Engaging Faculty with New Models: Openness in Practice

PresenterHost InstitutionDate

ACRL Scholarly Communications Roadshow:From Understanding to Engagement

In this section we will…

• Identify and examine current models and programming that support “openness”

• Explore models that you might consider piloting or experimenting with

• Consider what next steps you might take

Why engage with faculty?

• They are key stakeholders (and therefore partners)• They are producers and consumers of the products of

scholarly communication• They edit journals, sit on editorial boards, provide peer

review, and are officers of scholarly societies• They are the movers behind many new models of

scholarship (often because of their own frustrations with the traditional model)

• They can make change in ways that libraries struggle to do on their own

What’s the faculty point of view?• What are the practices in a

particular discipline?• How does the scholarly

society(s) approach scholarly publishing and communication?

• What’s the culture in the department and college?

• What are promotion and tenure requirements?

Conversational Openers

How might you start a conversation?

(TIP: Start from a place of curiosity.)      

Conversational Openers

• What journals do you publish in? Who is your publisher?

• What are the scholarly societies you belong to?

• What grants support your research?

• How do you keep up with new developments in your field?

• Do you sign publication agreements?

• What rights were you able to retain?

• Does this publisher allow you to post on a website, share with a colleague at another institution, use graphs/pictures/sections of that work in future publications?

• How are you complying with the NIH open access mandate?

• How is your publisher complying with the NIH open access mandate?

• How are you archiving your work? How are you storing your research data?

• What mechanisms to you use to communicate your research to others besides formal publication?

Why do faculty engage with new models of scholarship?

• A reaction to the restricted flow of information

• A reaction to traditional models of control

• New technologies enables new modes of research

• Research doesn’t fit into traditional models

Pilots and Projects and New Programs, oh my.

• Education/outreach via seminars, brown bags, talks to faculty and graduate students on publication agreements, open access policies, content recruitment for IR, etc.

• Support open access to backfiles of publications put out by departments and research centers

• Faculty resolutions and OA policies

• Explore publication projects with faculty

• Foster digital humanities projects

• Others?

Highlights from the ARL / Ithaka Reporthttp://www.arl.org/bm~doc/current-models-report.pdf

• While some disciplines seem to lend themselves to certain formats of digital resource more than others, examples of innovative resources can be found across the humanities, social sciences, and scientific/technical/medical subject areas.

• Most original scholarly work operates under some form of peer review or editorial oversight.

• Some of the resources with greatest impact are those that have been around a long while.

• Some resources serve very large audiences, some are small & tailored to niche groups.

• Innovations relating to multimedia content and Web 2.0 functionality appear in some.

• Projects of all sizes--especially open-access sites and publications--employ a range of support strategies in the search for financial sustainability

Tool: Environmental Scan

Purpose: Understand the scholarly communication environments for particular disciplines and help to identify advocates and allies within the faculty.

Collect Information Like:

• Who on the faculty are editors?• What are the major scholarly societies? What are their policies

on author rights? Open access? • Have any of the major journals published papers about

scholarly communication in the field?• Is there a disciplinary repository? Is it well used?• Do the common funders have open access mandates?• What are the tenure and promotion codes in the department?

Drivers for change?

Drivers for status quo?

Case studies

• Case I [from presenter’s institution or choice to highlight]

• Case II[from presenter’s institution or choice to highlight]

• Case from group?

Case I

• Who (had the idea, was involved, ran with it)?

• What was the plan?

• When did it start? (what situation sparked it?)

• How did it play out (brief timeline and ending – if there was an ending)

Case II

• Who (had the idea, was involved, ran with it)?

• What was the plan?

• When did it start? (what situation sparked it?)

• How did it play out (brief timeline and ending – if there was an ending)

How about you?

• Who (had the idea, was involved, ran with it)?

• What was the plan?

• When did it start? (what situation sparked it?)

• How did it play out (brief timeline and ending – if there was an ending)

A few other strategies…

Discuss scholarly communication issues (especially author rights) with graduate students and work with your Graduate College.

Engage with the research offices on

campus about funder open access policies.

Share knowledge of copyright, legislative issues, and other current events that may have direct impact.

Bring faculty advocates from

other campuses to

speak.

Give faculty examples of changes and new models from other similar disciplines.

And what about within the library?

Include scholarly communication in

subject librarians jobs & service models

Negotiate for Green OA with publishers in

license agreements

Education around copyright and author rights internally

Have an institutional repository? Get more people involved – catalogers, subject librarians, etc.

Provide technical and organizational infrastructure for publishing journals and other content

Set an internal

OA policy

Summary

• New models are often collaborations between faculty (groups) and libraries

• Create “work-arounds” for current and broken system of publication (at any point in the system- or between points in the system)

• Size doesn’t matter– innovation, bold collaborations, tentative yet strong.

• Purpose is to test new ways and strengthen innovative solutions.

NEXT STEPS?

• What conditions on your campus do you need to consider (then take) a ‘next step’?

• Dreaming big, what would be some steps you might take exactly where you and your institutions is? It all starts with one step.

• Do you feel comfortable answering some of the questions from the reflection exercise at the beginning of the day?

Discussion

Resources

ARL Environmental Scan Outline and Tools• http://www.arl.org/sc/institute/fair/scprog/scprogc.shtml

Univ. of Minnesota Environmental Scan Example• https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/SurveyPartOne• https://wiki.lib.umn.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/ScanPartTwo

ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit• http://www.acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/

Create Change – ARL, SPARC, and ACRL• http://www.createchange.org/

Attribution

• Slide 4: Faculty Member - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeeperez/• Slide 5: Curiosity - http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiliodelprado/• Slide 7: Flowing Data -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicmcphee/2217375343/• Slide 20: Slow - http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatboyke/

All photos used under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license

This work was created by Sarah L. Shreeves, Joy Kirchner, and Ada Emmett. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.