LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT Archives

EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT  December 2007

EDUCAT December 2007

Subject:

Fwd: [RDA-L] LC WG Report: Sect. 5 Recommendations

From:

"Diane I. Hillmann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education & training <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:07:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (172 lines)

Folks:

An Educat member also on the RDA-L list asked that I post this 
section to this list as well.

Diane
>
>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 
>control. 
>
>5.1.1.1 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 
>among participants.
>
>5.1.1.2 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.
>
>5.1.1.3 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
>
>5.1.2.1 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.
>
>5.1.2.2 All: Through LIS and continuing education, foster a greater 
>understanding of the need for research, both quantitative and 
>qualitative, into issues of bibliographic control.
>
>5.1.2.3 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
>
>5.2.1.1 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 
>and broadened.
>
>5.2.1.2 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?
>
>5.2.1.3 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
>
>5.2.2.1 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 
>recommendation.
>
>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.
>
>5.2.2.2 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
>
>5.2.3.1 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 
>developers.
>
>5.2.3.2 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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
April 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager