To: ACRL Board Executive Committee From: Barbara DeFelice, Chair, ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee Subject: Report on the Scholarly Communications 101 “Road Shows” Date: April 27, 2011

Executive Summary

The ACRL Board Executive Committee responded to the Scholarly Communications Committee’s 2010 work plan very positively and asked for an expanded report on the Scholarly Communications 101 "Road Shows” with respect to the following questions:

o How long do you anticipate there to be an interest in /demand for the face-to-face road shows? o As the recession has meant tighter environments for both libraries and ACRL at some point do you see the road show being offered on a cost recovery basis as ACRL requires of its other professional development opportunities? o How is the Road Show assessed? o How is the curriculum developed? Who is responsible for developing and updating the curriculum? Is there a role for the committee? the presenters? Anecdotally, the Executive Committee has heard concerns expressed that the Road Show should offer more strategies that would work at smaller institutions where the staffing is more limited. o How are the presenters selected? It is our understanding that this started out as a committee-led initiative. As some of the presenters have cycled off the committee, it is great they are willing to share their expertise. However, if these programs are to continue the Board wants to be sure there is a transparent process in place for recruitment and evaluation of the presenters as it has for the faculty of the ACRL Information Literacy Immersion Program. o Your 2010 work plan called for exploring the options for developing a Schol Comm 101 Virtual opportunity. Given that the ACRL membership has expressed a strong interest in virtual professional development opportunities and given the financial challenges facing libraries and ACRL, the Executive Committee would like you to develop a virtual SC101. If you foresee obstacles to this (perhaps there are reasons that it did not happen as planned in 2010) please share them with the Board so it can determine how best to address them.

The attached report is the Committee’s response to these questions.

1 Report on the Scholarly Communications 101 “Road Shows” Prepared by Joy Kirchner, University of British Columbia, for the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee

How long do you anticipate there to be an interest in /demand for the face-to-face road shows?

While the Committee recognizes the economic benefits of a virtual program and is working through this concept, (see response to the last question) we also anticipate that the need for face to face professional development programs, like the road shows, are likely to continue.

The Committee feels strongly that scholarly communications is not a fad or merely a response to a particular problem that can be solved at some point in time. Scholarly communications has developed as a set of ideas, practices and reflections on the transition in teaching and learning brought about by new technologies. Those changes, and the need to respond to them, will continue indefinitely. Until scholarly communications becomes as well integrated a part of academic library practice as cataloging, then, there will continue to be a need to help librarians begin to reflect on and program for these transitions. In this sense, scholarly communications occupies a similar position to the early days of information literacy and like the evolution of “information literacy” it will take time for scholarly communications programming to develop. In all likelihood, the 101 program will morph into something else over time.

It is also well understood that the issues that scholarly communications address about the development and sharing of knowledge in the academy are at the core of the research, teaching and learning missions of our institutions. Developing scholarly communications programs is a key aspect of how academic libraries will demonstrate their continuing centrality to academic life on their campuses in the 21st century. We believe the face to face Road Shows play an important role in helping with that.

Incidentally, apparently the act of applying for a Road Show program has been a springboard for a number of the institutions to begin their own scholarly communication educational programs. Many of the unsuccessful applicants, for instance, went ahead and launched their own local “road show” program. We have also heard the advertisement itself spurred some institutions to take scholarly communications more seriously.

Finally, we believe the Road Show programs strongly support the goals and objectives of ACRL’s Plan for Excellence to support the members’ ability to “accelerate the transition to a more open system of scholarship.”1

1 Association of College & Research Libraries, “Plan for Excellence,” p. 2: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/about/whatisacrl/strategicplan/ACRL_draft_SP_Dec10.pdf

2 As the recession has meant tighter environments for both libraries and ACRL at some point do you see the road show being offered on a cost recovery basis as ACRL requires of its other professional development opportunities?

There are some costs already incurred by hosting institutions: room arrangements, promotion, and refreshments/lunch. It is possible that an additional modest cost-recovery fee could be acceptable to participating ACRL members. To determine level of acceptance for a fee-based program, the Scholarly Communications 101 organizers will include a question on the outgoing post workshop evaluation that asks about willingness to pay for the workshop and what might be an acceptable amount.

Other factors to consider: - In the last year, successful hosting sites chosen for the 101 program were those groups evaluated to have no or limited scholarly communications programs in place and, therefore, were perceived to benefit most from a Scholarly Communications 101 program. Many of the selected sites were smaller colleges that may not have the same funding opportunities as larger sites. - In the “One-year later” evaluations that were sent to past participants, several sites cited budget issues and limited staffing constraints as impediments to advancing scholarly communications activities further than expected between the workshop in 2009 and the evaluation in 2010.

The average direct cost per workshop in 2009 was $2,520 for two speakers ($1260 per presenter) plus staff support time. Workshop presenters are very conscious of the need for cost containment. For their part, they stay in average hotels that include breakfast and where possible locale of presenters was also considered when matching presenters with hosting locations.

Other ACRL professional development opportunities (Immersion program, RBMS pre conference) require much more staff time than does the Scholarly Communications 101 program. In those cases, ACRL staff member(s) are responsible for site selection, event planning, logistics, and on site support. In the current model for Scholarly Communications 101, the hosts bear the responsibility and absorb the staffing costs for these activities. If ACRL wishes to attain the same standard and level of control over this event, an entirely different staffing model would need to be in place. This means staff time would need to be released to cover these activities, which would result in higher costs and necessitate a higher registration fee.

Finally, it is also worth noting that the workshop presenters have consistently reported hosting sites are extremely appreciative of ACRL for providing this opportunity. Workshop presenters have reported that participating sites had publicly acknowledged ACRL for providing this kind opportunity during introductory or closing remarks. Further, presenters

3 felt that hosting sites also expressed their appreciation by giving extra care to ensure that workshop presenters are comfortable with arrangements and room set up.

How is the Road Show assessed?

A pre-survey is sent to participants before the workshop to assess current understanding of scholarly communications, the level of scholarly communications activity taking place at institutions, and the particular focus the institution would like to consider. Workshop presenters also connect with hosts prior to the workshop to ascertain particular areas of interest/focus/concern that they would like presenters to include in local programming. Evaluations are sent to each participant immediately after the workshop. A follow-up evaluation is sent one year later to determine impact of the workshop on institutional plans in advancing scholarly communications at their sites. See appendix 1 evaluations.

The one year later evaluations revealed the respondents were positive about the 101 program, felt they benefited from the road show and have since taken advantage of different ACRL resources and events to stay informed of scholarly communications issues to generate ideas for outreach activities. The major impediments for them to become more engaged in scholarly communications activities seem to be time constraints, budget woes, and lack of administrative support. In some cases at least, these have led to apathy on the part of faculty and library staff.

How is the curriculum developed? Who is responsible for developing and updating the curriculum? Is there a role for the committee? the presenters? Anecdotally, the Executive Committee has heard concerns expressed that the Road Show should offer more strategies that would work at smaller institutions where the staffing is more limited.

The curriculum was initially developed from members of the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee in a proposal for a basic workshop on scholarly communications that was submitted to ACRL for the 2009 national conference in Seattle. The workshop was titled: “Scholarly Communications 101.” The proposal was written with the possibility of future offerings in mind. The initial proposal outlined four program modules to include in the workshop:

1. Introduction & economic issues 2. Open access and openness as a principle 3. Copyright & intellectual property 4. New modes and models & conclusion

The proposal included a delineated set of learning outcomes expected and a set of speaker guidelines in order to help scope and guide the development of the curriculum for the program. Workshop leaders, known experts from the Committee, were chosen to develop the curriculum based on these guidelines. (See appendix 2.) Two members of the

4 Committee, in consultation with ACRL’s Scholarly Communications committee liaison, Kara Malenfant, were asked to lead and guide the development of the program in accordance to the Committee’s vision and in keeping with ACRL’s overall vision. It was also the Committee’s intention to use the workshop as an opportunity to broaden out expertise in scholarly communications by seeking out new, but knowledgeable and engaged librarians for whom this opportunity would be good national level exposure and partner these new librarians with seasoned Scholarly Communications Committee experts or faculty from the ACRL/ ARL Institute for Scholarly Communication.

To that end, a call went out to both faculty members of the ACRL/ARL Institute for Scholarly Communications and the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee asking members for others we could potentially mentor to be involved in this arena. These calls resulted in recruiting a newer librarian, Molly Keener (Wake Forest), to be part of the group designing and delivering the workshop at ACRL National Conference 2009. Members of the Committee served as mentors in the development of the curriculum and the teaching of the curriculum as appropriate.

With the success of the workshop at the national program, Kara Malenfant suggested the development of Scholarly Communications 101 road show program, which was enthusiastically supported by the Committee. The workshop presenters fine-tuned the curriculum to support a road show program. The original group of four presenters felt they would not have capacity to deliver five road show versions of the workshop, so we recruited additional speakers to provide capacity. They were primarily faculty of the ARL/ACRL Institute on Scholarly Communication who had both skill presenting experiential workshops and subject expertise. We purposefully recruited and mentored an additional speaker from outside the faculty and not on the committee who is newer to the profession, Molly Kleinman (Michigan).

Constant revision and updates to program offerings has been a critical staple in the road show curriculum development. Workshop program developers are keenly aware of how quickly the scholarly communications arena is evolving. They constantly reflect on the program deliverables, improvements that could be made and revise the program and handouts as new information emerges in this arena. In addition to keeping the curriculum fresh and current, workshop evaluations are reviewed and conference calls between workshop presenters are held several times during the road show period to report on successes and lessons learned. In successive years, the workshop presenters have committed to ensuring program presentations, handouts and activities are reviewed and updated before the next round of workshops and archived in the ACRL Scholarly Communication toolkit.

The workshop materials archived in the toolkit are well used. Statistics from Google analytics show that the 101 workshop materials are heavily accessed. In the six month period between June 1, 2010 to Dec 28, 2010, the 101 workshop presentations were shown to be the second most popular tab after the landing tabs. There were 786 page views of this

5 material and 540 unique views. The 101 handouts show 545 page views and 346 unique views during this six month period.

There was no significant evidence in the evaluations to support anecdotal opinion that the Road Show needs more strategies for smaller institutions. There were three individual evaluations out of a total of 90 after the first road show program that indicated we should use examples that might be applicable to smaller institutions. This was noted and it was addressed by including assignments that more broadly encompassed all library types. Specific attention was paid to how participants could begin engagement with faculty regardless of library-size. This approach seems to have been successful. There were no comments on 2010 evaluations that suggested programmers needed to consider strategies for smaller institutions.

Further, we have been actively interested in helping to integrate scholarly communications more into the work of teaching and liaison librarians. Although more work could be done here, by year two of the Road Show program, more material was included to specifically assist liaison librarians working with students and with faculty with whom they primarily teach. The material was designed to be applicable to any size institution.

The presenters feel it would be useful to meet as a group in person to spend time thoughtfully reviewing and refining the curriculum. Thus far, modifications have been based on debrief phone calls and emails. Therefore, we plan to hold a one-day curriculum meeting and planning retreat in conjunction with ALA annual conference in June. The SC 101 presenter group has never met in person as a whole and feel doing so will benefit in person curriculum and allow them to make recommendations about a virtual offering (more below).

Finally, it should also be noted that because scholarly communications librarian roles first appeared in research libraries, it followed that expertise in scholarly communications initially came from these libraries. The Committee has long been aware of the need to grow expertise in scholarly communications at all institutions, hence the development of the 101 program. It has also been the Committee’s intention to mentor others in smaller institutions to take a presenter role in the 101 program. Some of our endeavors are described in answer to the next question.

How are the presenters selected? It is our understanding that this started out as a committee-led initiative. As some of the presenters have cycled off the committee, it is great they are willing to share their expertise. However, if these programs are to continue the Board wants to be sure there is a transparent process in place for recruitment and evaluation of the presenters as it has for the faculty of the ACRL Information Literacy Immersion Program.

Initial workshop speakers/developers were asked to continue as speakers in the first road show program for continuity. It was also decided to extend and grow the pool of expert presenters to accommodate an expanded program and give new opportunities to others.

6 To that end, the 101 program leads put out another call to the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee asking for suggestions of presenters who were not well known on the national stage but had expertise in scholarly communications.

Several names were recommended and invitations were sent out to these individuals. The presenter pool was expanded to include those members who were available to participate. At the same time, it has always been the Committee’s interest to expand the pool of scholarly communications experts generally. A model for achieving this in the new Scholarly Communications 101 program was discussed at committee meetings. It was decided that a mentorship program could be integrated into the Scholarly Communications 101 program.

With the inaugural Scholarly Communications 101 Road Show program, it was felt that this would be ideal opportunity to mentor a local presenter as part of the Road show program. This was achieved by asking for a local presenter in the initial applications. This approach had mixed results and impacted the integrity of the program depending on the local speaker. It was found that the local speakers chosen by hosting institutions were not always enthusiastic presenters. It was decided that this approach would be abandoned in favor of a more systematic approach to mentorship. Funding is in place to support mentorship for the 2011 program.

To that end, ACRL sent out an “expression of interest” to become a presenter for ACRL’s Scholarly Communications 101 workshops to all major scholarly communications lists on March 22, 2011. This opportunity was also widely advertised at the 2011 ACRL National Conference.

Criteria includes: o A designated role in scholarly communications within your library. o Teaching experience. o Experience with instructional design and meeting facilitation. o Collaborative planning skills. o Must be available to attend up to two road shows this summer

We also strongly prefer candidates who have participated in an ACRL Scholarly Communications 101 workshop (either at ACRL 2009 conference in Seattle or as a road show in summer 2009 or 2010) and are available to attend a presenter curriculum design retreat, to be held in conjunction with ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

The scholarly communication committee has formed a small review team, separate from the current presenters, to consider expressions of interest. The process includes checking references and a telephone interview. The group will select one person to become a new presenter in 2011 and a second in 2012.

7 The selected presenters will participate in two 101 workshops. In the first workshop, the mentee will shadow workshops experts and team-teach one section or assignment. In the second workshop, the mentee will teach one module with the assistance of two experts. Our staff liaison has confirmed that the scholarly communications program budget can bear the expense of travel and related costs for an additional person in 2011 and she has built this into the budget for 2012.

See appendix 3 for documents related to the selection process for prospective presenters.

Your 2010 work plan called for exploring the options for developing a Schol Comm 101 Virtual opportunity. Given that the ACRL membership has expressed a strong interest in virtual professional development opportunities and given the financial challenges facing libraries and ACRL, the Executive Committee would like you to develop a virtual SC101. If you foresee obstacles to this (perhaps there are reasons that it did not happen as planned in 2010) please share them with the Board so it can determine how best to address them.

The chairs of the ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee discussed this with the Scholarly Communication 101 presenters and Kara Malenfant after the first Road Show in 2009. At that time, the presenters reported that they were dedicating significant hours to work on the workshop curriculum as it was and were not able to consider the increase in hours to develop a virtual program. The presenters further expressed that while they recognized the economic benefits and widespread availability a virtual program would offer the community, presenters felt there was greater value in an in-person experience for the kind interactive programming and local community building the 101 program offered. They also felt it would take considerable resourcing and time commitment to restructure a program to suit a virtual environment that the presenters did not immediately have available to them. They suggested that there would need to be expert assistance with online course development in order to achieve a good result.

In consideration of this feedback, the ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee decided a virtual program should be explored more fully in 2010-2011 fiscal year following the outcome of the inaugural year of the ACRL/ARL Institute of Scholarly Communication virtual program. It was felt the development of a 101 program could be informed by that experience.

In the short term, all 101 program offerings, presentations and assignments, are archived in the ACRL Scholarly Communication toolkit and are open to re-use. These are updated annually.

Virtual Scholarly Communication 101 program deliverables in 2011 - 2012:

The Committee considered several approaches including choosing one of the upcoming 101

8 sessions to live-webcast the workshop simultaneously to others remotely as a short-term solution. The Committee also discussed the merits of developing a curriculum specifically designed for a virtual program. Based on the experiences of others and lessons learned from the recent ISC virtual program experience, it was felt that while a live web cast option is good for a content delivery mechanism, it is not as good for interactive sessions, community building programming, or delivering exercises -- all aspects that are currently the foundation of the current 101 program. In the end, all agreed the whole curriculum would have to be carefully considered to consider virtual programming for a 2012 program. Considerations include:

- Each workshop module would need to be re-developed for a virtual format. - Content developers may need to be partnered with a designated course developer. - Decisions about producing modules as standalone sessions or as part of series would have to be made. (Currently each module builds upon the other. If it is desirable to deliver modules independently, the modules would have to be re-done to be stand alone.)

We also carefully considered lessons learned from the recent ISC virtual program include: They include: - ISC program developers recommend tighter sessions with sessions in close timeframe from one another. In their experience, 8 sessions over a 9 months lost momentum. - Moodle site not as successful. - Practical application of content appreciated by participants - Community building approach did not work (Generating this online did not fly) - Tried unsuccessfully to organize discussion and break out sessions did not work. Later abandoned. - Participants preferred a lot Q&A with speakers rather than break out sessions or group discussion. - Much of the ISC program is dedicated to having teams of participants construct their own institutional program plans during workshop. This did not work in an online environment. - Mixed level of scholarly communications expertise from participants

The Scholarly Communications 101 presenters agreed to meet at ALA annual conference in June in order to discuss more fully curriculum development for a virtual offering. They will propose a course of action for the Committee’s consideration post retreat.

- Joy Kirchner, April 27, 2011.

9 Appendix 1: Evaluation and assessment instruments used for ACRL workshop “Scholarly communications 101” offered as a road show.

Scholarly Communication 101: Library Level Assessment (due prior to workshop) 1. Is your library currently engaged in the following issues? No, but planned in the Yes No next 12 months Have held outreach events for faculty on scholarly communication topics Have held outreach events for students on scholarly communication topics Have held education events for library staff on scholarly communication topics Include scholarly communication topics in information literacy instruction sessions for students Have a library web presence on scholarly communication topics aimed at campus community Have a library web presence on scholarly communication topics aimed at library staff only Job descriptions for library staff include scholarly communication duties Have assigned library staff members to be responsible for scholarly communication activities Have a library committee on scholarly communication that includes library staff only Have a library committee on scholarly communication that includes other campus stakeholders (.i.e faculty, editors, university press, research office) Offer services, such as copyright, author rights, and/or open access mandates compliance advising Have an institutional repository

10 No, but planned in the Yes No next 12 months Have a fund to pay author fees for open access journal publishing Library serves as publisher for new models of scholarly communication (ejournals, etc.) Discussions with faculty leadership regarding an open-access resolution for my campus

2. List here other issues with which your library is engaged.

3. How often have you and staff in your library used these tools to learn more about scholarly communication issues? Often Sometimes Not At All bi-monthly article on scholarly communication in C&RL News SPARC/ACRL Forum at ALA Midwinter or Annual conferences ACRL Scholarly Communication Discussion Group held at ALA ACRL Website on Scholarly Communication ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit ACRL news releases on scholarly communication actions ACRL Scholarly Communication listserv SCHOLCOMM

4. What other means have been helpful to you in learning about scholarly communication issues?

11 What other means have been helpful to you in learning about scholarly communication issues?

5. What tools or mechanisms would be useful to you in increasing your awareness and enabling you to speak about the issues in scholarly communication with faculty or other staff on your campus? Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important sessions at ALA Midwinter or Annual conferences regional sessions with speakers or pre- conference curricula a train the trainer program targeted to the local level information on the ACRL Website information on the ACRL scholarly communication listserv SCHOLCOMM information/instruction on use of the ACRL Toolkit regular articles in ACRL publications on various topics focused on scholarly communication intensive 2-3 day scholarly communications immersion institute

6. What other means would be helpful to you for increasing your awareness or enabling you to speak about the issues?

7. Name of institution

8. Which of the following best describes your institution?

Which of the following best describes your institution? Two year/technical school

12 University (research/doctoral granting)

Comprehensive (undergraduate/graduate)

Four-year college

Graduate school of library and information science

Independent research library

Information-related organization

Other (please specify)

9. Any other comments you’d care to include?

13 Scholarly Communication 101 Evaluation

Evaluation for ACRL workshop "Scholarly Communication 101: Starting With the Basics" presented as a road show summer 2010 1. Name (optional):

2. Institution (optional):

3. In which workshop were you a participant (choose one)?

Wednesday, April 28th, at Texas Tech University in Lubbock

Tuesday, May 25, at Bryan College in Dayton, TN

Friday, June 4, at Kansas State University in Manhattan

Friday, July 9, at Florida State University in Tallahassee

Friday, August 6, at Lehigh Valley Association of Independent Colleges in Bethlehem, PA

4. What part(s) of the workshop were most useful to you (choose one or more)?

Introduction: Scholarly communication system

Economics

Copyright and author rights

Open access and openness as a principle

Faculty engagement around new models of scholarly publishing

5. What were your expectations for the workshop? Did the workshop fulfill your expectations? (Are there areas you would have liked to see more of?)

6. How did the workshop increase your understanding about scholarly communications?

14 7. How did the workshop increase your comfort in engaging others at your institution in a discussion about scholarly communication topics?

8. What programs are you likely to initiate at your institution given what you learned?

9. Other Comments or suggestions for improving the workshop?

10. What suggestions do you have for follow-up activities for your local organizer/host?

11. How long have you been a member of the library and information science profession?

12. Which of the following best describes your place of employment? Which of the following best Four-year college Information-related describes your place of organization Graduate school of library employment? Two and information science year/technical school Independent research University library (research/doctoral granting) Comprehensive (undergraduate/graduate) Other (please specify)

15 13. Which of the following best describes your position? Assistant Administrative Chief Information Officer Public services librarian Officer Collection development Special collections librarian Branch Head, librarian librarian Team Leader Cataloger, librarian Department/Unit Head or Tech services staff (non Coordinator Cataloging staff (non librarian) librarian) Digital/electronic/ or Access services staff (non technical services librarian Chief Administrative librarian) Officer Library/information educator Other (please specify)

14. Does your current position have scholarly communications responsibilities? If yes, please specify:

15. Please select your age range from the list below: 25 or under 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65 or older

16 Scholarly Communication 101: Library Level Assessment 1 yr later

Welcome Thanks for answering a few questions to help the ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee better understand the current state of scholarly communication education and outreach efforts at you library. In this brief questionnaire, we'll ask about the progress your institution has made over the last 12 months and what challenges you face in implementing programs and services on your campus. This will help the committee continue to plan initiatives that support the library community.

We are asking for just one response per library, so please work with your colleagues to identify one person from each institution who is knowledgeable about your library's activities. We expect this questionnaire will take no more than 20 minutes.

Next

1. To what extent is your library more engaged in the following issues than it was in Summer 2009? Engagement Engagement Engagement Not engaged increased increased did not in this area greatly somewhat increase Have held outreach events for faculty on scholarly communication topics Have held outreach events for students on scholarly communication topics Have held education events for library staff on scholarly communication topics Include scholarly communication topics in information literacy instruction sessions for students Have a library web presence on scholarly communication topics aimed at campus community Have a library web presence on scholarly communication topics aimed at library staff only

17 Engagement Engagement Engagement Not engaged increased increased did not in this area greatly somewhat increase Job descriptions for library staff include scholarly communication duties Have assigned library staff members to be responsible for scholarly communication activities Have a library committee on scholarly communication that includes library staff only Have a library committee on scholarly communication that includes other campus stakeholders (.i.e faculty, editors, university press, research office) Offer services, such as copyright, author rights, and/or open access mandates compliance advising Have an institutional repository Have a fund to pay author fees for open access journal publishing Library serves as publisher for new models of scholarly communication (ejournals, etc.) Discussions with faculty leadership regarding an open- access resolution for my campus

2. List any other issues with which your library is now more engaged than it was in Summer 2009.

18 3. What are the impediments that have kept you from implementing some of your planned activities?

4. Indicate to what degree knowledge of the following scholarly communication issues has increased among staff in your library between summer 2009 and the present. Did not Increased a great deal Increased somewhat increase systems thinking approach to scholarly communication basic economics of the scholarly communication system new methods of scholarly publishing and communication copyright and intellectual property, including author rights open access and openness as a principle archiving of electronic publications cost of scholarly monographs number of monographs being published creation of low cost alternative publishing vehicles open access to scholarly

19 Did not Increased a great deal Increased somewhat increase output cost of scholarly journals commercial control of scholarly publishing increasing consolidation of publishing industry number of journals being published preserving fair use for digital information faculty/researcher reluctance to explore new publishing models licensing terms for electronic publications scholarly communication as a national public policy issue criteria for faculty promotion and tenure

5. To what degree would you say knowledge of scholarly communication issues among staff in your library increased between summer 2009 and the present as a result of your participation in or use of ACRL programs, literature, and website resources? Helped knowledge Did not help Helped knowledge increase a great knowledge increase somewhat deal increase ACRL Scholarly Communication 101: Starting With the Basics, road show delivered in my region bi-monthly article on scholarly communication in C&RL News SPARC/ACRL Forum at ALA Midwinter or Annual conferences ACRL Scholarly Communication Discussion

20 Helped knowledge Did not help Helped knowledge increase a great knowledge increase somewhat deal increase Group held at ALA ACRL Website on Scholarly Communication ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit ACRL news releases on scholarly communication actions ACRL Scholarly Communication listserv SCHOLCOMM

6. What other means have been helpful to you in learning about scholarly communication issues?

7. What tools or mechanisms would be useful to you in increasing your awareness and enabling you to speak about the issues in scholarly communication with faculty or other staff on your campus? Somewhat Very Important Not Important Important sessions at ALA Midwinter or Annual conferences regional sessions with speakers or pre-conference curricula a train the trainer program targeted to the local level information on the ACRL Website information on the ACRL scholarly communication listserv SCHOLCOMM information/instruction on use of the ACRL Toolkit regular articles in ACRL publications on various topics focused on scholarly

21 Somewhat Very Important Not Important Important communication intensive 2-3 day scholarly communications immersion institute

8. What other means would be helpful to you for increasing your awareness or enabling you to speak about the issues?

9. Name of institution

10. Which of the following best describes your institution?

Two year/technical school

University (research/doctoral granting)

Comprehensive (undergraduate/graduate)

Four-year college

Graduate school of library and information science

Independent research library

Information-related organization

Other (please specify)

11. Any other comments you’d care to include?

22 Appendix 2: Original Program Proposal for a Scholarly Communication 101 Workshop at the 2008 ACRL National Conference.

Scholarly Communication 101 Planning Documents

FOR THE PROPOSAL

Primary Speaker: SPEAKER #1

Additional Speakers Information: SPEAKER #2 SPEAKER #3 SPEAKER #4

Program Format: Workshops

Program Theme: Cast A Net

Program Title: Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics

Description (500 words):

There is wide variance in the background understanding of and engagement in scholarly communication as a critical perspective and, in fact, worldview for academic libraries. Contextual understanding is necessary preparation needed to strategize or take action from advocacy to outreach to service. Many librarians understand that copyright, information economies, business models, open access, and other scholarly communication issues are important, but they may not have enough background in these issues to begin taking action in their own library setting.

This workshop will provide a focused, structured, interactive overview of the contemporary scholarly communication system and its current evolution. Presenters will create a contextual understanding of the stakeholders, pressures, and system dynamics of scholarly publishing and other emerging forms of scholarly communication to underpin individual or institutional strategic planning and action.

The workshop will contain four modules focused on (a.) new methods of scholarly publishing and communication, (b.) copyright and intellectual property, (c.) economics, and (d.) open access and openness as a principle. Through a combination of both presentations and interactive learning opportunities, participants will experience a basic 101 course in scholarly communication issues.

This session is specifically targeted toward librarians who are new to scholarly communication issues and want to improve their foundational understandings. This session could also be considered a bridge course toward more advanced opportunities such as the ACRL/ARL Scholarly Communication Institute offered regionally and nationally. Unlike the Institute and perhaps other opportunities, this workshop will cover basic definitions and return to the nuts and bolts of scholarly communication issues.

23 In addition, presenters will focus on the tools of the trade: elements such as the ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit and the Create Change website developed by ARL and SPARC with support from ACRL, but also tools such as:  OpenDOAR, the directory of open access repositories  DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals  RoMEO, with publisher's copyright and archiving policies  JULIET, which covers research funders' archiving mandates and guidelines  SPARC resources and more.

Participants will leave with a basic but broad understanding of the issues that are involved in scholarly communication. They will be better able to articulate the issues to others and leave with a host of resources to further their knowledge and understanding. Much time will be devoted to question and answer periods, and participants will be able to use active learning techniques to solidify their new knowledge.

Learning outcomes: After participating, attendees will:

 Understand scholarly communication as a system to manage the results of research and scholarly inquiry and be able to describe system characteristics, including academic libraries and other major stakeholders and stakeholder interests, major types and sources of current stress and evolution, and key indicators of size, complexity, and rates of change;  Enumerate new modes and models of scholarly communication; business models; research & social interaction models (from blogs, curated websites, etc), and peer review models and examples of the ways in which academic libraries have or can initiate or support those models;  Understand the role of copyright and the U.S. copyright legal framework in the historic development of scholarly communication and as an enabler or impediment to change;  Understand the dysfunctional economics – beyond the serials crisis – underlying scholarly communication and the ways in which academic libraries play a role in those economies.  Identify “open access” as a principle and a reform movement, relating it to “public access” and the larger philosophical, technological, and social tenets of openness in higher education (e.g. open data, open source, open education);  Be able to select and cite key principles, facts, and messages relevant to current or nascent scholarly communication plans and programs in their institutions, e.g. as preparation for library staff or faculty outreach, to contextualize collection development decisions, to prepare for attendance at the ARL-ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute.

Funding: None

AV Equipment/Room Set-up:

Roundtables with chairs around the tables (if possible)

24 One microphone/podium and projector (for laptop/PowerPoint) set up

FOR OUR PURPOSES OUTLINE

Speaker #1: 20 minutes

Topic: opening short introduction: the systems perspective of scholarly communication

Learning objective: Understand scholarly communication as a system to manage the results of research and scholarly inquiry and be able to describe system characteristics, including academic libraries and other major stakeholders and stakeholder interests, major types and sources of current stress and evolution, and key indicators of size, complexity, and rates of change;

Suggested tool: ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit; Create Change website

Topic: Economics 20 minutes

Learning objective: Understand the dysfunctional economics – beyond the serials crisis - underlying scholarly communication and the ways in which academic libraries play a role in those economies.

Notes: Leave time for Q&A

Suggested tool: 1 – 2 good websites?

Speaker #2: 45 minutes

Topic: Open access & openness as a principle

Learning objective: Identify “open access” as a principle and a reform movement, relating it to “public access” and the larger philosophical, technological, and social tenets of openness in higher education (e.g. open data, open source, open education); cover recent developments by research funders to mandate or offer guidelines to promote self-archiving of research (e.g. NIH, European Research Council)

Notes: Leave time for Q&A or do some short activity (e.g. solicit ideas from the audience; pop quiz)

Suggested tool: RoMEO, JULIET

25 26 Speaker #3: 45 minutes

Topic: copyright and intellectual property

Learning objective: Understand the role of copyright and the U.S. copyright legal framework in the historic development of scholarly communication and as an enabler or impediment to change.

Notes: Leave time for Q&A or do some short activity

Suggested tools: Copyright Advisory Network? (http://www.librarycopyright.net)

Speaker #4: 20 minutes

Topic: new modes and models

Learning objective: Enumerate new modes and models of scholarly communication; business models; research & social interaction models (from blogs, curated websites, etc), and peer review models and examples of the ways in which academic libraries have or can initiate or support those models.

Notes: Leave time for Q&A or do some short activity (e.g. solicit ideas from the audience; pop quiz)

Suggested tools: OpenDOAR; DOAJ; SPARC website

Topic: Conclusion 20 minutes

Learning objective: Be able to select and cite key principles, facts, and messages relevant to current or nascent scholarly communication plans and programs in their institutions, e.g. as preparation for library staff or faculty outreach, to contextualize collection development decisions, to prepare for attendance at the ARL-ACRL Scholarly Communication Institute.

Notes: Leave time for Q&A or do some short activity (e.g. solicit ideas from the audience; pop quiz)

Guidelines for Speakers:  Must attend ACRL National (Seattle, March 12 – 15, 2009)  Present material at a basic 101 level, giving definitions and background. Be careful to aim content at a basic level and resist the urge or the impetus to address more complex issues, even if it's your special area of interest. Encourage questions, but be careful to answer thoroughly and at a level that everyone can understand.

27  Ensure that if participants are more experienced in the issues, that their questions and concerns don't dominate the session.  Combine some interactive time: activities or plenty of time for Q & A throughout the time period  Use the "tools-of-the-trade" during the presentation; give participants one or two useful tools (e.g. OpenDOAR, DOAJ, ACRL Schol Comm Toolkit, RoMEO, JULIET, etc.) to walk away with.  Why is this important to libraries? Explain in practical terms.  Think about whether you could adapt this material for a virtual Webcast or other online offering through ACRL  Collaborate on the curriculum with ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee (or sub- group) members. Share curricular material with at least a month ahead of time to solicit feedback/ideas for changes or additions.  Here's the description of a "workshop" at ACRL: Workshops are four-hour sessions that provide three contact hours of active and in depth learning and one mandatory one hour break to visit the poster sessions and exhibits. Participants will engage an issue, learn a new skill, or develop an action plan or other activity where hands-on learning is integral. Proposals will be selected for the conference based on timeliness of the topic and the degree of active learning. Proposals should allow for significant involvement and contribution to the learning process from the participants. The learning experience should be co-creative and encourage the participants to take risks, question assumptions and fully engage in the learning process. Sessions will be limited to 60 participants in order to provide a meaningful environment for active learning.

28 Appendix 3: Scholarly Communications 101 Presenter Selection and Interview process documents

Presenter, ACRL Scholarly Communication 101 workshop – application rating document:

Name of Candidate:

Rating scale: 0= No qualifications; 1=Marginal qualifications; 2=Meets qualifications; 3=Exceeds qualifications

Required Designated role in SC in library: ______(Rating) Comments:

Teaching experience: ______(Rating) Comments:

Experience with instructional design: ______(Rating) Comments:

Experience with meeting facilitation: ______(Rating) Comments:

Collaborative planning skills: ______(Rating) Comments:

Available to attend two road shows: ______(Yes/No)

Strongly Preferred Participation in SC 101 Workshop:______(Yes/No)

Available to attend retreat:______(Yes/No)

29 Interview questions for SC101 workshop presenter candidates

1. Why are you interested in serving as a presenter for the ACRL SC 101 workshop? How does this opportunity fit into your career goals?

2. What knowledge and skills can you bring and professional experience has prepared you to be an ACRL SC 101 presenter? (May need some follow up questions if candidate does not address all/most requirements of the position)

3. What is the most critical open access development that you are aware of? What are the implications of this development for libraries and their institutions?

4. What challenges do you see for an institutional repository to support research?

5. What do you consider are the most important intellectual property and copyright issues for someone who is coordinating a scholarly communications program?

6. Describe a situation where you had to work with a group that wasn’t functioning as a team. First describe the situation and then tell us what you did to try to move the group to a team. What was the outcome?

7. Is there anything you wish to add that has not been covered?

8. Do you have any questions for us?

30 Reference check questions for SC101 workshop presenter candidates

1. How do you know the applicant? What is your working relationship to the applicant?

2. How would you describe the quality of the applicant’s work?

3. Rate the candidate’s ability and effectiveness in the following areas:

Knowledge of scholarly communication issues

Instruction/presentation skills

Instructional design

Meeting facilitation

Collaborative planning skills

4. Is there anything you wish to add about the applicant that has not been covered?

31