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. > >188.8.131.52 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. > >184.108.40.206 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. > >220.127.116.11 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 > >18.104.22.168 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. > >22.214.171.124 All: Through LIS and continuing education, foster a greater >understanding of the need for research, both quantitative and >qualitative, into issues of bibliographic control. > >126.96.36.199 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 > >188.8.131.52 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. > >184.108.40.206 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? > >220.127.116.11 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 > >18.104.22.168 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. > >22.214.171.124 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 > >126.96.36.199 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. > >188.8.131.52 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.