Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Day Year in the Life of an Editor-in-Chief

Posted on by

by Lorie Kloda
Associate University Librarian, Planning & Community Relations, Concordia University

I have worked as a scholarly journal editor in some fashion or another for at least 10 years with various titles, but mostly with the open access journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. In my various roles as a peer reviewer, evidence summary writer, section editor, and associate editor, I have gained a lot of valuable experience and skills. And I imagine many librarians who have had these roles or aspire to fill those positions at some point have a rather good conception of what those roles entail.

Since December 2015 (so, a little more than a year), I have served in the role of editor-in-chief, and I thought it might be interesting to provide an insider’s view as to what this involves. Actually, it was an opportunity for me to reflect on my overall responsibilities and the many (many, many) tasks that I undertake to fulfill these. The fact is, I, and most editors-in-chief of scholarly journals, do not do this is a full-time job. We cobble together the time to get this work done and achieve our vision while working in full-time academic positions. At least, if we’re lucky enough to have full-time paying positions. Another fact is that I do the work from wherever I am, usually my office, or laptop perched somewhere in my home on the weekend. In some ways, working with an editorial team is much like working as a freelancer – I collaborate with several people who also have other jobs and with whom I do not share office space or even a time zone.

I cannot realistically present a “day in the life” because on a given day I may actually do nothing related to my role as editor-in-chief. Whereas on other days, I may do a handful of small tasks. Instead, I present an overview of the kind of work I’ve been involved with over the past year in this particular role.

Responsibilities as an editor-in-chief (in no particular order):
• Assist editors in evaluating submissions
• Recruit peer reviewers for the journal, and provide guidance to (and guidelines for) reviewers
• Provide leadership on the direction of the journal through consultation with various stakeholders
• Solicit and provide editorial review for commentaries and other content
• Answer author queries about potential submissions
• Work closely with the production editor to ensure issues are published on schedule
• Manage a team of editors and editorial advisors, as well as writing assistants, an indexer, and copyeditors
• Write editorials
• Liaise with professionals responsible for managing the Open Journal System (the platform on which the journal content is hosted) and ensure the long-term preservation of the content
• Oversee communications, including promotion of the journal and its indexing in various databases, and status in the Directory of Open Access Journals
• Coordinate “features” – content devoted to particular themes, conferences or symposia which appear in select journal issues

The tasks I undertake to achieve the above consist of a blend of activities, mostly emailing, meetings on Skype (with up to 12 people, across 14 time zones), call for applicants and screening of submissions for various positions. I try to track this time, but even so, the numbers don’t capture everything and the work is not evenly spread out over the weeks or even the months.

It should go without saying, but I would not be able to achieve any of my objectives without the dedication and collaboration of all of my colleagues – associate editors, production editor, copyeditors, etc. In the end, the position is extremely rewarding. I often find myself wishing I had more time to devote to the role and to thinking of ways to support the team of editors in producing such a high caliber publication. Hopefully, with more experience, and perhaps magically, more time, I’ll be able to add to contribute even more.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

The Librarian’s Guide to Surviving (and thriving) During Conference Season

Posted on by

by Carolyn Doi
Education and Music Library, University of Saskatchewan

It’s that time of year again: conference season. It seems like myself and all of my library colleagues are out there right now, presenting, networking, and gathering ideas to bring back to the workplace. That being said, not every conference experience is a positive one. Here are some of my tips and tricks for making it through your next conference like a pro!

1) Plan for success. Preview the conference schedule beforehand and prioritize the things you absolutely need to attend (committee meetings, chapter sessions, your own presentation (!), etc.) and then the ones you’d really like to see. Pick your scheduling method of choice. A colleague of mine prefers to highlight the heck out of the print schedule, while I’ve found that taking advantage of the conference apps such as Guidebook can be really handy.

Don’t forget to give yourself time to see some of the local sights as well! If there’s an afternoon you can get away from the conference or – even better – if you can book an extra day or two on either end of the conference, you’ll be happy you did. It can be really frustrating to travel across the country to only see the inside of a convention centre. Plus, exploring the city with your fellow conference attendees is a great networking activity.

2) Surf the backchannel. Find the conference hashtag and tap into real-time Twitter/Facebook/Instagram conversations to find out what folks are saying about everything from the conference sessions, venue, and best place to grab a quick bite to eat. It can be a great way to feel engaged and connected. Just remember, if you’ve got something negative to say on Twitter, be sure you’re ready to have the same conversation in person at the coffee break.

When I’m presenting, I find Twitter provides a quick and easy way to see how my presentation went over with the audience and gives me an opportunity to answer questions or send out links following the allotted presentation time. It’s always good to include the presenter in the conversation as well with an @ mention and use the conference hashtag, so those following from afar can also tap into what’s going on. There’s a lot to consider about the merits, drawbacks and etiquette of conference tweeting. Check out Ryan Cordell’s article and suggested tweeting principles for more ideas.

3) Making networking meaningful. Small talk can be intimidating, but it’s certainly not impossible. Fallon Bleich’s article Small Talk at Conferences: How to Survive It offers some good tips.

As much as it can be tempting to talk to the people you already know, try to also work in some conversations with people you’ve never met, or someone you’ve always wanted to chat with. When in doubt, ask them what they’re working on at the moment. You might learn something new or even find someone new to collaborate with! I’ve had some great collaborative research projects come out of a simple conversation at a conference reception.

4) Presenting like a Pro. So much has already been written about how to give a good presentation. But as a rule of thumb, whether you’re using PowerPoint, Prezi, Google Slides, or Reveal, make sure your presentation slides aren’t more interesting than you are as a speaker. Selinda Berg discussed this in a previous C-EBLIP blog post where she argued for “PowerPoint as a companion…not as a standalone document to be read.” I couldn’t agree more. At the end of the day, you don’t want to be outdone by your own conference slides!

5) Mindful reflection. Take time before the conference to set an intention for your experience there. Is there a particular problem you want to solve, certain people you need to have a face-to-face conversation with, or vendors that you need to approach? Conferences can go by quickly. Make sure you’ve identified your goals in advance so they become a priority while you’re there. I like to use a free note taking system such as Evernote to write everything down. Once I get home, I reread my notes and reflect on my experience. How can I apply what I learned in my own practice or research? Who do I need to follow up with?

Everyone has their own approach to travelling, presenting, and networking at professional events. These are some of the things that have worked for me and helped to make the whole experience more beneficial and enjoyable overall. Whatever your approach, I encourage you to sit back and enjoy the ride. Happy conference season, everyone!

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

A Critical View of Metrics in EBLIP

Posted on by

by Donna Frederick
Services to Libraries, University of Saskatchewan

The Association of Library Collections and Technical Services, better known as ALCTS, is a division of the American Library Association. Approximately once a month ALCTS hosts an “eForum” which is a two day moderated email-based discussion. Current and pressing issues and concerns of librarians are often surfaced through these discussions. Some eForums demonstrate how online discussions can challenge our thinking and assumptions. While most of the threads are practical in nature and focus on mundane problems, the author of this post can generally uncover at least one valuable nugget which likely would not be discovered elsewhere.

The February 2016 ALCTS eForum was called “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata”. It was led by Lisa Robinson of Michigan State University and Stacie Traill of the University of Minnesota. Lisa and Stacie have provided a summary of the discussion which is referenced at the end of this post. The diversity of participants likely played a role in the wide range of points of view voiced. The “valuable nugget” of the month was about the assumptions we make when we apply traditional measures of effectiveness, productivity or efficiency to changed environments and the impact of making decisions based on the “evidence” derived from the application of those measures.

One of the discussions in the eForum was whether or not cataloguing and metadata creation are the same discipline. Participants generally agreed that both are unified by a shared theory of metadata. There was also agreement that the two are different in practice. Lisa Bodenheimer of Clemson University was able to bring clarity to the discussion when she stated that, “The need for different metrics and the use of different standards lead me to say, yes, metadata is a specialty distinct from cataloging.” The reality is that because the basic theory at the core of cataloging can and should be applied to all library metadata, technical services librarians often apply “tried and true metrics” to all forms of metadata creation whether it be traditional cataloging or creating records for one of the newer metadata containers. These measures often lead to conclusions about low productivity among traditional cataloguers which, if the difference in practice and the nature of the metrics used are well understood, are inaccurate. For example, some metadata creation processes involve taking 100s of traditional catalog records and, through a single action, convert them into new metadata records. Comparisons using a traditional metric is misleading in such a context. Neither the older or newer process is well-represented in the results seeing as the original cataloger may have needed to research topics or authors to create effective discovery metadata while the metadata librarian may have taken days or weeks to create a script or process which would process all of those records at once. The latter type of activity is not represented in existing cataloging metrics. Participants reported technical services decisions which were made based on data collected by applying metrics inappropriately.

While the eForum discussion of metrics appears to be most relevant to metadata and cataloging librarians, it demonstrates a concern for evidence based library and information practice. Metrics are used to extract the evidence upon which we make decisions. To measure something, we must understand what it is we are measuring and ensure that the tool for measurement is appropriate. When we make comparisons based on metrics, we also must understand the mechanics of the tool and critically evaluate both the appropriateness of its application and the results it produces. As the forum revealed, metrics are useful and powerful tools but differences in practice can make a particular metric inappropriate for use in seemingly related contexts and/or can result in misleading results. In the case of this eForum, the apparent conclusion is that the discipline needs an overhaul in the metrics it uses for measuring cataloguing and metadata work. Keeping this in mind, are there other areas of library work where changes over time and/or slight variations in practice have rendered our “tried and true” metrics less than useful as evidence?

References
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata” [eForum archive] ALCTS eForum Archive. Dates of event: Tuesday, 2/16/2016 – Wednesday, 2/17/2016. Retrieved from: http://lists.ala.org/sympa 29 February 2016

Robinson, Lisa and Traill, Stacie (2016) “Career Progression in Cataloging and Metadata: eForum Summary” ALCTS News, features. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/alctsnews/features/e-forum-career 26 February 2016

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Writing for Scholarly Publication: Grammar, Style, and Usage

Posted on by

by David Fox
Librarian Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan

“… when it comes to correct English, there’s no one in charge; the lunatics are running the asylum” (Pinker 189).

Steven Pinker’s point is that there is no absolute authority for English usage. The language is an evolving organism, and there are multiple standards. What is practised in everyday speech and informal writing is often not acceptable in formal communication. Sentences like “Me and Melinda went to the mall” are frequently heard in everyday conversation. They are a form of English, and their meaning is clear. It’s just not the style of English practised in the official forums of government, journalism, or academia.

Pinker, a descriptive linguist, believes that the “rules” of usage are tacit conventions… among the members of a community (190) at a particular point in time. Formal, academic English is a subset of the language that conforms to certain prescriptive rules its users have adopted by consensus. However, as we shall see, many of these so-called rules are not immutable, and there is sometimes good reason to break them in the interest of harmonious writing.

In my final contribution to this series of articles on writing for scholarly publication, I attempt to tackle briefly some of the trickier questions of grammar and usage I’ve struggled to learn and understand over the years. My hope is that other writers may benefit from my exploration of these topics. Those interested in an extended discussion of the “singular they” may see my Brain-Work post from June 30, 2015.

which vs. that
Traditionally, which is used with a non-restrictive relative clause, usually set off by commas (or dashes or parentheses), and introduces a comment that is not essential to the understanding of the sentence.

Three Day Road, which was written by Joseph Boyden, is my favourite novel.

By contrast, that introduces a restrictive relative clause whose content is important to the meaning of the sentence.

The house that I bought last year had sustained some fire damage.

In many cases that can be omitted from a relative clause. An implied that is known as a zero relative pronoun or bare relative.

The house I bought last year had sustained some fire damage.

Personally, I prefer this construction because it is stylistically cleaner.

The which vs. that rule is frequently broken, and in fact, Pinker considers it a spurious rule to begin with (235-6). Setting off a non-restrictive relative clause with commas should be enough to signify to the reader that what is contained within is a non-essential elaboration, and either which or that is acceptable, in his opinion.

each other vs. one another
I used to think that each other referred to relationships between two persons, whereas one another was employed with groups larger than two. However, in modern usage, according to Pinker (251), these terms have become essentially interchangeable. Use whichever one sounds better in a particular situation.

less vs. fewer
The conventional distinction between these two words is that less is used for unquantifiable amounts (less sand, less air, etc.) while fewer is used for countable objects (e.g., fewer books, fewer apples). However, there are exceptions. Less is commonly used where units of measurement are involved.

They were all less than eighteen years old.

She was driving less than 70 kilometers per hour.

The box weighed less than 5 kilograms.

In each of these cases it would sound weird to say fewer than eighteen years old, fewer than 70 kilometers per hour, fewer than 5 kilograms. Less is also used in certain idiomatic expressions such as “one less x” and “no less than y”.

In everyday speech and informal communication, less is frequently used in place of fewer.

between vs. among
Most of us were taught that between must be used with just two items and among is used when there are more than two. “The real principle is that between is used for a relationship of an individual to any number of other individuals, as long as they are being considered two at a time, whereas among is used for a relationship of an individual to an amorphous mass or collectivity” (Pinker 251).

different from vs. different than
The answer here is fairly straightforward. Things differ from each other, not than each other. The preposition than is used with greater or less. The preposition from is used with different.

data is or data are?
This one is controversial. Technically, data is the plural form of the seldom-used Latin word datum, and so purists insist that it should be used with the plural form of a verb, e.g., the data are, the data show. Others argue that data is plural when referring to quantities that can be counted, but singular when referring to quantities that can’t.

This is a case where the language is in flux. For the time being, academic style probably leans towards using a plural verb with data. To be safe, consult the style manual for the publication you’re writing for. In the long run, I suspect that data will go the way of agenda, another Latin plural that nowadays is treated as a singular noun. Nobody says “The agenda were distributed to the committee members.”

because, since, or as?
These words are all conjunctions with overlapping meanings. Because, as the word implies, signifies reason or causality. It answers the question “Why?”

I bring up this point because so many readers have asked about it.

Since and as can be used to imply either causality or a time relationship.

I have not spoken to Barbara since she moved to Toronto. (time)

Since my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell. (causality or time)

I cannot complete this report by Friday as I have too many other deadlines. (causality)

Because since and as can have more than one meaning, their use can sometimes create ambiguity. In the second example above, we are not sure whether Elvis meant that after his baby left him he changed his residence, or he changed his residence because his baby left him. Therefore, if the intention is to convey causality, because is the preferred conjunction.

subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to express a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition that is contrary to fact (Grammar-monster.com). For almost all verbs, the present subjunctive differs from the present indicative only in the third person singular form, which lacks the ending -s in the subjunctive (Wikipedia).

It is important that she stay out of trouble.

It is necessary that he see a doctor immediately.

The past subjunctive is identical to the indicative mood except for the verb to be which becomes were in all cases:

If I were a giraffe, I could see over top of the fence.

Proper use of the subjunctive mood is a hallmark of formal speech and writing. Elsewhere its use is falling out of fashion. It is possible to write correctly without using the subjunctive mood at all.

It is important that she stays out of trouble.

It is necessary that he sees a doctor immediately.

The above are perfectly good English sentences. There is just a subtle difference in nuance. However, there are certain sentences whose indicative and subjunctive forms have totally different meanings. Consider the following:

All of my friends insisted that I am respectful. (indicative)

All of my friends insisted that I be respectful. (subjunctive)

The first example conveys that my friends affirm that I am indeed respectful. The second suggests that my friends are concerned that I might not be respectful.

who vs whom
Who and whom are relative pronouns. Who is used as the subject of a verb; whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition. Grammatically, whom is the equivalent of him or her. The use of whom following a preposition seems natural and familiar.

To whom it may concern

With whom do you wish to speak?

For whom the bell tolls

However, the use of whom as the object of a verb tends to sound awkward and a little pompous to the modern ear.

Whom was the dog chasing?

I don’t know whom she invited to speak at the meeting.

As a result, whom is nowadays often replaced by who in daily speech and informal writing. ‘’Like the subjunctive mood,” says Pinker, “the pronoun whom is widely thought to be circling the drain” (242). For the time being, whom should continue to be used in formal prose.

me, myself, and I
The question of how to refer to oneself along with other people is frequently misunderstood. Myself is a reflexive pronoun. It is used to refer back to a previously occurring noun or pronoun. It should not be used by itself where a simple “I” or “me” would be sufficient.

Correct:

Melinda and I went to the mall.

I kept the secret to myself.

I, myself don’t believe a thing she said.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and me.

Incorrect:

Melinda and myself went to the mall.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and I.

Murray went to the mall with Melinda and myself.

Conclusion
English usage is evolving. Nobody today speaks or writes in the style of Shakespeare or the King James Bible. Written English is becoming more like spoken English. Some would say that the language is becoming more utilitarian and, as a result, losing some of its character, richness, and precision. There is no use resisting or lamenting these changes. It is what it is.

What is a conscientious writer to do in the face of changing usage and a lack of absolute guidelines? Partly it depends on the purpose. Are you writing a text message, a blog post, an information piece for your provincial newsletter, or a research article for a peer-reviewed publication? The expectations for adherence to formal standards become progressively more rigorous as you move up this hierarchy.

Academic writing is the most formal style of English, and follows the accepted conventions of grammar, punctuation, and word usage of the day. Reputable academic publications employ copy editors who base their decisions on currently authoritative dictionaries and style manuals, supplemented by in-house rules, in order to ensure quality and consistency of published work. In preparing manuscripts, it is wise for authors to adopt the standards for grammar, style, and usage prescribed by their prospective publisher. Even so, given the evolutionary nature of such standards, articles published today may seem quaint to readers a hundred years from now!

Works Cited
“English Subjunctive.” Wikipedia. 15 March 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Pinker, Steven. The Sense of Style: the Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Viking, 2014. Print.

“What Is the Subjunctive Mood? (with Examples).” Grammar-monster.com. 17 March 2016.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subjunctive_mood.htm

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Is there value in absent results?

Posted on by

by Angie Gerrard
Murray Library, University of Saskatchewan

There is a movement in the academic literature regarding the value of publishing negative research results. While the most accepted research tends to favour positive results, there is a growing call for a more holistic picture of the realities of research. This just makes sense. As a researcher and practitioner, I want to know what worked, for whom, in what context, but I also want to know what did not work, why it did not work, and what lessons can be drawn from that. There is obvious value in learning from other people’s so-called ‘failures’.

But what about those research findings that never see the light of day because they are not truly results, but rather the first few steps of the research process that simply failed? It is one thing to complete a research project and share the negative results but quite another when the research is stalled and there is nothing to share. Is there value in reporting a research experience that produced nothing in the most tangible sense?

This is my reality at the moment; a liminal state along the research journey. I am currently on sabbatical and part of my research program is dedicated to information literacy instruction; more specifically, trying to better understand faculty’s perceptions and practices of information literacy. My hypothesis is that while faculty are not likely consciously adopting information literacy in the curriculum, they are in fact incorporating many of the underlying principles encompassed within information literacy. Therefore, if librarians want to continue to play a key teaching and learning role on campus, we need to better understand what is being taught in the classroom. To begin to understand this, I proposed getting faculty together in focus groups to discuss how they perceive their undergraduate students’ abilities to access, use, and evaluate information and how, if at all, they teach these constructs and if so, is this is done in any scaffolded manner throughout the curriculum.

Thus began the design of my research project. A grant application was written and was successfully granted (yikes, this was getting real). A literature review was conducted and many, many articles were read and annotated. Focus group methodology was studied and a focus group question guide developed. Ethics documentation was written. A research assistant was hired. Ethics documentation was re-written and re-submitted. Focus group dates were set and a moderator was booked. Contact information was gathered for more than 500 faculty. Many, many Excel spreadsheets were developed. Six focus groups were created using stratified data from potential participants. Email protocols and procedures were written and finally, drum roll please, the initial call for participants was emailed in early March with a deadline to respond by mid-month.

And then I waited.

Crickets.

And then I “failed”.

Of the 180 potential randomized participants contacted, two people agreed to sit on our focus groups; a response rate too embarrassingly low to even report. In all reality, we received six total responses: two who agreed to participate (bless their hearts), one said thank-you but count me out, two reporting the time of year wasn’t good for them, and another reporting that he did not meet the eligibility requirements but offered some interesting input. We had planned for six focus groups, each with five to eight participants, where three groups were stratified by subject disciplines and the other three represented mixed disciplines. In the end, we had a total of two willing participants; not near enough for one focus group, let alone six.

So this a snapshot at where I am at the moment, with the most important part of my research project missing. I have carefully planned and budgeted for the next steps of my project, i.e., data collection, data analysis, dissemination and knowledge translation, but none of this can go forward. I have nothing if I have no data.

When I reflect back on all the work and time invested in this project to date, did I actually fail? Is there value in nothing? The jury is still out of this. While this process has taught me much about undertaking a large research project (or at least the beginning stages of such a project) and the joys of qualitative research involving human participants, this is not the kind of value you can take to the bank or in my case, represent in a promotional case file.

Reporting positive results remains king. It has rightfully earned its place at the head chair at the big table. Slowly but surely, negative results are now being invited to take a seat at this table. Is there a place for absent results? Well, for the time being, these research experiences may be best relegated to the kids’ table.

On a more positive note; I have drowned my sorrows and moved on to Plan B. With the sabbatical clock ticking, I have simplified both my recruitment approach and focus group compositions and plan to hold the discussions at a less busy time. Fingers crossed there will have tangible and valuable data to share.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

How I’m Building Reconciliation

Posted on by

by Jaclyn McLean
Collection Services, University Library
University of Saskatchewan

On February 9, 2016, the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice hosted Ry Moran, Director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) for the Dean’s Research Lecture . Over the past few years, I’ve followed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but hadn’t really thought about what reconciliation meant to me. Ry’s lecture pulled some threads together that hit home, both professionally and personally. It felt like a punch to the gut, a personal call to action that I had to record.

Before I was a librarian, I was a historian. And I remember the last time I felt violated by the horrors humans inflict on each other. I also remember how far away those people and situations felt, and how relieved and privileged I felt to grow up in the time and the country I did, where I didn’t have to worry about institutions or individuals that went out of their way to make anyone “less than”.

Once I decided to study history, after a brief foray into early Canadian history, I focused on nineteenth & twentieth-century Europe. A course in European capitals of modernity found me in Berlin the same month the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe opened.
Interior Memorial Mar2016
An image from the interior of the Memorial, looking out.

It struck me then, and continues to now, the physical scars on the city of Berlin (and across Europe), and the mostly invisible scars on the people – scars imposed within a decade or so. Thinking about reconciliation in my own country has me right back in the thick of primary source research as documents from East Germany were released, and new information about the Holocaust came to light. A fuller version of history has been assembled from these primary source documents, survivor testimonials, and other sources. Much as these sources have contributed to healing in other countries, I hope we will be able to do the same. As the NCTR examines and figures out how to release the documentary evidence they’ve gathered, I hope we will, in the future, live in a country that has accepted its history. And that kids learn about it in elementary school, and researchers in all disciplines add to the conversation and as a country, we move towards reconciliation.

I grew up and went to school less than 60 kilometers from the last Residential School in operation in Canada (Lebret, in Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan). And I didn’t realize it was there. I went through the public school system in Saskatchewan, the province that had the most Residential Schools in operation, and learned nothing about them. I studied Treaties and the making of this nation in my post-secondary education, and still nothing was discussed about Residential Schools.

Today, it clicked for me. I’ve studied and researched oppression and systematic attempts to eradicate culture and religion, and felt deeply those injustices. I have stood in memorials, in my own country and others, to people I never met, who died in conflicts that happened long before I was born, and felt their stories speak to me.

I’m so grateful to those who fought very hard to bring to light what’s happened in my own country in our recent memory, and begun to take us down a path to reconciliation. I’m proud to work at a University that is now an official partner of the NCTR , and will be looking for ways to bring my curiosity as a researcher, but also as a citizen of Canada, to how I can make reconciliation. In the face of the bravery of the survivors of Residential Schools, how can I not be brave enough to face my own ignorance and take the gift being offered to me, to learn. I look forward to continuing my learning, and am starting with the 10 Principles of Reconciliation (see pages 3&4), and the 94 Calls to Action. Where will you begin your journey to reconciliation?

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

It’s a horse, of course! Expanding Your Research Output by Curating an Exhibition

Posted on by

by Jill Crawley-Low
Science Library, University of Saskatchewan

While working in University Archives & Special Collections at the University of Saskatchewan and being exposed daily to a wealth of published and unpublished materials from diverse subject areas, I felt challenged to volunteer to curate a display for the library’s exhibition program. At the University of Saskatchewan, curation is a form of artistic research which is reportable on faculty CVs. This was an opportunity to try out a new form of research while combining a professional interest in library collections with my personal passion for horses. The result was an exhibit called It’s a horse, of course! celebrating the enduring bond between humans and horses through the collections of the University Library shown from August – October, 2015.

Academic libraries typically use exhibitions and displays to showcase their collections to the campus community and outreach to the larger community. At the U of S, the exhibition program serves this purpose and also creates opportunities for librarians to link their professional practice to the subject of an exhibit. To support this form of research on behalf of librarians, the University Library has a purpose-built exhibition space in a high traffic area in a busy branch. Materials in a variety of formats are selected from general and archival collections. While displays of print materials are fleeting, published supporting materials such as exhibition catalogues and digital projects provide a long-term record. The Exhibitions Committee is chaired by the Special Collections Librarian and technical support for guest curators is provided by employees from the University Archives & Special Collections unit. The Committee’s terms of reference include periodic calls of interest to potential guest curators to participate in the exhibits calendar.

In curating exhibits, a useful rule of thumb is “less is often more.” A narrow topic with carefully selected items allows a focussed story to unfold, which may appeal to a wider audience than a broader topic. The collection itself determines the scope of the exhibit unless additional materials are borrowed and displayed. Although the curator determines the overarching theme of the exhibit, it is in the process of carefully selecting items that context and linkages among items appear and begin to shape the storyline. Being open to these possibilities increases the creativity and effectiveness of the exhibit.

At some point during the curation process I discovered that parts of the exhibit were evolving spontaneously; this may be analogous to collecting data using other research methodologies and following where the data lead. Two display cases organized themselves, one with materials about the heavy horse industry in Saskatchewan and the second to showcase horse breeds in general.

It is well known on campus that the university has several animal herds on a variety of farm sites for research and teaching. In the past, heavy horses in particular routinely worked on the university campus farm. While browsing the archival fonds from the College of Agriculture for materials relating to heavy horses, I came across the story of a young stallion whose history eclipsed all other potential stories. The story of Bonnie Fyvie emerged through a series of letters written and exchanged by parties interested in reinvigorating the heavy horse industry in Saskatchewan. The correspondents included William Rutherford, the first dean of Agriculture; Walter Murray, the first president of the university; representatives of the Saskatchewan government and horse breeders in the province; and the American Clydesdale Association.

Bonnie Fyvie was a two-year old purchased with government funds from an established Scottish Clydesdale stud farm to reside at the U of S. He had the potential to create a herd of prize-winning Clydesdales at the U of S and to offer stud services to approved mares within the province. Disaster struck when Bonnie Fyvie developed a neurological condition called stringhalt that precluded all but limited breeding. Bonnie Fyvie’s story played out in letters that ranged from hopeful optimism to sadness and finally acceptance. Although he would not sire generations of Clydesdales in Saskatchewan, the university purchased a ready-made Clydesdale herd from an American businessman, and some of those horses went on to win prizes at agricultural fairs on behalf of the university and province.

The other case that organized itself focussed on the topic of horse breeding. Preserved in the pages of a personal diary from the collection, the story was told from the perspective of two Victorian adventurers. The author, Lady Anne Blunt, was an aristocrat who travelled with her husband, Wilfrid, four times to the Middle East to negotiate with Arabian horse breeders. This was an age when the world that was safe and acceptable for tourist travel was relatively small. It did not include the deserts of Arabia where the Blunts travelled to meet Bedouin tribesmen and sheiks who bred Arabian stock. The Blunts used their knowledge of horse confirmation and breeding to select only the finest specimens of the Arabian breed, which they shipped back to their stud farm in Sussex, England. Lady Anne’s careful recordkeeping and the preservation of her story in the published diary means that 90% of all purebred Arabians alive today trace their lineage back to the horses that the Blunts exported from Arabia to England. I found this to be a more personal and interesting depiction of a horse breed than a case full of images of breeds.

I would heartily recommend a stint as a guest curator in order to experience a new form of research and the creative and, often, unpredictable result. Curation as a form of artistic research is an occasion for librarians to apply their subject knowledge and professional practice to develop an exhibit that reflects and promotes the library’s varied collections. Developing an exhibit is an opportunity to unearth the “hidden” treasures in the collections and a way to educate audiences about the more practical functions of preservation and accessibility in libraries.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

You have WHAT in your Special Collections?*

Posted on by

by Stevie Horn
University Archives and Special Collections, University of Saskatchewan

A question we are frequently asked at our front desk is why we hold certain things within our special collections. How are our collection choices made? Is the idea to restrict access? And why oh why are some books that were published as recently as last year considered too ‘special’ to be taken out of our closed stacks?

If we were to play a game of association, and I were to say “special collections library”, what would flash into most peoples’ minds is the image of the centuries-old manuscript, bound in leather, with crumbling pages that smell faintly of vanilla. But that only paints a part of the picture. What a special collections is, and what a special collections can be runs much, much deeper–and may look far different overall.

For example, at the University of Saskatchewan Archives and Special Collections, we have four main collection areas for rare and special books, each with its own distinct collection mandate. Our Rare Books collection contains primarily those things one would expect to find in a special collections library: medieval texts scrawled out in Latin, Victorian novels, first editions. The University Authors collection is just as self-explanatory — we endeavor to collect published works by University Faculty in order to have as complete a collection of the significant research outputs of the University of Saskatchewan as we can.

We also are home to the Neil Richards Collection for Sexual and Gender Diversity. Certainly one of our most interesting book collections (and the second largest overall), the objective of the Richards collection has been to gather LGBTQ2 materials, with a particular focus on popular culture, pulp novels, queer mysteries, and Canadian queer texts. The Richards collection has grown to be the largest of its kind in Western Canada.

All of these collections have some overlap with our largest special collection of books: The Shortt Collection of Canadiana. The mandate for this collection has been looser over the years than those applied to the other collections (the Shortt collection ambitiously attempts to absorb Canadian-themed fiction and non-fiction primarily by Canadian-based authors, with a specific focus on Western Canada and Western Canadian History) In this diverse collection users can find everything from local history books (nearly one from every town in the province) to the novels of Gail Bowen, to church cookbooks, to 18th century explorers’ accounts, to current aboriginal interest newspapers, and more. While some of the items may seem too recent, or too widely or too locally distributed to be considered ‘special,’ it is the collection as a whole that has meaning, and which provides the greatest research value.

One recent addition to the Shortt collection which may fall into the “you have WHAT in your special collections?” category is two boxes of:

Alpha Flight
Alpha Flight. New York, N.Y. : Marvel Comics Group, 1983- SPECIAL COLLECTIONS-SHORTT PN6728 .A4 1983-1993 v.1 no.1 — v.1 no.120**

Alpha Flight? Never heard of it? And isn’t Marvel comics American anyway? Surely a sub-mandate of the Shortt Collection of Canadiana cannot be to collect comic books from the 1980’s. Isn’t that an odd fit?

This is true–comic books have not been an area of focus within the Shortt collection. Typically, any incoming comic books have been earmarked for Richards. Perhaps this is because queer comic book heroes are, in this time of the graphic novel, easier to find than Canadian ones (the Canadian comic book golden age ended in 1946, according to John Bell in his book Invaders from the North: How Canada Conquered the Comic Book Universe (2006)). Whatever the reason, we have fewer Canadian-centric comic books in the Shortt collection than we might like, and are working to remedy that situation.

So what better place to begin than with Alpha Flight? This team of Canadian superheroes, headed by James Macdonald Hudson (aka Vindicator, aka the Man with the Most Canadian Names), originally appeared in the late seventies as a part of the backstory to Marvel’s most well-known Canadian, Wolverine. The fact that the Alpha Flight team had its own decade long run of books within the Marvel universe is itself significant, given Marvel’s dominant role in the comic book industry, and given the minimal role Canadian superheroes have historically played within that industry.

The Alpha Flight books provide an amusing window on how Canadians were viewed by our American neighbors at this point in time. With characters like the Montreal-born Jean-Paul and sister Jeanne Marie Beaubier (aka Northstar and Aurora), a large hairy Sasquatch named Walter Langowski, and Eugene Judd a roughly puck-shaped bouncer from our own Saskatoon, Alpha Flight makes a caricature of Canadian-ness. Even the heroes’ costumes look like Team Canada’s Winter Olympic speed-skating apparel.

With Canada experiencing a recent resurgence of acknowledgement on the world stage (according to the New York Times, we’re “hip” now), collecting materials on what it is to be Canadian, what it was to be Canadian, and how Canadians have been viewed over time will become more important than ever. We are a nation that is constantly feeling out its own identity, and collections like the Shortt Collection of Canadiana provide a basis for that understanding.

Sources:
Alpha Flight. New York, N.Y. : Marvel Comics Group, 1983- SPECIAL COLLECTIONS-SHORTT PN6728 .A4 1983-1993 v.1 no.1 — v.1 no.120
Bell, John. Invaders from the North: How Canada Conquered the Comic Book Universe. Dundurn, 2006.
“With the Rise of Justin Trudeau, Canada Is Suddenly … Hip?.” The New York Times, Jan. 16, 2016

*this blog post has been modified with permission from the author from a posting on the blog What’s That, UASC? on January 19, 2016.

**Copying and/or duplication of the above image without express and written permission from the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Advocating for Change in an Unsustainable and Inequitable Journal Publishing Market

Posted on by

by DeDe Dawson
Science Library, University of Saskatchewan

I’ve been thinking a lot about how librarians can most effectively support researchers in their scholarly communications activities and bring about meaningful change in a largely dysfunctional academic journal market.

In a recent planning meeting at my library, the topic of advocacy for open access (OA) came up. It has always seemed to me to be a natural role for academic librarians. We know the underlying issues better than most, and have the professional responsibility to raise the awareness of these issues among our faculty colleagues on campus. Indeed, librarians at many institutions have led the way in advocating for OA for more than a decade now. And much progress has been made: OA is quickly becoming the default (for journal articles at least) and there is no going back – especially now that major national funders are mandating it.

So, do we really need more advocacy for OA?

OA now seems to have a life of its own. We no longer need to advocate for it so much as support the researchers at our institutions in complying with the mandates of their funders to make their research outputs (publications and data) openly available. There are many practical tools and resources that librarians can introduce researchers to that will help them in this. And of course there are still many persistent myths and misinformation about OA that need to be countered. Roles for librarians abound! So, awareness-raising and practical support for compliance – but what of advocacy?

Lately, I am coming to the conclusion that our advocacy efforts need to be redirected to pushing for more fundamental changes in the journal publishing market. Let me explain:

Academic librarians have always been some of the strongest proponents of OA simply because we can clearly see the unsustainability, and inequity, in the current commercial journal market better than our any of our campus colleagues.

The system is unsustainable:

Publishers have increased subscription fees beyond inflation for decades, and make “obscene” profits from selling research papers produced by faculty at our institutions back to us. Library budgets have not grown at the same rate as journal subscription increases. For many years librarians have been able to maintain these subscriptions by reducing expenses in other areas and cutting spending on monographs – but this can only go on for so long. To make an unsustainable system even worse, many commercial publishers are now co-opting OA for their own financial gain. With “hybrid” journals, publishers charge authors high article processing charges (APCs) to make their individual papers OA, and yet continue to charge libraries subscription fees to that same journal (i.e. “double-dipping”). Publishers have essentially found a lucrative additional revenue stream in OA – this is not the outcome that the original proponents of OA had in mind! Currently our low Canadian dollar makes this unsustainable system even worse (since most subscriptions are paid in U.S. dollars). Libraries are at the breaking point.
The system is inequitable:

This is also an ethical problem. Much of the research locked up behind commercial publisher paywalls is taxpayer funded, yet taxpayers cannot read the results without paying again. Taxpayers also largely fund the salaries of university faculty who peer-review and serve on editorial boards of these journals. The publishers generally do not pay these individuals for their services, nor do they pay the authors of the papers. To be blunt: commercial scholarly journal publishing is a racket. The tax paying public loses, practitioners and patients lose, independent researchers and journalists lose, academics in developing countries lose, scholars and students at poorer institutions lose, and now those at even the richest institutions are losing too. I could go on.

So, returning to the advocacy piece…

I believe we now need to advocate for more radical change in the entire scholarly publishing market. Imagine the millions of dollars per year that each institution could save if they could cancel all of these subscriptions. A portion of this money could be redirected to support innovative new OA publishing models, or simply support scholarly societies to take back their flagship journals from the commercial publishers (e.g. Cultural Anthropology). And the rest could be redirected to support research and student scholarships, or many other worthy needs on campus.

I’m not naïve. I realize this is not a straightforward task. But it is essential to the future of higher education and research institutions. And there are innovations already taking place (I list some below), but the key in this equation is outreach to researchers. They are the authors, the reviewers, the editors. They are the colleagues that sit on tenure and promotion committees. They are also often in administrative roles at universities. They have the real power to effect change. But, they are generally unaware of the full extent of the dysfunction in the system. Librarians have an opportunity, and a professional obligation, to raise their awareness on these issues, and advocate and support them in changing it to more sustainable and equitable OA models.

A few examples of innovative models of scholarly OA journal publishing:
• SCOAP³
• PeerJ
• Overlay journals
• Open Library of the Humanities
• Open Access Network

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.

Making Time to Write: the C-EBLIP Writing Circle

Posted on by

by Shannon Lucky
Library Systems & Information Technology, University of Saskatchewan

I don’t mean to brag, but I have been getting a lot of writing done this semester. A lot more than usual anyway – a huge achievement for a chronic writing procrastinator. So much of my work as an academic librarian includes writing (research, reports, documentation, instructional materials, funding proposals, this blog post…) but I often don’t set aside time to focus on my writing as both a skill and a product. My recent burst of productivity certainly isn’t a result of finding a previously untapped source of free time or boundless motivation. It isn’t a change in my work or a pile of deadlines suddenly coming due. I have to give almost all of the credit to peer pressure (the good kind) via the C-EBLIP writing circle.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1785

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1785

Starting this past September U Sask librarians have been meeting every other Monday afternoon to talk about our writing, work through problems from peer review to punctuation, and get some serious work done. Carolyn Pytlyk, the Library’s research facilitator, introduced the idea of a writing circle and serves as our session facilitator. The format is really simple: we meet bi-weekly, we take turns reporting what we accomplished, we discuss some aspect of academic writing, and then we work silently for a few hours on our own projects. If that sounds simple that’s because it is, but I think there are a few things we have worked out during our first semester that have made our writing circle particularly productive.

  1. Meet bi-weekly – For our group, meeting at noon every second Monday gives us enough time to get some writing done even if we have a hectic schedule and don’t get into a daily writing habit (still the dream, not yet my reality). Originally we met for three hours – one hour for talking and two for writing – but recently extended our meeting time to four hours to give us more time for working if we get into a flow state. The consistency and predictability of our meeting schedule is important. We haven’t cancelled or rescheduled meetings, whomever is able to come attends. No one is expected to stay for the entire time and people are welcome to arrive late or slip away early. This occasionally means a very small group meets some weeks, but even then the pattern we have set works.
    The room we use has turned out to be an important factor. We have pre-booked a specific meeting room in the library that has enough plugins for everyone’s computers, a big window for some natural light, is quiet, and (most importantly) we are not visible to passing colleagues who might just have a quick question. Avoiding benign distractions has been a game changer for me – getting away from my email inbox, phone, and open office door is key.
  2. Reporting – Each meeting starts out with an informal round table reporting of our last two weeks. We list what we have accomplished since the last meeting, if we met our writing goal, and then we share our goals for the next week. This is where the peer pressure begins to work for me. Having to confess that I didn’t do what I said I would hurts. I don’t like to fall short of my goals and have to fess up in front of friends and colleagues (however kind and supportive), so I am motivated to get my work done. This process has also made me much better at estimating how long it will take me to get a writing task wrapped up.
  3. Discuss – After accounting for our own goals we usually talk about something someone in the group is working through like responding to peer reviewer comments, writing similar literature reviews for multiple papers, or active vs. passive voice in academic writing. Carolyn has also begun a very popular series of grammar lessons based on her pet peeves. I have learned a lot and I am far more careful with my proofreading now. These discussions have been a fantastic way to learn about how other writers in my field work and to assuage my fears that I am alone in my struggles to write productively, clearly, eloquently, and quickly. Writing is hard work and having somewhere to talk through problems is incredibly beneficial. I think of it a bit like writing therapy and I am usually eager to get to work after hashing out some writing anxieties with the group.
  4. Work – The key to my increased output this semester. After we talk, we get down to it and write. I am amazed at what I can accomplish in three hours of focused, uninterrupted writing. Simply being in a room full of quiet but concentrated typing and pen scratching is motivating in an entirely unique way. I don’t check email during this time and I always come with a plan for what I want to work on. Following Paul Silvia’s advice in How to Write A Lot I consider any part of the writing process fair game for this work time including reading, data analysis, creating an outline, drafting, editing – anything that gets me closer to a finished project.

That’s it! Four easy steps to writing more (and making the process less painful).

https://pixabay.com/photo-194219/Meeting with this group has motivated and focused me in ways I have really struggled to do on my own. Having the in-person meetings is wonderful (I would highly recommend starting your own group!) but if you are in a place where starting a writing circle isn’t possible the internet is a great place to find a supportive writing community.

Shut Up & Write Tuesdays is a virtual academic writing group that meets on Twitter (@SUWTUES) on the first and third Tuesday of every month. There are three different time zone groups to suit writers in different parts of the world (or night owls).

  • @SUWTues for the Asia-Pacific region
  • @SUWTUK for the UK and Western Europe
  • @SUWTNA for Canada and the US.

Follow the acount of your choice and the host will let you know when to start and when to take a break. You can talk with other participants and report your progress using the hashtags #suwtues / #suwtuk / #suwtna

The next Shut Up and Write Tuesday is on February 2nd, 2016. My New Years writing resolution is to try to double my output by sticking with the C-EBLIP writing circle and trying out Shut Up & Write Tuesdays. Hopefully I will see you on Twitter in 2016, please wag a digital finger at me if you don’t – that peer pressure really works!

This article gives the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice or the University Library, University of Saskatchewan.