Friday, November 8, 2002
Teleconference/Lecture Hall, Scholarly Communication Center, Alexander Library
College Avenue Campus
1. The agenda was adopted as submitted.
2. The minutes were approved as submitted.
3. Introduction of new faculty and guests.
Sabine Rauchmann, visiting intern from Germany, was cordially welcomed.
The following librarians were officially introduced:
Laura Bowering Mullen, Psychology Librarian
Mei Ling Lo, Math and Computer Science Librarian
4. There was no unfinished business.
5. New Business
a. Draft Guidelines for Refereed Journals (PPAAC, M. Fetzer, Chair)
The Coordinating Committee charged the Personnel Policy and Affirmative Action Committee (PPAAC) with the task of developing guidelines for the definition of refereed journal articles for librarianship. These guidelines are intended to help candidates and unit directors in filling out the 1-L form during the reappointment/promotion procedure. PPAAC chair M. Fetzer provided some background on the Committee's work, noting that this task was in fact begun last year. Committee members examined the editorial statements of a test list of some seventy journals, and noted a multitude of variations in the definition of a referred journal. The committee drafted a basic statement that leaves the burden of proof on the candidate. The draft statement was then reviewed by the Coordinating Committee, and is coming to the faculty for review. The floor was opened for questions and comments.
It was suggested that the phrase "an unsolicited manuscript" be changed to "manuscript." It was also noted that the term "onus" has a pejorative connotation and should be replaced with the phrase "It is the responsibility of." The recommended changes will be made and the draft guidelines for refereed journals were accepted as amended, and will form part of the supplemental guidelines for promotion/tenure procedures.
b. Discussion of the Vagelos Report
The University deans were asked to submit reports outlining the ramifications of the Vagelos report for their respective units on November 8, 2002. While RUL sought to share its vision of how the Libraries might be most usefully organized post-restructuring, RUL's chief goal was to include all major ramifications of the report on the Libraries. RUL must emphasize in the future that the Libraries on all three campuses have gone well beyond collaboration into interdependence. RUL will be engaged in continual dialogue as the process proceeds.
Future President McCormick issued a statement indicating that he supports the concepts and goals behind the report but that critical issues-including funding and enrollment capacities-must be further explored. The University Senate report expressed concern about the relative sizes of the proposed three campuses. The Senate report also noted that the Vagelos report did not sufficiently account for the inter-campus collaborations that currently take place, and the ways in which a post merger three campus split could be highly detrimental. It is hoped and expected that RUL will form part of the working groups outlined by the Vagelos report.
6. Report of the University Librarian
A recent Cabinet retreat focused on the concept of organizational excellence. Representatives from Institutional Leadership and Development made a presentation based on Baldridge's measurements of quality. The intention is to chart goals and objectives based on institutional measures of quality. It is important to define measures of quality, as well as to determine how best to assess quality. Future cabinet workshops will also focus on the issue.
M Gaunt recently traveled to California with J. Zapcic to meet potential donors. The donors, despite their distance from campus, were very much in touch with campus concerns and directions, and the visit led to many invigorating ongoing discussions.
7. Report of the Faculty Coordinator, Linda Langshied
Many tasks have been assigned to PPAAC this year, such as the definition of refereed journal articles and potential guidelines for reading committees.
A short general discussion of the role of reading committees took place during faculty coordinator Linda Langschied's report. She suggested that returning to the language of University Regulations for teaching/research faculty might help guide the process of developing guidelines. It is important to note that the reading committee is not required. The existence of reading committees is a unit by unit decision. If the committee does exist, however, it is necessary to decide how the reading committee report will be treated, since all reports must be treated uniformly within the unit, throughout any given academic year.
It is likely that Unit Directors may wish to contribute their thoughts on the importance and substance of the reading committee work. The reading committee is part of faculty personnel actions, hence faculty should also contribute their thoughts on the matter. Indeed, the responsibility for assessment of candidate rests with the peer group. It was noted in the discussion that the PRC seeks the application of critical thinking to the value of a candidate's work as described in the tenure/promotion packet. It was also stated, however, that the hyperbolic language used in the university's statements about the requirements for tenure, particularly in the area of scholarship, makes this a difficult and sensitive task. It might be necessary to underscore the value assigned to practice in the profession of librarianship.
Finally, it was noted that since the decision to utilize reading committees remains with each individual unit, PPAAC might wish to develop guidelines for the evaluation of the scholarship of candidates rather than guidelines for reading committees per se.
The Councils have recently been developing criteria for the evaluation of librarianship in each respective area. The Research Leave Review Committee is reviewing the SRA guidelines. All committees will post their meeting agendas to RUL_EVERYONE in advance of meetings; those committees that choose to share their minutes are encouraged to do so through the same list serv. S. McDonald will post minutes on committee web pages.
There were no communications.
9. Report of Members Serving on University Bodies
H. Dess reported that the semester's first University Senate meeting was dedicated to President Francis Lawrence's farewell address. The second meeting was devoted to discussion of the Vagelos report.
Campus Faculty Council Representatives
There were no additional reports.
10. Reports of Standing Committees
The reports were distributed via email. There were no additional questions or reports.
11. The business meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
RUL Faculty Secretary
Open Meeting: The RUL Digital Library Initiative: Setting a Collaborative Agenda
The following brief summary of Associate University Librarian Grace Agnew's presentation is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive.
What is a Digital Library Initiative - (G. Agnew, Associate University Librarian for Digital Library Systems)
The presentation was intended to help forge a common definition of what RUL is doing and where we are heading in terms of the digital library initiative. RUL has adopted an infrastructural approach to the development of a digital library. We must all take advantage of digital technology to perform our jobs more effectively. One of the first steps is working to develop a common understanding, and participating in a period of education to learn about digital library issues.
The digital library will help us better achieve our core mission: giving our users seamless access to research and educational materials. As information professionals, we must ask ourselves what our patrons expect, and then work to supply highly contextualized digital information at the point of need. We must support our users in their various roles as researchers, educators, publishers, and lifelong learners.
The design principle of the digital library is user-centered and rests on user collaboration. Librarians will always be needed; therefore we must not operate from a position of defensiveness. Rather, we must work to develop sustainable collections and services and a core applications suite that will support digital initiatives over the longer term.
Just a few of the key issues include scalability of information, the use of the RU core, advancing interoperability, and not only learning about standards, but learning to apply these standards.
Libraries will no doubt continue to work in a hybrid environment, and should aim for the seamless integration of analog and digital information. A future model library collection will include gray literature, office documents, as well as public and private collections. One goal should be to allow patrons to easily search across collections. We must therefore build a metadata driven archives that will support data sharing within the Rutgers community. Collaboration-- across the libraries, university, and with other research communities--will be key.
There are many groups within RUL currently working on these issues, including the Data Architecture Working Group, the Digital Architecture and Infrastructure Working Group, and the CDC's Working Group on Collection Development and Management Criteria for Digital Projects. The Planning Committee will help structure learning and formalize training by developing a website devoted to educational and training resources in this area.
G. Agnew concluded by underscoring the importance of assessment to understand our core users groups and our 'market share.' RUL is committed to pursuing the digital initiative in a way that brings in all faculty and staff rather than isolating projects. Project ideas, etc., are therefore welcome, but we all must educate ourselves in order to fully participate in the expanding digital environment.