Presenter:Karla Hahn, Association of Research

Libraries

Combining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital

Scholarly Communication

Why a study of new model works?

Membership:123 Research LibrariesUnited States and Canada

2007 ARL members reported spending on: Library materials: $9.6 million median ($1.2 billion total) Serials: $6.6 million median ($820 million total) Electronic resources: $4.7 million median ($536 million total).

3

About ARL

http://www.arl.org/sc/models/ model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml

The study:ARL

Designed and funded studyOrganized field study and data collection

IthakaField study support Targeted interviews with resource developersReport by Nancy Maron and Kirby Smith

For more information: http://www.arl.org/sc/models/model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtml

Study GoalsIdentify range of examples of new model

works,High level overview of the emerging

landscape, Encourage librarians and faculty members

to share information and perspectives about the current array of new model works,

Support librarians in building relationships and developing outreach programs that advance new kinds of scholarly works.

2008 Study Timeline

February FundingMarch Recruitment & Training

MaterialsApril Launch of Data CollectionJune 15 Close of Data CollectionNovember 10 Report Released

Role of the Field Team: Data GatheringContact and conversation with facultyGathered names of possible resources from

the faculty who use themResponsible for vetting the resources

recommended by faculty, according to criteria outlined by ARL

Responsible for entering the names and information about the resources into a central web-based database

Field Study Phase

Key issues:

Framing “new model publications”Launching conversationsEngaging volunteers

Participation

Librarians>300 individuals46 institutionsUS and CanadaLiberal arts

colleges to research institutions

Faculty8.2 approached per

librarian1.75 interviewed

per librarian

Institutional participation

3 Partner/Pilot testing institutions

14 additional institutions

The experience of talking with faculty

How participants identified their conversation partner

Someone I knew from prior work together 69.6%

Someone I wanted to begin a working relationship with 21.4%

Someone I knew was interested in new communication technologies

37.5%

Someone I knew was involved in producing traditional publications- e.g., an editor or editorial board member.

25.0%

Someone I knew was involved in producing new kinds of publications- e.g., e-journals, e-books

25.0%

Someone who owed me a favor because I had helped her/him in the past.

16.1%

Someone who is an opinion leader in the department 16.1%

Recommended to me by someone else 10.7%A designated faculty liaison to the library or had some other formal assignment to work with the library. 5.4%

“It wasn't until we had a fairly unstructured conversation that many faculty remembered sites they use. Initially several said they didn't use newer modes of scholarly communication, when in fact they did.”

Study participant

What was most valuable?“Having a formal structured reason to begin a

conversation that encompassed some of these issues. I have been wanting to do this for almost a year, but this study gave me the impetus to actually make meetings and get them done in a short period of time.”

“The conversation as a whole helped me to gain a better understanding of [how] this faculty member does research and how he expects his students to do research.”

“Learning specific ways this faculty member keeps current in her field.”

“Faculty discussing the way they work, moving from literature to lab to data analysis to publishing and discussion, but not always in that order.”

“Learning about both faculty members' positive views on electronic publications as ways to share scholarly and professional research/ideas/news. Although I had previous conversations with both faculty members, my discussions with them about new model publications made me see them as advocates for scholarly communication practices such as open access publishing.”

Relationship building  Agree

Strengthened my relationship with the faculty member

67%

Has made it more likely that I will contact the faculty member in the future

62%

Has made it more likely the faculty member will contact me in the future

60%

Gave me a deeper understanding of how communication practices are changing in a discipline

43%

Gave me ideas for new ways I can work with her/his department

41%

Challenged my assumptions 30%

Challenged the faculty member's assumptions 22%

The new models faculty identified

Why focus on “original” and “scholarly” resources?

ARL wanted to learn more about those resources that were likely to be: New in their applications of the capabilities

of a digital environmentTuned to needs of scholars and researchersAimed primarily at advancing the

dissemination of new research and scholarship

Limitations of using this qualitative approachNeither census nor statistically

representative sample.Difficult to control conditions under which

questions were posed to faculty. Some data (for example, on sustainability

methods used) is difficult to obtain and verify by direct observation, without further detailed questioning of project leaders.

What the approach provided:Mechanism for identifying a reasonably

large number of examples from a wide range of disciplines and fields

Ability to focus on resources that have been “adopted” by some scholarly community

Examples of digital resources faculty consider innovative

Hypotheses about trends regarding the types of digital resources used in different disciplines

By the numbers

355 entries for resources

240 cited resources we identified as both original and scholarly

206 unique scholarly original resources

Analysis based on

Assessment of resource entries in databaseDirect observation of sites named by

facultyIn-depth interviews with project leaders

from 11 sample cases

Types of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=206)

E-only journalsMost frequently reported content typeReported evenly across humanities, social

sciences and STM fieldsMost are Open AccessSome examples of innovation, though

some features are slow to gain wide adoption

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments

Reviews

Innovate in terms of speed to releaseBenefit from lack of space restrictionRapid and frequent publication encourages

users to visit the sites frequently or adopt notification functions

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

Preprint and working paper servers

Provide quick access to new workLargest servers are the oldest ones and

dominant in their fields: arXiv and SSRN, both cited by multiple faculty members

Faculty cited frequent usage of these sitesSignificance of disciplinary culture in

influencing strong growth of these resources

PhilSci Archive

Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and Annotated Content

Broad-ranging projects, often mixing primary documents and scholarly annotation

Some reference works benefit from a more decentralized creation of content

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Data-based resources

41 resources named, mostly in STM fieldsFaculty cited similar overall usage strategy:

“intensely while working on a project, rarely otherwise”

Many are grant-supported, some entirely soSome large dynamic projects based on

user-contributed data

eBird

Blogs

15 blogs were cited by faculty, and blogs appeared as an element in 29 other resources as well

Appeared across all disciplinary groupsFaculty mainly reported daily or weekly usageNot just for chat, but real scholarly discussionMost blogs in this sample did not seem to use

any revenue generating model, since hosting costs tend to be low

PEA Soup

Discussion lists

21 resources named were discussion listsThree-quarters of these were traditional

listservsFourteen are in the humanitiesUsers cited them for allowing them to

“keep in touch with everyone, all the time”Not at all a cutting-edge technology, but

still very popular

H-France Forum

Professional and academic hubs

34 resources in the collection were classified as hubs

Larger sites, with many content and communication features, where faculty cited the benefit of the site as being a “one-stop shop.”

Often supported by academic societies or professional associations

Alzheimer Research Forum

Patterns and Trends

Discipline trends

Presence in nearly all categories, from journals, to data to reference

Multimedia expands

Examples of all content types showed up across a wide range of disciplines, though some trends emerged

Innovation in new and “old”

Evidence of ongoing experimentation with revenue models for many projects, while others rely almost entirely on volunteer labor and contributions in kind

Experimentation with revenue models

Older projects show significant innovation; creating legitimacy and building audience takes time

Strong influence of tradition Significance of disciplinary normsPeer review still extremely importantEstablishing trust and credibility through

reputation and quality is vitalEvidence of some reluctance of faculty to

adopt some innovative features

SustainabilityMany are grant supportedOr very inexpensive (blogs, disc lists) in

terms of direct costsEven big players with grants for many years

are interested in other means of reliable support

Today’s environmentLibrarians and faculty are interested in

sharing their understandings of new mechanisms for reporting scholarship and research and engaging in scholarly discourse.

There are many kinds of works out there and in “wide use”.

No discipline has gotten a lock on innovation.

Much remains to be learned from and about new models.

Karla Hahn karla@arl.orghttp://www.arl.org

48