Curated tweetstream: what our audience said about Charles B. Lowry on the economic crisis

Here's another first for LiveSerials - rather than writing a report on the session by Charles B. Lowry, Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries, I thought I'd give you a snapshot of the tweeting that took place throughout:

Setting the scene:

• bookstothesky Telling wordcloud from Lowry re library budgets: key words emphasized are budget, reduction(s), cut, reduced :-/ #uksg

On US vs UK library budgets:

• jharvell Does that mean that 10 universities in the us had library budgets of over 40 million dollars before the cuts? #uksg #didimisssomething?
• chriskeene @jharvell and the lowest category was 'libraries with budget less than $20million'. different world!
• jharvell Don't get me wrong those big budgets are brilliant. Brilliant. But my gob hasn't closed for the last 5 mins. #ineverknew #uksg
• jharvell With the amount of money available in US budgets why are publishers even bothering listening to us in the uk #uksg

On the other hand:

• charlierapple Decreasing budgets are the new norm, not an aberration, with consequences for teaching and research internationally #uksg Lowry
• ORourkeTony @charlierapple #uksg I heard someone say recently that flat was the new up!
• MelindaKenneway Time to head to Canada by the looks of things - they seem to be the only libraries left with budget. #uksg

And finally ...

• antet Not sure I like the detached phrase "reduced commitment to human resources" #uksg

UKSG Conference Summary

This is the summary I put together for my SAGE colleagues. I am reposting here in case it is of use. Comments on theme omissions welcome.

The 33rd Annual UKSG Conference was held in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago, with a varied programme and over 850 attendees. Themes gleaned from the sessions and discussions I attended are summarised below. The very active twitter stream from the conference can be found here. I was amazed at the ability of delegates to listen, assimilate and then tweet or blog all at the same time!

Social Media

An increase in focus on Social Media and new ways of sharing information and research was very evident. There was a much higher engagement and understanding of newer communication channels. Interestingly, it was not younger researchers quoted as spending more time blogging or commenting online but more established researchers who have already secured a reputation and can afford to spend time in this way. They are contributing to knowledge and growth in their field but not just in the tradition of peer-reviewed high impact journals. An interesting development would be a unique researcher identifier such as ORCID which would help tie all researcher output together.

Researchblogging is interesting, its focus is on serious posts about peer reviewed academic research. It has over 1200 blogs and has doubled in the last year. Adam Bly from Researchblogging explained that more collaborative science and the creation of new knowledge has the scientific information industry running to keep up. We’ll be contacting them to ensure posts on Sage content can be linked back to the original research.

Open Access

OA feels like it is slowly gaining traction as a publishing model. The vibe from various sessions was less if than when. Tony Hirst was emphatic on the new openness of communication channels. Why use traditional journal articles to share ideas he asked? If he or his colleagues do decide to publish an article it will be in OA jnls. However, no clear wide-ranging path for institutions to fund OA was apparent yet.

Usage

JISC Collections have secured funding to progress with the JISC usage stats portal or “make it real”. We'll be contacted for our input, the prototype involved data from Elsevier, OUP and Springer. Its aim is to present usage data in user-friendly ways for librarians and include new ways to benchmark usage. There is not clarity on confidentiality issues and was no resolution proposed on the question of the confidential nature of usage data. It’s early days.

Big Deals, Value & Pricing

An interesting session on value had Ted Bergstrom from UCSB explaining that he is securing information about big deal pricing so he can publish information about outliers in the public domain. His reason: “as citizens of the academic community, we are interested in helping librarians to understand the dynamic economic problem that they face and aiding them in negotiating effectively with large publishers. We plan to release a collection of information and analyses that will serve this purpose.” See his Big Deal Contract Project page.

As in previous years the mood seemed to be that the Big Deal bubble must burst, as it is unsustainable for many institutions, but there was no clear way forward proposed still.

Carol Tenopir talked about developing real tools for librarians to demonstrate value of their collections. She pointed us to the ARL website for more information.

Jill emery from Texas talked about patron-driven ebook and journal article acquisition stating 'the age of the article is here'. She explained they need “aggregated article access”. She wants publishers to listen as they have to purchase “Just in time not just in case'.

Quality Metrics

Frustration with the reliance on the Impact Factor and the fact it ranks journals and not articles was apparent. There is a desire to produce new ranking metrics. the Australian Research Assessment is no longer using the Impact Factor we were told.

Pete Binfield (PLOS) ran a session on how they have introduced article-level metrics - it’s worth a look if you haven’t seen. They recognise they are very much at the beginning but are very keen to do whatever they can to help users decide which content is highly valued by the community. Also, these metrics not just about evaluation but to help users filter and discover articles of value.

Pete talked about how they have work to do on working out how to measure “influence”. It’s important to demonstrate influence beyond the scientific community. This ties in with our work to show the value of social science research. How do we ensure the research we publish is credited appropriately when it influences Government policy for instance?

As Hannah Whaley says on her blog: The discussion around these issues is healthy, as is the growing volume with which librarians and researchers are willing to speak them out loud. However these key themes are notable for representing problems, not solutions. It is clear that licensing models, researcher metrics, electronic and open access still have some way to evolve to meet the growing needs and expectations of the community.

Roadblocks and what not to do

"Who owns our work?" - simple words but a vexed question, says Dorothea Salo of the University of Wisconsin. Whose work are we referring to? Lots of people are involved in creating journal articles. There's no one owner, but lots of stakeholders. And the "who" might not be a "who" but a "what". But Dorothea's ultimate point is that, in protecting our various roles in 'creating' 'work', we must avoid putting roadblocks in the path of the work's ultimate goal - usage. (All this talk of roadblocks is pretty apt, given the state of Edinburgh's roads while they work towards an access-friendly tram system...)

Credit where it's due
Researchers are keen to keep ownership of their work to ensure their ideas are protected. But even at this embryonic stage of the publication process, lots of other people are involved in the work - research assistants and lab partners and so on. These people look not for monetary compensation but for credit in the form of prestige. Author lists are a blunt tool for addressing this, so publishers are involved in trying to solve the problem even though it starts way before they become a part of the process. Publishers are perceived as having a "hold on career credit and career prestige" that needs to be broken.

Different stakeholders
The early 'content' that researchers create - conference presentations, for example - are indisputably owned by them, since publishers, librarians etc have not had a role at this point. In open notebook science, the online posting of lab notebooks (methods, equipment lists, preliminary data etc), people are 'publishing' and claiming ownership of their content much earlier in the process. Dorothea warns publishers who plan to extend their services to include research data to be careful how they claim ownership of this. There are many more stakeholders in the process, who want to do different things with research results - peer reviewers, funders etc. "But ownership is only a proxy for what these people really want." The researcher establishes primacy over his ideas by publishing them, and doesn't generally mind relinquishing ownership to the publisher - but in doing so he can start to prevent others from reusing his work. Publishers feel that they should be paid for the work they contribute to the process, but libraries and their users should be able to [use content for learning] without fear of a lawsuit.

Funders are primarily interested in impact, and may also be keen to encourage wider access to the research they fund. Are they doing enough to help researchers achieve the level of ownership they seek? Publishers and libraries conflict over "appropriate ownership in the copies that we purchase", and digital preservation is a key issue here. Librarians are starting to get more radical in their expectations. "Learn to engage in public, online, on these issues." says Dorothea. "Don't use proxies, don't use sock pockets .. don't use private email and don't use workplace chains of command. It will look like you have something to hide, and are trying to intimidate your protractors."

Changing expectations
"Being a roadblock is a poor business model." Librarians are instinctive gatekeepers but "our patrons do not want us getting in their way." The same is true of publishers: when you use ownership rights to get in the way of access and reuse, you're damaging your own brands. There are beginning to be other options for content distribution (repositories, OA publishing), and "closing off access is going to become a liability for publishers who want to make arguments about impact and prestige."

• Dorothea's slides and notes are on Slideshare
  

How blogs can drive scientific progress

Adam Bly opens by thanking the Tweeters for keeping him in touch with the conference. Adam, you see, is in New York. We're in Edinburgh. Virtual speakers: a first for UKSG.

Distributing, managing, sharing, visualising data
Adam will speak around the issue of how we can ensure that we are constantly updating and refining our first principles and our technologies in a landscape that is constantly evolving. He illustrates changes in science by showing a picture of the large hadron collider. "It's a reminder of how science has become increasingly global, with dozens of countries (even those in current geopolitical conflict) coming together to collaborate." These huge, global, multidisciplinary collaborations require new approaches to distributing and managing data. Scientists must not only produce, but find new approaches to sharing and visualising, data.

"Open science is what will drive the most profound and robust advancements in the future, and will ensure that science has the greatest potential to affect society for the better."

Adam says we have a social responsibility to make research as available as possible to the world - to scientists, and researchers, across borders - and ensure that the technology that does this doesn't impede progress. (It's nice to hear someone make this argument about the core data, not the finished article - I think the former is much more valuable to progressing research, and doesn't devalue what publishers add.) The challenge is not whether open science is good or bad, but how it becomes scaleable, sustainable and simple to adopt. We need purpose-built software and environments for researchers, so that this extraordinarily valuable community is not spending its time on IT but is instead discovering the next great cure.

Starting over on scientific communications
We need to bed four first principles into this reboot of the system:

• Digital core - we've been moving online for years, and will continue to do so. But if the core isn't fundamentally digital, then we just end up hacking solutions around the edge, and can't create the kind of intelligence that a truly digital core for research promises.
• Free flow of information - economic growth is tied to the abundance of scientific information, and we're on track to increasingly free flow.
• Standards and interoperability - to ensure that as projects progress they can be tied together, so individual scientists are not navigating through disconnected and redundant applications, but bringing disparate pieces together.
• Knowledge from information - using tools like data visualisation to see realtime changes and extract knowledge.
  

ResearchBlogging
Adam uses the example of the ResearchBlogging platform, which enables scientists to communicate with each other and the public, using the simple, open blog as a medium. Scientists can easily tag posts so that they can be syndicated to appropriate outlets. It helps ensure that they are contributing to the scholarly record, and that their work and dialogue are being seen more widely than hitherto (journal clubs etc). He shows an example of a ResearchBlogging feed in the PLoS One site - conversations relating to published papers being immediately syndicated back to the source.

Value of blogs in tracking, funding and planning science research
Some researchers in the Netherlands have done the first bibliometric / webometric study of blogging in science, and have used ResearchBlogging as the subject. They found that blogs are more immediate than traditional academic discourse, and are more contextually relevant than academic literature. They focus on the implications of science. This kind of study enables us to understand where discussions around the web are focussed, to better understand the movements of science and direct policy-making and funding.

Plenary presentation summary: Journal Spend, use and research outcomes: A UK perspective on Value for Money. Presented by: Ian Rowlands, CIBER

During the second plenary session on Tuesday during UKSG, Mr. Rowlands presented some preliminary data from part of Research Information Network funded research project. He is halfway through project and will be continuing into next year. There are some very interesting visualization tools to explore the data online.

There has been an unprecedented growth in access to journal material over the past decade as content has moved from print to electronic. However, it is critical to assess the impact of the increase in access and availability of content has had in past decade. Has this increase in access led to higher productivity and more innovative research?

In exploring the research outcomes, Rowlands is looking at many quantifiable criteria, including: Number of Counter downloads, # of Phds, # of grants, institutional spending patterns, and deep log analysis in a variety of disciplines.

It should come as little surprise to the community that the transition from print to electronic publication is nearly complete. 96.1% of science journals are online and 88.5% of arts and humanities journals are online. In 2007, the academic community spent £80 million on e-journal licenses. Collectively those purchases have yielded more than102 million downloads or 0.80 £ per download.

There has been tremendous end-user take up of these resources. The number of downloads doubled from 2004 to 2007. This represents a 21.7% per annum growth in downloads over that period. The core proposition of providing online articles is “very popular” among researchers.

There has also been a rapid increase of number of journals available at an average institution. The average number of titles per researchers is up from just above 4 to just below 8. {TC – Given the present economic environment it is likely these figures will decrease in the coming year, but it certainly will remain at a higher average level.}

Citation analysis is showing that users are drawing more sources, and including more references per paper. The use of navigation and discovery tools, increased access, has created a situation where research is now more deeply founded in previous work.

University administrations are looking for clear and compelling justifications for the continued expense of information purchases and Mr. Rowlands thinks that compelling information is now available.

This change of availability has impacted the information seeking behavior of end-users. It is not surprising that Google is the “librarians friend”. Many Researchers are using gateways, such as Google, Pubmed, etc. to get access to content. Examples of the increase of traffic abound. One OUP Journals saw a two-fold increase in journal uses as an effect of opening up their content to Google.

The access provided by online content is also having a profound impact on resource use. The convenience of 24 X 7 access is tremendous. 17% of activity is taking place on weekends and the “Working day is growing” with 1/3 of activity taking place outside of “normal office hours” of 9:00am – 5:00pm. This access was more difficult in a print-based world.

However questions remain about whether efficient search is the same as or necessarily yields successful research? There is a strong negative correlation between research rating of the scientists in institutions and the average session length on Science Direct. The most “successful researchers” were the group spending the least amount of time online with content. Trends pointed to the fact that the most successful researchers use gateways. Much more search activity is taking place outside the library, typically on services like Pubmed, Google, and Google Scholar.

There were natural clustering of intensive use and the figures for the differences between moderate, high and super users correlated significantly with outputs such as the numbers of papers produced, the amount of grants funds received and the number of PhD’s the institution produces. In addition, while the average cost per download is consistent across institution, the more active the institution the less per article the institution paid.

Mr. Rowlands stressed that these data merely show associations not causation. Nor does the data show any directionality. Is it that a lot of research creates demand for lots of information, or is it that research institutions, put things together and in place for research, which therefore impacts results.

The next stage of this research will look at historical information. Among the topics to be explored is what are linkages between products, spending and outcomes? He is working to produce a computer model, that shows, for example, scenarios what the increase in the number of titles and/or downloads might have on research outcomes.

The initial information points to the fact that downloads and research outputs are like “gears on a bicycle” that move in tandem. As one gear gets bigger, the faster the other gear turns. Although one needs to understand the causality question, the understanding of the fact of the connection is a useful addition to knowledge about assessment and performance measurement.

{NB Disclaimer: Much of this summary is verbatim and/or paraphrased from the Mr. Rowlands talk – very little in this post is interpreted and should not be credited to me. Apologies to Mr. Rowlands for any errors.}

Breakout Session B (22) Knowing Your Users: Research You Can Do - Judi Briden, Digital Librarian for Public Services, University of Rochester, NY

Although the project described today took place at a (campus based) academic institution Judi Briden began the session explaining that they can be applied to users in any institution.

Background:

• IMLS grant 2003-2004 to study facility work practices - there was an institutional repositories in place (GSpace) but it wasn't being used properly/enough
• Libraries hired an anthropologist - this was a very useful move. After studying staff they began studying (the around 5000) undergraduates as it had been so valuable.

What do students really do when they write research papers was the key question but generally they wanted a better understanding of students and how their library facilities, web pages etc. can work better for them. Plans were originally submitted to the research board and the libraries have been very very careful about protecting data and respecting privacy. Consent forms and the right to leave the study were both used.

Retrospective interviews

• Recently Completed Papers - wanted a concrete example with details
• From receiving the assignment to turning it in (step by step questions through the process)
• Each step illustrated on a poster (students would draw in the step as well as describing it)
• Interviews video recorded and transcribed.

Judi showed an example poster of the processes of writing an assignment. Students did not ever write in a step about talking to librarians though they did include use of the library website/services. Various stages of outline and feedback etc. described and informative for libraries. Some students consulted with teaching staff, some consulted with family (a revelation to the librarians). Students included information about the stage where they got distracted and why, what spaces are better for studying.

Judi showed a senior student's honours paper process poster - a complex poster covering several years. His process much more closely resembled a graduate student.

The next step, after collecting the data, was to look at the data. Research team and librarian staff co-viewed videos, transcripts and drawings in viewings with discussion and brainstorming. The process engendered widespread staff participation and was used at every stage of the project.

What did they learn?
That students:

• Work on their papers in chunks, with days or weeks in between
• Asked family and friends for help choosing a topic or editing their papers (one student said her dad had edited all her papers since the 3rd grade!)
• Some students assumed that if they did a Google search it included the library resources (so they didn't go back and look at the library stuff afterwards) - so services must be better but also resources must be on Google!
• Did evaluate resources - just not in the ways that librarians recommend (e.g. find and print out articles but don't read for a few days and then discard some)
• Don't remember who gave their library session

Another technique used were photo surveys - this allows you to investigate environments you would not normally be able to see. When you look at photos with interviewees you learn more than you would be just talking to them. They gave students a disposable camera and a list of photos they should take (the places they study, what they always have with them, how they keep track of time etc.) as well as a few "free" pictures they could use. All images were developed and put on CD and then a session to discuss was scheduled.

Judi showed a students photo (from 2004): mobile phone is present (and almost all students on campus had cell phones). Dorm room pictures were rich in detail that research team would never have thought to ask about otherwise. The things that students take to class photo revealed that no students were taking their laptop to lectures. Once alerted to this the team knew they needed to ask about. An image of a colour coded diary shows the one thing a student couldn't be without. The team found that students were highly and complexly scheduled with work and activities but no days looking the same.

The team also gave students a map of campus and asked students (for one day) to write down where they went and when. It was very very easy to do but very informative and again gave information that was not being given in any other way. Example map Judi shows covers 8am to 12am the next day and covers a complex pattern over the campus covering 2.5 miles (on a fairly compact campus). Students are out all day and take all their stuff around all day. This explains the laptop issue - they didn't want to lug it round all day but would use it when sat in one place for a long time, usually the library at night.

The team also looked at the website design with Design Workshops

• Create a device that did everything that students wanted it to do and yet could still be small and light
• They also had to redesign the library webpage and, in another session, marked up a version of the current library homepage with any changes they would make if they could.

Judi explained that even the warm up session devices was informative in terms of the concerns of students.

The marking up of homepages was very valuable and they repeated this exercise with faculty and graduate students later on.

Another study focused on library space. There was an area they wanted to make into a collaborative work space so students input on what should be there was sought. Trying to get participation was tough. In the end recruited on the day with posters, pizza and small payment for taking part in a design workshop. This walk in workshop asked students to imagine that the library has a big new empty space that they can design to be their space in the library, it's build and you love it... what does it look like?

Students were asked for 20 minutes of their time but many stayed for over an hour and got very into the design process. Many pictures go into lots of details. Comfort, daylight, wifi, bookshelves etc. all important to different students. Quiet but not silent seemed to recur as an idea. Talking all the ideas and analysing them they cover five key areas:

• flexibility to meet variety of needs (need to be able to move things in the space/do several things in same space
• comfort with family room feel and attention to environment (natural light etc)
• technology - computers, printers, scanners, whiteboards, "mini Kinkos" (copy centre machine), chargers (phone and ipod) etc.
• Staff support from checking things to "making a killer latte!"
• resources - books, dvds etc.

Additional student interviews took place in the student union at a time of year when papers were being worked on - student worker at the library (same age as students) recruited participants. Interviews were done by recent anthropology student who'd just graduated. By using young research team the libraries expected to get more honest answers to questions. They asked if students felt they had enough time for papers, if it mattered and who they have asked for help (and they were prompted as to whether they'd asked a librarian), also when had they last worked on their paper and when would they next work on it.

The results showed that most students had used library resources and had been able to find what they wanted. They also felt they had enough time. They didn't feel that organizing and writing (especially narrowing topic) was going as well. Professors and TAs are subject experts (specifically professors) but saw librarians as experts on finding specific books. All students expected to do well or as well as needed (many were prioritizing several papers).

Faculty study had included interviews in offices which had proved valuable. For studying undergrads it seemed important to go to their dorm rooms. It was felt this could be tricky but students were extremely welcoming and open (putting onus on researchers to be responsible with what they do with data). 2 Dorms were studied and the anthropologists went out between 11pm and 1am as other research showed that students worked at that time of night. Only went to rooms where explicit permission and asked students to do what they normally would do (students did this!) as team observed them. What was interesting was students use of technology, particularly use of computer desktops. Judi showed a video of a student using his computer (a mac with lots of items on dashboard - conversion tables, sticky notes - with reminders, quotes etc (mostly not assignments)). Judi said that you can see from this how little physical space was being taken up by assignments (one paper sticky note on monitor) - assignments are not so large in students general sphere of activity as librarians expected. Librarians have a better sense of proportion about discussing papers as a result.

Dorm observations
- Lots of distractions - music, video games, people, IMs, Facebook, NOT a lot of reading
- My room is your room culture - sort of communal - people wander in and pop through. Lots of sharing going on
- Freshman much more active vs. Upperclassman dorms (busy but less chaotic) - makes sense but seeing that made librarians realise that the library is a refuge and it's a place where students count on a lack of distractions to get things done when they need to.


What are they doing differently?

• Gleason Library - 24/7 collaborative space - when architect selected they had to incorporate ideas of students, architects willing and excited to do that. Work went on during summer when students not on campus else they would have been included. However members of research team worked with the architects about what students wanted though discomfort about properly consulting students. When it came to final layout students were returning to campus so were asked to place drawings of furniture around as they would like. Consistently the students did 2 unexpected things: the space had a new wall of windows and architects had put comfy chairs there but students wanted natural light for work tables so that actual work rather than relaxation could take place there; demanded quiet study areas not just open space (no doors but divisions to separate noisier from quieter areas. The students love the place. Judi showed images of the room - it's busy and popular all the time, the furniture moves all the time. Judi walks through the area to get to her office and it always changes. There are some frosted glass cubicle areas where the glass walls are whiteboards - they are always being used and prove really really useful. Flipcharts asking about what students thought of the space also asked for even more whiteboards so they are there. Students multitask (image of one knitting and reading!)
• Night owl reference at paper crunch-time - Judi showed a "Whooo's working late" promoting help with assignment papers (at key times in the year) until 11pm several nights a week when students were busiest. Proved useful and it's now been fine tuned and happens every semester around crunch time to accomodate students needs.
• Parents breakfast at orientation - given importance of parents to learning process the library now hosts the orientation breakfast and listen to concerns, talk about process and then they tell parents that every single class has a librarian who knows about that class and about resources for that class - so parents can refer kids back to library later on.
• Experimenting with webpage redesign - will go live in the fall and the new design based on student ideas. Widgets are being used making it customisable and/or rearrangable for specific sessions. This will make pages more attractive but they will also be able to learn from what students choose to include/exclude.
• Changing the way that library sessions are tought - now feel much more comfortable with experimenting with students, one librarian is now a writing instructor, sessions include discussion of what's going on. We understand how confident and competant students feel - pairs of students are given a resource that they can play with and must present to group about what it does, how to search, when you find something you like how do you get it and finally if you find something you like what are two many ways to get it. Librarians add extra info as needed but just facilitate, students lead and share and it works really well.

Long term benefits

• understand how our undergraduates live and work on campus - this 2 and a half year project has been fascinating and really fun. We like and know our students a whole lot better and we are feeling motivated to make the library better for them
• Understand their use of library
• High staff engagement and participation - librarians now have a more personal perspective and communicative with students
• Greater comfort and lower overhead for trying new ideas - major change
• Continuing this type of research

All students and users are different so you need to find out about yours. You don't need an anthropologist. You can do great things with low tech low cost small programmes. Get a small team of interested staff together and build it from there, staff will become interested and it will be fun and find great results!

Q & A

Q: what was the sample size?
A: varied. space designs formed from 19 drawings, 8 students did photo project, 20 students in interview etc.

We've written a book, Studying Students, which is available for free download and have a project website with lots more info:
http://www.tinyurl.com/f63dj

Q: Are you reviewing this process?
A: All the time. We know students love the library and we are listening to them. It's granular and hard to add up. Over time we're looking for more interaction though and writing and library classes very much following that and much more participative. No metrics yet though.