Electronic Resources & Libraries, 2nd Annual Conference 2007: Another Perspective
| Date | 30 October 2007 |
| Published date | 30 October 2007 |
| Pages | 17-18 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050710874214 |
| Author | Xan Arch |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Electronic Resources & Libraries, 2nd Annual
Conference 2007: Another Perspective
Xan Arch
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 9/10 2007, pp. 17-18, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050710874214 17
Cathy Carpenter from the Georgia
Institute of Technology and Sarah
Steiner from Georgia State University
began their presentation with some
familiar but disheartening statistics
about students' preference for online
search engines over the library web site.
So how can we change this? Carpenter
and Steiner say ``Break out of library
web site prison!'' and to do this, they
recommend that libraries adopt Web
2.0 technologies.
The main technologies covered in
the presentation were wikis,
screencasting, social networking, and
Google Scholar. The wiki section
included an important aspect of wiki
software: wikis do not need to be open
for anyone and everyone to edit. Using
a wiki for a subject guide, for example,
allows a librarian to upload and edit
information quickly and easily. Access
can be controlled so this wiki guide is
editable only by the librarian, not by
other staff or students. This was an
important point for me, and most likely
many others who were stuck in the
Wikipedia mindset of free editing
privileges for all.
Of the presentation topics, I was the
most interested in screencasting. This is
a tool that allows a user to capture the
output of their computer screen, with
added voice narrative. The presenters
effectively explained screencasting and
where a library can obtain the software,
both paid and free. Their discussion
focused on using screencasting to show
patrons how to use databases. I can also
imagine using this tool along with
written procedure documents to explain
new software and vendor databases to
library staff. Currently, my
department's procedures include
screenshots for the more visual learners,
but screencasting might be another way
to provide depth to the instructions.
My only quarrel with the
presentation is the outdated information
related to social networking. The
PowerPoint quoted an article by Brian
Mathews from College and Research
Libraries News that extolled the virtues
of Facebook.com as a way to reach
students. However, Mathews later
posted an update on his blog, saying
that Facebook had pulled his library's
profile and all other library profiles,
since the site is aimed at individual
users (see December 6, 2006 entry, The
Ubiquitous Librarian blog). Facebook
does allow libraries to create ``groups''
but these do not have the same outreach
capabilities as profiles.
This was a minor point in an
excellent overall presentation.
Carpenter and Steiner avoided
overloading the attendees by focusing
on a few key technologies and
explaining each one, from the basics to
the specific uses. The presentation
wrapped up with an explanation of
Google Scholar and a reiteration of the
idea that Web 2.0 technologies will
allow librarians to push library content
to the users, instead of remaining
hidden behind a library web site.
Preaching to the choir? How
academic librarians really feel about
open access
Kristi Palmer and Emily Dill from
Indiana University conducted a survey
of academic librarians to determine
what this group thinks about open
access in scholarly communications.
Palmer and Dill wanted to know if
academic librarians are interested in
supporting and/or promoting open
access in their own libraries and
beyond. By determining this, they hope
to help focus open access efforts on
those projects that are most accepted
and understood within the librarian
community. Their ER&L presentation
explained the survey as well as the
conclusions drawn from the results.
The researchers found that a strong
majority of survey respondents feel that
open access is a way for academic
libraries to remain relevant and
librarians should educate faculty and
administration about open access and
copyright issues. However, most
librarians surveyed did not think that
funding open access projects should be
a priority for academic libraries. Palmer
and Dill questioned whether these
results meant that open access activists
should focus on the educational aspects
that most librarians can agree on, or if
the movement should continue to push
for broader OA funding and support.
Another survey finding was that
public services and acquisitions
librarians had the least positive
attitude towards open access. Coming
from an acquisitions department, I
was interested to hear that
acquisitions librarians are among the
least enthusiastic about open access.
The reason suggested in the
presentation was that acquisitions
librarians see open access as a threat
to their jobs. This seems unrealistic,
not only because there is much
library material that will not be free
online anytime soon, but also because
even most free information must go
through an acquisition process to
make the material available to the
patron. Instead I suggest that
acquisitions librarians are unsure
about open access because these
librarians are very involved in
evaluating library material for quality
and managing the budget to purchase
this material. The idea of scholarly
works available online for free raises
questions for these librarians about
how quality control will be
To continue reading
Request your trial