Library Committee Handbook

Library Faculty Meeting Agenda Committee

Library Faculty Meeting

Meetings 2014-2015

Meetings 2013-2014

Meetings 2012-2013

Meetings 2011-2012

Meetings 2010-2011

Meetings 2009-2010

Meetings 2008-2009

Meetings 2007-2008

Meetings 2006-2007

Meetings 2005-2006

Meetings 2004-2005

Meetings 2003-2004

Meetings 2002-2003

Meetings 2001-2002

Faculty Meeting Minutes November 17, 2011

 

MINUTES

of the

LIBRARY FACULTY MEETING

 

Date: November 17, 2010

Location: 126 GSLIS

Time: 3pm - 4:30pm

 

Call to Order

 

Standing Items:

 

Adoption of the Agenda (Paula Kaufman)

Adopted.

 

Approval of Minutes (Paula Kaufman)

Minutes were not approved due to the lack of a quorum.

 

Introductions (Paula Kaufman)

None.

 

Report of the University Librarian (Paula Kaufman)

The Stewarding Excellence Report on the Library and Law Library is out. The report was upbeat and positive. The other Stewarding Excellence Final Reports are also coming out. PTI's was released today. Some of the reports are controversial including the report on small schools, such as GSL.

 

Regarding the budget, the State owes the University for the last fiscal year and the money they owe for this year is accumulating. There will possibly be a tax increase after January 1, but we aren't looking for much relief. The University system is looking at a $100 million cut next year, which will mean another reduction for us next year. The Budget Group is being as conservative as possible with recurring funds. The IT fee provides us with a measure of protection that our peers don't have. UIC is in a very precarious position.

 

The President's vision for the University is unknown and we don't know how that will play out. We should know soon who is on the search committee for the Chancellor.

 

Tina Chrzastowski asked about the Stewarding Excellence Report on the Library and the mention of increased revenue. Paula has appointed a Revenue Task Force to look at this. Betsy Kruger is the chair and Paula is expecting a report in the next couple of weeks.

 

Executive Committee Discussion Items -David Ward

1.      Faculty Research Support

Background

EC is investigating Ways to expand support for the research needs of faculty, and have met with the chair or RPC to discuss expanding that group's role in mentoring and providing support for faculty research needs. Other colleges have developed faculty mentoring programs which might serve as possible models, such as ACES: http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/news/stories/news5395.html) and the Academy for Excellence in Engineering Education's Fast Start program: (http://ae3.engineering.illinois.edu)

 

Discussion Questions

a.      What training and mentorship needs should the library be providing more support for, in order to help faculty develop as researchers and be successful in promotion and tenure endeavors?

b.      What is the best way to organize and allocate ongoing, long term support for these mentoring activities?

Discussion

Chrzastowski - Does RPS have a set amount of money and how is it being spent?

Sroka - The committee has $28,500 this year.

Hinchliffe - Many people are turned down or asked to do multiple cycles of revisions. Is there a disconnect in what is needed? Does RPC look at the proposals that are turned down to see where the problems are? How can we manage procedural research with scholarship? Maybe we need training and mentoring on proposals to help faculty know how to submit an application.

Sroka - the rejection rate is low.

Hueting - Some faculty are uncertain as to what should be included in the application.

Kern - Faculty need help in how they think about their research and how to write their research.

Mischo - EC is looking at the possibility of expanding the role of RPC to address some of these issues. Beth Woodard helps with training and Beth Sandore helps with grants, but RPC needs people with more grant experience and people to help identify grants. There also needs to be someone who can help with IRB proposals and sand boxes to do more computing work. The faculty need better mentoring and betters support.

Woodard - Methodologies are a more important need for some. The untenured are doing their research in isolation and this is happening for some associate professors. Maybe we could develop a research starter kit and buy some methodology books.

Emanuel - A collection of professional research development materials would be useful.

Leon - We have a structural problem. A lot of what works in other departments won't work for us because we don't have flexibility in work time.

Hinchliffe - we have a more difficult time finding availability for everyone to attend workshops. A lot of department faculty are bought out of one course a semester that allows them to establish their research. We can't just look at a program, but need to look at the support for the people to participate.

Kaufman - when people join our faculty they often negotiate what they need or want.

Woodard - people new to librarianship often don't know what to ask for. They don't always understand the research issues.

Chrzastowski - We need to support institutional research. We need to teach our faculty how to turn their institutional research into a research program or match them up with someone else doing research in the a similar area.

Hinchliffe - Would these changes to RPC make it more than just a committee assignment? Can this rotate or are there parts that need to be invested in a person's job?

Leon - if RPC becomes mostly a committee with tenured faculty, what impact will that have on untenured faculty?

Hinchliffe - untenured tend to be protected from committee assignments. That means less time in meetings.

Jacoby - committee service is one way untenured make connections and learn about other's research.

Ward - is there another mechanism for faculty to make connections?

Szylowicz - maybe we could survey tenured faculty to find out what worked for them when they were untenured.

Jacoby - and add research areas to survey.

 

Old Business

(none)

New Business

Reference Assessment - David Ward

 

Background

Library Assessment Working Group would like to discuss what the needs are for faculty reference assessment and what the best ways might be to assist with collection and analysis of reference assessment data. (Examples of visualization of data collected from current Desk Tracker tool.)

Discussion Questions

a.      What decisions do you need to make about planning reference services?

b.      What data would be useful to review in order to make these decisions?

c.       What features would be helpful in a reference assessment tool?

Discussion

Dougan - what other things would faculty like to measure?

Chrzastowski - what does a successful departmental library look like and what are the metrics to define what a great departmental library is?

Rudasill - we need to look at web metrics; who came to the page, why, did they get what they needed?

Youngen - Can Desk Tracker be combined with Bean Counter? Are patrons using the collection or just study space?

Mischo - usage has changed. What are our primary responsibilities?

Dougan - these issues are not easily the work of a committee.

 

Faculty Senate Reporting - Al Kagan/Lynne Rudasill

Background

The Library Faculty might benefit from a standard approach to hearing about issues that are brought up and addressed at the Campus Senate meetings. Since we are moving away from a "reporting" model for our faculty meetings and toward a "discussion and action" model, the faculty meetings may not be the best place for reports from our senators

Discussion Question

a.      What are some viable methods for informing and seeking feedback from the Library Faculty about issues brought in the Faculty Senate meetings? How do you want the committee to communicate to the faculty?

Discussion

T. Teper - A summary is preferred.

Ward - Senators can decide if there is a discussion item that needs to be brought to the faculty.

T. Teper - Forward the agenda to the faculty for input before the meeting.

Rudasill - The Senators will link documents to the agenda items near the time of the meeting.

 

Ad Hoc Items:

Lightning Presentations

 

1.      BibApp - Sarah Shreeves

See http://connections.ideals.illinois.edu/ and http://www.bibapp.org/.

 

Jacoby - Is there a way to build research groups?

Searing - Is there a way to upload faculty publication lists?

Shreeves - Data is not parsed out but it might be possible to get a student to do that.

 

2.      Reference Effort Assessment Data ( READ) - Kathleen Kern (5 min)

See PowerPoint presentation at http://www.library.illinois.edu/committee/faculty_meeting/Index.html.

 

Announcements

None

 

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 4:35 pm