facilitate browsing, c) recognize issues related to library browsing and their implications, and d) appreciate how browsing contributes to finding information of interest to the user. Report examples illustrate browsing of print materials, in library shelves, and of online information resources.
Definition of browsing
Browsing is an exploratory information seeking activity by looking for information in a casual way, which by serendipity could lead to finding information in areas of interest to the user (Taylor, 2004).
It is an undirected, visual information searching activity involving actions such as glimpsing, fixing on the object at hand, cursory evaluating the material, selecting the material, or moving on and starting the same process (Bates, 2002).
Purpose and implications
Importance of browsing
Browsing is a common but essential information seeking behavior. Browsing gives information seekers opportunity to develop and prioritize information about a subject they are not familiar with. By browsing, information seekers scan information from a wide variety of sources to keep current with news and developments in various areas of interest (Choo & Marton, 2003). Likewise, browsing enables people to gather information needed in making initial decisions of the potential value of a material.
By browsing, people are able to locate items or links that will lead them to other information sources. Browsing bookshelves, catalogues, or databases enables people to get a general view of a particular subject matter. It provides a means to locate information in a document, as well as provide an over-all idea of the whole material.
Factors that facilitate browsing
The organization of print materials promotes browsing. Table of contents, list of titles, topic headings, indexes, prefaces, names of people and organizations, and references encourage and increase interest in browsing. In libraries and bookstores, browsing is enhanced when collections are arranged in systematic order, through subject categorization or classification, and in visually appealing manner.
In online browsing, navigation devices, hypertexts and directories provide guides to users looking for items of interest. ”Hypertext browsing” directs users to links between keywords and topics that can be further explored by users. “Directory-browsing” created through subject categories and classification provides efficient browsing and encourages further exploration (Chen, Houston, Sewell, & Schatz, 1998).
Extent of library browsing among various groups
Among social scientists and scholars browsing library books and journals is an important aspect of their information research (Meho & Tibbo, 2003). Scholars browse library stacks for new books and journals during the initial phase of their information seeking activity to stay current in their respective field of expertise (Bronstein, 2007).
However, library browsing among school children and undergraduate college students has greatly declined. Thus, school librarians have advocated for creative ways to encourage school children to find information and research materials through library browsing (Coleman, 2007). In a comparative study of two universities, frequency of academic library browsing among college students has been found to be extremely low (Ridley & Weber, 2000).
Implications
As information becomes more easily accessed and searchable online, this creates implications on physical libraries as a place for browsing.
Online browsing has become more powerful and important with the availability of electronic information resources. People are now able to obtain information by using personal computers to connect to online information source, thus dependence on printed library resources has been lessened even much further.
This situation poses challenges and opportunities for libraries towards greater change and innovations. These are happening now, as academic and public libraries are making available materials like online catalogs, electronic journals, e-books, and other electronic sources. Furthermore, public libraries are providing a variety of programs and library spaces for community activities to entice more library patrons. School libraries likewise are becoming more aggressive to promote library literacy and education.
Examples
Example #1. Print material browsing
In a bookstore, a customer casually picks a magazine, opens the table of contents, leafs through the pages to get a sense of what topics it covers, and reads randomly some of the articles. Once she finds an article of interest, she zeroes in to read that article. However, if no article catches her interest, then she puts down the magazine, gets another, and repeats the process.
Example #2. Library shelf browsing
A library user wanders into the aisle that contains her favorite theme or subject of interest. She scans the spine of the books, arranged on the shelf by subject matter classification. She picks out a book which catches her interest; scans the cover, table of contents, chapter headings, or reference. She leafs through the pages, randomly reading paragraphs to decide whether to read (or check-out) the book. If she decides that the book does not meet her particular need, she picks out another book, and starts the same process.
Example #3. Online browsing
With no particular destination in mind, an information seeker enters a subject on an online journal index for new articles. She follows the links of items of interest by simply clicking the mouse. She scans the links to the table of contents, other work of the author, or works on the same subject by other authors. She finds a link that catches her interest, and clicks the article, and explores the webpage to examine the information content. If the article or webpage suits her need, she either bookmarks or prints the article. If not, she moves on and repeats the process.
Conclusion
Browsing is an exploratory, undirected information seeking activity which could lead to chance discovery of items of interest to the user. Browsing print materials is enhanced by presence of table of contents, topic headings, list of titles, index, and references. The arrangement and creative visual display of books promotes shelf browsing. Hypertext and directories increase interest and sustain online browsing.
Library browsing among children and undergraduate college students has been noted to have declined. With online information resources widely available, this creates challenges and opportunities for physical libraries towards greater change and innovation.
References
Bates, M. J. (2002). Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching. Keynote during the Fourth International Conference on Information Needs, Seeking and Use In Different Contexts, Lisbon, Portugal, September 11-13, 2002. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/articles/infor_SeekSearch-i-030329.html
Bronstein, J. (2007, April). The role of the research phase in information seeking behaviour of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s behavioural characteristics. Informationresearch, 12(3). Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html
Chen, H., Houston, A. l., Sewell R. R., & Schatz, B. R. (1998, May). Internet browsing and searching: User evaluations of category map and concept of space techniques [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(7), 582-603. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Choo, C. W., & Marton, C. (2003). Information seeking on the Web by women in IT professions [Electronic version]. Internet Research, 13(4), 267-280. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Coleman, J. (2007, January). Browsing 101: How do you find a good book? [Electronic version]. Library Media Connection, 25(4), 42-43. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Meho L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1641/pdf
Ridley, D. R., & Weber, J. E. (2000). Toward assessing in-house use of print resources in the undergraduate academic library: An inter-institutional study. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 24(1), 89-103. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Taylor, A. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Paper written in Spring 2008
Introduction
Browsing is an undirected information seeking activity. It is looking for information in a casual way, which by exploration could lead to chance discovery of information in areas of interest to the user.
Browsing is important; it gives people opportunity to develop and prioritize information about a subject they are not familiar with, to keep current with news and developments, to gather information for making initial decisions, and to obtain an over-all view of a subject matter or a whole information material.
This paper enables the reader to a) understand browsing and its importance in information seeking, b) identify factors that facilitate browsing, c) recognize issues related to library browsing and their implications, and d) appreciate how browsing contributes to finding information of interest to the user. Report examples illustrate browsing of print materials, in library shelves, and of online information resources.
Definition of browsing
Browsing is an exploratory information seeking activity by looking for information in a casual way, which by serendipity could lead to finding information in areas of interest to the user (Taylor, 2004).
It is an undirected, visual information searching activity involving actions such as glimpsing, fixing on the object at hand, cursory evaluating the material, selecting the material, or moving on and starting the same process (Bates, 2002).
Purpose and implications
Importance of browsing
Browsing is a common but essential information seeking behavior. Browsing gives information seekers opportunity to develop and prioritize information about a subject they are not familiar with. By browsing, information seekers scan information from a wide variety of sources to keep current with news and developments in various areas of interest (Choo & Marton, 2003). Likewise, browsing enables people to gather information needed in making initial decisions of the potential value of a material.
By browsing, people are able to locate items or links that will lead them to other information sources. Browsing bookshelves, catalogues, or databases enables people to get a general view of a particular subject matter. It provides a means to locate information in a document, as well as provide an over-all idea of the whole material.
Factors that facilitate browsing
The organization of print materials promotes browsing. Table of contents, list of titles, topic headings, indexes, prefaces, names of people and organizations, and references encourage and increase interest in browsing. In libraries and bookstores, browsing is enhanced when collections are arranged in systematic order, through subject categorization or classification, and in visually appealing manner.
In online browsing, navigation devices, hypertexts and directories provide guides to users looking for items of interest. ”Hypertext browsing” directs users to links between keywords and topics that can be further explored by users. “Directory-browsing” created through subject categories and classification provides efficient browsing and encourages further exploration (Chen, Houston, Sewell, & Schatz, 1998).
Extent of library browsing among various groups
Among social scientists and scholars browsing library books and journals is an important aspect of their information research (Meho & Tibbo, 2003). Scholars browse library stacks for new books and journals during the initial phase of their information seeking activity to stay current in their respective field of expertise (Bronstein, 2007).
However, library browsing among school children and undergraduate college students has greatly declined. Thus, school librarians have advocated for creative ways to encourage school children to find information and research materials through library browsing (Coleman, 2007). In a comparative study of two universities, frequency of academic library browsing among college students has been found to be extremely low (Ridley & Weber, 2000).
Implications
As information becomes more easily accessed and searchable online, this creates implications on physical libraries as a place for browsing.
Online browsing has become more powerful and important with the availability of electronic information resources. People are now able to obtain information by using personal computers to connect to online information source, thus dependence on printed library resources has been lessened even much further.
This situation poses challenges and opportunities for libraries towards greater change and innovations. These are happening now, as academic and public libraries are making available materials like online catalogs, electronic journals, e-books, and other electronic sources. Furthermore, public libraries are providing a variety of programs and library spaces for community activities to entice more library patrons. School libraries likewise are becoming more aggressive to promote library literacy and education.
Examples
Example #1. Print material browsing
In a bookstore, a customer casually picks a magazine, opens the table of contents, leafs through the pages to get a sense of what topics it covers, and reads randomly some of the articles. Once she finds an article of interest, she zeroes in to read that article. However, if no article catches her interest, then she puts down the magazine, gets another, and repeats the process.
Example #2. Library shelf browsing
A library user wanders into the aisle that contains her favorite theme or subject of interest. She scans the spine of the books, arranged on the shelf by subject matter classification. She picks out a book which catches her interest; scans the cover, table of contents, chapter headings, or reference. She leafs through the pages, randomly reading paragraphs to decide whether to read (or check-out) the book. If she decides that the book does not meet her particular need, she picks out another book, and starts the same process.
Example #3. Online browsing
With no particular destination in mind, an information seeker enters a subject on an online journal index for new articles. She follows the links of items of interest by simply clicking the mouse. She scans the links to the table of contents, other work of the author, or works on the same subject by other authors. She finds a link that catches her interest, and clicks the article, and explores the webpage to examine the information content. If the article or webpage suits her need, she either bookmarks or prints the article. If not, she moves on and repeats the process.
Conclusion
Browsing is an exploratory, undirected information seeking activity which could lead to chance discovery of items of interest to the user. Browsing print materials is enhanced by presence of table of contents, topic headings, list of titles, index, and references. The arrangement and creative visual display of books promotes shelf browsing. Hypertext and directories increase interest and sustain online browsing.
Library browsing among children and undergraduate college students has been noted to have declined. With online information resources widely available, this creates challenges and opportunities for physical libraries towards greater change and innovation.
References
Bates, M. J. (2002). Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching. Keynote during the Fourth International Conference on Information Needs, Seeking and Use In Different Contexts, Lisbon, Portugal, September 11-13, 2002. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/articles/infor_SeekSearch-i-030329.html
Bronstein, J. (2007, April). The role of the research phase in information seeking behaviour of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s behavioural characteristics. Informationresearch, 12(3). Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html
Chen, H., Houston, A. l., Sewell R. R., & Schatz, B. R. (1998, May). Internet browsing and searching: User evaluations of category map and concept of space techniques [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(7), 582-603. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Choo, C. W., & Marton, C. (2003). Information seeking on the Web by women in IT professions [Electronic version]. Internet Research, 13(4), 267-280. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Coleman, J. (2007, January). Browsing 101: How do you find a good book? [Electronic version]. Library Media Connection, 25(4), 42-43. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Meho L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1641/pdf
Ridley, D. R., & Weber, J. E. (2000). Toward assessing in-house use of print resources in the undergraduate academic library: An inter-institutional study. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 24(1), 89-103. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from Academic Search Premiere.
Taylor, A. (2004). The organization of information (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)