Dana McFarland

Abstract and Description from VIUSpace:

Abstract

The International Open Access Week theme for 2019 “Open for Whom” asks us to consider what is at stake when we don’t prioritize Open and when we don’t think about the outcomes of scholarly and educational practices. 

Description

Blog post from The CIEL Blog 

Archived in VIUSpace at VIU Library: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.25316/IR-18609

and by the Internet Archive:

https://wayback.archive-it.org/20757/20230301183645/https://wordpress.viu.ca/ciel/2019/10/21/open-access-week-2019-reflections-on-open-access-oer-and-community-of-practice/

Oh, for the optimism of 2017. Internet Archive link is the 2024 update: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20170622032412/https://wordpress.viu.ca/dana/

Existing and new posts will be on the VIU WordPress site:
http://wordpress.viu.ca/Dana

This post might be the first of a few, describing our library's initiative to support faculty in contributing work to the institutional repository, thereby making it openly available. Other libraries are certainly doing similar work, or elements of it, but in recent conversations with colleagues there seems to be interest in our process, how we scope and manage the work, and how we have been handling the inevitable, unforeseen questions and issues. Of course, our experiences and experiments emerge from and address our particular environment; our Library is situated in a small-to-medium, teaching-focused university with broad programming and an emphasis on undergrad and applied scholarly activity. Colleagues from other settings, bigger and smaller, have told me that they can't imagine doing what we're doing, or that they are beyond us in some aspect of workflow. Much depends on mandate, scale, staff capacity, technical infrastructure and support, budget, and other variable resources, but we're happy to share what we're up to, in case it may be helpful. A year and a half into this initiative, we have added close to two hundred faculty-contributed items to the institutional repository. Most of these were not openly available, many not even available online, previously.

In April 2016, we gave a brief overview of our faculty OA work as part of a technical services team presentation at the Vancouver Island Library Staff Conference (Sifton, Barney, Ogden & McFarland, 2016). I'll use parts of Dan Sifton's complete slide set from the presentation to give shape to this overview, beginning with this concise illustration of our purpose...

Our faculty OA initiative is made possible through our library's institutional repository, VIUSpace, which we brought up in 2010. It also has origins in a research project with Royal Roads University Library into scholar-practitioner responses to emerging features of the scholarly communication landscape (Croft, McFarland, Reed, 2013), and has been powered by the willing and flexible participation of staff. All of this anticipatory activity on the Library side seems now to be converging with growing awareness and acceptance of Open Access in scholarly communication, and finding particular relevance as researchers look for means to fulfil Canada's Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.

Initial activity in the IR focused purposefully on digitization of special collections-type material (chiefly, the Gordon Edmundson Sturgeon Collection) which we see as within scope as it reflects the unique character of our institution and region. Faculty and recommended student work have been welcome from the beginning, but with modest incentive and awareness in the first few years VIUSpace accrued just a small body of faculty work, contributed mostly by Library faculty with a couple of noteworthy exceptions (from Anthro Brian Thom, then at VIU, and Graphic Design faculty member Karen Hodgson).

Subsequently, our research project to look into engagement of faculty with then-novel developments in the scholarly communication landscape and potential library roles related to scholarly activity, affirmed that many teaching-focused faculty at VIU produce scholarly and creative works that they disseminate in both traditional and non-traditional venues. With respect to Open Access, we found:

Conversations about scholarly profile flow naturally into a discussion of making work available in OA form, ensuring that the opportunity exists for scholarship to be viewed as widely as possible. Librarians may assist scholar-practitioners to assert their author rights with publishers in order to republish content in OA form, as well as provide education on suitable OA repositories. There is some confusion among scholar-practitioners on the subject of appropriate Open Access repositories in which to deposit content; for-profit sharing sites... (Reed, McFarland, and Croft, 2016)

At the time of our interviews the Tri-Agency OA policy was not yet released. Commercial scholarly networking sites, ResearchGate and Academia.edu, had attracted the participation of some faculty, but were still new and unfamiliar to many. Conversations that we had with faculty about these emerging developments helped us to perceive an imminent gap and an opportunity for Library services and infrastructure to fill it.

By the time the Tri-Agency Policy was announced early in 2015, ResearchGate and Academia.edu had attracted participation of a significant number of scholars who claimed affiliation with our University, as indicated in these screen caps where institution and department structure are replicated, kind of, in the commercial platform...

Looking in on these networking platforms, we have some sense of uptake among researchers affiliated with our University. It is impossible to know to what extent this represents genuine engagement, and how much is due to inductive, LinkedIn-style recruitment strategies. One of our IR contributors told us that he fell into ResearchGate quite by accident through trying to download a research paper and having to register in order to do so. Once in, he found that much of his own work was already represented there, unbeknownst to him. This seems to be a fairly common experience.

It is apparent that some of our affiliated researchers have chosen to offer full text versions of their work through these platforms. As an informed choice, this is fine. And best be informed, because it isn't made obvious how to undo a full text upload. I have a hokey, screen cap, how-to video the surprising popularity of which attests to the desire of some contributors to change their minds. Fair to say the "confusion" we noted in our research interviews foreshadowed a potential for misapprehension of the role and use of these commercial platforms with respect to OA, particularly given the specifics of the Tri-Agency Policy as it came out (see item 10 in this slide, taken from the FAQ for the Policy)...

Our clarifying interpretation, shared widely among libraries I think, is that offering full text through commercial scholarly networking platforms does not fulfil the letter or the intent of the Policy on several counts: such services are neither institutional, university nor disciplined-based, they are not Canadian or in Canada, and while perhaps "free" they are not OA.

First things often being what you have to do right away this week, or today, we didn't anticipate that researchers would come looking for help to make to grant-funded work Open Access immediately following release of the Tri-Agency Policy. But we did expect that they would come sooner or later, so in Spring 2015 we checked in with our Research Office and reviewed with our librarians what services the IR could offer to support faculty work. I also proposed to use information from ResearchGate and Academia.edu to identify researchers who were demonstrably interested in sharing their work, and to send these authors targeted invitations to also contribute to VIUSpace so that we could get a start to understand the potential for interest, workflow, and workload. At the same time, our library technical services group talked about how to accommodate the work of this initiative, and agreed to make it part of the workload of one of their flexible and talented staff. 

With these endorsements and supports in place, I compiled a list and sent the following invitation in late Spring 2015. It is important to note that scholarship is not formally acknowledged as faculty workload at our teaching-focused place, so Spring and perhaps Summer is when we expect that faculty may find time for PD and scholarly activity, and might be able to engage with an offer like this.

There were about thirty invites in the initial batch. In each I addressed the recipient by name, made reference to the specific platform/s where they already were sharing their work, and made reference to their liaison librarian by name, in an attempt to authenticate myself.

My expectations for response were modest, and my sense of the workflow needed was a little speculative. Half a dozen interested responses by the Fall 2015 were just about perfect to allow for a manageable introduction to some of the complexities that I think we're discovering routinely characterize this work. Those initial responses led both to requests to add additional publications, and to colleague referrals (word of mouth), building a nice backlog.

To recruit submissions on an ongoing basis, we are relying on a few strategies, including:

• promotion through liaisons and existing contributors
• new publication alerts for VIU-affiliated researchers that we have set up in Google Scholar and Web of Science - these trigger us to send an invitation
• combing through department newsletters for new publication announcements

It also seems that a year out from release of the Tri-Agency Policy, as researchers come up to the expectation that they will publish OA within twelve months, we are seeing increasing interest in the IR, some of this facilitated through Research Office staff who are keen to demonstrate that accountabilities related to grants are met.

There is a lot more to say, but at this point it seems like good idea to conclude this opening post, and to offer space for a perspective on the workflows, issues, and concerns that are emerging in the work. That will likely come next.

[ to comment ]

References

Croft, R., McFarland, D., & Reed, K. (2013). More than meets the "I": Helping your scholar-practitioners demonstrate impact in the academy & beyond. Electronic Resources & Libraries, Austin, TX

Reed, K., McFarland, D., & Croft, R. (2016). Laying the Groundwork for a New Library Service: Scholar-Practitioner & Graduate Student Attitudes Toward Altmetrics and the Curation of Online Profiles. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(2), 87-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8J047

Sifton, D., Barney, D., Ogden, S. & McFarland, D. Transforming Technical Services, Opening Knowledge for the Community: A VIU Technical Services Sixer. Presented at the annual Vancouver Island Library Staff Conference (April 29, 2016, Victoria, BC).

On November 18, 2016 an event to focus on research culture in academic libraries, Keeping it ReAL: Research in Academic Libraries, was held at UBC, sponsored by Irving K. Barber Learning Centre, UBC Library, SFU Library, UVic Library, and the UBC School of Library, Archival and Information Studies.

Organizers Heather O'Brien (UBC SLAIS), Holly Hendrigan (SFU Library), Erin Fields, Jo-Anne Naslund (UBC Library), and Christine Walde (UVic Library) assembled a program that served to concisely introduce a wide variety of topics related to research activity among academic librarians. Presentations addressed theory and practice, with concrete suggestions for how to approach and succeed at research projects and effectively communicate findings. Circumstances of academic librarian-researchers vary considerably depending on such factors as institutional mandate, circumstances of appointment, formal expectations related to research (or absence of them), availability of funding and release, and more, but there was a great deal of common ground that emerged in presentations and in discussion, to do with identifying meaningful opportunities, finding time and resources, the benefits of working in collaboration, and determining best-fit venue/s for sharing results. All slides from the day were compiled and have been made available, and these provide a sense of the breadth of the program.

The day also was well-balanced in that there were useful learning and reflection opportunities for those who came with more experience, along with plenty of material to motivate and equip a beginning scholar. A noteworthy aspect of the event in my view was the extensive involvement of students from the UBC iSchool, including detailed note-taking for all of the sessions of the day, resulting in a valuable resource for all attendees. There seems to be energy and intention to hold the event again in future, and I wonder about the potential for engaging students in other ways in future. It would be interesting to see a panel on student research activity, or how students see themselves as beginning researchers, or to close the day with a structured opportunity for reflection in which students participate.

In early planning, organizers contacted me together with other colleagues to form a panel to discuss "enabling a research culture" from our diverse perspectives. The presentations that preceded our afternoon spot in the schedule set us up nicely to share our examples, experiences, frustrations and wins. Here are a few notes on our panel, with thanks to Kathleen Reed for producing great slides!

Enabling a research culture in the Library: (Success) stories from the Island

Our panel participants offered perspectives on three proposed themes. To begin with, and amplifying advice given by Lisa Goddard early in the day, each of us endorsed collaborative approaches to scholarship:

• to share work
• to bring complementary skills and diverse perspectives to a project
• to foster a motivating sense of accountability that may increase likelihood of meeting milestones
• to mentor newer colleagues in scholarship
• to  explore ideas from outside the discipline, build mutual understanding, and create lasting relationships

Collaborative research relationships can be energizing, sustaining, and recurring. This was brought home to me in preparing with colleagues for the panel, which also turned out to be an opportunity to reflect on research work that some of us had done together in the past.

With respect to liaison, our panel presented a range of examples where scholarly activity acted to extend or enhance the liaison role by helping to demonstrate competence and empathy. From our own research experience we can:

• build rapport with students as an expert in research processes and tools.
• through formal inquiry into new areas of responsibility, develop familiarity and confidence.
• explain how disciplinary knowledge and approaches to research might intersect with library and information studies perspectives.
• speak to faculty colleagues from that experience, engaging on a critical level with current issues.

New liaison opportunities may arise from our own activity as scholars: consulting about author rights and open access, modeling critical engagement with commercial scholarly tools and new metrics related to scholarship, discussing options for alternative dissemination of scholarship.

Considering the theme of growth and development as a librarian/researcher, our panel affirmed that librarianship is a dynamic profession, and research can be a way to explore new areas. We reflected on what we have learned about how to be effective in our respective circumstances, as well as how our perspectives on scholarly activity may have changed over time:

• Building awareness of available grants and awards can be very helpful.
• Choosing projects that are immediately relevant to the work environment may be helpful to align effort and resources.
• Research ethics processes become less mystifying with practice. Try to anticipate potential uses of the data you want to collect.
• It may become increasingly hard to do research as career progresses, with competing demands on time for administration and service in addition to operational responsibilities. It becomes important to decide how to invest efforts: What kind of research actually effects change in the world?
• Assessment does not necessarily mean research; not as rigorous or extensive an analysis.
• Work environment and opportunities will affect what approach you take to scholarly inquiry, but it is important to make the effort because it will enrich the work we do.
• Journal publishing and book chapters are important and useful things to do, but later in careers or in non-tenure settings, it may be possible to push boundaries of non-traditional platforms: What useful and credible alternatives are there for dissemination?

This last point is one that I was really interested to surface through the panel. As it turned out, the importance of non-traditional platforms for scholarly communication also emerged early in the day, in Jennifer Douglas' "Research Rewind" remarks on dissemination, and seemed to be met with enthusiasm by other attendees through the day. I'm looking forward to seeing where the conversation may go.

Leading up to the Keeping it ReAL event, I had in mind to post about it because it promised to be an interesting day, and also because as I noted previously, I have been thinking about how blogs might serve to reach a broader audience and to promote immediacy in communication about scholarly activity. To learn more it seems like a good idea to try blogging for myself,  and to try introducing some of the elements that I'm thinking about.

I had been pondering leading up to Keeping it ReAL how and how far academics who are not necessarily compelled to participate in traditional scholarly publishing might contribute to change in scholarly communication by pushing the potential of alternate modes, including exploring what might be required to have those serve as credible alternatives. A few questions that I'm developing:

• What are the features and limits of this freedom to innovate that I think I see?
• How can a blog effectively be a venue to share outcomes of inquiry?
• What of review?
• What about the discovery that is necessary to facilitate discourse?

I began this post with the intention of starting to explore one or more of these questions, using the November 18 event as a departure or reference point. Now I think that this post is better completed as a reflection on the day, and my questions should come back in future posts that will make reference to these and other resources. I have other questions and topics in mind too, and for some of them I'm hoping to implicate other writers and perspectives. Look out!

[ to comment ]

#real_16 Tweets

Not ideal, and I'm asking the service provider about more flexibility. While I sort out the comment function of this tool, please contact me by email with questions or thoughts about posts.