An Educat member also on the RDA-L list asked that I post this
section to this list as well.
>5. STRENGTHEN THE LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE PROFESSION
>5.1.1 Develop Key Measures
>The thrust of this section is that there is a lack of quantitative
>data to support decision making in the area of bibliographic
>220.127.116.11 LC: Bring key participants together to agree to implement a
>set of measures of (a) costs, benefits, value of bibliographic
>control for each group of participants and (b) interdependencies
>18.104.22.168 LC: Develop a statement of value of LC's services that
>includes benefits to libraries and to the market sectors that
>provide services to libraries.
>22.214.171.124 LC: Analyze changes in LC service levels in terms of costs
>and savings within LC and potential effects on the larger community.
>I generally support these recommendations, but particularly in
>regard to the first, the devil will be in the details. What we can
>ill afford is a determination of measures that do not extend from LC
>and the large research libraries to the smaller libraries that so
>seldom get to the table.
>5.1.2 Support Ongoing Research
>126.96.36.199 All: Encourage ongoing qualitative and quantitative research
>(and its publication) about bibliographic control, for various types
>of libraries and over a protracted period of time.
>188.8.131.52 All: Through LIS and continuing education, foster a greater
>understanding of the need for research, both quantitative and
>qualitative, into issues of bibliographic control.
>184.108.40.206 All: Work to develop a stronger and more rigorous culture of
>formal evaluation, critique, and validation, and build a cumulative
>research agenda and evidence base. Encourage, highlight, reward, and
>share best research practices and results.
>I think all these recommendations make sense, but what I miss (both
>in the recommendations and life in general) is a sense of
>collaboration between the LIS research community and practitioners
>in developing a research agenda and involving practitioners in
>important areas of research design. There are exceptions (Bill
>Moen's MARBI research is an obvious exception), but in general there
>is still too big a gap and the important questions that practicing
>librarians ask get far too little traction or attention in the
>research community. It would be great to get that community to
>engage in some discussion about how to address this.
>5.2.1 Communicate with LIS Educators
>220.127.116.11 LC and ALA: Convene a biennial meeting with LIS educators
>and trainers, perhaps in coordination with ALA and ALISE, to discuss
>changing policies, procedures, processes and practices, the levels
>of demand for qualified professionals in the area of bibliographic
>control, and base levels of knowledge required, in the first
>instance, of those who will work in bibliographic control and, in
>the second instance, of all professionals.
>First, this recommendation could use some attention--it's very hard
>to parse. That said, I agree with the sense of it, and I agree that
>more discussion on these issues, particularly in view of the changes
>we anticipate in the standards relevant to bibliographic control, is
>essential. Some of this happens on the EDUCAT listserv already, and
>some of us have written a bit on what we think are essential skills
>for new professionals, but the conversations need to be continued
>18.104.22.168 LIS programs and library community: Accept that base levels
>of knowledge for all professionals include: Understanding the role
>of organizing resources in information control, transfer and access
>processes; Being familiar with basic principles and practices for
>organizing resources in libraries, archives, museums and other
>information resource centers; Skills for organizing resources and
>understanding description and subject analysis as fundamental
>components of this activity; Understanding the basic role of
>metadata for organizing digital resources; Being aware of new
>developments that have an impact on the organization of resources,
>such as the Dublin Core, FRBR, etc.
>Okay, but once we accept it, how do we ensure that students actually
>acquire this knowledge before they acquire their degrees? How do we
>as practitioners collaborate with the LIS programs to ensure that
>students are exposed to up-to-date information in these areas?
>22.214.171.124 LIS programs: Make available curricula covering advanced
>knowledge and skills to those who intend to specialize in
>bibliographic control. These could include traditional cataloging,
>knowledge organization theory, database design (theory and
>programming), metadata for unique materials, indexes and
>thesauri/fact analysis, computational linguistics, philosophy of
>information, managing e-resources, systems librarianship, etc.
>Gosh, I wish I knew more about some of these areas! ;-)
>5.2.2 Share Educational Materials Broadly via the Internet
>126.96.36.199 All: Make educational materials available over the Internet,
>free or at reasonable cost.
>One difficulty with this recommendation is that to make something
>available for free on the net, someone has to pay for the
>development of the materials, their maintenance, and their
>appropriate dissemination. It is not that easy. A few years ago I
>was part of a small group that made a proposal to IMLS to develop
>continuing education materials for librarians in a variety of
>relevant areas, with an approach that included curriculum
>development, developing multi-media resources (podcasts with leaders
>in the profession, etc.), as well as self-assessment. We envisioned
>two tiers: one that would require payment, include instructor
>involvement, and result in the award of continuing education
>credits; the other free and open, with some collaborative tools
>available. We didn't get the grant, and certainly the need is even
>more compelling now--but the important point is that there needs to
>be a way to sustain such an effort, and I don't see one in this
>Right now, most continuing education efforts are not open and free,
>including the ALCTS/LC workshops developed recently (for which I
>developed--and am now updating--"Metadata Standards and
>Applications"). I know of several courses offered on the net by LIS
>programs with great instructors and presumably some support, but
>they're not free either (and I don't know what they cost, and
>whether that's "reasonable," but I suspect not.) Without some
>method to sustain such efforts, we cannot expect the quality we
>need. Otherwise we leave them to look for their own materials and
>to find less-than-optimal resources that may be outdated, unusable,
>or just plain wrong.
>188.8.131.52 All: Use network capabilities and other distance learning
>technologies to increase the availability of education for all
>library staff. In particular, encourage the creation of courses that
>can be taken at the learners' convenience.
>I think the same concerns about sustainability apply when talking
>about resources for library staff (and anyone who cannot take
>advantage of opportunities available at particular times and places).
>5.2.3 Develop Continuing Education for U.S. Library Profession
>184.108.40.206 ALA and ALA-APA: Consider development of a U.S.-wide
>continuing education program in bibliographic control which could be
>hosted by a professional association or academic institution.
>There are strengths in the current ALCTS/LC continuing education
>program and its model, but a) there is insufficient support of the
>program at LC; and b) participation requires institutional support
>to attend (there are significant charges for registration that are
>used to ensure appropriate venues and materials). There are many
>people who could benefit from these workshops who are not being
>reached and as far as I know there is no plan for maintaining the
>materials except by depending on the professionalism of the
>220.127.116.11 ALA and ALA-APA: Develop an economic model that can ensure
>sustainability of the continuing education program.
>Exactly, see above. I would suggest, though, that there are a
>number of LIS programs that would be interested in this effort--some
>of them are already providing online courses for offsite students
>and could provide essential experience.