Unit 9 continued: Winks thinks...

Part II of my Unit 9 post…

As I worked my way through this week’s readings, I wrote in my journal about my desire to be in a work position where I could get hands-on experience with ERMS’s to get a better understanding of where all these acronyms and systems fit together. And then my wish came true! One of my classmates gave a fantastic hands-on demo with using the open source ERMS called ERMes, developed by a librarian at UW-Eau Claire. It was great! We first downloaded the program, then learned about the interface and how to navigate it, then actually used it on our local desktops with some dummy data prepared by the presenter.

As much as I wanted to get experience with these systems in order to better understand them, I will admit that I was skeptical of the demo and nervous about using it for fear that the ERMS would be too complicated and just confuse me more. However, it was so good to go through the motions of what exactly an ERMS entails, understand why “manual data entry” is a huge inconvenience especially at a place with as many resources as UW (I don’t mind a little manual data entry every now and then, but after only working with five databases’ information? No. Way.).

Last but not least, what I really enjoyed this week was how much of the information really started to evidence connections to other units as well as across my other courses this fall. First, the connections to other units was very apparent when I read, “Ted Koppel (2006) predicts there will be a move away from aggregators to more title selection with more truth in pricing...Additionally, there will be increased transparency for content providers on pricing, and the demise of aggregator packages...There will be pay-per-view support and tracking within ERM” (Hogather & Bloom, 2003). Whoa – didn’t we just spend an entire unit a few weeks ago discussing pricing and subscription models, and the Big Deal still ropes even more libraries into their package deals right alongside even less transparency for pricing. Also, learning about the forthcoming developments in Phase II of ERMI really motivated me that licensing will continue to become more streamlined for libraries with things like licensing expression and data dictionaries.

Speaking of data dictionaries, this week’s unit really connected to the database design (DBD, I’ll call it for short) course I am taking. I feel very fortunate to be taking DBD because not only am I spared feeling overwhelmed at the overload of lingo, but I understand the pathways and relationships between user, library, resource, and specific content. It is neat to see from the librarian end of things why data standards and types of usage data allowed for on the DBD end of things is so important. Plus, I felt pretty good reading about ERDs and knowing that not only did I know what it is but also how to make one and make it well for the highest efficiency for the purpose it was meant to have. No matter how hectic this time of the semester can get, it always seems to coincide with moments when I start realizing how different classes begin to overlap and connect - love it.

Image credit: Me! :) Happy pre-Halloween!

Unit 9: Vewwy, vewwy intewesting

Yesterday’s class session was a lot of fun! With so many things to which I want to respond, I’m splitting this week into two posts. The topic this week focused on Electronic Resource Management Systems: Vendors and Functionalities—sounds like hardly the place for the descriptor “fun,” right? What I enjoyed so much about it was a) the relevancy of the information given certain libraries’ and library types’ trends toward primarily e-resources, b) the demo we did, and c) the connections I was able to make between my semester classes.

The need for ERM systems stems from the sheer volume of electronic resources available in the packages and products to which libraries subscribe, an amount that was simply not manageable by a single ILS. ERMI, or Electronic Resource Management Initiative, is guided by the following principles (Hogarth & Bloom, 2003):

1. Print and e-resource management should be through an integrated environment.
2. Information provided should be consistent regardless of path taken.
3. Each data element should have a single point of maintenance.
4. Electronic resource management systems should be sufficiently flexible to make possible to add new/additional fields and data elements.

In other words, in the coming years, librarians will be working toward ensuring these guidelines are interwoven with the new technologies and software available for managing their electronic resources. I found the list helpful as a sort of checklist against which I could compare different ERMS vendors’ products and consider how the different platforms and modules either enhance or obstruct these characteristics.

One of the major differences between the Hogarth & Bloom (2003) article that we read compared to the Collins’ chapter was that Collins spoke much more about the challenges in implementing the ERMS. Hogarth & Bloom (2003), on the other hand, focused on pushing the envelope in the future rather than stressing out about making them work now. It really illustrated – for me, at least – the tension kind of inherent in libraries and the systems they use to manage their resources, and with technology in general, depending on library type. Perhaps the authors are on different sides of the library field fence, but librarians (or who I think of as being on the use and implementation side of things) are concerned with making things actually work in the here and now, saying “Whoa, slow the heck down, what?” whereas program developers (or who I think of as being on the software design side of things – which sometimes include librarians) are intent on staying one step ahead of the game, pushing forward so not to spend too much time tweaking a possible soon-to-be-outmoded system.

I’m finding evidence of this in my research on mobile devices (more specifically Internet-capable handheld devices) and electronic resources, where there’s a ton of literature available that focuses on all the new tools and apps and opportunities for development. At the same time, however, there is hardly any literature that discusses actually implementing mobile services for licensed materials in a library. Vewy vewy interesting...

Unit 8: Coming Soon..PasswordMan and the Digital Info Superheros!

This week’s readings focused on technological protection measures and the implications they have on libraries, patrons, and a dabble of information ethics/policy. Having just finished the last reading about the socio-technical construction of who is allowed use in our digital information environment, it is interesting to think back to the beginning of the semester and how copyright really stole the limelight, warning us against letting it dominate information policy. Yet here, this week we see that both social values and business also very closely affect information policy, illustrating in real time the danger of letting any one entity control something that affects diverse users in varied situations.

Reflecting on what Eschenfelder (2008) discussed, libraries do need to pay more attention to the soft restrictions that are just bundled up in the licenses they sign. I think after reading the Harris (2009) book, I came away thinking that the most important point in licensing materials was to make sure that the vendors or publishers 1) didn’t make any outrageous restrictions on materials, 2) didn’t place any requirements for trafficking patron use, and 3) were actually able to license the material. Having not been involved in any licensing of materials whatsoever, I cannot speak directly to the notions may or may not exist. However, I will say that going into a position of licensing materials, I would probably subscribe to the assumptions that soft user restrictions are status quo that Eschenfelder (2008) describes as all too prevalent in our current professional environment.

But after reading the Eschenfelder (2010) article, I started asking myself what is it that is keeps libraries from picking up the new technologies to use in controlling their collections? I think there’s a good possibility that the new technologies would help streamline their collections more in the long run, rather than as with the example of watermarking interfering with legitimate use it would instead keep protections there but without obstruction of the resource. However, maybe it’s a side effect of those long-held assumptions I discussed earlier, where librarians are not picking up the new technologies because they aren’t part of the expected use restrictions, and therefore imply greater restriction and control of access to the resources. Rather than being better for their end users, organizers of cultural institutions in the U.S. may be viewing the new technologies as the Big Bad Wolf, a terror in disguise. When really, the old stuff is what’s making their collections difficult to use.

With that being said, I wouldn’t exactly place money on this discussion, not yet at least. Why? A) I haven’t thought it through enough, and B) because I myself am victim of fearing the newer tools for controlling use and access to resources. If I were a librarian controlling access to my materials, I would stick with what I know best because it’s what’s safe and what works (and what we think still works), so – as I told my dad last winter when he suggested I trade in my dearly beloved ’91 Lumina, Sporty, for a newer vehicle – why fix it if it ain’t broke?

(And, as a total aside, I’m glad I didn’t get a newer car last year, seeing as Mother Nature just totaled Sporty a month ago with a nasty September hailstorm…yep.)

Taking a turn in my stream of consciousness... Millman (2003) writes, “Authorization may be considered an implementation of policy, and an important goal of authorization systems is flexibility, accuracy, and efficiency in implementing policies.” Now, I’m not sure what policies they’re talking about here, but I think it’s maybe the policy that says who can access what to whatever extent. I experience this each week between what I’m authorized to do and view in the library as a student vs. what I can access at different levels of staff between my different jobs. Authorization is a complex process, especially with people – like me – who have multiple roles within a single institution, where the Role-Based Access Control system that Millman (2003) describes is used.

As far as authorization and authentication go, my immediate thought was that I do enough authenticating these days as anyone ever should have to, especially at UW it seems they have a greater security concern than other things like Gmail. Logging into my three different email accounts, two blogging accounts, a social network profile, online accounts for banking and shopping, a distance learning portal for my online classes, and multiple work terminals (each with their own passwords), I don’t know how we as human beings do it, remember which identity we chose for which program/website/account/etc. I foresee a new age of digital information superheroes, with PasswordMan (see picture above) leading their forces in the fight against cybercrime.

Image credit: Wikimedia by Thibault fr

Unit 7: “It’s the way you ride the trail that counts.”

Tomas Lapinski came to speak in our class about the ins and outs of the TEACH Act. Regardless of how unlibrarian-ish of me it may seem, I have never heard of the TEACH Act (*gasp!). Yes, it's true. Somehow, freshman woes and other plagues of high school seemed to have been demanding my attention at the same time in history, so cut me some slack here...

The TEACH Act signed in by President Bush brought some pretty weighty changes on distance education as we know it. After reading about it in Lapinski’s article and in an ARL issue brief, however, I can’t say we seem like we have it figured out entirely yet. It was interesting to compare the pros and cons with the TEACH Act, seeing as it seemingly provides a lot more leniency for use of copyrighted materials in distance education. However, Lapinski pointed out some of the drawbacks that I would otherwise have missed. Not only does TEACH introduce potential licensing provision problems, but it also makes it difficult for users to negotiate between multiple copyrights on works (Lapinski gives the example of a CD of Copland and the copyright – or lack thereof – of the music versus copyright on the sound recording).

Right away, I thought the TEACH Act didn’t sound so bad. It seemed to make available many more resources than had otherwise been accessible by distance students. As one who has taken online/distance courses (not really from a distance, however, as I’m still here in MadTown), I can definitely speak to the importance of having materials that provide the equivalent experience of the face-to-face instructional setting for use at the learner’s convenience within the time appropriated to the course. The only streaming I have had in courses were voice lectures and voiceover tutorials created specifically by instructors. Speaking of which, the whole issue of MIA materials still has me hung up in not understanding exactly what it means. When going through the readings, I felt like the moment I understood what TEACH meant, it was explained further that just re-confused me.

I agree with Lapinski in that the “compliances” required by TEACH is troublesome on multiple levels, most significantly (from my experience and perspective) that user rights would be more dependent on institutional compliance. Yet, this too could be debated. Have user rights ever been independent from the institution providing the resources for one’s education? As a student using materials, it’s easy to overlook the licensing details and the remote access clearance and the copyright stipulations. But at the end of the day, we as users are quite dependent on our institution. I think the problem comes into play when that dependency shifts from the institution to an entity beyond the institution that is demanding compliance with non-institutionally created rules and requirements. That’s the kicker.

With the test coming up this Friday, I’m going to be spending a lot of time with this and our other readings from the semester, trying to weave some common themes between them other than “copyright.” The TEACH Act is one that I’m still trying to place my finger on, as the Lapinski article wasn’t exactly a “bit of light reading.” Although he did a nice job explaining what it meant, the Act itself is just very wordy and circular, in my opinion. At the end of the day, I’m still going to ride the trail more traveled and wave my white flag of Fair Use until they take me in for good. Apparently, that seems good enough for now, to at least act with good intentions and to be willing to a) change or b) argue your case if someone thinks otherwise.

Unit 6: Puttin' on my attitude shoes

This week's unit focused on pricing models and consortial arrangements. The further I get into this class the more I realize that even with as much as we're reading and discussing, this is just skimming the surface of electronic resource management. I almost wish there was some way to include a practicum option with the course in order to get some hands-on shadowing time with librarians who confront and work with the issues about which our class is reading.

For example, one reading this week was from 1988 called "Journal Publishing: Pricing and Structural Issues in the 1930s and 1980s." As I read the historical rundown of libraries' journey with serials and the unique issues it faced back then, I was not sure how to respond to the recommendations provided by the authors at the completion of the article. The authors recommended in four of six different points that, in order to change the way serials were going, librarians had the responsibility to – in short – step it up. While the other two recommendations focused on library organizations and the academic and research library community, librarians as individuals were called on to do a better job at being more informed and up to speed on the publishing industry.

If only Astle and Hamaker could see us now! It is truly amazing to have read something written a year after I was born (yeah, do the math…I'm a young'in) and how very recent it was that librarians were being called out for not knowing enough about the publishing industry and not taking better initiative with serials management. When I think of journals and the issues and obstacles librarians have topped and continue to work with today, I am very impressed. An entire generation of librarians, in my lifetime alone, have come SO far with figuring out how to negotiate the publishing environment and have seen such unbelievable leaps and bounds in issues they face that challenge the way "business is done" in libraries.

So what does that mean for me, an up-and-coming librarian, one aspiring to work in the field of medical librarianship where cost of journals and subscriptions are of prime importance? For one thing, I think this generation of library school students has big shoes to fill. :) Second, I think it is vital that we are able to have the face to face working relationships, almost like apprenticeships, with the librarians who helped usher libraries to where we currently stand today. I am a firm believer that even the most streamlined and sophisticated of educational programs cannot trump real life experience, and while newcomers to the field may offer fresh perspective, there will always be significant value in understanding and building on what came before.

Lastly, one thing I guess I'm still wondering about is whether or not consortia are the "way of the future" with regard to how to manage electronic journals. I am not skillfully versed in what we have here at UW, but we had the opportunity to listen to a few guest speakers in class yesterday who work at Wisconsin Library Service (WiLS), who negotiate electronic resources through cooperative purchasing licenses as well as other consortial services. As Clement (2008) points out, the literature evidences that there are both intellectual as well as financial benefits to consortial arrangements for electronic resources. However, does each library in the consortia have the same resources, and if so, will that make for more uniform collections across agreements? Lack of diversity of collections was one of the drawbacks cited in reference to Big Deals offered by publishers, as scholars like Best (2009) believed Big Deals risked creating standardized collections on campuses around the country. Could consortia risk doing the same?

Image credit: Wikimedia by Albi V R.

Unit 5: Oh my ears and whiskers! How late it's getting!

This week's post comes a bit belated but here nonetheless! A little update from KateLibraryLand, last weekend I had the opportunity to both attend as well as present twice at the Midwest Chapter Medical Library Association conference here in Madison, WI. I presented both a group research paper (about the American Family Children's Hospital's Family Resource Center) and an individual poster (about building complementary and alternative medicine collections in libraries). It was a fantastic time, and I met a lot of wonderful colleagues. It is exciting to have these experiences that will help me continue building my career in the direction of medical librarianship.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. :)

Last week's class focused on e-reserves and the joy of negotiating demands from academia with an appropriate balance of copyright and protecting intellectual property. I have to admit that in thinking back on my college career that concluded only a short year and handful of months ago, I used to think I clearly remembered having e-reserves. However, I now struggle to recall exactly how they looked, how they were set up, or to what extent they were used. As an English major, the majority of my coursework was done using books, and any research in electronic journals was done for term papers, not in e-reserve fashion (again, I think...).

While one of my first courses at UW required students to purchase a course packet, the remaining courses since have all used e-reserves. As a user, I do prefer a course packet because $15-$20 beats $200 in books for a semester. This semester, however, I've gotten a chance to really compare the pros and cons from a user perspective of having e-reserves set up versus having to go find each article individually. While the convenience is hard to beat, there is an added benefit of improving library resources search skills when having to go into the system for individual articles.

But our ERM discussion was not about user opinions of e-reserves, but rather it focused on the technical aspect of e-reserves, the deciding what is ok to post and how long it can be there and under what circumstances. The director of UW's College Library visited class as a guest speaker, having served as the university's e-reserve guru for a number of years. I enjoyed hearing her insight into what is a much more complicated process than users have any idea. It seems like a simple situation: university library purchases subscription to journal, journal article is available, librarians collocate articles and post links to them for e-reserves. Easy, right? Not so much, because in order for that progression to flow successfully, there needs to have been consideration for e-reserves as early on as drawing up a license for the resource in the first place, not to mention the safeguards that needed to be created and limits/re-uses/etc. issues that come up as well.

In class discussions, I must admit, these things get overly complicated and I struggle to find actual footing on an "opinion" toward this issue. However, hearing our guest speaker talk through things with us really put e-reserves in a different light. It doesn't have to be an intricate, complicated web (though it most definitely seems to be) but rather a careful process of consideration, balance, and well-founded decision done in the best interest for users and the creators/owners of information.

We also discussed the Georgia State case, in which GSU had an ultra-lenient e-reserves policy and publishers responded with legal action, after which GSU changed its policy and proceeded to defend that policy as if it were the one originally cited for copyright and intellectual property violations. I think it called to attention the responsibility of universities to remain fair players in the scholarly literature scene/cycle. I've been looking for a response from Lesley Harris on the GSU case, but I haven't found one yet (will continue looking and if found, will post it here).

To be continued (in a much more prompt fashion)...