Photo of Katie Fraser

www.chuukaku.com

Katie Fraser's blog and website

I'm an academic librarian, working in the UK Higher Educational sector, supporting academics and students. Prior to this, I was a researcher, working with social and learning technologies.

My interests include the application of all kinds of technology, research support in libraries, learning spaces (my Librarianship dissertation studied an Information Commons project), evidence-based practice and the professional development of library and information workers.

You can find out more about more about me from the links to the left. Note that the views expressed on this website/blog are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual or organisation.



What kind of feedback do we need for the journals review?

January 10th, 2013

Stacks at the University of Notitngham

Stacks at the University of Nottingham

I’ve undertaken annual reviews of departmental journal subscriptions in both my most recent jobs, and although they tick over, they always seem to leave me feeling unfulfilled. Regularly reviewing departmental journal subscriptions (outside ‘big deal’ packages) is critical: as departments change, so does their needs for certain titles. Nonetheless, I always seem to feel like we’re making these decisions on half the information we need.

The minimal format for a review usually involves sending out a list of currently subscribed journals to the department for comment. However, the response rate is usually pretty low, and I’m also not sure it elicits the right kind of feedback.

When studying Psychology I learnt that collecting information about people’s actual behaviour is much more useful in predicting their behaviour than collecting information about their attitudes. Instead of asking ‘do you think this is a good journal?’ we should probably be asking whether academics publish in the journal, put it on their reading lists, purchase a personal subscription or sit on the journal’s editorial board. All this, and whether students and staff are actually accessing it, as well.

This fascinating article on journal subscriptions, by Jane Harvell at the University of Sussex, suggests an entirely data-based model of journal evaluation and subscription. However, it’s a step too far for me to go completely data-driven. Although not every academic is in a position to fully contribute to the review process, they like to be involved in the decision-making; the only negative feedback I’ve ever had from these reviews is from academics nervous that the library might make a decision without their input, and I agree that this would be a risky process.

Therefore, the Library needs to do what is does best: manipulate information. We somehow need to provide an easily-digestible breakdown of current journal subscriptions and potential journal subscriptions, and map these against usage data (or turnaways), publication outputs, reading list appearances, impact factors, and anything else we can get our hands on. And we need to condense it down into 2 sides of A4, or a 5 minute Powerpoint presentation.

Oh dear. About an hour I was feeling pretty proud of myself for preparing for the journal review early. Now I’m starting to think some of this might need to wait until 2014. Baby steps…


Preservation in Libraries: Graham Matthews’ inaugural lecture

January 19th, 2012

Library shelves

Day-to-day book shelves in an academic library: are these candidates for preservation?

Yesterday I went to see Professor Graham Matthews inaugural lecture at Loughborough University, titled ‘Why do you always keep your records in the basement?’ Library preservation and disaster management. It’s a topic I know very little about, and when a friend from library school suggested attending, seemed like an excellent way to expand my knowledge. I’ll put together a brief summary here, and collect some of the resources he recommended at the end of the post.

After a bit about his entry into the area, Graham talked about the different ways that damage to library stock occurs. His list included handling, storage, heat & humidity, lighting, pollution, pests, fire, flood, theft, vandalism. For me, the most interesting observation was that some of the most common ways for damage to occur to books are among the most mundane: rough handling and poor storage can cause just as many problems to an individual book as a large-scale disaster.

Graham held that all members of library staff needed to know something about preservation, from management down to staff based in the building who might first spot a leak. He held that librarians have a duty to preserve heritage for future generations, but acknowledged that selection of what to preserve, was a complex question. Selection criteria could include:

  1. usage levels
  2. risk of losing an artefact
  3. value and / or significance (at national or local levels)
  4. access and availability

As an academic librarian, I’m more than aware how unpredictable usage levels can be, with a simple change in a reading list completely redefining the desirability of a text for students!

I was surprised to hear that until quite recently, preservation-quality microfilm was still considered the best ‘preservation surrogate’ in the absence of an original artefact. Graham indicated that there are still many issues to be considered about the use of digitisation as a preservation method, and it’s still not fully understood how long-term a solution our current digitisation methods may be.

Graham also discussed disasters, and how these affected libraries. He emphasised that in large-scale disasters, the focus of emergency services will rightly be on life and safety. Preservation of library materials will often come down to the individual, and there can be some quite difficult decisions to be made about personal danger. He felt that the most important thing was to have a plan: and an active one, with procedures and drills, rather than a passive document.

Graham’s final thoughts were largely focused on collaboration and mutual concerns between libraries, archives and museums. However, he concluded by encouraging us to think about our own collections, in the home rather than in our libraries, and what we’d preserve in those in case of a disaster. Maybe it’s time to start making a list!

Resources to Read

  1. Ratcliffe, F. W. et al. (1984).  Preservation policies and conservation in British libraries. Report of the Cambridge University Library conservation project http://hdl.handle.net/10068/562494 – Seminal report, commenting on the state of preservation in libraries and its disappearance from the library school curriculum.
  2. National Preservation Office (2006). Knowing the Need: A report on the emerging picture of preservation need in libraries and archives in the UK http://www.bl.uk/blpac/pdf/knowing.pdf - Survey of preservation in UK Libraries. Due to be updated in 2012, with a new report published in the Spring http://www.bl.uk/blpac/ktn2012.html.
  3. Digital Preservation Coalition (2006). Mind the Gap: Assessing digital preservation needs in the UK http://www.dpconline.org/advocacy/mind-the-gap – Report looking at the preservation needs of digital information: both born digital and digitised material.
  4. Matthews, G. et al. (2009). Disaster Management in Archives, Libraries and Museums. Ashgate: UK – Graham and colleagues’ book, introducing disaster management and giving advice on planning.
  5. National Computing Centre (2011). Managing data risk in the enterprise and the Cloud – Event Summary. http://www.ncc.co.uk/article/?articleid=16720 – Report on an event covering the digital preservation implications of cloud computing.

Videos to Watch

  1. Preserving the British Library’s C19 Newspaper Collection http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6NnFcSpAh8 – Interviews about this major digitisation project.
  2. National Library of Haïti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oSmqqJUfcc – Alarming video of a library in the midst of a natural disaster, with mystifying soundtrack.