Musings – Page 2

TOB X: March Madness for books

April 1, 2014 by Amanda VerMeulen

Last Friday the Morning News Tournament of Books declared The Good Lord Bird by James McBride the winner of TOB X. I added this to my to-read pile along with one other TOB competitor, Long Division by first time author Kiese Laymon whose writing judge Héctor Tobar described as, “a tour de force of colloquialisms and street slang put to intellectual good use,” before eliminating it from the competition in the first round. It lost to Donna Tartt’s Goldfinch a novel I am committed to never reading.

Two is not an impressive number of newly discovered reads and I didn’t go into the tournament having read a lot of the books. Just three and a half, At Night We Walk in Circles by Daniel Alarcón, Life After Life by Kate Atkinson, The Lowland by Jhumpa Lahiri and about half of A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki.

This actually reflects my sense of my 2013 reading year. I don’t have the stats but it wasn’t a year full of books I loved. Few of the books I liked made the TOB, only the Alarcón and Atkinson. And The Lowland is by far Lahiri’s weakest work. So I took a look at the TOB long list to see how that stacked up and found a lot of books I read or that were on my to-read list that didn’t make the cut. There were a lot. Read Pamela’s recommendations from the TOB long list.

Money, Money, Money

March 10, 2014 by Amanda VerMeulen

photo by Jean O’Connor

This week the library hosts Trevor Dawes, the current president of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). Trevor has been a strong and vocal advocate for financial literacy and the role librarians can play in helping students become more knowledgeable and more active in controlling their own financial futures. Trevor has partnered with the iOme Challenge initiative to help librarians learn more about how we can support this effort.

I am convinced that library financial literacy is becoming as important for people who use libraries as it is for the librarians and staff who have to spend and manage money. We are using funds supplied by our institutions (and at least partly by tuition dollars) to purchase the materials that we think best support the curricula of the college and also provide outlets for reading, viewing, and listening (and sometimes gaming) that balance all that intense academic work.

Students and faculty are still often surprised to hear that the electronic version of a journal will probably cost us about as much as the print version. And inflation affects everything. Most people don’t think about what it costs to keep a physical book on a shelf once we buy it. If you are a librarian, ask a class (or a group of faculty) what they estimate we spend per year on our online resources. The responses may surprise you. If we purchase an e-book and are unable to make it accessible to more than one user at a time, or through Interlibrary Loan, is it a better “deal” than a physical book which has some, but not all, of the same limitations? Our economic decisions are based on more than just dollars and cents.

Like all departments on campus, the library buys equipment and supplies, pays for equipment leases (yes – the Xerox machine), pays people who work here, and supports the professional development of our staff. And like lots of places these days we do it with less money than we used to. This means making strategic decisions, but also keeping people in mind. It might mean buying a DVD for $14.99 which we know will make people feel good, and spending a much larger amount on a resource that is critical for the success of faculty and students.

The economic landscape is shifting. Colleges and universities are experiencing challenges with enrollment, changes in curriculum, and increases in costs. The more we know about how funds are spent the smarter we will be about the decisions we are faced with. Financial literacy is the key to all of our financial futures.

Discovery, but not so discoverable

February 4, 2014 by Amanda VerMeulen

OneSearch. We like it a lot. It’s the main search on the library website and will give you everything from journal and newspaper articles to books, images and DVDs. It’ll retrieve anything it can find somehow related to your search terms. It’s a great tool and time saver.

Despite all the positive things we have to say about OneSearch, we’re feeling a bit frustrated at the moment. We always knew, and do our best to explain, the results in OneSearch would not include everything which the library owns or has access to. OneSearch provides a service. It pulls results from the library catalog and databases in one search, on your behalf, so you do not have to search the catalog and databases individually. In exchange for this service (and in order for this service to function properly and legally) the company which owns OneSearch, EBSCO, has signed licensing agreements with other database vendors and publishers. The providers who do not agree to such terms do not participate in the service. We knew about these agreements, always and from the beginning.

OneSearch is accessible from off-campus. Students, faculty and staff members can search and must only authenticate into the system to access the full text of articles. Members of the community can search our holdings and view citations, but not access licensed materials. To borrow a book or read an article, a community member would have to physically come to the library. This “guest access” is helpful to our community members who rely on our resources for their research needs, and to students from other academic institutions who also use our resources.

Something has changed in the licensing agreements. Now, some of the citations themselves are inaccessible and un-viewable to anyone off-campus unless that person authenticates using a network ID and password. What does that mean? Faculty, staff members, and students, have to login before being able to view all the results displayed. It’s an extra step, but not any different from searching a database from off-campus. Members of our community, however, can no longer search across our collection and view article citations from the databases while off-campus. Essentially, OneSearch, which is designed to promote discovery and access, is now limiting that freedom and access and our patrons are suffering because of it. What to do about it? We’re not really sure yet.

The Convenience Conundrum

January 27, 2014 by Amanda VerMeulen

It’s a new semester! It’s REALLY cold! The Library is warm and we’re glad everyone is back. Over the break I read an article that has been distracting me. “If It’s Too Inconvenient I’m Not Going After It” is a fascinating research article about the role of time, gratification theory, and rational choice theory in the research habits of university faculty and students. The researchers looked at how information seeking habits like using databases and at choices for getting help.

Spoiler Alert!! The researchers found that ” . . . on some situations information seekers will readily sacrifice content for convenience.” (p.27). Now I know that this does not describe any student or faculty member here at St. Mary’s. Convenience was defined as choice (print or online), satisfaction with the source, and time needed to access and use. For me, this is one of those “doh” moments. We all behave this way at some point or another.

The researchers conclude that we should purchase services and resources that “replicate” the Web and which are perceived as “convenient and easy to use.” The “library experience” should be more like Google, Amazon, or iTunes.

Over the same break I also read a blog post from Barbara Fister which reminds us that “The order libraries create must invite disorder. This is something that is particularly important when it comes to helping students learn how to use libraries. Our systems, which were made that way, are broken by definition. . . . If we truly thought knowledge could be nailed down in a system, there would be little use for libraries.”

So which is it? Convenience or disorder? Perhaps it’s both. Over this past weekend I spent about an hour and a lot of email trying to untangle a problem a student was having accessing the full-text of an article and she was on campus while I was at home. I finally got her the link, but discovered another glitch in the process. The ability of our systems to talk to one another has improved but not enough. The convenience researchers are right. Our systems need work together better so that we don’t spend so much time trying to get “stuff” and not enough on whether it’s the right stuff.

How will that happen? Slowly. But what [should] happen BEFORE and AFTER we go information seeking is the same slow, intense, thought process it has always been. Is it fun? It can be (OK – that might just be the librarian nerd in me). Is it challenging, sometimes frustrating, energizing? It can be. And the information seeking itself is sometimes messy.

So I’m all for convenience as long as we don’t confuse our desire for efficient and effective tools with an intellectual and creative journey that should always leave room for uncertainty, some messiness, and the possibility of discovery,

You Paid #(!*% For That?!?

December 2, 2013 by Amanda VerMeulen

This morning on the radio I heard a report about the impact of the next round of automatic sequester budget cuts. Once you eliminate all of those programs that are “untouchable” there isn’t much left. Everyone is for budget cuts until those cuts come too close to home, which for our elected legislators means impacting seniors, jobs in their districts, etc. So who gets affected? Sometimes it’s groups without much political clout. Or people with jobs in public service (which can spill-over to people with jobs in the private sector).

Who decides where the money comes from? If you had to cut 10% from your monthly spending today what would you choose? Your cell phone service? Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Instant Video? Coffee and lunch out? Your electric bill? You would have your own list of “untouchables.” You know what you spend so you can decide what is most important and how to prioritize your budget reductions.

statsfun.com

Budget reduction is happening on many college and university campuses. Costs rise every year and budgets don’t always grow at the same rate (sometimes they don’t grow at all). The only way to pay our bills is to find more money (the dreaded “generate revenue) or to cut costs. So, like the federal government, or you, we have to prioritize, to decided what is untouchable.

But wait! You are running the library. Isn’t most of what you provide free?? It’s on the Internet, isn’t it?! OK – maybe that was a bit of hyperbole. But I bet that many students and faculty on my campus (and others) don’t really know how much we spend on the resources you need/want to help you succeed. There are a few reasons for that:

Many information vendors (the companies that license our electronic resources) have a confidentiality clause in their license contracts. That clause prevents us from discussion cost publicly. This is a way for vendors to negotiate different prices without being transparent about the criteria used to determine the price. Many librarians now refuse to sign licenses with this clause.
Librarians have been reluctant to talk about cost with our students and faculty. Our job has always been to provide access to information, to help our community members find and use information, and to be a welcoming and engaging place. We don’t want to sully that with conversations about money.

But it’s time for some straight talk about money. There has been a lot of conversation among librarians lately about what we pay for our resources, especially our online resources. You know, the ones with the 24/7 access to full-text that you love. Librarians are asking our publishers and vendors questions about why we have to purchase big bundles of journals (more is better, right?) instead of selecting only the journals we want (can you say cable company?).

Did you know that the average book price in 2012 (according to our book vendor, Yankee Book Peddler) was $82.09 for a print book which is up 4.9% from last year, and $112.42 for an ebook. Did you know that prices for books in social sciences rose about 7%, about 5% for the sciences, and 1% for the humanities?

Did you know that we spent about $273,000 just on electronic resources last year (not including some of our individual ejournal titles)? Is that a lot or a little? What are we getting for our $273k? We get access to the full-text of about 20,000 journals (do we need that many?). We get access to images and data from reference books online. We have access to art images, primary source materials, and books. Does it really cost that much? It’s hard to know. Even though we have the ability to negotiate for our costs, licensing an online resource is still a lot like buying a car. Once we’re done we still don’t really know if we got a good deal or not.

Keep-Calm-o-Matic

So when it’s budget cutting time we look at how much online and print resources are being used and who needs them. We consider the impact of stopping access but being able to add it again when/if economic conditions improve. We propose buying articles on demand rather than paying for subscriptions. We have options.

I think it is important for our students and faculty to know how we make decisions about spending our resources and why it may be important to “just say no”. Sometimes we might cancel or decline to add a resource in order to reduce our spending, and sometimes we might say no because it’s the right thing to do. The publishers and vendors won’t change their sales strategies without pressure from customers (that means you). Knowledge is power. To learn more read the blog posts linked above, or email me (cerabinowitz@smcm.edu). Let’s have coffee and talk.

A Win for Libraries

November 22, 2013 by Amanda VerMeulen

Have you heard about the recent ruling of the Google Books case?

The case began eight years ago when The Authors Guild filed a suit against Google for violating copyright law by scanning copyrighted books and making them available electronically. Finally, last week, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin dismissed the lawsuit and issued this (30 page) statement.

Why does this ruling matter?

Accessibility.

Essentially, the ruling judge decided that Google’s efforts in scanning tens of millions of books, which are still under copyright, falls under the guidelines for fair use and is therefore legal. How is that possible? By scanning these books, Google provided added value, which is unavailable in print form, by allowing users to search books electronically. This feature greatly increased the accessibility of the books’ contents, which the judge decided was more valuable than any possible violation of copyright. In addition, Google provides access to only the most relevant pieces of a text in the briefest form, with outside links to retailers and libraries where users can acquire full text access legally.

Why are librarians so excited?

To quote Ian Chant’s article from Library Journal:

In the opinion issued today, Judge Chin agreed that Google Books is not a place where readers can go to pirate books but a tool to help people find books that may be of interest to them. Chin cited libraries as a particular beneficiary, noting that “Google Books has become an essential research tool, as it helps librarians identify and find research sources, it make the process of interlibrary lending more efficient, and it facilitates finding and checking citations.”

Simply stated, Google Books has increased the accessibility of books, and enabled librarians to do a better job finding, researching and sharing those books with their patrons.

What do librarians love?

Information access.

What Makes a Librarian a Librarian?

September 10, 2013 by Amanda VerMeulen

If you are in the library and you have a question you can ask a librarian! And anyone you see working behind a counter or desk in a LIBRARY must be a LIBRARIAN, right? Not so fast.

There are all kinds of people working in libraries. Librarians, archivists, digital media specialists, paraprofessionals, volunteers, and even
. . . wait for it . . . students. Can anyone be a librarian? We librarians are pretty proud to be to members of a club which isn’t all that exclusive but which does require credentials.

All librarians have a master’s degree. Here at St. Mary’s the librarians have degrees from different library schools (yes – we still call some of them library schools, although some have changed their names to schools of information). We have been to U. of Texas at Austin, U. of Pittsburgh, University of Michigan, Rutgers, U. of South Florida, U. of South Carolina, and U. of North Texas. AND – our degrees have different names including MS, MLIS (Master of Library & Information Science), MIS, MSI, MSIS, and MLS.

I have an MLS from Rutgers University. Most of the time MLS means Master of Library Science. But my diploma says “Master of Library Service.” Come on up to my office if you want to see it. Rutgers doesn’t give diplomas with that name anymore so pretty soon I’ll have a genuine relic.

So how does a person learn to be a librarian? Do we learn the Library of Congress classification system? Practice speaking in a whisper? Memorize the almanac? Actually it depends. Some library school students study how to catalog materials (organize and classify them so you can find them). Some take classes to learn to become good researchers and to help other do research. Some learn how to preserve materials or archive them. These days many library school students also learn to create digital learning materials, to use social media, to blog, and to develop tools for finding information. Some library school students write a masters’ thesis and some don’t. Most do an internship. Most of us take statistics and research methods.

Who wants to be a librarian? Almost anyone! Lots of SMCM alums have become librarians and archivists. Did you know that the head archivist at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Museum and Archives is a SMCM alum (and she’ll be on campus later this semester). A totally cool young adult librarian in a northern Virginia public library is an alum. And did you know that the associate director of the SMCM Library is a SMCM alum??? Go find Kat Ryner (LI 225) and ask her about becoming a librarian.

We are always in the process of becoming librarians. We learn lots of basics in library school and the real education starts once we get out and working. Those graduate school courses give us a really solid foundation, get us started thinking about all kinds of issues that librarians care about (fair use of materials, copyright, open access, the digital divide). We learn to do research and about important library journals (librarians research, write, and publish just like other faculty).

So now you know what makes a librarian. If you want to know more, ask a librarian to lunch, or coffee. Another thing you should know is that librarians LOVE to talk about why we love being librarians. We might make you want to be one, too.

Too Awesome Not to Share

August 9, 2013 by Amanda VerMeulen

As Celia mentioned in her last post, librarians have a long tradition of upholding library users’ privacy. It’s in our professional Code of Ethics!

We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (last amended Jan. 2008)

We’re quite good at making sure that library users’ records and web browsing sessions are kept private (or not kept at all), and have a great history of standing up to legislation we see as infringing on users’ right to privacy (see the NYTimes article in which we receive the now infamous radical militant librarians label, then see us put it on a t-shirt). In general, people love us for this, but people also love social media, online shopping recommendations, and seeing what their best friends just bought on Etsy. There’s a weird conflict between the kind of privacy people say they want and the kind of privacy infringement they’re willing to put up with in order to have a personalized online experience. Libraries have largely stayed out of it, but recently I came across this really cool initiative that seems to have a good balance of user privacy and personalized recommendations.

Behold, THE AWESOME BOX:

This project is the brainchild of the Harvard Library Innovation Lab and is being implemented at not only Harvard but a select group of public and academic libraries in the U.S. The concept is simple: Think something is awesome? Return it to a special “awesome box” or flag it with an “awesome bookmark” and library staff will scan it and have it magically appear on that library’s Awesome Page. What you read remains private, but you now have a better sense of what your fellow-library-goers are reading, watching, and listening to throughout the year.

Plus who doesn’t need a little awesome in their day?

What are your thoughts on the Awesome Box? Would something like it fly at St. Mary’s?

The Library, the Surveillance State, and You

July 29, 2013 by Amanda VerMeulen

This has been the summer of surveillance. The Edward Snowden affair, the Bradley Manning trial, and WikiLeaks have dominated the news and prompted lots of conversations about privacy and surveillance.

How much privacy are we guaranteed? How much do we need? How much do we willingly give up? Did the events of September 11, 2001 change how we must think about the right to privacy?

All of us who use retail bonus or frequent customer cards, or have bought anything from Amazon know that our purchasing habits are well-known. Many of us willingly offer up all kinds of information about ourselves, including photos, on Facebook and other social media. But – in these examples we control what information we put other there (or at least we think we do).

How do you feel about finding out that the National Security Agency (NSA) has collected information on all of the phone calls you have made. What information? Metadata. What are metadata? We librarians thought you’d never ask! Metadata are pieces of information that describe or help locate other information. In the library authors’ names or titles (or even individual words in titles) are types of metadata. So are the descriptor words we use to describe the content of an article or book. The metadata you have been reading about in the news includes lots of information about the phone calls you make, but not the actual conversations you have had.

But there is metadata about you, too, if you have every borrowed something from the library. We can tell how many SMCM undergraduates borrowed SMCM books, we can tell how many times a particular book or DVD has been loaned, but most libraries scrub the specific data about who borrowed a particular book. In fact, the Annotated Code of the State of Maryland states that your library record is confidential and not subject to scrutiny even by a Freedom of Information Act request.

The USA Patriot Act changes all that in some ways. It says that the FBI can require us to given them information about what you library materials you have borrowed (if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court gives permission) and that we are not permitted to tell you that you are being investigated.

We think what you read, or watch, or listen to, is your business. Does it matter to you? Would it matter to your employer that you have been reading about how to get unions into a workplace? Would it matter to the government that you have been reading about anarchy? Should it?

The librarians’ code of ethics has been based on reader confidentiality since 1939. Some of the metadata can be very useful. We want to know if that book on anarchy has been borrowed 5 or 15 or 50 times in the past ten years. But we don’t want to know who has been reading it.

Keep your eye on the surveillance debate. This is about more than which brand of frozen peas you bought, or the banana slicer you purchased on Amazon, or the book on socialism you borrowed from the library. In the meantime, we’ll keep working hard to protect your privacy.