This page provides quick access to reports of each of the University Libraries Strategic Planning Working Groups, as submitted to the Steering Committee on 28 February 2014.
NEW (March 17): Mission, Vision, and Values
Programmatic Groups
Foundational Groups
Pingback: Update: Mission, Vision, and Values report now available | University Libraries Strategic Planning
Pingback: Update: Mission, Vision, and Values report now available | University Libraries Strategic Planning
I’ve read the background reports from all the teams several times and am seeing a lot of useful patterns to inform our services and content in the years ahead.
One area I’d like to see the Libraries take more overt ownership for in our strategic plan is the substance of scholarly communication. We can readily engage in some significant direction of this area because of all the activities that are already going on in the Libraries, including digital publishing, Open Access Week, support for student research publications and posters, etc. The University has recognized it in the title of our dean and our direct partnership with the Penn State Press.
Below is what the University of Pittsburgh Libraries has had in their plan for the past 3 years. I’d like to see us commit to something in our plan that recognizes the value of libraries in many facets of the research cycle, including “library as publisher.” We haven’t been one of the earliest to develop a strong program but we can be and will be a significant player.
FYI, Pitt had 5 goals, the others being Information Resources and Collections; Infrastructure; Services; Organizational Agility.
Innovation in Scholarly Communication: Lead in transforming the patterns of scholarly communication and support researchers in the production and sharing of new knowledge.
• Articulate and exemplify new models of scholarly communication that support the principles of efficient knowledge production, rapid dissemination of new research, and open access to scholarly information.
• Build collaborative partnerships with faculty and research communities within the University and around the world to improve the production and sharing of scholarly research.
• Provide the technology infrastructure and expertise to support the creation of new digital collections, the development of innovative publishing services, and the establishment of trusted repositories for the research output of the University.
http://www.library.pitt.edu/other/files/pdf/about/longrangeplanfy11.pdf
Along with this, I’d like the plan to lay out some places in one or more sections where our innovative library infrastructure and services should include recognition of additional factors:
-the critical nature of data management;
-providing alternatives to traditional commercial publishing;
-support for open access principles;
-adoption of robust data preservation practices;
-identification and preservation of gray lit;
-skill building and confidence in their basic knowledge about things like copyright for library personnel and our customers;
-continue exploration for being less unit focused and more service-focused in our organizational model (most of our users are inhabiting multi-disciplinary environments themselves)
-partnership development in scholarly publishing;
-an environment that welcomes investigation, creation, and adoption of relevant new (and older) technologies for discovery, access, preservation, and provides for professional development in these areas for all staff
Just as an FYI – the extended comment I posted was in response to the Advancing University Research working group’s report.
I applaud the working group’s recognition that undergraduate and graduate success in research is necessary for the Libraries to support at Penn State. Publishing and Curation Services (PCS) is currently doing this by intentionally collecting undergraduate scholarship in ScholarSphere, for example. We have been contacted by colleges and departments that wish to have a searchable, accessible record of their students’ research in ScholarSphere. With regard to graduate student development, PCS has been contacted by the Graduate Research Council to work with graduate students on training and information sessions for publishing, copyright, and other relevant academic as well as professional development topics.
In addition, part of ensuring graduate student success is enabling them to learn about a variety of ways to do research and produce scholarship. One example is the preparation of data publication, whether to share via a data repository, or ScholarSphere, or a data journal – this is indeed a type of digital scholarship. Data sets, for example, are the second most common resource type in ScholarSphere. We could teach graduate students (as well as faculty and staff) across disciplines who are collecting data how to clean up and normalize that data, know where to store them, and understand how to manage them over time – i.e., helping them be more productive in their research and be more prepared for writing data management plans. Publication of data is currently not a Penn State Press offering, but it could be a service where PCS and the Press could collaborate, or – perhaps – where PCS and a research institute could collaborate. Since data are increasingly recognized as scholarly products in their own right, it seems that focused attention to research data issues should be a part of the Libraries’ strategic planning.
I’d also venture to say that because our researchers’ needs are changing, how we liaise with them is also changing. Accordingly, the model of a liaison librarian has evolved. Some of us liaise with faculty and students based on expertise in data management, repository services, scholarly publishing, technology, metadata, and the like. These liaison experiences suggest examples of how this role is transforming or has been transformed. How the Libraries as a whole responds strategically to such transformations, so that our researchers benefit even more from them, could be addressed more directly in our planning.
Finally, while it’s true that new positions are sometimes the best solutions, I don’t think we can underestimate the effectiveness of investing in professional development programs that skill us up to be stronger partners with researchers – especially since computationally driven research and digital scholarship are only increasing. The Learning and Teaching working group reported on the large percentage of library faculty and staff in favor of more professional development. Thinking more holistically and programmatically about training across libraries and departments falls in line with that, it seems to me. Coordinating this kind of activity would be important to plan and account for, as well, in our strategic thinking.
Thank you for sharing these reports. I am especially pleased to see that better coordination/leadership for instruction, as well as a more inclusive diversity statement, are among the groups’ top priorities. These were two of my biggest concerns.
Pingback: Read the Reports of the Strategic Planning Working Groups | University Libraries Strategic Planning