Chan, Emily K.

Conrad, Suzanna K.

Dickman, Daina E.

Lawson, Nicole D.

English

SJSU ScholarWorks

Measuring Campus Engagement for Scholarly Communication Services: A Mixed Methods Study of U.S Public Teaching InstitutionsInternational Conference on Performance Measurement in LibrariesNovember 2-4, 2021Presenters● Emily K. Chan, Associate Dean for Research & Scholarship, San José State University, @ekchan35● Nicole Lawson, Associate Dean for Academic Services, California State University, Sacramento Also on the Project Team● Suzanna Conrad, Dean of University Libraries, Towson University, @tbytelibrarian● Daina Dickman, Assistant Director, National Library of Medicine Region 5 at the University of WashingtonAbout the Project● In August 2019 California State University, Sacramento and San José State University were awarded an IMLS National Forum Grant to identify standards and best practices in evaluating scholarly communication programs at M1 Carnegie-classified public universities in the United StatesMay 4-5, 2020Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum held virtuallyJanuary 2022Dissemination of White Paper and RubricsDistribute finalized white paper with accompanying rubricsFall 2019Focus GroupsFocus groups with scholarly communication practitioners heldSpring 2020Campus Stakeholder InterviewsInterviews with campus stakeholders (those involved in the research process)This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-35-19-0066-19).  Research QuestionAdding:● Staffing● Resources● Establishing/Investing in technical infrastructureHow are academic libraries reporting on the outcomes or impact of scholarly communication services, programs, and activities?Focus GroupsInterviewsNational ForumMethodology● Focus groups: 1 in-person at the Digital Library Federation Forum, 2 virtual sessions (n=20) via Zoom● Interviews: 13 sessions conducted via Zoom ● National Forum: 43 participants convened virtually via ZoomMay 4-5, 2020Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum held virtuallyFall 2019Focus GroupsFocus groups with scholarly communication practitioners heldSpring 2020Campus Stakeholder InterviewsInterviews with campus stakeholders (those involved in the research process)Framing the DiscussionsFocus Groups● How are the library’s scholarly communication programs and services supporting campus goals?● Are your library’s assessment efforts addressing scholarly communication?● What are the success metrics for your campus’ scholarly communication services?Campus Stakeholder Interviews● How is the library providing services to support this stage?● What are ways in which the library may support this stage?● What might be some measurable outcomes to that service?● What evaluative data generated by the library might be particularly useful to you?National Forum● How do we measure scholarly communication intangibles?● How could rubrics enable and facilitate academic libraries’ ability to identify and flexibly respond to their local campus’ needs?● What elements could appear on an evaluative rubric for scholarly communication development and success?Library Assessment ExpertsScholarly Communication Librarians/PractitionersCampus StakeholdersFindings & LimitationsKey thematic areas:Education & OutreachSupport for Open AccessImpactEducation and OutreachMetrics● Number and types of sessions offered● Attendance, knowledge acquisition (via pre- and post-surveys), affect (satisfaction) and confidence● Follow-up requests for more information and their corresponding complexity● Presentation topics ● Collaboration or co-sponsorship with campus partners● Improved dissemination channels and resultsKey takeaway● SC Librarians state that presentation topics and collaboration/ co-sponsorship with other units are indicative of a program’s maturity and the extensiveness of campus relationships● External stakeholders focused on the need to educate faculty on “Where to Publish” topics to maximize dissemination opportunities, prestige, and efficiency● SCAF participants indicated that having adequate numbers of library personnel who are highly trained in supporting the research lifecycle are just as important as providing the software tools and programsSupport for Open AccessMetrics● Awareness of IR, data repository, and journal-hosting services, their associated brands, and corresponding positive associations with the platforms● Faculty deposits of publications and datasets ● Campus support for open access, including local policy, OER adoption, and open access publishing fundsKey takeaways● SC Librarian efforts to help create policy and dispel myths around open access scholarship are significant and continuous, but difficult to quantify with traditional metrics● SCAF participants emphasized the need for metrics to be sensitive to disciplinary norms, specifically in relation to potential impacts on promotion and tenure systems● OA visibility helps to educate student researchers on the scholarly publishing ecosystemImpactMetrics● Number of items available for download vs. open-to-read● Number of downloads in given period● Geographic distribution of downloads● Percentage of accessible or ADA-compliant documents available in IRKey takeaways● OER adoption can help to change faculty perception of OA materials while also removing barriers to student success● External stakeholders view impact through the quality of grant proposals and overall public access to research outputConclusions● Current library reporting systems for scholarly communication services collect short-term data (e.g. attendance at a workshop), but cannot quantify the potential long-term impacts of education and outreach.● The framework for counting librarian education and outreach often lacks the granularity needed to capture data important to scholarly communication (e.g. differentiating between student and faculty engagement).● Unfunded research is mostly absent from current conversations around campus support for faculty scholarship.● Caution is important when implementing scholarly communication metrics, as uninformed usage can skew resource allocation and/or tenure and promotion considerations.Learn More about Our Project● Scholarly Communication Assessment Forum | Sac State Library (csus.edu)● View the full proposal: https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/grants/lg-35-19-0066-19/proposals/lg-35-19-0066-19-full-proposal.pdf● January 2022 - White paper with accompanying rubrics will be distributedThank You and QuestionsThis project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-35-19-0066-19).● Emily K. Chan, Associate Dean for Research & Scholarship, San José State University, emily.chan@sjsu.edu● Nicole Lawson, Associate Dean for Academic Services, California State University, Sacramento, nicole.lawson@csus.edu ● Suzanna Conrad, Dean of University Libraries, Towson University, sconrad@towson.edu ● Daina Dickman, Assistant Director, National Library of Medicine Region 5 at the University of Washington, ddickman@uw.edu 

Measuring Campus Engagement for Scholarly Communication Services: A Mixed Methods Study of U.S. Public Teaching Institutions

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1860&context=faculty_rsca&type=additional

Measuring Campus Engagement for Scholarly Communication Services: A Mixed Methods Study of U.S. Public Teaching Institutions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SJSU ScholarWorks