I think it's time for the Dean to weigh in on the status on SLIS and our future as a School. I am delighted to share that SLIS is doing quite well. Also, I need to clarify what it means to be conditionally accreditated. First, we are accreditated, fully accredited. Our full accreditation status will be maintained provided we successfully host a re-accreditation visit in March of 2009. A conditional status means that you go through accreditation in three years rather than seven, as is usually the case. Further, you complete additional documents to establish that you are correcting the problem(s) noted in the re-accreditation visit that resulted in the need to go through the process sooner. Granted, it is preferable to remain fully accredited. However, it is also quite an opportunity to examine the direction of the School, rally the School, University, and the community behind SLIS to ensure SLIS is going in a positive direction. SLIS needed to do some self-examination. I knew this to be the case when I came for my interview. However, there is no need for alarm. Far from it.
SLIS's faculty is aware that the planning process needed to be bolstered. Further, that we need to ensure we engage our stakeholder community (you) in the process. We are dedicated to doing this. If we do it successfully, and I am quite sure we will, we will retain our accreditation status and further, maximize our contribution to the field and to the academic community. We didn't need to revamp the entire program. Nor did the program completely fail its previous accreditation visit. The planning process was considered inadequate. That problem is actively being corrected. Further, the University is strongly behind SLIS and providing resources to ensure our success. SLIS has received permission for new faculty hires, we have identified and obtained a consultant to ensure we meet our ALA requirements head-on and successfully. We are already working to prepare a dynamite report that will demonstrate the greatness of SLIS that did not come out in the previous report. As is oft quoted from Mark Twain, "Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often." Rest assured that we have have been diligently at work ensuring a favorable outcome of the upcoming accreditation visit at SLIS slated for March 23rd and 24th of 2009. So, we've been active but not speaking as loudly as perhaps we should. Our conditional accredited is something we will address wholeheartedly and our university's support for our efforts is stellar.
If you have been concerned about SLIS's future. Don't be. I do not make it a habit to bet on a losing horse. In fact, I don't bet. I ensure that when I come to an institution, and make it my home, I ensure the odds are in my favor. SLIS is strong, it's a great program. It's a program with a great deal of potential and its future is bright. You have my word that we will be better than we were before and we will achieve much through the self evaluation process that is self study. Most people will tell you I don't give my word unless I can deliver. SLIS will deliver in 2009 and for every student that enrolls in our program. Be a part of a brighter tomorrow. Be a part of something that promises to be even better than it has been before. Be a part of SLIS!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The next gen of librarians, JSTOR and the journal Science - What do they have in common?
The controversy concerning the future of libraries has been in the New York Times and most recently, the latest edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education in the article: Young Librarians, Talkin' 'Bout Their Generation . The view of the "next generation" of library professionals is fascinating. What concerns them most? One area of concern, one area I think is a fundamental issue for the profession (and will continue to be) is intellectual property, ownership and the scholarly record. The librarians interviewed indicated that librarians need to take more control, assert their authority, take back their power, and change their perspective on what they can and cannot demand from publishers who depend, at least in part, on libraries as their customers (as one interviewee accurately pointed out). Further, they see a future heavily invested in digital, which makes sense. I was surprised, however, that they were not so adamant about the end of analog, but, they did see the integration of multiple technologies (hopefully in a coherent whole) that will shape their futures. It was also very reassuring for someone like myself, who is no longer in her thirties (!) to have such an articulate, engaged, and tech-savvy group of individuals taking the reins (so to speak) as the field evolves and looks to its future.
The issue affecting these young librarians are apropos of the issues currently facing the library community, especially in academe. The continuing controversy concerning the decision of the publishers of Science to withdraw it from JSTOR is heating up, and for good reason. When JSTOR came into being, and librarians began to provide it to their clientele, they did so with the expectation that the journals included would be there for the foreseeable future. It was not a situation where there wasn't a quid pro quo, librarians paid for the access to this publication and the price was certainly fair for all the publishers involved. Further, as one of the librarians involved with purchasing at the time, I know that that purchasing resources such as JSTOR affected myriad collection development decisions that are difficult, or impossible, to reverse because of Science's decision to pull out.
The Chair of the Council of Library Directors for the University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions (USMAI), Dr Celia Rabinowitz, stated in the recent Chronicle article that this is a significant loss, and further, it might result in a growing reliance on print to offset the ever growing need of publishers to extract more for their publications. While I certainly support the publishers right to make a profit, I balk at the loss of a scientific publication from an aggregated database resulting in its loss to the learner, scholar, and next generation. Once lost, there is no more opportunity to serendipitously find Science when searching through databases for materials. That is indeed a serious loss for learners, researchers, and the libraries who serve them. I also found it profoundly disturbing that Science felt it needed to pull out even when it does not index its journal into JSTOR for five years. Clearly, there is little or no loss of revenue at the end of a five year period for a publication that is about scientific discovery. Couldn't they consider lengthening the time before they contribute to JSTOR as an alternative to simply pulling out entirely?
In an emerging world that is ever more focused on cross-disciplinary research, being "an island" in the field, ie, not participating in an aggregated database that combines resources for a myriad of fields like JSTOR, is counter intuitive to the choices and preferences of science researchers. The only bright spot in all of this is that few publications would be interested in being isolated, Science is one of the few that would consider this to be in their interest.
In an era where musicians, some of the finest (e.g., Radiohead), are choosing to allow the consumer to pay what s/he thinks is fair for their latest album, I think the idea of paying more for the same information, such as the Science model doesn't have a bright future. We will see what happens with Science and whether they reconsider their approach. We will also see if they consider their debt to the scholars, librarians, and future scholars who make their journal possible and are the primary users as well.
In a word, librarians, unite! We've got the power! Apply pressure and let's see if we can be as successful as Radiohead! :-)
The issue affecting these young librarians are apropos of the issues currently facing the library community, especially in academe. The continuing controversy concerning the decision of the publishers of Science to withdraw it from JSTOR is heating up, and for good reason. When JSTOR came into being, and librarians began to provide it to their clientele, they did so with the expectation that the journals included would be there for the foreseeable future. It was not a situation where there wasn't a quid pro quo, librarians paid for the access to this publication and the price was certainly fair for all the publishers involved. Further, as one of the librarians involved with purchasing at the time, I know that that purchasing resources such as JSTOR affected myriad collection development decisions that are difficult, or impossible, to reverse because of Science's decision to pull out.
The Chair of the Council of Library Directors for the University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions (USMAI), Dr Celia Rabinowitz, stated in the recent Chronicle article that this is a significant loss, and further, it might result in a growing reliance on print to offset the ever growing need of publishers to extract more for their publications. While I certainly support the publishers right to make a profit, I balk at the loss of a scientific publication from an aggregated database resulting in its loss to the learner, scholar, and next generation. Once lost, there is no more opportunity to serendipitously find Science when searching through databases for materials. That is indeed a serious loss for learners, researchers, and the libraries who serve them. I also found it profoundly disturbing that Science felt it needed to pull out even when it does not index its journal into JSTOR for five years. Clearly, there is little or no loss of revenue at the end of a five year period for a publication that is about scientific discovery. Couldn't they consider lengthening the time before they contribute to JSTOR as an alternative to simply pulling out entirely?
In an emerging world that is ever more focused on cross-disciplinary research, being "an island" in the field, ie, not participating in an aggregated database that combines resources for a myriad of fields like JSTOR, is counter intuitive to the choices and preferences of science researchers. The only bright spot in all of this is that few publications would be interested in being isolated, Science is one of the few that would consider this to be in their interest.
In an era where musicians, some of the finest (e.g., Radiohead), are choosing to allow the consumer to pay what s/he thinks is fair for their latest album, I think the idea of paying more for the same information, such as the Science model doesn't have a bright future. We will see what happens with Science and whether they reconsider their approach. We will also see if they consider their debt to the scholars, librarians, and future scholars who make their journal possible and are the primary users as well.
In a word, librarians, unite! We've got the power! Apply pressure and let's see if we can be as successful as Radiohead! :-)
Monday, October 15, 2007
Course Offerings at SLIS
In an effort to ensure SLIS is responsive to students, in this case considering your expressed needs and preferences concerning our course offerings, the SLIS faculty, led by Professor David Shumaker, devised an excellent survey of CUA-SLIS students to determine your needs (and preferences) for course offerings for the spring semester from SLIS. The survey was completed by 145 students. This is a significant sample and very helpful in learning more about your views, thank you! The survey results included a request for your scheduling preferences. We found that you prefer a blended format (a mixture of face-to-face and online), late afternoon class times and to have classes offered on Monday - Thursday. Many of you indicated you would like to see courses offered entirely online also.
We also took your requests for specific classes and examined them closely to see to what extent we can match the offerings with your requests. The five most requested courses were:
LSC 606, Cataloging
LSC 608, Collection Development
LSC 609, Preservation
LSC 841, Rare Book Librarianship
LSC 557, Libraries and Information in Society
For the spring semester, we expect to offer most of these. The faculty met and discussed every one of your preferences and made a conscientious effort to consider both the types and times/days/formats of the courses you indicated you need and would like to take.
We enjoy being a program that is student-centered. Asking your opinion, and using it as a basis for considering our spring offerings is something we took very seriously. I think we have an excellent, rich set of offerings for the spring semester. We hope you will agree.
We also took your requests for specific classes and examined them closely to see to what extent we can match the offerings with your requests. The five most requested courses were:
LSC 606, Cataloging
LSC 608, Collection Development
LSC 609, Preservation
LSC 841, Rare Book Librarianship
LSC 557, Libraries and Information in Society
For the spring semester, we expect to offer most of these. The faculty met and discussed every one of your preferences and made a conscientious effort to consider both the types and times/days/formats of the courses you indicated you need and would like to take.
We enjoy being a program that is student-centered. Asking your opinion, and using it as a basis for considering our spring offerings is something we took very seriously. I think we have an excellent, rich set of offerings for the spring semester. We hope you will agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
