Time and Location of Meeting
October 23, 20133:00 pm - 4:30 pm 126 GSLIS
Call to Order
- Adoption of the Agenda – John Wilkin
- Approval of Minutes – John Wilkin
- Introductions – John Wilkin
- Report of the University Librarian (15 min – John Wilkin)
- Executive Committee Report (10 min – Bill Mischo)
- NEVP (Nominations, Elections, & Voting Procedures Committee) Ballots (10 min -Jenny Emmanuel)
- HathiTrust Research Center and the Library’s involvement in the activities (20 min – Harriett Green, Tim Cole, Kirk Hess and Sarah Shreeves )
- Research Data Support (15 min – Sarah Williams and Beth Sandore)
Lightning Round (5 minutes):
- Jim Hahn (UIUC MegaSearch prototype)
Call to Order
Adoption of the Agenda
The agenda was adopted with no changes.
Approval of Minutes
An amendment to the minutes proposed by Cindy Ingold stating that the minutes should be corrected to reflect that during the Strategic Planning Retreat the Chancellor covered three of the six themes listed in the Future Excellence Report. Minutes were approved with this amendment.
No introductions were made.
Report of the University Librarian (John Wilkin)
John reminded everyone to review the policy on payment for teaching credit courses.
Archives 50th Anniversary Celebration: The Archives 50th anniversary celebration was a busy event. The Advancement staff did a great job as did Bill Maher and all the Archives staff. The event was held in tandem with the Foundation Weekend festivities which provided for a great deal of good exposure for the Library.
Library Planning Working Session on Priorities: John reminded us that the Library Planning Retreat will actually be a Working Session event focusing on the Library’s near-term priorities. He encouraged all Faculty and AP personnel to plan to attend.
Campus Charitable Fund Drive: Sue Searing is heading up the Library’s efforts for the Campus Charitable Fund Drive and has sent out an email reminding us all of the Drive. This is a really important campus-wide effort and it is important for the Library to participate at a stronger level than we are currently showing. As of this meeting, fewer than 10% of faculty and staff have contributed and the drive is 50% complete. John encouraged us all to please consider contributing if at all possible.
Executive Committee Report (Bill Mischo)
Bill reminded everyone that we have an open call for Faculty and AP positions. The form for position requests has changed a bit as we are now asking submitters to indicate the research aspect of the position in the job description. This request is in line with what has come out of a series of discussions with the Provost and others regarding the research component within Library faculty positions.
- Kirstin Dougan commented that, not having seen the request form, she wasn’t sure how specific the designation of a research area was meant to be, since she understood that the Library had not been in the habit of dictating research agendas.
- Tim Cole commented that he thinks there is a desire to raise the awareness of the candidates that they do research as part of the research faculty and that it would be helpful to make that more clear up front.
- Bill Mischo indicated that our statement talks about both applied research and quantitative research but that some have asked why we don’t talk about performance research. Chris Prom commented that he thinks the idea is not to be too prescriptive regarding someone’s research objective but that EC has received requests regarding positions where no mention of research is made at all. Bill Mischo noted that this is an opportunity to think about making research more obvious when creating job descriptions.
- Becky Smith asked if there will be another call for positions later in the spring. Bill Mischo indicated this was likely.
- Bill Mischo indicated the Provost is trying to understand how the various departments and colleges work.
- Bill Maher noted that we need to remember some historical context as we think about the Provostʼs current interest in knowing about what Library faculty do in the research area. Faculty status was first granted in the mid-1940s, but according to Pat Stenstrom, Library Science Librarian emerita, it was not until the mid to late 1960s that tenure review was applied widely to Library faculty. It was at this time that the research and publication requirement began to be emphasized, and since then the obligation for research has continued. However, during the governance controversies of the late 1980s/early 1990s, Library faculty leaders noted that administrative calls for emphasizing the library as a service
organization were predjudicially subsuming the fundamental educational nature of librarianship. Thus, while research remains an essential component of Library tenure cases, we need to recognize and articulate that we are faculty not solely because we do research but because we are intimately involved in the educational aspect of the University.
- Bill Mischo noted that in order to get through the campus committee we still have to show a research component to our work. That said, there are other faculty who also struggle to be understood—sculptors, dancers, mechanical engineers. In any case, we need to more clearly define what it means to be a faculty librarian.
HathiTrust Research Center and the Library’s Involvement (Sarah Shreeves, Tim Cole, Harriett Green)
See attached document.
The University of Illinois Library is collaborating with Indiana University to create the HathiTrust Research Center (HTRC). The interface of the HTRC needs more work to make it easier to use and feedback is most welcome. We have a Post Doc Fellow looking at use cases and doing a gap analysis for internal use to identify areas where we need to work on it. The challenge is that we need faculty to look at it as well, but it’s important to remember it’s not quite ready for prime time. The hope is that it will be ready by next spring.
NEVP Ballots (Jenny Emmanuel)
NEVP stands for the Nominations Elections and Voting Procedures Committee. NEVP is responsible for the ballots for elected positions in the Library. Generally, there is one ballot per month. The matter of how names show up on the ballot has been brought up. Some data seems to point to alphabetized listings of candidates resulting in the first listed candidates getting more votes. It is easiest to list candidates alphabetically rather than randomizing their names due to the tools available for creating ballots. The question for the faculty is how do you feel about randomized lists of candidates versus alphabetized lists of candidates?
- Mara Thacker indicated she prefers alphabetical lists because she often has someone in mind and it’s easier to find them by their last name.
- Mary Mallory underscored the belief that people listed at the bottom of a ballot are less likely to win and suggested we occasionally reverse alphabetized names.
- John Wagstaff asked why not alphabetize by first name sometimes. Jenny indicated not everyone goes by their given first name so this might be even more confusing.
- Kirstin Dougan suggested we use another service that does the randomization process better.
A straw pole was held and an overwhelming majority supported leaving the listing as an alphabetical listing while looking into other tools that might make randomization more practical.
Research Data Update (Sarah Williams and Beth Sandore)
See attached PowerPoint.
There is a lot of work going on in the Library that is laying the groundwork for the campus Research Data Service. The Library’s eResearch Implementation Committee meets every two weeks. You can get committee notes and agendas from the eResearch Implementation Committee webpage. Two areas of particular focus are the EZID pilot and starting a Research Data blog. EZID pilot is about assigning DOIs for datasets created on campus so it’s easier to discover and cite them. The Research Data blog is just the first step in creating more of a web presence for RDS that will also include developing Data Management pages for the Scholarly Commons website.
The eResearch Implementation Committee has been organizing opportunities for library professionals to learn about research data and to come together to talk about it. On October 31 at noon the Committee is hosting a webinar about Researcher Perspectives of Data Curation. There is a Research Data Services Interest Group that has monthly meetings and a listserv: ResearchDataIG@listserv.illinois.edu. On October 24 at 3pm, the Research Data Services Interest Group meeting will be a conversation about reproducible research. November 21 at 1:30pm there will be a discussion about purchasing datasets and December 17 at 3pm a discussion about getting up to speed with research data.
Campus efforts around research data involve many units including: the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR), the Provost, the Chancellor, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES), IT Governance initiatives, and departments such as the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) and Computer Science. One challenge is trying to understand whether or not researchers with National Science Foundation (NSF) grants have Data Management Plans and how much data they are actually creating and what they are doing with it. The University also needs to think about what it would mean if we were to collaborate closely with other institutions to provide this kind of support to researchers.
Qiang Jin commented that in providing research data the most important thing is to understand the concepts researchers have about their data. She asked about the kinds of reference services that librarians will be providing in 5 to 10 years and how will the current reference services skills have to change?
Sarah Williams commented that it often takes a team of people to provide the support to researchers: metadata expertise, subject matter expertise, etc.
UIUC MegaSearch (Jim Hahn)
This is the link for the UIUC MegaSearch prototype presented at the faculty meeting: http://dunatis.grainger.uiuc.edu/rails. And a screencast showing additional article APIs MegaSearch supports: http://screencast.com/t/JLS0lclrBZU.
Jim Hahn provided a brief overview of the UIUC MegaSearch tool, a “quick and dirty” example of bento search functionality. The search uses article APIs rather than one discovery search system. There are limitations to the search in so far as it does not yet use facets. UIUC MegaSearch is only hitting an API and displaying what the API is providing. This is just a presentation layer. There are a lot of other colleges using this sort of tool—Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Indiana, Stanford. It is popular for Undergrad type searching. People who are doing discipline specific research will still likely want to go to directly to the database.
New Business – none
- Sarah Shreeves announced Victoria Stodden’s talk on Thursday 10:00-11:30am at the Alumni Center.
- Daniel Tracy announced the Research Showcase November 19 at the Library.