Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vendors’ Category

The usual business librarian gang promoting the Charleston Conference wasn’t as vocal in its promotion as in past years, but there were nonetheless even more business librarians at Charleston last week. Advocates of this conference might get annoying on occasion with their gushing praise, but much of their enthusiasm is justified – Charleston is indeed very interesting and useful and packed with learning and networking opportunities.

Charleston Harbor

Charleston Harbor

While some conferences seem to struggle with breaking from strongly held traditions, this conference seems to emphasize continual improvements. For example, the time devoted to plenaries continues to get rolled back. When I first attended Charleston, the plenaries (speakers, panels, satirical skits, etc.) started at 8:30 and rolled on until 12:30 or so. That was so draining! This was back when all conference activities fit inside the Francis Marion Hotel. This year on Wednesday morning (now using the performance hall at the Gaillard Center, a short walk from the hotel), there was a plenary talk by the Internet Archive founder, Brewster Kahle, followed by a plenary panel on scholar communication trends. Then concurrent sessions for the rest of the day. On Thursday, the only plenary was a talk by new Elsevier head Kumsal Bayazit (first female CEO of that company).

New this year was a consultation service for job hunters on Tuesday during the Vendor Showcase. Out this year was the “fast pitch” competition, in which libraries competed for money to try something new at their library. That event was interesting but maybe the donor dropped out. Charleston (and USASBE) are innovative conferences I’m looking at closely as we plan our own Entrepreneurship & Libraries 2020 conference.

My big regret this year is that I never made time (well, played hooky) to put on my walking shoes and stroll down the peninsula past the old houses, gardens, churches, synagogue, and cemeteries to the harbor front.

So here is another long conference review. My next blog post will be different, I promise. I might write about “What entrepreneurship librarians want in a conference” based on our interesting planning discussions so far for the ELC.

Tuesday

Vendor showcase

Mintel's Alison Agnew and Sarah Blaney

Mintel’s Alison Agnew and Sarah Blaney

Carol and I drove down on Tuesday and then visited the Vendor Showcase (the one-day exhibit hall). Every year more business information vendors come to Charleston. One of the first-time vendors this year was Mintel. And each year more business vendors attend the programs (and socials) on Wednesday through Friday. While visiting vendors, I promoted Entrepreneurship & Libraries 2020, since we are interested in partnering with vendors in a few different ways.

ProQuest focus group

I had to leave the showcase a little early to attend a late-afternoon “Juried Product Development Forum” with ProQuest’s Jo-Anne Hogan, who I met at a BLINC workshop two summers ago. About ten of us attended. I sat with Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (U Penn/Wharton) and Corey Seeman (U Michigan/Ross). We didn’t have to sign a nondisclosure agreement since we were not looking at a product under development. Instead, ProQuest asked us to provide context and details for different types of business research that happen each semester on our campuses. After discussing those journal maps, we next designed our own preferred homepage layout for a database that would cover all ProQuest business content. Then we compared our designs. Some of them were quite different, depending on our specific target audience (we were asked to pick one): perhaps first year students writing a short paper, or an MBA team working on its capstone consulting project. I came away from this product development forum with increased awareness of how hard it is for a business vendor to please all of its markets and users. (Jo-Anne told me a day later that she was glad the ProQuest interface expert who was also present at the forum got to hear firsthand from business librarians about our special and challenging needs.

After dinner, Ian Hertz (Winston-Salem State University) and I had a nightcap with our friend Juan Vasquez from SimplyAnalytics.

Wednesday

“Pain Points and Solutions: Bringing Data for Startups to Campus”

Kelly LaVoice (Business Information Librarian for Collections, Vanderbilt University), Daniel Hickey (Librarian for Business & Economics, New York University), and Mark Williams (Head of Collections Services, Massey Law Library, Vanderbilt University)

Kelly, Dan, and Mark provided a fast-paced, slide deck-free panel discussion. They summarized the growth of entrepreneurship and incubators on campuses. As a law librarian, Mark provided a different perspective. He teaches a for-credit class on legal aspects and resources for entrepreneurship. All three discussed the need for datasets and data feeds. Collaboration with other campus units (such as the b-school) for purchasing high end products is often necessary. Consortial efforts, too. Sometimes a resource is licensed only for the business students. Negotiations for academic access can be tricky. “Back-channel discussions” (talking to other librarians) can be a big help.

Best practices:

  • Understand the needs of your users.
  • Work closely with e-resource librarians about entrepreneurship needs.
  • De-silo-ing across campus – get other units involved, sometimes they have funding available.

Key take-aways:

  • Advocate as a team, not as an individual.
  • Build relationships outside of the library.
  • Advocate for academic-friendly licensing.
  • Partner with vendors – a more effective approach than an adversarial “us versus them” mentality.

Q/A topics:

  • Our practices [supporting cross-campus programs; dealing with unusual databases and datasets] will become more common among other subject areas — business librarianship is ahead of the curve.
  • Vendor access to a campus but not to the tech transfer office or incubator? Yes, sometimes.
  • Mintel sometimes collaborates with academic researches, sharing data and access in exchange.

“ ‘I Don’t Want to Go Among Mad People’: Adventures in Establishing Good Communication between Subject Librarians and Technical Service Departments in a Large Academic Library”

 Jennifer Mezick (Collections Strategist, University of Tennessee) and Elyssa Gould (Head, Acquisitions & Continuing Resources, University of Tennessee)

This program was a “lively discussion”, which means 70 minutes with a focus on talking to each other and minimal use of slides. (Most other Charleston slots are 40-minutes long.)

UT Knoxville recently went through a big reorganization. Through focus groups with technical services and liaisons, they learned that communication was a big issue – often inconsistent and uneven. Use of tools (like Google Drive, email, and libguides) varied widely. There was also a lack of understanding of shared goals. Some liaisons thought tech services was too beholden to standards and policies; some tech services folks thought liaisons could get too focused on boutique services, which are sometimes driven by a single patron with an unusual need or request.

Outward-facing liaisons often work with patrons with upcoming deadlines, while tech services may not be feeling that time pressure. And often those liaisons are not in the library when tech services need to talk to them – the liaisons are out teaching in classrooms, meeting with faculty or working in a research center, etc. Meanwhile liaisons are often not aware of the workflows built into tech service operations by necessity. So culturally based miscommunication.

What is working well in the UT new organization? They are working hard to build relationships between departments. Subject group meetings. Holding Acquisitions Department office hours in the main library (that department is no longer located on main campus). Share licensing agreement issues with liaisons. A liaison is serving on a search committee for an e-resources librarian and has learned much about how tech services works. Perhaps a tech services person should serve on the next liaison search committee.

“Bringing Some Stranger Things of Streaming Video up From the Upside-Down World: Research Insights from Faculty and Students”

Christine Fischer (Head of Technical Services and Associate Professor, UNC Greensboro), Michael Carmichael (Head of Visual Media, SAGE Publishing), Elizabeth Ellis (MLIS Student, LIS Instructor, UNC Greensboro), and Dina Samora (Program Chair, Organizational Leadership, Colorado State University Global)

Use of streaming video databases continues to increase in higher education according to many metrics. Key issues: rights, training, and accessibility. UNCG’s assessment team surveyed faculty and students on their use and perceptions of video as a teaching tool. Elizabeth summarized some faculty findings:

  • Video can be a partial solution to lack of literacy skills in students.
  • Gives more control of learning to students.
  • Given the large selection, it can be overwhelming to find the most useful videos in the stream video databases (sometimes the library liaison helps).
  • Lack of stability in the offerings can be frustrating and challenging.

Student findings:

  • They prefer the library databases over consumer streaming services.
  • They appreciate guidance from faculty in finding good video content.
  • They use videos on multiple devices.

Wednesday networking

Sunset view of the Francis Marion Hotel

Late afternoon view of the Francis Marion Hotel

After the streaming video session, I met up with Victoria Poole of Mergent on the roof of a new hotel (a re-developed art deco government building) overlooking the park with lovely views of the rivers and the sunset. We discussed a Carolina Consortium deal we are working on and also the ELC 2020.

Next was the ReferenceUSA happy hour for business librarians. InfoUSA’s Jeremy Groen and Jeff Jones have organized this event at the Victor Social Club for several years now. They kindly welcome other business vendors too. Sorry, I forgot to take a picture (too busy socializing).

Some of the folks left this event for the all-conference reception at the aquarium that ended the day’s activities.

Thursday

The morning keynote/defense by the new Elsevier CEO was interesting but I’m sure Library Journal and other pubs will cover her talk. She was a good speaker.

“A New Sense of Campus Privacy? Are Libraries Out of Step?”

Reverse direction from the above

Reverse direction from the above picture (from our hotel room)

This provocative program began with Darby Orcutt (Assistant Head, Collections & Research Strategy, NC State University Libraries) challenging us to reconsider some old traditions in libraryland.  He argued that libraries sacrifice improved services and usability with our “knee-jerk, holy grail” attitude toward privacy. (Yes, this was an opinionated introduction, but the two other speakers got into specifics.) Our users face much bigger issues in their lives that strict library privacy: high drop-out rates, increased tenure costs, high student loan debt, discrimination and institutional racism, etc. Can we use library data analytics to better support students? Other academic units on campus try to do that. Darby asserted that our devotion to extreme privacy represents a generational, white, privileged, and Western (individualism) mindset that has dominated libraries for too long. Interesting, I would like to hear more about that.

Doreen Bradley (Director of Learning Programs and Initiatives, University of Michigan Library) discussed how a few years ago her campus began utilizing “learning analytics in all directions” to support the students – but the UM libraries were not. The librarians were not at the table supporting this student-centered institutional goal. So they decided to get involved, using campus and IMLS grants to explore how the libraries could support learning analytics. They updated the library privacy statement, adding  “…may collect some data to improve services.” She argued that library data is indeed an institutional asset. The library analyzed the library data of HAIL Scholars (high-achieving, low-income students). After instruction session, HAIL Scholars engaged with the library at twice the rate of all students. UM students can now get their checkout history, for which they have been asking for years, according to Doreen.

Stopwatch Session 3: Faculty & Researcher Services

Thanks to my short attention span, I like lightning rounds. I presented one once and it was hard to be so concise! These folks did a good job, though. Here is one summary from this session.

“Adventures in Streamlining Research Data Services: Through the Looking Glass of an Academic Library’s Data Services Team”

Brianne Dosch (Social Sciences Data Librarian, University of Tennessee – Knoxville)

Brianne is a new librarian. She is also the Psychology liaison. To better serve data services on campus, three functional and subject librarians — Data Curation Librarian, STEM Librarian, and Brianne — recently formed a data team. The team members represent two departments in the library. The campus also has a business librarian who provides data services, but that librarian isn’t interested in joining this team yet.

Challenges in team formation: different levels of knowledge, skills, and length of tenure at UT; the different definitions of research data services; the need to learn much more about RDS needs across campus. The team is working on environmental scans (chat transcripts, reference transactions, lit review, existing UTK library assessment).

“Leading from below: Influencing vendors and collection budget decisions as a subject liaison”

Min Tong (Business Librarian, University of Central Florida), Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (Business Reference & Resource Development Librarian, Lippincott Library at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania), and me

Cynthia Cronin-Kardon and Min Tong

Cynthia Cronin-Kardon and Min Tong

We facilitated this lively discussion on one aspect of serving as liaison. The discussion had good turnout, about 30 folks including many business librarians and also vendors (not just business vendors) plus a smaller number of e-resources and collection development librarians.

Our discussion questions included:

1. What are your biggest challenges in terms of content, pricing, and licensing when pitching a new subscription ?

2a. If you are a subject/liaison librarian: What other strategies do you use when you are pitching to your decision makers?

2b. If you are a decision maker: How can your subject librarians better communicate and work with you?

2c. If you are a vendor: How can you better assist the subject librarian with making their case to the decision maker?

3. How can we influence vendors about product development, pricing, and licensing as subject librarians but not budget controllers?

4. How else can librarians and vendors work together?

from our lively discussion

from our lively discussion

Ideas and comments from the small groups:

  • Translate library language for vendors. Translate business language for other librarians.
  • Vendors: share your academic customer list. That helps liaisons show that your product and its licensing has worked for other campuses.
  • Vendors, please don’t directly contact faculty, unless it is a very specific interaction. Work through the liaison instead.
  • There can be tension between social science, humanities, and natural science liaisons. It’s useful to have collection development heads who aren’t liaisons and therefore would be more neutral.
  • The lack of standard usage statistics (like COUNTER) for specialized products can be a challenge. [Cynthia, three vendors, and I talked about this last year.]
  • Vendor webinars during a trial period help make the trial more useful.
  • It can be really challenging to be in a sales role! Sometimes librarians don’t realize that. Vendors “lead from below” in their organizations as well.
  • Sometimes looking at the licensing before negotiating access and pricing options helps.
  • It’s hard for vendors to understand the workflows and processes that go on in libraries, and who is involved.
  • Librarians need to value the expertise of vendors and be generous with feedback.
  • Make sure communication goes in both directions.
  • Some vendors have business librarian advisory boards. Those are useful.
  • Some vendors don’t have a dedicated academic sales representative. Liaisons can tell when a vendor understands the academic market.
  • If vendor recognizes a problem and reports to their boss, there may not be much impact. But if librarians complain, the impact is much greater.
  • Pricing: flexibility is vital. Total campus FTE is not the only option. Consider just the b-school population, for example.
  • Tie a resource request into campus wide initiatives and goals.
  • Seek alliance among other subject liaisons for products with broader appeal.

Stopwatch Session 5: Collection Assessment

“Of Database Assessment & Budget Increases: A New Data Management Strategy”

Anna Milholland (Business Librarian, Raymond A. Mason School of Business, William & Mary)

Anna is a former BLINC member and now a CABAL officer. I enjoyed catching up with her in Charleston. Anna is based in and employed by the business school but liaises with the main W&M library. The budget for business databases comes from the b-school and has increased. [Later I told her I was jealous.]  The school wanted a reassessment of the mix of databases available, and wanted to consider more than usage statistics. So Anna benchmarked other business schools with similar rankings. She adopted a 75% threshold for the benchmarking: if 75% of peers subscribed, then her library should also subscribe.

Anna also mapped the curriculum and considered faculty research trends, interviewing the majority of the professors. To help manage this data, she applied some marketing concepts. I’ll quote from her abstract here to ensure I represent her short talk correctly:

By applying the Marketing concepts of Points of Parity (POP) and Points of Difference (POD), benchmarking database subscriptions, mapping them to the curriculum, aligning data sets with faculty research expertise and institutional strategic strengths, and socializing decisions with key faculty and administrative stakeholders, librarians at institutions of varying sizes can confidently add new resources, feel empowered to replace underutilized and undervalued subscriptions, and effectively advocate for budget increases.

Anna, your talk would make a good article.

“Wait, I don’t just become CEO of a Fortune 500 Company? Helping Students’ Gain Foundational Skills for the Academic to Workforce Transition”

Lauren Reiter (Business Librarian, Penn State University Libraries), Corey Seeman (Director, Kresge Library Services, University of Michigan), Jason Sokoloff (Head, Foster Business Library, University of Washington), and Kristi Ward (Director, Library Editorial, SAGE Publishing)

Kristi moderated this panel and asked a series of discussion questions.

What resources and approaches are needed to support essential skills in the workplace?

  • Not just books and journals!
  • It’s not just business students using business content – example, cross-campus entrepreneurship.
  • Many students are now creating their own job, not just wanting to join a large company.
  • Soft skills are very important too.
  • Many students are aware they lose access to database after graduation. Increased demand for databases that alumni can use.

Entrepreneurship and soft skills development?

  • Students often want to create a local, small business, not just venture capital-funded enterprises with a goal of going public.
  • ENT + Engineering: much collaboration across campus.
  • Campus commercialization endeavors also contribute to library business needs.

What are current business library opportunities and challenges?

  • Students [and faculty] want everything but we don’t have unlimited budgets.
  • Library culture can be the biggest barrier to supporting our patrons — example not supporting a database that requires users to create a personal account.
  • Providing access for multi-location campuses.
  • Academic-use only licensing considerations.
  • A true entrepreneurial idea should be an innovative business model and product or service. Therefore there will be no directly relevant secondary data and reports.
  • Dealing with ambiguity and proxy data (the next best data) is an important learning outcome.

How do business librarians handle assessment and ROI, given there is much competition for business resources as well as changing student needs?

  • Evaluate overlap.
  • Trying to find a proxy for the missing data.
  • Cost per use. But usage calculation varies for less traditional databases.
  • Track research questions – often suggests a new trend.
  • Importance of learning how to deal with ambiguity in b-school curriculum.

Trends in placement?

  • Consulting continues to be big.
  • But more students are pursing non-traditional roles: small business, nonprofits — types of organizations that don’t come to campus for interviews (unlike the big consulting firms).

“The Future of Subscription Bundles: Big Deal, No Deal, or What’s the Deal?”

By this point on Thursday, I was getting tired and so my notes are brief for this one. Beth Bernhardt (Oxford University Press) read a short opening statement from Tim Bucknall of UNC Greensboro, who couldn’t make the conference. Tim lamented the increasing number of sweeping and factually incorrect statements from library deans lately. He provided some examples from within the Carolina Consortium, comparing a couple of crazy comments (no names mentioned) with the actual data. These deans seem to be out of step with the big deals their libraries are participating in. As transformational deals increase in number, accurate data and facts are vital as we explore these new deals.

Other comments from this session:

  • “Open access is free like free puppies.”
  • “Our choices not limited to “grow big deal” or “cancel it.””

Whew. Carol and I had a late afternoon break before enjoying a lovely Lebanese dinner with Kathleen Gignac from Gale Group.

Friday

Friday is a half day at Charleston. It begins at 8:30am with the “Long Arm of the Law” plenary, one that many folks really look forward to each year. We learned about the newest (or old ongoing) legal cases and trends involving copyright, fair use, and publishing. It always ends with one lawyer and the whole librarian crowd singing a legal parody pop song. Really!

Stopwatch Sessions 7: Scholarly Communications

Final set of lightning rounds. I found these two the most interesting.

Carol Cramer, WFU

Carol Cramer, WFU

Carol Cramer (Head of Collection Management, Wake Forest University) discussed “What We Can Learn from the Big Deal that Never Was.” WFU has all but one of the biggest big deals. The price increases of that missing publisher have been higher than that of the other publishers. Journals from the missing publisher dominate ILL requests and requests for individual subscriptions.

Adam Blackwell (Project Manager, ProQuest) discussed “Your IR is Not Enough: Exploring Publishing Options in Our Increasingly Fragmented Digital World”. He began with a story of faculty members in Germany who initially were interested in talking to him about a digitization project. Then those faculty learned that ProQuest is a for-profit company and they all canceled. With that context in mind, Adam discussed the value of having one’s dissertation in the big ProQuest database as well as in one’s one institutional repository. Benefits include better Google Scholar indexing, quality assurance, backups on secured servers around the world, and indexing (depending on subject) in databases like PsycInfo, MLA, etc.

Read Full Post »

Catching up

This will be the last post here before the fall semester begins — officially begins, at least. On July 31, I had 20 incoming students from our new online PhD Business Administration program in the library for a 2-hour workshop. So the semester has really already begun for me. I had a lesson plan based on active learning (student teams presenting the pros and cons of scholarly research tools like Scopus, Google Scholar, Business Source Premier, etc.) that I use for classes with year-3 PhD students writing a prospectus, but this new cohort was so talkative and eager to ask questions that we ended up covering the planned learning outcomes through discussion and conversation instead. (We did do some computer work together.)

I hope you read Elizabeth Price’s guest post on her adventures leading business students in a semester-abroad experience in Antwerp. When I first read Elizabeth’s draft, I laughed out loud twice. She’s a good writer and shared some interesting lessons learned from her very embedded experience.

This fall I hope to make time for a couple of posts on general liaison issues. At the Charleston Conference in November, Min Tong (U. Central Florida), Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (Penn), and I will be leading a “lively discussion” (one of the formats there) on “Leading from below: Influencing vendors and collection budget decisions as a subject liaison”. I’ll try to post a summary of that discussion and other Charleston learnings.

Also, there have been some changes in our liaison organization, a once frequent topic here at this blog (example post). I can’t write that I’m particularly happy with what has happened in the last few years, but we might try some new approaches this school year. So given the past detailed coverage of our reorganization here, I should probably write an update on that this fall.

But let’s focus on business librarianship one last time before classes resume…

Today’s topic

Fred the Bear welcomes you to Belk Library

Fred the Bear welcomes you to Belk Library

Last Friday, BLINC met in Belk Library, Appalachian State University in Boone for its summer workshop. Leslie Farison, the ASU Business Librarian, was our host. A dozen friends assembled for the workshop, fewer than usual, but not an unexpected number given the location on the edge of the state and the season. Two librarians were first-time attendees and we gave them a warm welcome. Some folks came up with their families for a short mountain vacation; one of us spent Friday night camping on the Blue Ridge. The weather was lovely, ten degrees cooler than down in the Carolina Piedmont.

Our agenda consisted of recently requested topics that didn’t fit cleanly within our recent themed workshops. So sort of a grab bag or a short attention span agenda:

  1. Introductions and updates: what’s new with you and/or your library?
  2. Teaching business databases in social science classes
  3. Collection development: How are you selecting business books for the circulating collection? What business reference books are still useful? Other collections issues?
  4. Advanced SimplyAnalytics

We began the workshop in a top-floor conference room with a pretty view of campus and a few mountains. Leslie arranged food and coffee. In the introductions and updates, many BLINC friends talked about new and ongoing economic and community engagement projects. Those projects are always interesting to hear about and often inspirational too.

Teaching business databases in social science classes

Dan Maynard of Campbell University led this discussion and provided some examples from his campus. He focused on two NC LIVE (state-wide access) databases, ReferenceUSA and SimplyAnalytics, that provide geographical data.

Dan Maynard leading the discussion

Dan Maynard leading the discussion

Dan looks for classes that focus on “small places” such as rural and micropolitan areas, custom-defined geographies, or identification of specific populations and establishments. Recent examples at Campbell include identification of local food systems and food deserts, public health education work with locally owned restaurants, researching a town of 646 people, and analyzing a specific social enterprise zone in eastern North Carolina. Dan displayed course descriptions that focus on communities, social change, and engagement – those classes could be targets for outreach too (time permitting, he added).

Other applications for these databases from our discussion:

  • In a community college, an upper-level English class writes social science papers on a social issue of interest, and local data must be included;
  • Several campuses have business writing classes within the English department;
  • From a public library angle: a nonprofit focuses on local social, educational, and economic development and needed help understanding the nature of downtown neighborhoods;
  • Helping an artist become an arts entrepreneur (even she didn’t use that language).  In the example, the BLINC librarian helped an artist use SimplyAnalytics to define her market (“interest in art shows” variable) and then that data “flipped a switch in her brain” regarding how so-called “business” databases also apply to her situation.

Lunch

BLINC friends at the F.A.R.M Café

BLINC friends at the F.A.R.M Café

We walked over to Boone’s little combination college town/mountain gateway downtown street with hardly a chain restaurant to be seen [ok, there was a Jimmy John’s and a Ben & Jerry’s]. Most of us dined at the F.A.R.M Café, a nonprofit community kitchen serving healthy food where everyone is welcome (“Food Regardless of Means”). The restaurant is in an drug store space (think soda shop in the back). Social entrepreneurship! A local church started it up. It was busy for this Friday lunch; we arrived right before the noon rush.

Collection Development

After lunch, we reassembled in a computer classroom on the ground floor, near Fred the Bear (see picture above). Morgan Ritchie-Baum of the Greensboro Public Library led a discussion of collection development. BLINC talks about data and databases all the time, but it’s probably been too long since we discussed other aspects of collections such as managing print book collections.

Morgan Ritchie-Baum leading the discussion

Morgan Ritchie-Baum leading the discussion

Morgan began by telling us this was her first weeding project in her career. Her library’s business collection hadn’t been weeded 10 years and needed attention. (Greensboro Public’s emphasis has been on ebooks.) Morgan used a CREW Method 5/3/MUSTIE weeding policy (“Continuous Review, Evaluation, and Weeding”; MUSTIE explanation – these were all new to me).

Morgan’s discussion questions:

  • How are you selecting business books for your circulating question?
  • Print or digital? What are your patrons asking for?
  • How are you selecting and deselecting titles for your business reference collection?
  • What business reference books are still useful?
  • Are print business reference books still useful?
  • How are you tracking usage of your business reference collection?
  • Is repurposed space more important than space for print reference collections?
  • How big a part of your job is collection development?

Most of us reported little to no usage of print business reference books. The ratio books, Gale Business Plan Handbooks, the NC Manufacturers Directory, and the S&P Industry Surveys were still used sometimes. (We then discussed the electronic versions of those titles.)

For circulating business books, there was still significant interest from patrons for print copies. Someone mentioned Jennifer Boettcher’s zombie list project.

Morgan shared lists of resources for collection development:

  • Library newsletters (NYPL, Grand Rapids, Free Library of Phily)
  • BRASS outstanding titles
  • Reference guides from BRASS and the Library of Congress [BLINC librarians in the room have worked on both sets]
  • Lists of core collections from the U. of Florida
  • Plus the more general publications like CHOICE, Charleston Advisor, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, and the book review magazines

SimplyAnalytics

Our final workshop topic was advanced applications of this database and also how to make decisions from the data. I led the discussion with some preparation help from SimplyAnalytics’ Juan Vasquez. Steven Swartz contributed by increasing the number of concurrent users at ASU that day, and temporarily giving the campus access to the Simmons Local dataset, which isn’t in the NC LIVE dataset package but is used by some of us in the state. (MRI is in the NC LIVE deal.) So maybe a lesson here is that vendor reps are often happy to help with peer-training when you ask.

We voted from a menu of topics and decided to focus on:

  • Manipulating the legend;
  • Nature of psychographic data;
  • When to use tracts and block groups versus other types of geographies with variable populations (zips, counties, etc.);
  • How to determine local market size or potential;
  • Filters (we spend a lot of time building good filters and understanding their visualizations in maps and tables).

Final round of community building

Lost Province Brewing Co. of Boone

Lost Province Brewing Co. of Boone

After officially ending the workshop at 3pm, most of us had time to visit a downtown brewery for some more socializing. That was fun. There was also some discussion there and at lunch about for-credit classes some of us are teaching, and about the Entrepreneurship & Libraries Conference. Sara Thynne and I will be rotating off of BLINC leadership and will soon be focusing on co-chairing that conference along with Morgan.

So ended the BLINC summer workshop and now the fall semester is welcome to arrive.

Read Full Post »

That title sounds more like a news item than a blog post about liaison trends but I’ll try to make this interesting. This concerns the professional development needs of librarians involved with entrepreneurship and economic development, as well as what 21st century librarians might want to get out of conferences.

Background

I wrote last time:

One of [my summer] projects is an offer to BLINC (Business Librarianship in North Carolina) to take over the Entrepreneurial Librarians Conference. Its organizers told us that their original vision of the conference has “run its course” and it’s time for another group to consider a revised vision of the event. BLINC is discussing the offer and will decide soon, and I may write here about our discussions and plans.

This conference (“ELC”) was founded and organized by librarians from UNC Greensboro and Wake Forest University. Mary Scanlon, the previous business librarian at WFU and a past BLINC chair, was one of the organizers. They seemed to define “entrepreneurial” as “innovative” or “creating a new program or service” in a library. Pretty broad definition.

So while some entrepreneurship liaisons have presented there (including Ash Faulkner, Kassie Ettefagh, & John Raynor last time) and the UNCG entrepreneurship program coordinator Dr. Dianne Welsh once gave a keynote, the ELC seemed to be a pretty general conference in terms of programming. (Proceedings are available.)

Opportunity

In late spring, Mike Crumpton from UNCG asked me as the current BLINC chair if BLINC might be interested in taking the conference over. After a short discussion at the end of our spring workshop, a few small group discussions, some emails through our Google Group, and an online discussion last month, BLINC decided that yes, we would like to try organizing the next ELC and that there are enough volunteers to plan the thing. But we did have some discussion questions to work through.

Discussion Questions

Here are the most interested issues we discussed. Some of our discussions will continue as we begin to make firm planning decisions.

1. Can we agree on a scope for this conference?

In other words, do we agree on the big picture of what the next ELC would be? Maybe via a subtitle that show how the conference will have more of a focus this time?

Without much debate we agreed on something like:

“….a conference about how librarians support entrepreneurship, economic development, social entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship education”

But we also discussed our need to emphasize “outreach” and “community” (as in community engagement). We also want to emphasize that the ELC is for all librarians, including ones new to these topics as well as more experienced folks. “For any librarian involved with…” is language someone suggested.

A bit much for one sentence. We will try to work all that into the promotional content after more wordsmithing.

Hmm maybe we should change the name to “Entrepreneurship & Libraries Conference“. It would still be the ELC.

2. What is our target audience?

We would love to attract a mix of public, special, and academic librarians. Too often business librarian gatherings are dominated by academic librarians. We also would like to have attendance and speakers from ecosystem partners like SCORE, the Small Business Technology and Development Center, city and county and NGO economic development officers, nonprofit leaders, etc.

BLINC includes public and academic librarians as well as a few special librarians, and Carolinas SLA will also be involved in the planning. That diversity will help us try to attract a diverse mix of attendees. Perhaps we could have co-chairs that include 2 or even 3 types of librarians; that situation would have both practical and promotional value.

Of course, we would also like to have a diverse demographic mix of attendees. One strategy could be to invite specific librarians of color etc. to submit proposals. Another is to select a diverse group of keynote speakers (assuming we do keynotes, see below).

3. What types of conference programming?

We decided it was too soon to make decisions on this, but we desire a good mix, including networking and social times. BLINC folks consistently rate networking as the most important value of the group and its workshops, followed by learning practical skills.

In the mix for consideration:

  • Socials (including some vendor-sponsored happy hours and meals, hopefully)
  • Networking (like socials but in a calmer environment, so easier to circulate and talk)
  • Panel discussions
  • Lightning rounds
  • Keynote
  • Pitch competition (see below)
  • Pre-conference (maybe in a computer classroom)

A small group of entrepreneurship librarians had an online meeting yesterday to discuss possible program submissions to USASBE 2020. That conference has interesting formats, for example, its three teaching tracks. Maybe we could learn something from them. The Charleston Conference has been innovative in conference programming too. It started running pitch competitions for libraries a few years ago, for example.

A related question is the desired mix of theoretical programming versus research findings versus practical content. BLINC skews toward the practical side but some business librarians are into theory and research but may not have much of a venue to present research, for example.

4. How long of a conference?

The ELC was originally 1.5 days, then dropped down to 1 day. How long should the BLINC version run? This was an interesting discussion.

A related question was “what do newer librarians want in a conference?” You could also phrase that question as “what do librarians in the 21st century want in a conference?” Someone suggested we create a survey. Or we could interview the significant number of newer public and academic librarians who have joined BLINC or CABAL recently.

Thoughts expressed:

  • Maybe one day to start, see how it goes
  • For anyone travelling to get to this conference, more than one day is better. Otherwise it’s not really worth the time and effort to get there.
  • One day + preconference and night-before dinner or happy hour event
  • Two days, since there are many topics to talk about and many possible types of conference programming.

So no decision yet.

5. Ebsco pitch competition for public libraries?

Duncan Smith is the Chief Strategist for Public Libraries for Ebsco. He has already proposed funding a pitch competition for public libraries at the ELC. The topic would be how a public library can support its local entrepreneurs and (perhaps) local economic development. The ELC planners think this is an interesting idea and will talk to Duncan about details.

6. Cost?

We all want to keep the conference as cheap as possible for attendees.

Two libraries in North Carolina have offered to host the ELC already, one a large academic library and one a new large downtown public library that opens in early 2020. Either option would help keep costs down since we wouldn’t have to pay for event space.

We would try to recruit vendor partners to help fund coffee breaks, meals, perhaps a happy hour at a local brewery or a travel scholarship, etc. We would provide the vendor with thanks and publicity in exchange.

7. ELC impact on regular BLINC programming?

BLINC’s free quarterly workshops have been a defining aspect of our group. There was some concern that taking on the ELC would detract from BLINC’s core value-added offerings. We decided that it would be ok for us to skip one quarterly workshop in whatever season the ELC takes place.

Wrap-up for now

That’s it for now. We will ramp up the discussions and preliminary planning by late summer and will eventually start promoting this new version of the ELC and ask for program proposals.

Read Full Post »

Happy summer, everyone.

Catching up

summer scene

summer scene at Magdalen

Carol and I are back from vacation and I’m getting into the summer projects mode. One of those projects is an offer to BLINC (Business Librarianship in North Carolina) to take over the Entrepreneurial Librarians Conference. Its organizers told us that their original vision of the conference has “run its course” and it’s time for another group to consider a new vision. BLINC is discussing the offer and will decide soon, and I may write here about our discussions and plans.

BLINC colleagues Angel Truesdale (UNC Charlotte), Summer Krstevska (Wake Forest University), and Nancy Lovas (UNC Chapel Hill) just started a blog called BizLibratory. They will “cover topics perspective of being new to the world of academic business librarianship: instruction, research strategies and resources, conferences and professional development, outreach, entrepreneurship, collections, and more.” These are smart librarians, so I recommend following their writing.

New to me is the blog of the Library Association of Singapore, Singapore Librarians Bulletin. While not focused on business librarianship, there is content here useful to liaisons. The most recent posts concern professional development.

Today’s topic

Last month Min Tong (U. Central Florida), Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (Penn), and I were brainstorming program ideas for the 2019 Charleston Conference. We ended up submitting a program on how liaisons who don’t have final spending authority for big ticket items (like databases) can influence both the budget decision makers and the vendors. We hope that this program would be useful to any subject liaison at Charleston as well as vendors, who also attend programs there.

One idea we decided not to pursue for Charleston is:

“No commercial use”: academic licensing in the era of community engagement, experiential learning, and campus entrepreneurship.

An alternative title:

What does “educational use only” licensing mean on a campus full of community engagement, experiential learning, and entrepreneurship?

We also liked this topic but thought it might be a little to business librarianship-centered for Charleston. So I’m going to try turning it into a blog post instead. I’m not speaking for Min or Cynthia – they are innocent of anything crazy below.

Part 1. Definitions

We would have needed to define some phrases for the benefit of non-business librarians and vendors in the audience. Some of these phrases can represent a wide variety of things but here is an attempt to write short definitions based on my experience at UNC Greensboro. There are certainly other definitions out there.

Community engagement: students working with people and groups beyond campus. “Groups” can include companies, nonprofits, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations/NGOs. (Community-engaged scholarship is related but focuses on research, usually by faculty and graduate students.)

Experiential learning: classes that apply classroom learning and research to real projects, resulting in students having to make recommendations or decisions based on data. Hmm maybe that’s a little sloppy. Wikipedia emphasizes “learning through reflection on doing” and notes that hands-on learning and service learning are subsets. Experiential learning is increasingly emphasized by AACSB, I’ve heard (although I need a better source for that claim).

Entrepreneurship: creating a self-employment opportunity. Ok, that’s the short Coleman Foundation definition. “Creating an organization (for- or non-profit) that employs people” is another.

Social entrepreneurship: creating something that helps address or solve a community problem. Could be for-profit or non-profit.

Campus incubator: a campus-funded space or organization that supports (and subsidizes) the development of start-ups by students. There are lots of discussions at USASBE and GCEC each year about whether campus incubators are good things to or not. (UNCG doesn’t have one of these – lack of funding, and most of our students have to work real jobs to support themselves and pay for school and so can’t put long hours each week into developing an idea at an incubator. Campuses of privilege are much more likely to have incubators.)

2. Licensing

For most vendors of business intelligence and data, the corporate market is their primary market. The academic market is much smaller. (Some vendors don’t serve the public library market at all due to the potential loss of sales to corporate users.) The vendors will point out that their margins are usually much higher for the corporate clients than the academic clients.

This is quite different from other subject areas, for which the academic market is their bread and butter. Think MLA for its bibliography, APA for PsycInfo, and ACS for its chemistry journals.

Likewise the default licensing terms for business content address corporate needs, not the academic needs for large data downloads, campus-wide IP authentication, etc. Bobray Bordelon of Princeton reminds us of this in BRASS discussions. However some libraries have negotiated very favorable licensing terms to serve their needs. Christina Kim of the MaRS Discovery District gave an interesting example at GCEC two years ago of licensing she helped negotiate that serves their complex patron base across Ontario.

A major problem for some vendors has been students at the elite business schools who get summer internships at Wall Street firms and then use their campus business databases to support their employers’ needs. Because, you know, JP Morgan can’t afford to fund its own research subscriptions or something. Some schools known to be pipelines for Wall Street have to accept 9-month database subscriptions so that there is no summer access at all.

3. Licensing terms for each situation: ok or not?

So how does “educational-use only” or “not for commercial use” licensing language impact community engagement, experiential learning, and campus entrepreneurship?

Some librarians report that their campus lawyers or whoever in the library signs the contracts are extremely conservative (or skittish) concerning campus entrepreneurship. I tend to swing the other way.

My takes on database usages by situation:

Community engaged experiential learning: this is 100% educational work. So yes, databases can and should be used by the students. However, the students should not share reports and raw spreadsheets from databases with the community partners. The students should summarize (quote or paraphrase) content from databases. The librarian (or professor) working with these students should emphasize this as part of their instruction on research skills and info literacy.

Entrepreneurship / social entrepreneurship: for class projects (like a student team developing a business model, feasibility analysis, or business plan), yes. Same as above. Likewise if the community engaged experiential learning involves working with a local entrepreneur. No difference for for-profit or non-profit entrepreneurship.

Campus incubator: hmm trickier. Are the students using the incubator as part of a class project? Then using databases should be fine. Are they working on their own business idea, independent of any class? Then no, I don’t think “educational use” applies. Being a student is not enough if the class credit is missing. Yes, that student is learning something in the process but so is a community member who walks into the library for a research consultation. Certainly debatable, I realize.

4. Conclusion

This topic came up in the Q/A time of our “Who’s Counting? Measuring Usage of Untraditional Databases Subscriptions” program last year at Charleston. I was moderating the Q/A. Panelists Cynthia and our vendor friends from S&P, Data Planet, and PrivCo re-directed the question back to me. I provided my “experiential learning class projects is educational use” answer and got a sudden round of applause in response. Librarians do really care about this issue and some are willing to stand up for this point of view.

Read Full Post »

Catching up

Yesterday BLINC met at UNC Charlotte for our winter workshop. The morning focus was “selling ourselves as information professionals,” in collaboration with Carolinas SLA. We had five special librarians present along with 15 public and academic librarians. Having those special librarians aboard enriched our discussion. More on this workshop next week.

Exams at UNCG end today. There are still students studying in the library this morning, but I bet it will be pretty empty but the time I go home this afternoon. Looks like we get some snow this weekend, so hello, winter!

Charleston Conference 2018

Charleston featured a record number of programs provided by business librarians and vendors. Alas, many of those programs overlapped. We knew that would eventually start to happen as we continue to grow our presence there.

I already wrote a suggestion to vendors who haven’t been embracing the unique opportunity they have at this conference. Below are a few notes on interesting programs.

Stacy Gilbert and Alyson Vaaler

Stacy Gilbert and Alyson Vaaler

Alyson Vaaler (Texas A&M) and Stacy Gilbert (U. of Colorado at Boulder) gave an interesting talk on “Bringing the Workplace into Collection Development: Analyzing Advertising Position Descriptions to Inform Database Collections”. Based on their research of the job postings, they discussed using workplace research needs to plan and provide collections and instruction. Alyson and Stacy compared industry databases (primarily sold to corporate users) to library databases (courtesy of campus-friendly licensing terms). Could this methodology be applied to other fields, like accounting? I asked if they would consider doing this time-intensive study for that field, and they laughed at me. Humph.

No, actually they were very nice.

Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (U. of Pennsylvania) organized a well-attended panel on “Who’s Counting? Measuring Usage of Untraditional Databases Subscriptions”. The pictures on my two most recent posts are from this panel and identify the other speakers. Lots of good points about the challenge of trying to apply COUNTER usage methods designed for articles and ebook databases toward databases for data, mapping, and company records. COUNTER Project Director Lorraine Estelle was present and told everyone that COUNTER version 5 will work with such databases much better. This program had a lot of questions and could have gone on longer. Maybe Cynthia will lead a sequel and update next year?

Orolando Duffus and Rosalind Tedford

Orolando Duffus and Rosalind Tedford

Orolando Duffus (U. of Houston), Rosalind Tedford (Wake Forest U.), and I led a lively lunch discussion on liaison trends: “Thriving (or Just Surviving) as a Liaison Librarian: a Lively Discussion of our Evolving Roles, Opportunities, and Challenges.” Roz summarized the trends and needs identified by the 40 attendees, who then discussed some of those items in small groups with share-backs to everyone. We could have used more time too.

Here is Roz’s summary of the liaison trends and needs identified. I bolded the ones mentioned the most:

  • Not being able to get users the resources they need: 2 mentions of
  • Keeping up with the literature and resources available: 1
  • Prioritizing how to spend time: 3
  • Time spent in learning to be a liaison takes away from being a liaison: 1
  • Supporting new areas (or not your area of expertise) when they are assigned to you: 7
  • Extra duties assigned (checking the formatting on theses, etc.): 2
  • Making one-shots as effective as possible: 2
  • How to reach all the faculty and researchers at your institution: 1
  • Convincing faculty that we can bring value to their courses; Faculty buy-in when we know students want and need help; engaging faculty: 3
  • Scope creep when liaison role is a small part of your job: 2
  • Help the librarians that report to you – new skills require time to learn; they need more functional expertise; what is the best structure: 5
  • How to integrate the materials into the classroom – what could vendors provide?:  2
  • Getting started as a liaison – esp. When there isn’t a structure: 2
  • Learning the products we have: 1
  • Organizing liaison work within the structure of the liaison program and/or library: 4
  • Keeping departments informed: 1
  • Digital scholarship duties and interests: 1
  • Productive relationships between functional liaisons and subject liaisons: 1
  • Empowering liaisons in purchasing decisions: 1
One of the small groups at our lively lunch discussion

One of the small groups at our Thursday lively lunch discussion (Cynthia is there too)

That lively lunch discussion was on Thursday. On Wednesday, I missed a lively lunch on entrepreneurship librarianship organized by Alyson and other friends in order to attend the first lively lunch on liaison trends. I wanted to hear if any interesting ideas or new hot topics would be mentioned there for us to consider in preparation for our discussion the next day. Oddly, however, that Wednesday lively lunch discussion (70-minute sessions in which “use of slides is strongly discouraged”, according to the conference submission form) featured lots of slides and absolutely no discussion. We just listened to the speaker and filled out a series of online polls. Quite a surprise. Conference speakers, please follow your submission guidelines.

Both business librarian happy hours (sponsored by PrivCo and InfoUSA respectively) were fun, as was the dinner provided by Gale Cengage. We dined at a little Italian place on a side street near the College of Charleston. Thank you, vendor friends.

Read Full Post »

Early morning sun over the Charleston peninsula

Early morning sun over the Charleston harbor

Main point: vendors should stay for more than the showcase.

Carol and I returned home from the Charleston Conference Friday night, after stopping by the nephews’ house on the way home for a short play date. Charleston continues to be a high-quality conference for learning, networking, and socializing. It’s increasingly useful for business librarians and vendors as we work together to grow the business information programming. However I would like to write a short word to the growing number of business vendors and publishers who attend the Tuesday Vendor Showcase.

The Charleston Conference focuses on publishing, scholarly communication, and library collections and acquisitions. For most attendees, the conference begins on Tuesday with the Vendor Showcase in the roomy Gaillard Center. (The Francis Marion hotel got too small for this event as demand for tables kept increasing.) Unlike most major library conferences, this is the only day of exhibiting at the conference.

Why? On Wednesday and Thursday — the main programming days of the conference –vendors, publishers, and librarians are encouraged to network, socialize, share, and (most importantly) learn together. This communication happens formally in the plenary and concurrent sessions as well as informally through coffee breaks, meals, and happy hours.

From right: Dan Gingert (PrivCo), John Quealy (S&P), Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (U. Penn), and Richard Landry (Data Planet/Sage) discussing the challenges of usage statistics for untraditional databases

From right: Dan Gingert (PrivCo), John Quealy (S&P), Cynthia Cronin-Kardon (U. Penn), and Richard Landry (Data Planet/Sage) discussing the challenges of usage statistics for untraditional databases

So for most of the conference, vendors are not banished to the exhibit hall while the librarians are out and about talking about acquiring, promoting, and teaching vendor resources for their patrons. Instead, vendors are in the middle of the discussions. That interaction is considered one of the strengths of the Charleston Conference and we business librarians who attend love this. The vendors end up with increased influence on librarians, learn more about our needs, and perhaps gain ideas for new or improved products and services.

Some vendors have apparently not figured this out yet. On Tuesday, I talked to three or four vendors who were returning home first thing Wednesday morning. I told them they were missing a wonderful opportunity. (I know this is often the boss’ decision, not that of the rep who made the trip.) The airfare and expensive table space are sunk costs; the additional hotel night (or two) and conference registration fees will cost less in comparison.

In contrast, InfoUSA, S&P, PrivCo, Bureau Van Dijk, ProQuest, Gale, Sage, and Ebsco are regular attendees beyond the showcase. Those vendor reps even chat with each other at the socials and happy hours. Sometimes some of those reps speak alongside librarians on a topic of mutual interest.

As we continue to grow the business information programming at Charleston, there may be increased opportunities for vendor/librarian programming as well as socializing and networking. Vendors don’t get this opportunity for high-impact engagement at any other conference. Please consider attending past the Tuesday showcase if you haven’t before.

Read Full Post »

vacation pix

vacation pix

I’m back from vacation and getting back into summer work projects. My folder of professional readings had gotten much too full since last summer, so I’ve done at lot of reading this week. Blogging a summary (sometimes with a bit of commentary) helps me slow down and ponder the ideas and experiences being discussed. Hopefully these summaries are useful to a few of you too. The topic focus as usual is on liaison work and business librarianship. More to come in July.

1.

“Relationship Building One Step at a Time: Case Studies of Successful Faculty-Librarian Partnerships”
José O. Díaz, Meris A. Mandernach
portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2017 (17:2), 273-282
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0016

Based on examples from Ohio State University, “this study examines the qualities that help liaison librarians develop relationships with faculty and support ongoing library services” (273). The literature review notes the lack of writings on relationship building by liaisons. (The authors refer to Hyun-Duck Chung’s article “Relationship Building in Entrepreneurship Liaison Work” in the Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship from 2010, back when Hyun-Duck was a BLINC member and I spilled Coke on her at a BLINC workshop in Burlington. (She now lives back home in Toronto.))

The authors interviewed seven OSU liaisons and five faculty members. The questions to both groups are provided in the appendix.

Findings: Relationships take time to build and significant energy to maintain. Liaisons need to be proactive to build relationships. Both the liaison and the professor need to benefit from the relationship for it to be successful and sustainable. Many examples of how to make first contact are provided (none surprising to a liaison who has been around the block already but a useful list nonetheless).

The authors also summarize reasons for failures: “Most liaison librarians indicated that the major deficiencies centered around poor communication, built-in systemic limitations, “poor chemistry,” meager planning, and faulty timing” (279). The relationship needs to start with a connection, shared experience, or an existing need. Faculty value liaisons who follow technology trends and “share their secrets”.

From the conclusion:

“Good relationship building represents a constellation of traits, values, and skills. Chief among them are patience (relationships take time), knowledge (know your constituency and your discipline), follow-through (go the extra mile), sincerity (treat every interaction as your most important), responsiveness (acknowledge all requests and respond promptly), and finally, individuality (customization for classes or interactions) is essential” (280-81).

This would be a good warm-up article for a liaison workshop on the topic.

2.

“Liaisons as Sales Force: Using Sales Techniques to Engage Academic Library Users”
Nathaniel King and Jacqueline Solis
In the Library with the Lead Pipe
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2017/liaisons/

King and Solis succinctly summarize the evolving roles of liaisons and assert “While collection management, research services, and teaching remain core skills for liaison librarians, the advocacy elements of an engagement-centered philosophy positions liaison librarians as a “salesforce” for library-related solutions.”

Solis is the Director of Research and Instructional Services at UNC Chapel Hill, and King (who used to work there as the Social Science Librarian) is Director of Library Services at Nevada State College.

The authors explain how a sales attitude can enhance our liaison work:

“1. Recognition that selling is a positive and necessary part of a liaison librarian’s role.
2. Effective selling requires goal-focused interactions.
3. Enthusiasm for the library’s resources and services.
4. Ability to investigate the needs of the customer.”

King and Solis provide details for each point. They propose the SPIN® Selling method as the best method for “selling library services”. After defining the elements of SPIN, they provide a hypothetical interview of a prof by a liaison that applies the SPIN method.

Important stuff and well-written. I appreciate library writers who have the audacity to suggest that certain teachings from the business world can help libraries improve their value to their users.

3.

 “Good for Business: Applying the ACRL Framework Threshold Concepts to Teach a Learner-Centered Business Research Course”
Charissa Odelia Jefferson, California State University, Northridge
Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 2:1 (2017)

Jefferson created and teaches an honors class on business research methods. It’s a one-credit class at the sophomore level graded as credit/no-credit. In the first semester, most of the students were seniors, but in the second semester the sophomores slightly outnumbered the seniors. (Mary Scanlon of Wake Forest told me that seniors often take one or 1.5 credit research classes when they need another credit to graduate). The class objectives include

“expose students to the resources they may want to consider for future research; be able to remember the resources at the appropriate time; understand the capacity of each source; and to be empowered to conduct independent research by their senior year capstone project.” (p.5)

Jefferson administered pre- and post-assessment questionnaires for two semesters and summarized the data here. She also summarizes feedback, such as ““I finally learned how to do proper research!” and “I learned more than I expected to. There were a lot of resources available that I never thought to use, and now can’t imagine not using them.” (I love testimonials like that.)

Next Jefferson discusses redesigning her class from Bloom’s Taxonomy to L.Dee Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning, which facilitated a focus on the ACRL Framework. Her article then provides lesson plans (activities and discussions) covering the six thresholds of the framework. Interesting ideas for introducing some of those threshold concepts.

4.

“Canceling Serials Based on their Availability in Aggregated Full-Text Databases” [such as Business Source Complete]
Anthony Raymond, Business Librarian, Santa Clara University
Against the Grain, April 2017

Since 2005, Raymond’s library has been cancelling individual journal subscriptions in business and economics when coverage in aggregator databases is considered “sufficient”. He defines sufficient as “no publisher-imposed embargo” except for journals “considered of only marginal value to the SCU research community” (p. 30).

75 subscriptions have been cut in his subject areas for a savings of $22,750 over the ten-year period (he provides the list). The cuts were never announced to faculty because faculty don’t care if the article they want comes from a publisher or aggregator, Raymond asserts. He adds that there has not been a single complaint about the cancelled subscriptions since this process began. Raymond provides some thoughtful cautions about this strategy and speculates on what would happen to the publishing industry if many libraries adopted this strategy in all subject areas.

5.

“Taking the Plunge! A Case Study in Teaching a Credit-Bearing Information Literacy Course to Business Undergraduate Students”
Laura Leavitt, Michigan State University
Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 2016, 21:274-287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226617

This is a three-credit, elective class taught twice as a pilot project (as of press time). Leavitt provides the syllabus and other class materials at http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/BusinessIntelligenceResources. Course objectives, student learning outcomes, and the topic outline are included in the article. Leavitt is one of four business librarians in the business librarian.

Most business instruction at MSU is one-shot, although there have been some embedded engagement with classes too. The librarians had built a strong connection with the one-credit, first-year orientation class for business students. The librarians have taught one of those sections for five years, incorporating some research instruction. After “years of informal advocacy with key decision makers in the College of Business” (p. 277), the librarians were asked to develop a credit class and begin teaching it only five months later.

The proposed class was given a BUS course designation, which allows it to be developed without going through a departmental curriculum committee (I think): BUS 291(2): Business intelligence resources. Enrollment was capped at 30 and ended up being open to all class levels and majors. It met twice a week. “The course was designed to be an introductory-level course that would inform the students’ work in other courses as they progressed through the business curriculum” (p. 278). The course objectives owe much to the ACRL Standards (the framework wasn’t out yet).

As many of you know, there isn’t a focused textbook for classes like this. The MSU librarians used a mix of readings and videos, including portions of Berkman’s The Skeptical Business Searcher (2004) and Ross’ Making Sense of Business Reference (2013).

The “Assignments: The good, the bad, and the ugly” section of Leavitt’s article is very interesting. The students found much value in the regular discussions of Financial Times articles, with a focus on the sources of information used in each article. The students also appreciated writing reviews of popular business books. Leavitt writes “It is an interesting observation that both of these more successful assignments required close reading of new material, reflection upon and discussion of that material, and writing an analysis of what was read—none of which are possible in a one-shot class.” (283).

The librarians also had the students watch a video of an entrepreneurial pitch, breakdown the pitch using the business model canvas framework, and then use databases to test the entrepreneur’s assumptions.

Grading workload was high, but in the second year, the librarians gained a teaching assistant to help. Most students earned high grades (as with my own 3-credit research class). And course evaluations were very positive. One student comment: “My Dad is the CEO of a Real Estate company and told me that I could use the stuff I learned in this class to work for him.”

In the conclusion, Leavitt notes the high value of being able to spend 3 hours a week with students compared to one-shots. Assessment was also much more meaningful. The class was a rewarding experience for the teachers. They gained more visibility for teaching it – among both students and business faculty.

A limitation of the class is of course the time involved in teaching it. It’s not scalable to all business students unless many more librarians were hired. And there might be issues with compensation. Some of us discussed these issues recently.

6.

“LOEX 2017: Teaching Popular Source Evaluation in an Era of Fake News, Post-Truth, and Confirmation Bias”
Lane Wilkinson, Instruction Librarian at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/loex2017/

This is an interesting blog. Wilkinson is thoughtful and often cuts through hype and bandwagon-thinking. His examinations of the framework are examples. This post is elaboration on his LOEX presentation last month in Lexington. He provides specific suggestions (ex. don’t use controversial topics as search examples) as well as relevant psychological theory.

7.

“Realizing Critical Business Information Literacy: Opportunities, Definitions, and Best Practices”
Ilana Stonebraker, Caitlan Maxwell, Kenny Garcia & Jessica Jerrit
Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 2017, 22: 135-148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1288519

The authors spoke on this topic at ACRL last spring and also led a #critlib Twitter discussion. Critical business information literacy = “the application of social justice to business information literacy” (135). The article address “What does it mean to be an ethical businessperson, and how does an ethical businessperson create, locate, organize, and evaluate business information?” (135).

After a long lit review of the library and business education literature, the authors provide examples of best practices from their teaching experiences. One challenge is the time constraints of one-shot instruction. The University of Washington librarians discuss student-centered, active learning exercises on source evaluation as one technique for one-shots; students are given much freedom to shape the workshop content.

At California State University–Monterey Bay, the business librarian provide a one-shot (one hour in a lecture hall or two hours in a computer classroom) session for the required “Business Communication, Ethics, and Critical Thinking” class. The students analyze the website of a nonprofit serving a homeless population. So the one-shot includes a discussion of the causes of homelessness.

The Purdue librarian writes about her 3-credit “Making Greater Lafayette Greater” research class (which Ilana has written about in this blog and elsewhere). The class has an “explicit egalitarian focus” on under-privileged groups in the city, discussing economic development failures as well as successes, and local economic and market trends, not just the national trends that are much easier to research.

Unfortunately, the article doesn’t provide any evidence of impact of the critical business information literacy focus on students. I would have liked to seen a few quotes from students at least.

8.

“Both Sides Now: Vendors and Librarians: Terms & Conditions”
Michael Gruenberg
Against the Grain, Feb. 2017, pp. 69-70.

Gruenberg was a senior sales executive in the info industry and now runs a consulting firm. In his February column, he asserts that most vendors are very aware of their operating costs, target margins, the costs of competing products, and the prices the market can bear. After describing some pricing situations vendors face when selling to academic and public libraries, Gruenberg focuses on how flexibility in the “T & C”’s can help the vendors make a sale (and get renewals) and improve the deal for the library. But the libraries have to make the effort to suggest changes as part of the negotiation. Gruenberg suggests asking the simple question “Can you defend your price?” whenever the proposed pricing doesn’t sound reasonable to the library.

9.

“The University of Houston’s Liaison Services Advisory Board: A Case Study in Leadership Development and Succession Planning”
Christina Hoffman Gola and Miranda Henry Bennett
College and Research Library News 2016 77 (10)
http://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9570/10928
University of Houston Business Librarian Orolando Duffus pointed out this article to me. The authors describe the first two years of their new advisory board, its challenges and successes, and recommendations for other libraries.

Creating the board was a response to significant growth in the Liaison Services Department (11 to 21 people since 2011). The department had two co-department heads plus four functional coordinators. (We have a similar set of coordinators here who serve as leaders of our cross-departmental liaison teams.) The department heads wanted to provide the coordinators with increased opportunities to develop leadership skills through project management. Projects included training sessions for the liaisons and team-building activities.

Year two featured peer-mentoring discussions. The department heads also began to include the coordinators in strategic planning. Finally, the board also assessed liaison services, growth opportunities, and future needs.

The board struggled at first with defining exactly what it was, but ended up working together well to support peer-mentoring and a higher level of trust. Two of the coordinators ended up promoted to “higher positions” (official supervisors or department heads, I assume), an indication of success regarding the emphasis on leadership development.

The authors recommend peer-mentoring for library leaders and providing project management opportunities.

This is an interesting take on liaison organization and leadership development. I would be curious to read the perspectives of the liaisons working under this leadership system. I also wonder if the only opportunities for gaining leadership and project management skills in this library are through serving as a department head or coordinator?

10.

“Interview Intelligence: Teaching Students to Demonstrate Their Passion by Doing Their Homework”
Andy Spackman, Business and Communications Librarian, Brigham Young University
Academic BRASS Vol 12 (1), Spring 2017

Spackman writes about getting asked by his university’s career and advisement centers to provide research instruction. All BYU undergraduates take classes taught by these centers for career preparation. Spackman decided to adapt his approach to teaching business communication classes toward these workshops: instead of focusing on discussing themselves, students should focus on having intelligent conversations with interviewees. He offers six questions about the target company to investigate, three steps to take to do that research, and one final reminder:

“You don’t actually need to know the answers. The point isn’t to show off how much homework you’ve done. The point is to be able to have an intelligent conversation, and sometimes this is more about uncovering questions than finding answers.”

The same Academic BRASS issue includes a “Google Bucket Activity Lesson Plan” by Grace Liu of the University of Maine customized for a company and industry research assignment. Student teams compare content found through Google to subscription business database content.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »