Tag: Book

We’re excited to share a series of updates on the development of our forthcoming book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL). More specifically, on the third and final unit, “Voices from the Field,” which consists of short practical pieces by practitioners engaged in scholcomm and related work, intended to provoke reflection and discussion. “Voices” is further divided into Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies. This is the (3rd and final) update, on the Intersections contributions. Similar posts for Perspectives were shared on 7/20/20, and for Case Studies on 7/29/20.

When we issued the CFP in November, we really had no idea what the response might be. We ended up with more great ideas than we had room for, which was both wonderful and heartbreaking. In the end, we did our best to balance various considerations and selected 26 proposals to move forward. Honestly, all of the proposals were great and deserve development. Now that we’re seeing all those selected wrapping up towards final drafts, we couldn’t be happier with them! It’s so exciting to see all these excellent ideas come together, and to be able to provide a platform for them!

From the CFP:

Intersections invites examples of and reflections on the intersection of scholarly communication with other areas of academic librarianship, obvious or otherwise. Almost all work in academic libraries is arguably and ultimately in service of scholarly communication. While libraries increasingly designate scholarly communications specialists, those specialists often collaborate with colleagues throughout their organizations to provide their expertise in addressing scholarly communication opportunities and challenges. Conversely, any area of library work might turn to a scholarly communications specialist for an informed perspective and expertise.

Examples of Intersections might include exploration of library-press partnerships for sharing nontraditional research, open pedagogy work done as a collaboration between the library and a center for academic support, or a scholarly project that connects with the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities.

The Intersections selected reflect a broad set of perspectives and reports on how scholarly communication work can or should interface with other areas of academic librarianship, such as undergraduate engagement, public services, tech services, and DEI work. Sarah Moczygemba and Perry Collins enter into a dialogue, exploring the working relationship between copyright expertise and social media activity, and Thea Atwood and Erin Jerome look at building bridges between scholarly communication and data services. Both Emma Molls and Lindsay Cronk, writing from different academic libraries (Minnesota and Rocheser, respectively) talk about the intersections of collection development and scholarly communications, particularly publishing. Annie Johnson has another take on publishing, with her vision of the relationship between university presses and academic libraries, at our present moment and in the past and future. Kristin Landsown argues for another powerful intersection, as she looks at the way that giving voice to underrepresented students through the creation of OER  benefits students of color. Anali Perry and Eric Prosser bring us an intersection that steps outside the academy as they discusses partnership with public libraries, while Natalie Hill, Carrie Gits and Colleen Lyon look at an even wider ranging partnership, this one between a community college, a public library and university, with the goal of increasing OER usage in Texas.

Here’s the full list of Intersections:

• Perry Collins and Sarah Moczygemba from the University of Florida: “Amplifying the Message: Partnerships Across Social Media”
• Lindsay Cronk, University of Rochester: “Defining Collection Development as Operational Scholarly Communications in Academic Libraries”
• Natalie Hill (University of New England), Carrie Gits (Austin Community College), and Colleen Lyon (UT Austin):  “Librarians Open Up Open Education: A University, Community College, and Public Library Partnership to Increase OER Usage in Texas”
• Kristin Lansdown, UW Madison: “Positioning Voices of Underrepresented Students as Authoritative: Developing Open Educational Resources that Benefit Students of Color”
• Annie Johnson Temple University: “The Relationship Between University Presses and Academic Libraries: Past, Present, and Future”
• Emma Molls, University of Minnesota: “Library Publishing and Collection Development: Eliminating Information Asymmetry”
• Anali Perry and Eric Prosser, Arizona State University: “Putting Community in Scholarly Communications: Partnerships with Public Libraries”
• Erin Jerome and Thea Atwood, UMass Amherst: “Bridging Scholarly Communication and Data Services: Intersections in Openness and Sharing”

Like the forthcoming companion Scholarly Communication Notebook, these intersections demonstrate that scholarly communication is not a gated community of library work. There is a constant exchange of expertise, labor and support across work areas of libraries, campuses and larger communities, in support of access to, dissemination and preservation of the scholarly record. We’re very excited about how these contributions demonstrate the value of building bridges and invite us both to cross them and to build some of our own.

-Maria (on behalf of Maria, Will and Josh)

We’re excited to share a series of updates on the development of our forthcoming book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL). More specifically, on the third and final unit, “Voices from the Field,” which consists of short practical pieces by practitioners engaged in scholcomm and related work, intended to provoke reflection and discussion. “Voices” is further divided into Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies. This is an update on the Case Studies contributions. A similar post for Perspectives was shared on 7/20/20, and another on Intersections will be posted soon.

When we issued the CFP in November, we really had no idea what the response might be. We ended up with more great ideas than we had room for, which was both wonderful and heartbreaking. In the end, we did our best to balance various considerations and selected 26 proposals to move forward. Honestly, all of the proposals were great and deserve development. Now that we’re seeing all those selected wrapping up towards final drafts, we couldn’t be happier with them! It’s so exciting to see all these excellent ideas come together, and to be able to provide a platform for them!

From the CFP:

Case Studies present stories and lessons learned drawn from experience. Case Studies should provide specific, contextualized examples of the kinds of tasks and questions librarians working in scholarly communication encounter and strategies for response. A case study will describe and evaluate a case, reflecting upon the issues involved and their implications for scholars and scholarship. It will suggest possible responses to the case and evaluate the effectiveness and possible challenges of those strategies. A case study grounded in actual experience might also describe the actions that were taken and reflect upon subsequent outcomes.

Examples of Case Studies might include a specific course marking project done at an institution working to support OER and textbook affordability, a digital humanities project that used interdisciplinary expertise in the libraries, or a library research data management initiative that helps researchers meet funder mandates for open data.

The Case Studies reflect a broad set of issues and practices grounded in the diverse environments where scholarly communication is practiced. From established scholcomm voices like Harvard and Simon Frasier to regional and emerging leaders, scholarly communication practitioners share successful models, first-of-a-kind projects, and strategies for building community.

While these case studies share important lessons about policies and formal structures, a core theme that appears centers around community-building. From Billings and Roh’s guide to successful mentoring, to Piper’s discussion of professionalization, to Keralis and Martin’s call for “A Journal of One’s Own”, these case studies offer models for building community at every stage of the scholarly communication life cycle and beyond.

Here’s the full list of Case Studies:

• Marilyn Billings from UMass Amherst and Charlotte Roh from the University of San Francisco write about strategies for successful mentoring and professional development in “Development of a Scholarly Communication Librarian Residency Program.”
• Kyle Courtney and Emily Kilcer introduce a model for distributing expertise at Harvard in “Copyright First Responders: Decentralized Expertise, Cultural Institutions, and Risk.”
• Josh Cromwell from the University of Southern Mississippi explores the challenges posed by promotions and tenure systems in “Mind Your Ps and Ts: Promotion, Tenure, and the Challenge for Open Access.”
• Spencer Keralis from Illinois and John Martin from the University of North Texas offer a successful model for open publishing in “A Journal of One’s Own: Developing an Innovative, Values-Driven Open Journal.”
• Gemmicka Piper at IUPUI provides a firsthand overview of skilling up in a new position in “Professionalizing for New Performance Duties.”
• Kerry Sewell and Jeanne Hoover from East Carolina University share their successes and challenges with “Navigating Open Access Initiatives in a Sea of Mixed Support.”
• Jennifer Zerkee and Alison Moore from Simon Fraser offer insight into supporting open access in “So You Have an Open Access Policy – Now What? Evaluating Simon Fraser University’s Open Access Policy.”

Like the forthcoming companion Scholarly Communication Notebook, these case studies demonstrate that there is no one “correct” way to do this work. Instead, our understanding of scholarly communication must reflect the multiplicity of approaches and perspectives in the field as well as centering the dynamic and ongoing work being done at all sizes and types of institutions. We’re so grateful that each of the contributors has shared their experiences and we hope these case studies can offer some promising models to borrow and build on.

-Will (on behalf of Maria and Josh)

We’re excited to share a series of updates on the development of our forthcoming book, Scholarly Communication Librarianship and Open Culture: Law, Economics, and Publishing (ACRL). More specifically, on the third and final unit, “Voices from the Field,” which consists of short practical pieces by practitioners engaged in scholcomm and related work, intended to provoke reflection and discussion. “Voices” is further divided into Perspectives, Intersections, and Case Studies. This is an update on the Perspectives contributions. Similar posts for Intersections and Case Studies will follow in the coming weeks.

When we issued the CFP late last fall (Nov.), we really had no idea what the response might be. We ended up with more great ideas than we had room for, which was both wonderful and heartbreaking. In the end, we did our best to balance various considerations and selected 26 proposals to move forward. Honestly, all of the proposals were great and deserve development. Now that we’re seeing all those selected wrapping up towards final drafts, we couldn’t be happier with them! It’s so exciting to see all these excellent ideas come together, and to be able to provide a platform for them!

Perspectives is the largest of the three “Voices” subsections at 11 pieces. From the CFP:

Perspectives are intended to offer situated and self-reflexive discussions of topics of importance in scholarly communication and the ways in which libraries or librarians respond to those topics. Scholarly communications work inevitably leads to engagement with issues upon which opinions vary, as do the courses of action that address those issues. Personal and professional experience, as well as institutional context, and personal and community identity inform and shape the opinions and approaches of scholarly communication professionals.

Examples of Perspectives might include reflections from a solo scholarly communication librarian asked to spin up a new program, a community college librarian working to support open access with faculty that do not prioritize publishing in scientific journals, or a scholar working on politically contested topics balancing a commitment to openness with safeguarding themselves from hostile alt-right trolls and doxxing.

Concepts that loom large across these pieces include vocational awe, adaptability, collaboration, learning from experience (including so-called “failures”), and self-care.

• Jennifer Patiño from UW-Madison looks to community archives as a model for considering inclusivity in the OA movement.
• Jennie Rose Halperin from Harvard critically examines the imperative for openness in the humanities.
• Elisabeth Shook from Boise State interrogates duality in scholcomm work.
• Ian Harmon from WVU asks if vocational awe and service-oriented neutrality bring bullshit work into scholcomm librarianship.
• Julia Rodriguez at Oakland State considers outreach and collaboration in the establishment and growth of a program.
• A.J. Boston at Murray State examines the costs and benefits of “other duties as assigned.”
• Brian Quinn and Innocent Awasom from Texas Tech discuss doing scholcomm work outside of a dedicated scholcomm position.
• Teresa Schultz and Elena Azadbakht from University of Nevada Reno remind us that openness alone isn’t magically accessible and that we have a responsibility to consider and implement accessible practices.
• Emily Kilcer from SUNY Albany, Julia Lovett of University of Rhode Island, and Mark Clemente from Case Western reflect on their transitions from first jobs to new positions.
• Dick Kawooya from the School of Information Science at University of South Carolina discusses the importance of teaching scholcomm topics to LIS students interested in academic librarianship.
• Carla Myers from Miami University looks to “failure” as an opportunity for assessment and improvement.

As we hope you’ll agree, this is an excellent collection of work by esteemed peers, who are sharing insights practical, theoretical, challenging, caring, and provocative. We’re thrilled they’ve been so generous with their time and knowledge and have stuck with us through the challenges of the last few months. We’re proud to be in a position to promote their excellence, and look forward to seeing these ideas discussed in LIS programs and beyond.

Look for similar posts for the Intersections and Case Studies soon.

High Five,

Josh, on behalf of Maria and Will