Gaunt gave an update on the NJKI; encouraged Cabinet to continue to make telephone calls.
Gaunt sent to Cabinet a summary from the Deans Council; VP Furmanski's office is trying to follow up on things that they think need acted upon.
There now is an MOU on international agreement where an institution wants to have a relationship with us; Vice President Furmanski said a lot comes up at the last minute; want us to sign. The MOU is a template and can be used for most generic things; everything in the template is what the university would agree to do; Gaunt asked Boyle to review it.
Dent, Boyle, and Gaunt are meeting this afternoon to discuss where libraries might want to go relative to Middle States; Gaunt sent the bios to Cabinet; note that there is not a librarian on the Middle States team; this was surprising to Barbara Bender; did tell her because of the way Middle States standards have evolved, library is looked at in a more integrative way - what do we actually contribute to student learning and faculty research. The university sent the schedule of the people they would be meeting with, and Barbara has felt libraries were very critical; gave us a heads up. They put us in for three hours on March 11; be prepared that they may not spend three hours with us; we are free to invite whomever we might want to join us.
Karen Stubaus mentioned the diversity conference December 3-5 President McCormick is doing with Columbia. She just highlighted it; have not seen anything in writing coming out about it yet; will be a big to-do. Have told him we are very interested in participating;
Karen Stubaus did remind us and I sent out to you that the faculty cluster diversity hiring initiative is out there; after I took a quick glance at it, might be harder for us to fit into it; but worth looking at to see if we can adapt it to us; there are diversity hiring funds so we could apply for them.
Gaunt attended the ARL Board Meeting last week; it was a regular board meeting with discussions related to recruitment. Gaunt passed around two things for which she will send URLs; discussed diversity at the ARL board meeting last week, Charles Lowry from University of Maryland said they have been using and testing the ClimateQUAL survey for the first time; they have interesting data that connects diversity to the organizational climate. Paul Hodges presented at an assessment conference some of this data; commend them both to you; really is important for diversity education initiatives to know what kind of data is out there.
Qualls and Hull Seminar: Valeda will be teaching one; great to see what our students are interested in.
Boyle wanted to give Cabinet an idea of some of the things she's been working on. For the repository we have the author's agreement and policies in place; used the agreement created at the University of Michigan; three agreements.
Marybeth Schmutz gets a lot of copyright questions and she sends them my way; shows the diversity of questions related to copyright.
The copyright policy update had been languishing on the public services policy page draft for years; never actually finalized it; we have to get these notices on all of our computers around the library; Golden suggested making it part of the wallpaper on the computer; Boyle will look into it. They will officially reside under policies on the administrative staff pages; they are there to inform us; one of the things we haven't been doing well on are the release forms; we think about it when we are having a presentation by an external visitor; but even we should be signing; will be under policies on the administrative staff pages; with copyright update and policy revision there needs to be an understanding from the perspective of what's going on. One of the things is that other institutions have author's rights; might want to follow up. Boyle had offered to host a lunch on a couple of articles; will take her up on that.
Dent decided to approach this a little differently and as opposed to providing individual checklist, took a more holistic approach; continuing to re-conceptualize research and instructional services; tie in what I've been thinking about over the last six months; wanted it to be more of a discussion of this new unit. Thinking about how to move from the environment that most academic libraries find themselves in where everything is focused on the background and expertise of the people who work in the unit, as opposed to being more user-focused. Users have many different choices these days; to address those concerns and retain user loyalty for as long as they are at the institution is to begin to develop produces services and from their point of view.
This is the research and instructional user centered services matrix. You have four areas that were the major areas where the initiatives I've been thinking about have fallen under - virtual, physical, undergraduate education, and instruction. What you have in the circle that goes around the immediate outside are all the bits and pieces that help to inform and test whether you 're developing user centered and user focused products; involves testing, feedback and observation. Removes assumptions we may make about what users need and replaces with actual needs analysis. Now want to think about needs analysis as more of a consistent methodology for staying in touch with the user. Think about iterative design -but always trying to improve; circle can be very large; many other components would go into it. The outer circle you are always working to design a better overall quality of the users' experience; always like to think about where the unit is now vs. where I'd like to see the unit five years from now if I had unlimited funding.
In terms of the physical, the four areas tie into the matrix on the front page, some of the things going on; Francoise, Lila, Jeanne and I will be working to put together focus groups talking and meeting with students; this is the needs analysis that should be ongoing. Needs change over time is the assumption; adding more study spaces for different types of users; Francoise has been working on that for a long time. May continue to grow; for later what might that area look like? When Marianne and I attended the ACRL/CNI symposium on enhancing graduate education, one of the things talked about was concept of imbedded services. One school has a writing center located in the library; would be interested in looking at that; another piece is tapping into the social space element; that would be adding cafes; that ties in with the physical spaces. Lots of students work in Starbucks.
Testing new visibility model using a SCILS professor's class; for the future what are we thinking? Grace and I have touched base on the three levels of enhancing our website; thinking about using experts or expert consultants to redesign the site. The redesign is a huge undertaking; talking about an entirely separate tem needed to do the work; technical support would be done in-house; design and usability would be done by professionals.
Undergraduate education: brainstorming ideas for multidisciplinary learning community to focus on social information; talking about how to embed literacy competency across all the learning communities. Attached to all this is developing a means for ongoing about what students are learning. Might think of learning this new learning community as a model to demonstrate importance of having information literacy as standard part of the curriculum; reevaluate Searchpath; target nursing and conduct needs assessment toward development of new learning model; dream is to build an instructional design laboratory based on the Penn State model. They have instructional design lab; powerful model; have the expertise within the library; this group provides the services for the campus; really filled a need.
On May 16 we will have a program on creating the passionate user; it is about how you capture and hold the attention of the user; how you create more than a single activity; want to begin to craft an experience around what the user does. Steven Bell, my counterpart at Temple; he is well known, author of ACRL log and is very well known in the field for looking at usability, user centered design, talking about 2.0 long before anyone else; coined the blended librarian term. Dr. Bill Gribbons, from corporate America, is the keynote speaker; lab with first masters program of its type in the country; in very high demand for doing user analysis for entire organizations. The way he will approach is talk will be very different from the way we approach our users; the biggest challenge is to re-conceptualize what is a users' experience. Steven is bringing his team from Temple; wanted to invite libraries from Penn; Larry Alford is coming; very excited. Valeda and Jeanne will collaborate on a luncheon that follows up on the user experience discussion.
This is DeEtta's last official time with us; thought a team-building exercise might be good; up to this point she has been observing our culture. Will use this teambuilding exercise to hinge goals work; in the middle of doing mid-year reports; new opportunities for thinking about how to connect with other Cabinet members and other units. Will ask prompting questions and give us opportunity to team build.
Jones provided the current library vision statement to Cabinet members and a copy of some of the goals; discussed with Marianne and Lila the possibility of using some of the actual goals being worked on as the meat of a team-building exercise and explore them differently. Does the stated vision for RUL still apply? Consider role in university, state; relative to peer organizations.
1. For each goal answer the following questions:
How are you and your unit positioned to contribute to this goal?
Do you have any specific project ideas?
How might you draw on other Cabinet members to advance this goal?
2. Think about what needs to happen at the Cabinet and/or unit levels in order to allow us to be most effective in achieving our goals.
Are there barriers to remove?
According to Jones, we should think about the difference between mission and vision. Mission is why we are created; what we're here to do; work of the organization. Vision should be inspiring; give us a sense of direction; compel us to move from one place to another; important about the contributions that have come up. Should pull us and be so compelling that we move from vision to current reality. If vision looks like current reality, it's not creating or helping to anchor us; needs to be far reaching; difficult to have measurement, although I understand the desire to have measurements; tricky to put into actual vision statement. As current reality changes may be moving in the same direction but not the same destination. Measurement is likely to change based on the changing nature of current reality. Looking at the statement is there any desire to amend it, tweak it? Looks intentional; is there something that would make it more inspirational, more compelling? One of the things about the vision statement we talked about to see where the group is resonating around vision. At the end we could say is there something we'd like to do relative to the vision.
Ideas for the Future: 1. Topically based Cabinet meetings (for agenda items):
Integrated focus so everyone is responsible for contributing based on expertise/interest
2. Town Hall meeting model:
Cabinet meeting with faculty and staff (helpful with buy-in)
Topical (based on input from science faculty)
3. Dialogue within faculty meeting:
4. Devote 30 minutes of Cabinet meeting to dialogue with faculty member:
Ideas for future meetings:
UX; Ebooks; information sharing (faculty discuss their research)
Data curation (not limited to sciences; invite faculty who are blog datasets)
What could we stop doing (resource sharing as model)?
Accountability for faculty led by faculty (explore with teaching faculty)