Discovery Investigative Group (DIG) Report, December 2016

This report is a response to the following charge from project sponsor DeeAnn Allison: Develop a working definition of the purpose and scope for a discovery tool that includes a description of what it should accomplish. How will it help scholars connect with information? The charge included a request to answer seven questions: 1. What content should be included and why? 2. What functions or search capabilities should be included? 3. What social media enhancements should be included? 4. How can it be structured to help both novice and advanced researchers? 5. Can you identify a “perfect” tool? If not, which ones are better and why? 6. Should we abandon Encore? Why or Why not? 7. What is the relation, or non-relation to Google products? Is a discovery tool just a variation of Google? Should it be? Over the course of the Fall 2016 semester, DIG committee members, comprised of seven Libraries faculty who voluntarily participated, met frequently to discuss the charge and determine how to best answer each question. Our answers were ultimately informed through a combination of reviewing the current literature, investigating peer institutions’ search tools, soliciting feedback from our library colleagues through a library-wide survey, and the committee members’ own insights. The responses to each of the following questions are a reflection of the consensus of the DIG committee members

Discovery Investigative Group (DIG) Report, December 2016

This report is a response to the following charge from project sponsor DeeAnn Allison: Develop a working definition of the purpose and scope for a discovery tool that includes a description of what it should accomplish. How will it help scholars connect with information? The charge included a request to answer seven questions: 1. What content should be included and why? 2. What functions or search capabilities should be included? 3. What social media enhancements should be included? 4. How can it be structured to help both novice and advanced researchers? 5. Can you identify a “perfect” tool? If not, which ones are better and why? 6. Should we abandon Encore? Why or Why not? 7. What is the relation, or non-relation to Google products? Is a discovery tool just a variation of Google? Should it be? Over the course of the Fall 2016 semester, DIG committee members, comprised of seven Libraries faculty who voluntarily participated, met frequently to discuss the charge and determine how to best answer each question. Our answers were ultimately informed through a combination of reviewing the current literature, investigating peer institutions’ search tools, soliciting feedback from our library colleagues through a library-wide survey, and the committee members’ own insights. The responses to each of the following questions are a reflection of the consensus of the DIG committee members

What\u27s Involved in the Evolving?: The Process Used in Developing a Proposal for Library Needs of Distant Learners in a Sparsely Populated State

Distance education. Distant learners. Extended campus library service. Nontraditional students. Satellite delivery. Access to information. Equal access to information and service. Limited resources. Over the past few years, these topics have appeared frequently in the literatures of higher education and librarianship. As the burgeoning interest in distance education continues to grow, more and more librarians are involved with meeting the needs of distance education students. Although meeting the library needs of any nontraditional student has always been a challenge for academic libraries, developing a program and process to serve distant learners is particularly challenging. In Nebraska, geographic and demographic factors further add to the challenge. Nebraska, a state spanning 400 miles, is sparsely populated (1.6 million), with the majority of the population concentrated in the eastern quarter of the state. Total enrollment at all public higher education institutions in the state numbers only 104,617 (U.S. Department of Education, 1990). The University of Nebraska system, comprised of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Nebraska at Omaha, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the recently-added University of Nebraska-Kearney, accounts for 48 percent of this enrollment. Additionally, there are three state colleges, located in Chadron, Peru, and Wayne, and a dozen private schools