Print

Print


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.