• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

RBMS 2010 Evaluation Answers to Open-ended Questions

How would you describe your primary professional affiliation or aspiration?  vendor  Aspiring special collections librarian  MLIS student  I am currently a student, but I am interested in working in special collections.  Library school student: future special collections librarian or curator.  Vendor  academic librarian  Director, private bibliophile society  graduate student (PhD)  Cataloger with responsibility for the Rare Materials Collection  Librarian and Archivist  Grants and research agency work  Academic librarian  Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts

How would you describe your primary professional role or function?  Student  vendor  I don't have a professional position yet.  Responsible for description, management, user services in all forms; curatorial  sales  Most of the above  Solo librarian, so a little bit of everything  ALL THOSE!  general librarian  General Librarian  community organized and facilitator for community collaboration  I currently coordinate an undergraduate research program.  Digitization Specialist  all-purpose special collections librarian/archivist  Student  Student: aspiring curator / special collections reference/public services librarian  Student! Experience as a student and paraprofessional cataloger  Selector and Collections Manager  instruction  Training and Custom Services  Library School administrator / p/t academic reference librarian  Administrator and Curator  Volunteer  Sole proprietor, so a little of most roles  at present, Independent Scholar  Program Officer  retired  I do everything in a one person History of Medicine Library.  graduate student with part-time library job  preservation, jane-of-all-trades  Catchall: administrative, curatorial, exhibition coordination, cataloging oversight.  Mix of manager and curator  Unemployed  Graduate Student  a little bit of all of the above  bibliographer and liaison to faculty  museum curator and educator  public service/reference, instruction & collection curator  Administrator, Exhibition coordinator, reference librarian, supervisor, ... Basically a one-person shop  Teacher in library school  recent MSLIS graduate  Program Officer  Student--I work in Special Collections and volunteer at an Archives  Public outreach specialist for general and special collections  Little bit of everything.  Digital Archivist  book dealer

How did you learn about this Preconference? If you selected other or email address, please specify which source notified you about the conference.  exlibris  rbms  Ex-Libris  Exlibris, RBMS, SAA? (can't remember all the places I saw it)  rmbs listserv  RBMS-L, EXLIBRIS  RBMS listserve; exlibris listserv  EXLIBRIS  RBMS  At end of last year's conference; ALA RBMS listserv  RBMS-L  RBMS-L, ExLibris  On local arrangements committee  rbmslist; exlibris  Ex-Libris, RBMS  I was assigned to attend  ExLibris  It's, um, ANNUAL.  RBMS; Exlibris; DCRM-L  from discussion at lat year's meeting  I always attend  the RBMS listserv  Ex-Libris, DCRM-L  Exlibris  Member of PACSCL  RBMS  Ex-Libris  RBMS list posted announcements and registration info  Ex-Libris  RBMS List  PACSCL  RBMS committee member; ExLibris, RBMS-L  member of PACSCL  EX LIBRIS  Ex-Libris  Ex-Libris  ELibris; LisRarebooks  Ex-Libris, RBMS discussion list  RBMS  exlibris  RBMS and ExLibris lists  Exlibris  RBMS  Ex-Libris  ex-libris  exlibris, rbms  exlibris and/or sharp  RBMS list  Discussed in PACSCL  [email protected]  ABAA, ExLibris  RBMS listserv  exlibris; rbms  RBMS list  exlibris, rbms  Ex-Libris listserv  ExLibris - L  Ex Libris and/or RBMS  rbms listserv  Osmosis  Exlibris  rbms  rbms  RBMS and ExLibris list-servs  I go every year  rbms, ex-libris  ExLibris  EX-Libris, RBMS  RBMS  Exlibris-L  Ever since attending 3 years ago, I plan to attend every year I can.  rbms listserve  RBMS and EXLIBRIS email lists.  rbms  RBMS list  SHARP-L and EXLIBRIS-L and RBMS-L  ARLIS  EX-Libris  All of the above -- I just know it's coming  Helped with organization  DCRM-L, acrl/ala  rbms, exlibris  RBMS  RBMS list, EXLIBRIS  Ex-Libris  RBMS  exlibris  RBMS list-serve  Ex-Libris  I was on the Program Committee  RBMS and Exlibris  RBMS list

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions regarding the Bookseller’s Showcase?  It seemed too small of a space. I found it difficult to maneuver and network with drinks and food around all of the rare books.  I find it a little awkward having the opening reception in the same space as the Bookseller's Showcase. There is less space to mingle and move around. I thought it was also felt restrictive in Charlottesville as well.  I was a little concerned about having the bar and hors d'oeuvres in the same crowded room as the showcase.  I come late in the day for the show case, just before the reception. I think the reception combined with the showcase sets a great tone to launch the event. I would hope tho' that it is as rewarding for the booksellers.  Is it possible to schedule it for multiple days?  My institution does not actively collect rare books so I am less interested than most in the Showcase.  It is hard to see anything when there are 400 plus people in the same soom as the Booksellers' Showcase.  I met a dealer there we'd not dealt with in the past, so thank you! It's also a great time to meet dealers in person that our library has bought from over the years. I think the dealer showcase is a great element.  It needs to be clearer that this is a ONE DAY event.  A larger, less crowded space would be nice.  It was nerve-wracking seeing the reception food so close to all the rare books. I ended up not eating or drinking anything at the reception "just in case" (but then, I am quite paranoid)  I consider this the #1 best part of the whole conference. It is so important and satisfying to begin the week with the books!  Many conference attendees arrive on the evening of the bookseller showcase. Consequently, the booksellers do not reach as large an audience as they might have been expecting. Some booksellers with whom I spoke expressed puzzlement at why so many more people arrived toward the end of the showcase and not earlier in the day. It might be useful if the bookseller showcase could have a separate room (not always possible) so they could remain set up at least through the first full day of the conference. They would likely get more business and have more opportunity for discussion.  It was very crowded and I was concerned about the merchandise in such close proximity to food and drink.  I found the Showcase -- and the participation of several of the book dealers throughout the pre-conference -- to be of significant value.  I didn't realize it would only be there the one day, so I didn't get to see everything.  Signage (indicating which dealer you were looking at) could have been more prominent, and it would have been very helpful if the signs also indicated the dealers' specialties.  Expand to include more vendors of archive management systems, digitization services, digital preservation systems and vendors, etc.  It's extremely useful to make contacts and also helpful in educating new attendees about interaction with the trade. I wish I'd had more time to browse. I met one bookseller for the first time, and saw old friends.  It was an interesting showcase, but the reception made me a little nervous, with the close proximity of food and drink to the books and other materials.  All the booksellers in attendance were very friendly and approachable, and it was interesting to see the variety of materials on display.  The booksellers displayed the collections that they were strong in. And a few were very friendly and I was able to share my library's collecting needs. Some were aloof.... probably tired? Sometimes the display was an eclectic mix and it was difficult to get a sense of the topics or areas that the booksellers usually stock. They should do a write-up and there should be prominent displays of each of the booksellers name.  There is never enough time to see/visit all of the booksellers in addition to greeting friends and colleagues I might not have seen for a year or more. Perhaps limiting the number of sellers? I do understand that there was a lottery this year because of the demand; so that is limiting the numbers in a way....  I thought it was a quite successful mixture of bookseller materials and socializing and would love to see it continued.  If the booksellers are OK with food and drink, fine, but it does make me uneasy to have the opening reception right there  The booksellers' showcase is an excellent opportunity for new special collections librarians to interact with members of the trade, particularly if they have never attended a book fair. I was very pleased to see a number of booksellers also attend the conference.  The more sellers the better!  I heard a lot of grousing from the booksellers that too few librarians paid attention, but personally I enjoyed it very much and did buy some books.  It would be nice if it were available throughout the conference. Perhaps include some scanning/DL tech people as well  Not enough time for booksellers or participants... one day is ridiculous.  With limited travel budgets, my ability to arrive in time to take full advantage of the showcase is curtailed. Although I enjoy seeing the dealers and wares, since I don't have acquisition responsibilities, it is not a must.  Since it functions as an opening reception as well as Bookseller's Showcase, a larger space would be esirable.  I am nervous with my wine and food so close to the booksellers' booths.  Believe it could 'open' at noon without adversely affecting the event.  It is helpful for those traveling if the showcase can go as late as possible, to allow late arrivals to see the books. I know that some dealers were unhappy that food and wine was introduced so close to the materials. Perhaps start the opening reception a bit later?  Do not mix the food with the books.  I only wish I could have had more time to spend at this event. I was involved in a full day workshop and with evening activities, I only had a few moments to spare. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to spend much more time at the showcase, and talking with dealers.  I feel it should not conflict with a social event.  wonder if it's worthwhile to the sellers  I would be nervous having food and drink around my collections, but I feel most people are responsible.  It keeps getting bigger and better. The booksellers with whom I've spoken love having the opportunity.  Hold the following reception apart from (perhaps adjacent to) the booksellers' displays. Holding the reception in the same place disrespects the dangers that food and drink present to the displays.  I like mixing the food and conversation with the stock, even though I suspect it bothers many of my colleagues.  place registration desk OUTSIDE booksellers' showcase, so that all who enter have a badge already (security reasons)  So nice!  Wasn't it on Tuesday? My plane was late, so I missed it.  It's not a significant part of my conference experience.  My concern, as well as that of some of the booksellers that I spoke with, was that the reception food/drink was in the same room as the booksellers' materials. Hopefully, nothing was spilled on any dealer table.  Some of the dealers were more dealers for collectors than institutions  If possible have in a slightly larger room?  more booksellers, more space to move around and look  a nice feature  It was spectacular. Specialists in medical history in the next showcase would be a plus for me and my institution.  Better signage for each individual seller would be appreciated  An announcement about New Member event would be useful - I lost track of time, and couldn't get a seat when I arrived!  Would have liked to attend but couldn't be at the conference until later in the week. Could it be held for more than one day?  I am always startled that the opening reception is held in the same space as the Booksellers' Showcase! We spend so much time trying to educate our users/administrators about the reasons to keep food and drink away from books because of the possibilities of accidental damage, and then we violate all of our own principles at that reception. We could just as easily have accidents ourselves.  Opening reception among dealers' booths was crowded and awkward.  Great to see over 35 booksellers there, and interest from many more. This is a great new tradition and should be continued!  Nice to get to know people and their holdings, but my library budget and procedures preclude purchasing from these booksellers.  Holding the reception in the showcase is an excellent thing and should be continued.  should have lasted more than one day - i didn't have enough time to visit all i wanted to visit  I really liked the arrangement of the sellers and the opening reception.  I enjoy the showcase as a chance to meet people and network. I didn't have much time to look at the books though.  It might be helpful to have it last more than one day, or at least with less conflicts. I arrived in the afternoon and spent the entire afternoon on a tour before coming back to the hotel for the orientation and welcome reception. The Booksellers' Showcase being in the same room as the reception was a bit worrisome (I heard several people remark that they felt uncomfortable loitering about the books with food and drinks) as well as too crowded (it was difficult to maneuver and not at all conducive to browsing). I think it would be better if the showcase was in an adjacent room to the reception, so that people could wander in and out freely without worrying about spilling or tripping over people.  Do not mix food and books --- bad combination  It is a terrific way to bring dealers and librarians together in an informal setting with the rare books and other historical materials.  Sorry to have missed it. I heard it was good.  Please continue to have the Booksellers' Showcase. It is a wonderful opportunity for librarians and booksellers to meet.  Larger signs for each seller with some indication of their speciality.  This year's bookseller's showcase had a particularly wide selection of materials. I would like to see this trend continue, as there is a broad range of collecting interests within RBMS members.  It was a a bit crowded--made navigating and taking notes challenging. Do you have suggestions for alternative program formats? Or comments on the existing program format?  Things were very well organized. The programming was great. This is one of the better conferences that I've been to.  Plenaries first thing in the a.m., on each day is preferable.  I liked the format of the program this year, it was nice to have a little free time Thursday afternoon. I found I did not miss the plenaries and think all the plenaries were quite good, not something I can say about other RBMS Preconferences.  I really liked the format of this year's conference - fewer plenaries, more opportunities to attend seminars, inclusion of discussion groups and case studies - very good mix, i thought  The whole experience is usally overwhelming but in a good way- I really wouldn't change a thing  Please keep and/or increase the amount of plenary sessions featuring non-librarian academics and scholars, etc. I find them to be very worthwhile and informative.  Shorter, fewer plenaries and more seminars, discussion groups, workshops, case studies, and tours(!) even.  I definitely support the inclusion of case study sessions and discussion sessions.  The more seminars the better--that is the real reason I attend, and the most valuable part of the preconference. The plenaries are often tangentially related--seminars are more targeted and influence my actions in the intervening year far more. More seminars, not fewer!  I wanted to attend more than one discussion group, but they were all at the same time!  The success of the discussion section format seems to depend on the skills of the moderators and the moderators of the session I attended (on branding) did an excellent job.  This year's conference achieved the right balance of plenary sessions and seminars. I would prefer that seminar blocks consist of only two per time block (instead of three); too often, I had to pick between two or more seminar sessions occurring simultaneously.  I got to spend much less time than usual, this year, in sessions. I think I should abstain from voting!  I really like the existing format. However, an alternative might be to offer various tracks, with sequential seminars, case studies, and discussion groups oriented toward technical services, public services, and management, for example.  I am wondering if, because travel is so tight and more people attend the preconference than ALA, if we shouldn't move ALL discussion sessions to the preconference. They have been great at ALA for the last ten years, but I think the audience is shifting and I do not think we need to have discussion sessions at BOTH. That could open up less conflicts at ALA for the business meetings, too.  Perhaps pare down the preconference by one day; since I was paying for all costs myself, I could only afford to attend one day of the preconference. Another suggestion would be to podcast parts or all of the preconference, so that RBMS members who can't afford to attend at all, or cannot attend the entire preconference, would still be able to attend and/or participate online.  Would be nice to schedule so that one could attend more than one case study or more than one discussion session.  While the pragmatic emphasis of many of the sessions (specifically the case studies and discussion groups) was valuable, a space for more scholarly presentations would also be appealing (and would provide variety).  Tours took up too much of the day on Thursday and really made the conference feel disconnected  It was the best program in memory.  I really enjoyed the discussion groups and I wish that there had been more (or that they hadn't been concurrent) so that I might have attended more than one.  The current format is good. However I would have liked to attend more than one workshop as they were relevant to my work but couldn't because they were parallel sessions. Perhaps particpants can have the option to attend more than one workshop if the workshops are repeated at another time slot.  The Donors discussion group did not function as a discussion group. The room was set up for a Q&A, that is how the discussion leaders treated it. We were supposed to ask them questions for their (admittedly expert) opinions. That is fine if it is called a Q&A, but it was advertised as a discussion.  Too few substantive plenaries. the one on Friday about the painting was fascinating and I learned alot about the topic. Most of the others were essentially case studies or seminars. In fact, although the discussion group I attended was less structured than the other sessions,the seminars, case studies, discussion groups,and plenaries all ressembled each other.For the most part, the various types of sessions were simply case studies, some more related than others. I did gain quite alot from listening and participating, but did wish for less homogeneity in "feel" of the sessions. I would prefer more visionary, "meaty" if you will, plenaries. I do think that three plenaries is adequate if they address the theme in a serious, substantive manner.  More case studies/discussion groups/seminars relating to reference!  I would provide more structure to the discussion sessions. It would be nice to have the discussion groups break off into smaller groups (3-7 people) with a series of questions to answer and then rejoin a larger discussion afterwards.  Try not to overload the programs with speakers. In some cases they did not have much time to develop topics. Otherwise it was great!  It is hard to see the distinction between the existing formats.  The new ratio of seminars to plenary sessions was highly successful.  Although we had a good discussion at the one discussion session I attended (on progressive bibliography), there were a great many people, and inevitably, most people were not comfortable giving their opinions in such a crowd. Perhaps break up each discussion session into smaller groups, rather than have a crowd of 200 trying to engage in a single discussion.  While discussion groups seem like a great concept, I found them to be, in reality, a waste of time. And this was not from lack of commitment or effort on the part of the discussion leaders or participants. A panel session with plenty of opportunity for audience participation is a better format.  I really loved the case studies, seminars, and discussion groups.  Make the plenary sessions keynote worthy. They are not big seminars. No need to to have big panels when well chosen, well guided speakers can frame the topic at a conceptual and philosophical level.  As this was my first experience at the preconference I found the existing format to offer quite a variety of seminars, case studies and discussion sessions. I found the plenary sessions to be extraordinarily good and well suited to the theme.  I really enjoyed and was benefited by the discussion group. More of these would be wonderful!  Seminars have a habit of degenerating into case studies, which I usually find to be a big waste of time. They should be more focused on extracting lessons. A better formula would be more speakers, shorter papers, and more "take-aways."  Pecha kucha?  Whether I'm interested or not depends on the topic.  I like the pecha kucha (sp?) idea that was floating about. Brief presentations on current projects.  These questions about whether things addressed the theme aren't really important to me -- what matters to me is whether or not they were good sessions -- maybe you'll be asking about that later in the survey.  Discussion groups need to be more structured and managed.  I liked the current mixture of seminars, case studies and discussion groups. There was only one seminar where there did not seem to be enough time for questions (Seminar G: Bridging the Gap). I think there was so much for each speaker to say that it could have gone on for another hour or so. This would be a great discussion for a future pre-Conference.  Publish at least a synopsis of ALL presentations, papers, etc online (in ADDITION TO RBM issue of select papers)  I would like to see a slightly different discussion format. I would like to break in to small groups with a facilitator in each to ask questions to get started and go around a small circle with time for everyone to comment for one minute. Then perhaps, one person from the group could give a summary of answers to questions to the larger group.  I was very impressed with the level of excitement and participation in the discussion group. I would have loved to have more!  Do not find discussion sessions productive - they always become a barely relevant anecdotal free-for-all that is usually dominated by 2-3 enthusiastic speakers. Structured sessions are much more effective.  Cutting down slightly on the number of plenaries is a good thing, I think, and allowed more varied programming in their slots. A few very good plenaries is always better than many so-so ones.  With the pre-conference planned so well in advance, might it be useful to set aside some time to experiment in an unconference format?  Discussion groups were a great format. It would be nice to see more of these. Seminars and case studies were not noticeably different, although I think that the concept of a "case study"-based seminar session helps to ensure that speakers teach something specific.  I found the discussion group to be too large, which made it difficult to hear people and also to participate.  The anchors for discussion groups need some tips on how to run these sessions. They need to remind people to SPEAK LOUDLY, to have some prepared discussion questions (open ended), and to end with a summary, action items, or "lessons" learned. Some just petered out. Also every speaker should identify him/herself so that the conversations don't seem like "in group" discussions among old friends.  A good mix of formats this year.  I really liked the discussion group--could there have been a few more at that time slot so there were fewer people in each?  Though I've answered "Just Right" to question regarding number of various types of sessions -- we could shorten the entire preconference by one day, in situations when a shorter preconference would make it easier or less expensive for hosts, depending on venue (such as venues with fewer institutions to share Local Arrangements duties, e.g. San Diego?).  Excellent mix, number, and quality of programs.  This conference was the most punctual I have attended. The moderators kept the speakers on schedule, allowing for discussion and questions.  I thought the case studies worked well. I would like to see more sessions in this format. A couple of the plenary sessions simply failed to inspire or provoke any new thinking -- which is what I think a plenary session should be for.  Some sessions where the discussion focus on specific rare book and manuscript collections and how they were used collaborative, creatively, &c. I was sorry there wasn't more intellectual content. This conference felt very much as though it was oriented toward librarians and cataloguers, and to access rather than to intellectual content and creative use of specific collections.

While attending this conference I stayed at the following hotel/lodging facility:  another hotel  Alexander Inn  Rodeway Inn Center City  At a friend's house  Club Quarters  With a friend who lives in downtown Philly  I live in Philadelphia  Latham hotel & commuted  I live in Philadelphia  Club Quarters  Stayed with friends in Philadelphia  commuted from home  I am local.....  I'm local.  Latham Hotel  Alexander Inn  the home of my parents  I was a day-tripper; since I live in Delaware, I took the train to Philadelphia.  with family member in private home  Home.  Holidasy Inn Stadium -- called to late to get a room in the above  Commuted from home  local  commuted from home  Local B&B  Alexander Inn (Spruce & 12th)  With a friend in West Philly.  Rodeway Inn  Family residence  b&b  Loew's Hotel  Microtel at the airport; I wish I had not been so cheap!  Drive from home  Alexander Inn  friend  cheapter hotel about a mile away, not a good idea  home  local - lived at home  Rented a private apartment  Home  home (I live in Philadelphia)  Family  Outside of town with friends.  CLub Quarters  local attendee  Commuted from home  B&B in Phila.  I am a Philadelphia area local.  Friends' house  Alexander Inn  home  The Independent Hotel  Local homestay  club quarters hotel  Independent Hotel  I live locally.  hotel  Alexander Inn  Travelodge  commuter  friend's  Alexander Inn, a few blocks away from the main hotel  Apple Hostel of Philadelphia  Private home  winsor suites  commuted  Alexander Inn  Home  Holiday Inn Stadium  Inn at Penn  With relatives.

Did you personally interact with any scholarship winners during the preconference?  Light discussion with one scholarship winner at a reception  Interested and appreciative of the opportunity to attend  Always enjoy meeting new attendees -- and seeing them return! Scholarship program continues to bring benefits to awardees and the section as a whole.  I made some good connections, and it was nice to know I wasn't the only newbie!  As a scholarship winner myself, the opportunities to interact with other scholarship winners at the Scholarship Winner Breakfast and the First Time Attendee dinner was invaluable.  She didn't seem like she wanted to be there that much, and wasn't particularly interested in special collections librarianship. Made me wish I was eligible for scholarships!  They were very excited to be there and were very engaged in the discussions at the conference.  Very bright group of winners.  Inspiring motivated group of future colleagues.  Always a pleasure.  I missed the breakfast, so found the other scholarship winners to be kind of clique-ish. Only one other winner spoke to me and I found the others to be unapproachable. They seemed nice enough though, just clique-ish.  I had some nice brief conversations with scholarship winners, it is exciting to see so many new young people interested in special collections  Glad to have the Scholarship and First-Time-Attendee ribbons!  bright and topic interested  This program is one of the most important activities of the Section. I love the scholarship people.  Actually, I didn't notice who was a winner until late in the conf.  I was a scholarship winner and enjoyed talking to and comparing notes with other winners.  It's nice to meet people so enthusiastic. But conversation revolves too often about the fact they tend to be on the job market.  I was one, and I enjoyed speaking with my fellow winners!  I am a scholarship winner. Thank you!  Inquiries about their interests and how they reacted to the Conference  Eager, young, very interested and dedicated to the field.  They were very grateful, and I'm glad RBMS provides these scholarships for new members who ordinarily would not be able to attend.  Very glad to see so many new faces, and to know that the Scholarship Program continues to bring new people to RBMS  I found it energizing.  they were all lovely and personable!  Good to see so many engaged colleagues  The ones that I talked to were standing in a clump with each other. We all need to act as buddies and introduce them around.  They seemed really pleased with the preconference and grateful for the scholarship  Well deserved.  All the other scholarship winners were quite pleasant.  I was pleased to see that there was a diverse selection of winners across the age spectrum . As a scholarship winner myself, I immensely enjoyed the scholarship breakfast where I had an opportunity to meet and interact with other winners. I stayed in contact with a few of them over the course of the preconference and I hope to maintain contact with them.  The scholarship program does an excellent job of bringing in enthusiastic and skilled new professionals.  Largely positive; my interaction was totally happenstance.  encouraging  Perhaps a small discussion group around scholarship winners and/or new members.  Glad to meet a young up-and-comer.  Effective in integrating the membership.  Just to say hello and welcome.  I enjoy meeting any new attendees, regardless of scholarship status.  Mostly just chatting  they were smart, energetic, and very interested in the profession  Very interesting bright young people. I hope to keep in touch and see them at future preconferences.  Just friendly conversation and welcoming them.  Not really in depth conversation; just light conversation at tail end or prior to a plenary session  Had two pleasant dinners with different winners. A great experience.  Great to meet many first time attendess and show them the ropes!  Always nice to see younger generations interested in the profession  They need "minders" to make introductions for them.  The scholarship winners were collegial and worthwhile.  All of the people I met who happened to have the scholarship ribbon on their badge were quite nice, but I did not seek out scholarship winners in particular any more than other attendees.  Beneficial: interesting to hear about goals and aspirations of people coming into the field.  very positive  It was great to have so many there. And I heard from some of them that they found the conference very useful.  I was a scholarship winner  Really appreciated the scholarship breakfast as a way to meet people!  Just tried to make them feel welcome  They were very young and very eager.  Always a pleasure to meet new and professionals and MLS students!  As a past winner, it was great to meet the burgeoning professionals!  I had a buddy who was a scholarship winner, and she was great!

What themes would you recommend for the future RBMS conferences?  I'm not sure.  Scenario planning and strategic planning for special collections  Even though this was done in LA a couple of years ago, I wonder if it's time to revisit digital collections?  Outreach in special collections and archives, especially to traditionally underrepresented audiences. Working to make special collections relevant to everyone.  Use of Technology, especially with regard to evaluation of new technologies, among the Rare Book & Manuscript Community  Building new types of research collections -- including documentation of ethnic communities and electronic archives  More focus on ephemera, focus on born digital, focus on marketing collections, focus on donor relations  Would it ever be possible to partner with SAA as RBMS did with the Museum Studies group at the Austin Preconference in 2006? What about having a joint conference with the American Historical Association or the Modern Langauge Association? It could lead to some very interesting discussions and conference programs. I know AHA and MLA meet in January, but perhaps there could still be a way to partner with those organizations in the future on conference themes of mutual interest.  Not a theme but a seminar idea: circulation of rare materials, including systems used (online and manual) as well as ILL, registration policy and procedures of readers, etc. The full gamut.  I liked the idea of keeping with threatening themes/titles. It should encourage higher attendance rates.  Same as above  Research and use in the 21th century -- what does it look like--blending digital and primary resources. Always welcome more on collaboration and building affinity groups.  Marketing and Outreach, Instruction and Teaching with Special Collections Materials, something about advances profession-wide over the last ten years, reconsiderations of traditional values within the profession, looking at newer or mid-career contributors to the profession  Teaching with Special Collections materials  Perhaps addressing the divide that exists between member institutions, particularly with regard to funding, (but not limited to this). A quick for instance, clearly there are many repositories doing some pretty amazing things with digitizing, etc., and yet, there the "have nots" that are still struggling to gain intellectual control over their holdings... One aspect might be to examine responsibilities, if any, of the "haves" to the "have nots"  Access, in light of all the digital surrogates Digitization and esp. preservation of digital assets  Matter in the Ether (j/k): special collections in increasingly digital environments  Any that celebrate, consider, and advocate for the actual RBs and Ms.  Has there been a preconference with outreach as the main theme?  These may be too narrow, but I would appreciate conferences geared toward public services, outreach, and assessment.  I'd like to see topical questions again - specific materials and genres.  Since this was my first RBMS conference, I'm not really sure. But given my background as a reference/instruction librarian and my current work in digitization, I would suggest perhaps even more discussion groups and seminars about collaborations between special collections/archives and other college and university groups (students, departments, etc.), as well as donors and community partners. Anything involving outreach (instruction, marketing, creating digital collections) always captures my interest  I don't really know enough yet to say.  I don't have enough history with RBMS at this point to make intelligent suggestions.  a session on the impact of RDA on special collections cataloging....  In the face of mass digitization, a conference focused on the importance and revelance of the physical book would be most welcome. I need solid arguments to take to my IT-loving Dean that it is important to keep collecting books. Or, alternatively, a conference that will convince me that it's O.K. to stop!  Digital everything  Where are we going/ Where have we been?  Public Services (addressing the changing needs and expectations of 21st century Special Collections users)  Evaluation of effect of digital projects on research library missions and on the ways researchers use research libraries. Not "how-to" sessions or exhortaions to digitize.  Managing special collections with declining budgets and increasing presence of digital information, Managing rare materials collections, Increasing collections size and decreasing space, What is rare?  Better integration of special collections into the academic libraries of which many of them are a part., Focus on users.  Maybe something on Access. It's at the root of everything we do, and it would provide ample opportunity to talk about uncovering hidden collections, next-generation catalogs, e-rare book repositories, etc.  I think we're about due for another materials-based preconference: how about one on archives and manuscripts (!)?  I think we're about due for another materials-based preconference: how about one on archives and manuscripts (!)?  An expanded version of the "Books in Hard Times" one-day conference held at the Grolier Club in Sept 2009. The conference featured collectors and members of the trade in addition to rare book librarians.  Personal career development, including becoming a consultant, alternative or second (third?) careers.  Digitization  serials  I think we should revisit the museum, libraries and archives theme. It has been 5 yrs. Any progress made in that area since that wonderful conference?  promoting/marketing collections  Preservation workshops; binding workshops; more practical offerings.  Special no more? -- The mainstreaming of special collections in the digital era  I'd like to see a focus on teaching using special collections. It was definitely touched on at this conference, but I'd like to learn more.  Collaboration seemed rather old hat to me, but perhaps I am just not aware of its novelty for others. I think RBMS should focus on outreach and exhibitions, working with communities not just institutional constituencies.  Security. Attracting readers and scholars to special collections. Exhibitions.  Snazzier title obviously needed, but...what about, Special Collections service to the general public (k-12, community members, etc). Do we have a responsibility to provide service? If we do, how can we arrange to do so given staff and time constraints? What kinds of education and outreach efforts are various institutions engaging in?  donor relations, administration, collection development in the face of digital collections, digital curation  Building from within: both from the vantage point of building collections through examination of the circulating collections as our idea of 'rare" and 'value" shifts over time, and from the employee perspective, building institutional support in these tough economic times for employee development and advancement.  Security, security, security!  What do we love about our collections. Particulars!  I personally would like to see panels and/or participants featuring more topics on underrepresented communities and radical collecting motivations. Specifically political archives, pop culture and contemporary collecting, non-traditional methodologies. I might like to hear from institutions that function solely on grants and self-support.  Assessing Special Collections.  Digitized and born digital materials; non-traditional special collections materials (comic books, science fiction, etc. -- sometimes we're too focused on print history in early modern Europe); traditional cultural expressions, etc.  I heard that the idea for next year would be assessment -- I would love to have seminars/discussion groups on this. However I would also still like to hear more about case studies on collaboration, esp. with regard to teaching/outreach with spec coll.  literary manuscripts  Something along the lines of the relevance of paper/vellum documents in a digital world.  new histories of the book and integrating into new and emerging curriculum/research (revisit the Indiana preconf theme)  Behind the scenes: Technical Services and Special Collections  Children's Books and related materials Drama and Rare Books  Documenting the history of women and other minorities in special collections; study centers vs. local collecting  The History of the Profession Conservation issues  Caring for collections  As someone who works primarily with the processing and description of manuscript collections, I am glad that RBMS has become more welcoming to people like me.  Digital Humanities and Special Collections - Novel Interactions with technology would like to see a joint meeting (perhaps extended pre-conference) with a humanities group that would benefit from seeing Special Collection librarians and their concerns.  rare books place in special collections  Conservation/preservation  I think it may be helpful to have a part of a conference devoted to the implications of the new cataloging code, RDA, on special collections description and access.  Imagined Futures: Preparing for our digital future and preserving our printed and manuscript past.  Outreach -- how to and how not to. Teaching from special collections -- practical skills and tips; a little theory from a pedagogy pro. Evaluating exhibitions: data-driven decision making on whether they are worth the bother Evaluating the service component of special collections units: data for decision-making Pop culture: passing fad or fundamental (good) shift of emphasis (I could go on -- the point is to create a little controversy and get dynamic speakers from within and beyond our little group to articulate positions so that some sparks fly)  I don't know, but I'd like to see this current one revisited often. I think collaboration is incredibly important in today's libraries and archives.  convincing university administration of the importance and relevance of special collections  I'd like to hear a session about the use of Second Life as an exhibition planning tool. 2. I'd like very much to attend session(s) on the pros and cons, opportunities and challenges, of collaborative approaches to collection development. (E.g. Newberry/Notre Dame join MS purchases; etc.) 3. The "Rapid Strike Force" approach to processing hidden collections is fascinating; I'd like to see a session on similar approaches to digitization; and I recommend Columba Stewart, Exec Dir of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library as a superb plenary speaker on this topic. 4. Case study session on Sp Collns ILL would be useful.  Whom Do We Serve? Understanding and Developing Special Collections Users and Constituencies.  effective strategic planning  User engagement Research behavior in the digital environment Matters of size--Management challenges in large and small (and small within large) organizations Cultivating future leadership and continuing professional development Repurposing "old" projects for new contexts  Let's move on from this dismal "hidden collections" group-think, and get back to cataloging.  The convergences and divergences between manuscripts and archives.  Diversity; managing and collecting born digital  Preservation and Conservation in Special Collections  Education / Teaching with Special Collections Special Collections and the Canon: Exploring New Horizons  Teaching from Rare Books and Manuscripts Building Rare Book and Manuscript Collections for the 21st Century Our Audiences for Rare Books and Manuscripts Beyond the Library Degree: The Changing Professional Face of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Digital Humanities

Please provide us with some additional reactions to the conference: What were the best aspects of the conference?  Less plenaries with direct relation to conference theme was great!  Plenary sessions were strong and well managed. Local arrangements were spectacular.  Hearing about what other libraries/departments are doing  Plenaries  Local arrangements, receptions, venues were terrific  Reference Workshop was especially good.  The discussion groups were very interesting and the evening events were well organized and fun.  All the programs, seminars, etc. were excellent  hearing about the practical experiences and low-budget ideas that could be tried at my institution  Discussion groups  The closing plenary  Honestly, it was meeting so many people. I thought there were so many great talks, the born-digital talk, the Thursday evening plenary, the small library discussion group. . .  The opportunity to meet special collections librarians and get a better understanding of their roles.  I thought it had very effective sessions for such a small conference.  The plenary sessions were excellent.  Tours  Workshops, booksellers' showcase, receptions  Mix of dealers & librarians; quality of sessions; opportunities for informal gatherings at receptions. I took the Bolt Bus from Boston, which worked out great and was cheap.  Learning of ways to work together  case studies panels, plenary at the Union League  Plenary sessions with Drs. Noel, Stallybrass, and Wolfe. And presentation by Nichols and (2nd) speaker in one of the seminars (not the 3rd speaker!).  The workshops were very informative and on well-chosen topics. The plenary speakers were excellent.  The plenary sessions were great and just the right number.  the opportunity to socialize between and after sessions  So hard to choose! I really enjoyed hearing about PACSCL because we are at a similar stage of collaboration with local institutions and it was good to know there are other people out there to look to for advice on that process. I also loved the tours and the chance to get to meet colleagues in the field.  the plenaries, the events, the collegiality among peers  I found the plenaries, particularly the opening and Thursday night, particularly interesting.  Collegiality.  Opportunities to interact with colleagues  Interacting with fellow rare books and archives professionals  The interesting plenary sessions, the Latin workshop and the opportunities to network.  Urban location with lots to do and see, quality of seminars, great local arrangements  Lively discussion sections, relevant seminars  Besides the sessions, the organized dinners helped me connect to people. It was a great idea.  The choice and range of tours was impressive. I liked Philadelphia as a setting. This was a chance for outsiders to get a sense of the city as a whole, not just the conference hotel.  I especially like the size of the conference! Compared to ALA, RBMS has a much more intimate feel. The provision of snacks between sessions, especially, made it so much more relaxed and easier to approach random people and start chatting (I'm rather shy in large groups so this was important to me!). The programs were all great, too, but I really liked the whole atmosphere best.  attendees  presence of booksellers  As always, the social/professional interactions  Excellent plenary speakers. Excellent receptions.  The schedule this year was really great. I liked the open time for tours and the number and arrangement of the plenary.  The Progressive Bibliography discussion group was very engaging & informative. It was great to hear so many people share & debate their visions for the future of cataloging. Philadelphia was a great location. The opportunity to meet people in receptions early in the conference was very helpful for a first time attendee.  Ben Goldman's presentation in the Born-Digital seminar.  I only attended one session (my own seminar) but was very impressed by the organization overall.  Human interaction  Plenaries were superb. Local arrangements was superb.  Plenaries and Seminars; opportunities to confer w/ colleagues; fabulous dining in Philly!  Plenaries, accomodations, tours and the reception at the Union League  Plenary Sessions (except the first - hard to hear, not great speakers)  The Peter Stallybrass talk was an excellent way to end my conference experience. Please continue to invite distinguished scholars that use rare books and special collections in their work relating to bibliography or the history of the book. (Others to think about for future conferences Roger Chartier, Johanna Drucker, Jerome McGann, Matthew Kirschenbaum.  loved the plenary sessions and most seminars  the venues  seminars, some plenaries, receptions  venues, variety in presentations  Buddy system and seminars.  Workshops are a real value, several seminars were amazing (F and J in particular), discussion session memorable, plenary sessions strong, receptions lovely and generous  The topic was excellent because I work in a library affiliated with several others with special collections holding. Also, the location of the conference was ideal for me personally because the plane fair was low and made it easier for me to attend. The conference was exceedingly well organized and informative. It was easy to get to the conference hotel from the dorm. All of the hard work that everyone did to make the conference a success is very much appreciated.  I was impressed with the liveliness of the discussion section.  I thought it was a very good conference. The plenary sessions were very good, especially the one at the Union League. In general, this RBMS tended to be more forward looking than others I have attended and also succeeded in catering to a range of interests, from archives to rare books and everything in between.  Workshop relevant to my interests/needs; useful info for my job  The chance to talk with colleagues and see other institutions  The plenaries were really outstanding  Workshop, plenary sessions, case studies  Fantastic Plenary speakers, great location.  Wolfe/Stallybrass talk; Archimedes palimpsest talk; some seminars -- Exhibitions (Schwarzburg); Case studies (Islamic Mss.)  The sessions.  plenaries discussions, case studies and free tours all shed light on the theme of collaboration in special collections; bookseller's showcase  Thursday’s seminars, Delaware day tour  Very pleased by the introduction of discussion groups and case studies (in the latter case, because they were advertised as what they were, as opposed to seminars. And they were good.)  case studies  I get to see people I otherwise don't  Born Digital Primer was awesome, especially the two nitty-gritty practical talks, receptions were great, Archimedes talk was wonderful, donor’s discussion group was very instructive, Barnes tour was amazing & pertinent.  The interaction with various special collections librarians. The plenary session presentations were quite interesting.  receptions (chance to interact with people outside formal programming time); plethora of tours and cultural opportunities in Philadelphia  Great seminars -- all four I attended were tops; excellent local arrangements.  Final plenary was spectacular.  Local arrangements  Plenaries and discussion groups  Tours  You could walk anywhere--I'm from a suburb in the Midwest, and walking to a destination isn't possible.  My favorite session was Seminar C: Quick Innovations for Teaching with Special Collections  The workshops, a good number; the seminars, a good selection; loved the talks at the Union League.  Great plenary speakers in a nice variety of venues  Bookseller's showcase, case studies  I liked the discussion section approach, but I think it needs to be brought back to the conference in some way  The second 2 plenaries were outstanding.  I thought that the sessions were relevant and interesting. The time to discuss special collections issues both formally (at the end of sessions) and informally (during planned social times and breaks) with colleagues was a highlight.  I feel the balance between representing both rare books and archives this year was appropriate. Support for new members. Networking opportunities.  Most of the sessions were on topic. In most time slots there were actual choices. The plenaries were unusually interesting.  I'm a big fan of the discussion sections and the case studies--these are great opportunities to talk about how theory becomes practice.  Certain sessions: Collaborating on exhibits; Donors; Bridging the Gap; Goucher College.  The opportunity to meet others within the profession and build relationships, also the buddy experience was terrific.  Opportunity to discuss 'shop' with colleagues.  Good variety of options for sessions to attend; interesting venues; good tours  I particularly enjoyed William Noel's presentation and the closing plenary presentations. I loved the workshop on reference for rare books. It was very informative and helpful. I also liked the location of the conference because there were many library/archival institutions to tour and many historical sites to see.  Plenary sessions; Union League; U of the A open house  good balance between printed and mss  Punctuality of all sessions and breaks, good use of A/V equipment, adequate sizes of rooms, comfortable chairs  discussion groups & case study sessions  Networking, being around people who talk the talk! Learning new things  Interactions with attendees  Location  Good planning. Good food (especially the yogurt crunch on Thursday morning--a welcome change from the usual sugar and caffeine!)  The friendliness of others; the chance to network, too.  The panel discussions were great. The large all-attendee talks were just ok  the people attending and the program  meeting others from different institutions  Location (i.e. Philadelphia), seminar on born-digital materials, Archimedes Palimpsest talk  The final plenary with Peter and Heather was a highpoint.  Plenaries, locations, tours  Location, proximity to a number of places for tours  The discussion sessions and seminars I attended were first-rate, for the most part. Seminar I, Born-Digital Manuscripts was outstanding, as was the Discussion Session on Progressive Bibliography, and Seminar K on the OCLC Research Survey was extremely informative. I very much appreciated the attempt to get away from the usual schedule of plenaries in the morning and other sessions in the afternoon, and the 9:00 start time was great. As always, the interaction with colleagues at receptions and coffee breaks was wonderful.  visiting new libraries  Opportunity to hear what colleagues are doing and to schmooze. Plenaries and seminars were great.  I loved the number of seminars this year, and the plenaries were right on!  The preconference workshops  The local arrangements were outstanding--good tours, a wide variety of "experiences--the book arts fair, the booksellers fair, the tours in the city and beyond. The receptions were excellent and abundant--yummy food. There was enough time to take tours and see some of the city. The seminars I attended were very, very good.  The mix of formats (seminar, case study, & discussion groups). Philly. The hotel.  The workshops and the discussion groups and the networking sessions, such as restaurant nights and the Friday tours  Discussion groups  Opportunities to discuss conference themes with other attendees; opportunities to meet and interact with other attendees; content provided in seminars, discussion groups, panels etc.  Plenary session, interacting with other members  Discussion Groups, Plenary on Thursday (Digital/Tech), Meeting people in the field.  I really enjoyed the session on outreach. The speakers were very good, and I am inspired to implement collaboration and outreach projects in my future career.  Discussion sessions  opportunity to meet and get to know others in the field  Practical, hands-on material relevant to today’s world.  location and opportunities to hear from local institutions  I enjoyed/benefited from the discussion sessions best.  Michael Fox's presentation on coping with change  The sessions and tours were relevant and informative and offered opportunities to meet and talk with other, often more experienced, librarians/archivists with similar experiences/problems to my own. I can honestly say I enjoyed and gained from every minute of the conference.  Seminar on born-digital manuscripts and final plenary  The plenary sessions; the opportunities to interact with other special collections librarians, book dealers, and scholars; and the tours.  excellent quality of speakers & panelists, compelling topics  Variety of sessions, tours, opportunities to socialize and network.  Discussion Session: Working with Donors; Seminar A, E, G, and K  The final plenary was the best. All RBMS plenaries should be more like that one. This is the first time I attended a discussion section at RBMS. That was also a positive experience  presentations, opportunities for networking, preconference workshop  The seminar "Collaborating and Digressing in the Margins" by Ben Vershbow and Eddie Tejeda was terrific.  the people who attend and they way they engage  general topic  The speakers at RBMS conferences are always experts in their fields, innovative in their approaches, and articulate in the delivery of their comments.  The plenary sessions and the discussion group.  Latin workshop; plenaries; seminars: it was all great. Especially enjoyed the digress.it seminar: I was expecting just a demonstration, but the background information and philosophical reasons behind it all were inspiring -- a perfect example of how going to a conference is worth it: it wouldn't have been possible to get that background, and inspiration, from just reading the "how to" section on the website.  The plenary speakers were truly excellent  Finally getting a grasp on how special collections librarianship and archives differ. In general, the primary value of this conference was in illuminating the field as a whole, something that my LIS classes haven't done terribly well.  The people, their love of books, and their collegiality.  Progressive bibliography discussion section; Edson/Noel plenary talks; digress.it seminar.  Local arrangements were great; very sharp and talented plenary speakers  The plenary sessions and organized tours were top notch. I found the tour of the American Philosophical Society especially useful and plan to go back there to do my own research.  Although it was my first RBMS, I was happy with the variety of offerings for each day, and was very happy with the convenience of the sites (all easily within walking distance)  Both seminars and discussion groups were excellent  plenary sessions were especially; discussion sessions good as well  The plenary sessions were great; lots of opportunities to meet and talk with others  tours of special collections in Philadelphia  the education, the shared practices, the sense of camaraderie  The variety and quality of the formal sessions; the many opportunities to meet and converse with colleagues  Seminars, receptions, discussion groups--this was an excellently scheduled preconference, just the right amounts of everything  The workshop on Latin for Rare Book Catalogers  The locations well planned sessions & times.  The local arrangements were well beyond my greatest expectations. Everything moved smoothly and seamlessly  I really enjoyed the tours and the change of location for sessions (APS, Union League, etc.).  Some presenters were especially good, like the curator from the Ransom at the "Collaborative Exhibitions" seminar and Margaret Nichols at the "Bridging the Gap: Communication Between Catalogers and Archivists" seminar.  I LOVED the plenary and reception at the Union League Club. Both were outstanding. Thank you!  ending set of plenaries, seminars  The plenary sessions. I especially enjoyed Holly Mengel's presentation, Will Noel's presentation and the closing plenary. And, as always, the chance to reconnect with or meet colleagues was extremely valuable.  Location, Plenary, Tours, Seminars  the change in schedule format made for a more comfortable experience - the more preconferences I attend, the more I find I'm learning from seminars/case studies/discussion groups than plenary sessions  Meeting RBMS members in-person. Making connections with other young professionals and scholarship winners.  The opportunity to meet so many colleagues from around the country, and learn what they are doing in the field.  The plenaries were great as were some of the seminars and discussion sessions. I also enjoyed the receptions and the three very different locations.  discussions with colleagues  Better than usual amount of focus on cataloging-related topics  Wednesday reception at University of the Arts/book artists  All of it was very well done. The case studies were especially helpful.

In what ways could the conference have been improved?  Not much - great conference  Discussion sessions still need some work in terms of format/facilitation.  Learning about what sort of environment I'd like to end up working in some day (one with collaboration!)  I'm ambivalent about the free afternoon.  More intellectual content, less librarianship  I thought it focused too much on archives and too little on manuscripts/rare books  I think, for the size it is, the conference did as much as it could.  The final plenary session, with Peter Stallybrass and Heather Wolfe, offered a welcome respite from the litany of complaint that otherwise characterized the conference program. Having endured repeated injunctions not to catalog, not to respond to reference questions from the unaffiliated, not to maintain services, it was a welcome relief to be reminded in the final session what some research libraries still do.  Audio, some of the audio was a bit off in one of the conference rooms.  We needed a lunch break between closing plenary and Barnes Tour that was 4 hours.  The plenaries did not go beyond "how we did it in my shop" type of presentations. No theoretical or conceptual discussion. While some were well-done and entertaining (enough), I would hope for more from plenary presentations. In general, the seminar topics were very weak. Perhaps too much stretching to fill the slots? I think the various types of breakout sessions need to be more clearly defined.  Arrange more thought-provoking sessions of whatever type  More content like the above would be welcome.  Better communication about housing in the dormitories would have been helpful.  More workshops or openings in them. I was sad to miss out on the Latin for Rare Materials Catalogers.  some of the sessions were topical but offered no resolutions; rather, reports were given about a need to collaborate without any real solutions on how to  The coffee breaks were actually the only thing that seemed somewhat difficult - the logistics of the small rooms and long lines were just a bit tough to navigate.  The opening plenary was very disappointing. Someone should have been aware of the fact that the technical presentation on processing archives could have been summarized, and its lengthy explanation was not time well spent. Some smaller sessions I attended showed little preparation. An attitude of simply throwing it back on the audience belied a lack of an ideas, more than a progressive approach to the event.  More library scholarship  the local arrangements seemed a little disorganized/not thought out  Seminars and case studies should focus more on helpful tips, rather than reporting the great things an institution has done.  Have most sessions in the main Hotel.  Plenaries of uneven quality  more information about specific locations of meetings/tours offsite  More time for presenters.  If there were a way to do it without being officious, it would be good for less experienced speakers to have access to resources to help them prepare more successful presentations. Some simple changes--eye contact, focusing on a few key points, tailoring a talk to the audience, introduction and concluding remarks, etc.-- would have improved some of the presentations considerably.  reduce overall expenses; do not make tasteless, poor quality conference bags  I can't think of anything  Tighter focus on a skill. Also, a more controversial topic.  Even more booksellers!  I heard from a graduate student who had applied for a scholarship that she was told she was rejected because she is not a library school student, *EVEN THOUGH* she has definite plans for a career in Special Collections. If true, this is a serious concern, and this policy MUST be reviewed to ensure that we are not unnecessarily reinforcing tribal prejudices and excluding promising talent.  If there were more organized discussions sections, and not so many.  New member event was not well organized - too crowded, took forever, restaurant not prepared.  It was an excellent conference. I was left wanting more, but the amount of programming left me exhausted, so I'm not sure I could handle much more.  Wish I could have attended some seminars simultaneously - wish they could be staggered, or experiment in some way to see more than one  The case studies I attended weren't very well presented or interesting.  More logistical announcements about how to e.g. sign up for tours  Better system of transportation (more frequent for shuttles)  Never get to hear the Friday morning plenary because of afternoon meetings at ALA (travel); Panels - speakers who go over create problems in panels. Panel speakers should know in advance what the others will say and perhaps speak to each other's points; moderators could prompt questions (if there were enough time for questions) rather than simply introduce.  My only slight disappointment was that by the time Friday came I was a bit worn out and was not as alert for the two closing speakers. Their topics were fascinating.  Navigating the coffee breaks was challenging. The hallways became very crowded.  Scheduling workshops so you could take 2 (all on same day here)  It would be great if there could be some way to expand the sessions to look beyond academic libraries; other types of libraries often come up in passing, but we do have different needs/concerns/challenges and those often don't get addressed well.  Be sure to keep the speakers (all of them) to their time limits. Some people were cut short and discussion was not what it could have been as a result.  This discussion group, "Donors" could be improved. It was well attended and much needed but was poorly set-up (physical arrangement of the room) and poorly moderated. The moderators spoke 85% of the time. Not helpful.  The Doubletree was overpriced and underwhelming.  Half of presentations excellent; half weak -- cataloging crowd-sourcing one, unstructured, rambling, disappointing. Expect more rigor and detail from applicants to guard against this  I like having alternative housing. Perhaps I'm too old to be satisfied with dorm housing. Waste baskets, extra supplies of toilet paper, more blankets, and sheets that fit the bed would be improvements.  opening plenary--repetitive and dull except for the third speaker, who had less time to present; i really wanted to hear more about the pacscl processing project; arrange for free wi-fi in hotel rooms!  Surprise, surprise: I wish the hotel were a tad cheaper.  Cooler, drier weather would have been nice  The opening plenary was disappointing--but it definitely got better from there. I really enjoyed the conference.  a little more coherence in two of three plenaries  More substantive and appropriate plenaries  Hard to say since this was my first one; it was quite good!  Too much to see in Philadelphia, and so little time!  The plenaries weren't really relevant to my work.  I found the opening plenary to be a bit of a non-starter. I don't think it succeeded in setting the tone for what a good conference it turned out to be. Also, it would be nice to know what sort of repasts to expect at the receptions. On restaurant night we had the best spread but most people had made plans to go out to dinner. This has also been the case at past conferences.  The weather (ha, not in your control).  The new members social was far too expensive for new members, and the restaurant selected was not able to accommodate that many people.  I understand that the effort here was to try a different model, but the plenary sessions need some real care and direction. They need to be bigger in scope and thoughtful in a more conceptual way.  Regarding accommodations, it would be nice to have free internet access in the rooms. The lobby was not amenable to work.  The air conditioning in the venue was kept very cool and I felt uncomfortable much of the conference, to the point of distraction at times. The long lines for snacks at break times took away from the potential for social time to a certain degree. There was some confusion on the Friday tours (time they were leaving and returning).  I think inclusion/ exclusion and diversity are giant topics that need to be explored more. It's very easy to be exclusive when you are 'special' and secure, but it also limits people to their breadth of knowledge.  Coffee every a.m. Something to do Thursday p.m. between sessions and reception, if tours were not of interest. Time between sessions and tours on Thursday to grab a bite.  This may seem inconsequential, but the freezing temperatures of the conference rooms were uncomfortable enough to be a constant distraction. Would it be possible next year to suggest to hotel management that thermostats be set to 70 or thereabouts? It felt like my stacks this year!  No more floppy tote bags! If the side are not stiff, contents gets jumbled. I noticed that by the end of the conference no one was carrying a conference tote bag. Presumably they had gone straight into the trash, as had mine. A cruel waste of money. 2. This evaluation form should enter participants' in-boxes the instant the conference is over. By now, life has moved on -- memories of the conference have dimmed and interest in rehashing the conference has waned.  The "seminar" (actually a group of case studies) on teaching was weak (again). No more Second Life, please! Thought the first plenary was inappropriate--just a long boring case study.  Only more time at the booksellers showcase!  Opening plenary was more like a case study, which it could have been. As a case study, it was very good, but I would like to have had a more general and in-depth review of PACSCL.  It would have been nice to have transportation after the tours on Thursday. Of course, if that storm hadn't come through, it probably would have been just fine.  Have it end earlier so that people didn't have to make a choice about whether to attend the Friday sessions, or miss ALA meetings in D.C.  doubletree conference facility not quite large enough for easy mingling post sessions  Preliminary coffee available in mornings with a bit of food  more time for discussion & questions in some sessions  no suggestions--wish I could have participated in more!  nothing comes to mind  Take better advantage of the host city's diversity in cultural heritage  Use better judgment on selecting scholarly presentations. That is, stop selecting/hosting presentations on video games like Second Life as a means of teaching special collections; I'm a somewhat young librarian, but I still think it's silly and adolescent, and so do most faculty. Surely more scholarly presentations were submitted? Moreover, some presentations boasted the "look how we did it great" message; I would much rather here advice on what the presenters had learned in their experiences, good or, bad, and how those experiences could help others.  More panels! A whole afternoon was just tours and that makes my case to my employer to attend that much weaker  It was perfect!  The conference space was a little crowded (particularly the coffee area)  larger rooms for seminars and discussions (at hotel)  More structure to the discussion sections  This preconference had fewer plenaries than any I can remember. With so few plenaries, they really need to address the conference theme in a memorable way. Although some of the papers were outstanding (Noel, Stallybrass, Wolfe) I wish the plenaries had addressed the theme of collaboration in a larger sense than talking about one consortium (PACSCL), one institution (the Smithsonian or the Folger), or one manuscript (the Archimedes palimpsest). As it was, because of their narrow focus, I found it hard to distinguish the plenaries from seminars or short paper sessions. More big picture and theory, and less case study is what I would have liked in the plenaries.  The case study sessions, while a great idea, need a bit more shape and need to be more distinctly differentiated from seminars (at least the one I went to).  I would have liked a conference hotel closer to the historic sites. Also, because I had to leave for ALA I missed part of the closing plenary and didn't get to go on a tour, so maybe keeping the people who continue on to ALA in mind with planning conference days would be nice.  Having the conference website go live earlier to provide more info. when planning trip  Plenaries could have been more viisonary and less "the way I do it good".  Perhaps by offering lunch meals, on some days at least. And repeating a few of the workshops. Some sessions were too long such as the presentation on digress.it  Instruct plenary speakers how to speak--clearly, slowly, into the microphone  Some sessions ran so long that it was difficult to ask questions or engage in discussion: more attention to time restrictions by moderators would help a little bit.  Theme didn't quite apply to my position, different theme  More Discussion Group Sessions (the one I attended on Progressive Bibliography & Crowd Sourcing was very interesting). I wish I could have attended the other ones held concurrently!  I can't think of any - we can't control the weather!  Felt a bit disjointed because of the way the tours cut into the day  More emphasis on books and manuscripts.  I don't know how workable this would be, but it might be fun and helpful to have an evening of informal "interest group" sessions, with groups defined by specialties or peculiarities of collections--i.e. a discussion group for those handling lots of 18th-century or American colonial materials, or presidential materials, or small mixed collections. Sort of "wine, cheese, and conversation" groups for folks with relatively specific common interests.  I know that much effort was put into planning it, and that it was certainly not the fault of anyone who worked to make it happen, but (speaking good naturedly) the Restaurant night was a debacle. That said, I hope that the tradition continues.  A couple of plenary speakers were too focused on their own experience. Didn't address the overall theme of the conference  we need to wrap the first-timers in even more warmly  I would like to have more seminars, case studies, and discussion groups, and fewer tours.  More time for presenters, in all formats, less time for questions.  Wireless access for attendees, especially in workshops, seminars, discussions, and case studies when being able to look things up or follow along in the demonstrations would be great.  Many people wished there was coffee available before the first session! And I wish hotels had better audiovisual equipment (especially considering how much money they charge for that)  Assign first time attendees a mentor to meet at the conference. Have the scholarship recipient socializing event not begin at 7:30 in the morning. Maybe a lunch event? Cocktail hour?  Seminar G (Bridging the Gap) was a stinker; there wasn't enough meat to merit the seminar.  I think case studies were a little hit and miss, but that category of programming is tough (similar to short papers)  I wonder if it mightn't help in choosing what panels, etc. to attend, to offer suggestions -- if your library is A, B, or C this may be appropriate. And/or, more detailed descriptions of what each session is to cover.  The introductory session for new attendees needs to be rethought. Too much info.  More representation from non-academic librarians in the programming of the conference.  I thought it was one of the better conferences I've attended because I could attend most of the sessions that interested me, take tours, and have time to meet with people without getting utterly exhausted  More relevant plenaries. The final one was okay, but not really relevant enough to holding that position of honor.  No improvements to suggest  Restaurant night happened right after a big reception and event.  The improvements that could be made are small. There could be a little more explanation at the initial Orientation meeting, especially for first-time attendees and young people just getting into the field. Often we only know that "we like old books"... and that's the extent of our knowledge! A little more of a welcome into the field from the Conference Chair would go a long way.  More maps/givers of directions; clear meeting locations for tour groups  The tours were good too; maybe a little more time for each? We were kind of rushing around mostly.  An idea for the future: what about having a "poster session" area/time during the preconference where RBMS members can share/exchange ideas about their research and projects at their home institutions?  no need for improvement  Having more information on the web site sooner; also, was puzzled why registration fee was increased so much, esp. since the sponsorship level was higher than usual  Nothing comes to mind!  I think this was one of the better organized conferences I've attended and other than perhaps better signage in the Doubletree on Tuesday, can't think of ways to improve upon this conference.  If I could have been two places at once  Too little time for Q&A after the Edson/Noel plenary presentation  I can't think of any.

Other reactions or comments:  This preconference was a model for all to follow. It was well organized, great balance among types of sessions, strong content.  Rather a large group for a discussion about outreach. Maybe split into smaller groups for part of the session.  One of the finest RBMS preconferences I have attended. PACSL did a great job with local arrangements; the program was fabulous.  Some speakers talked too long. This ought to be more vigorously enforced.  I appreciate the balance between traditional and modern (technological) special collections concerns.  Local arrangements were excellent. Thanks to all for a remarkable job of hosting.  Thanks to Program & Local Arrangements Committees as well as ACRL/ALA staff!  Case studies were an interesting new addition. Not interested in discussion groups for this venue.  Great conference!  Philadelphia was incredibly expensive and without institutional support I would not have been able to attend.  Kudos to all the hard working RBMS members, leaders, and ACRL staff who created yet another worthwhile preconference  The talks and reception at the Union League were the absolute highlight for me, and a close second was restaurant night. The digital manuscripts panel was also excellent.  This was my first time attending and I loved it! I found all of the sessions that I attended to be helpful and informative, and it was overall a very well put-together conference. Thank you!  Need speakers from the area who are not rare book librarians -- architectural historian, or Ben Franklin impersonator/actor, or young book artists dealing with Phil. themes, or something a little unpredictable and LOCAL  Smithsonian presentation was incredibly "fringe."  Please announce a twitter hashtag at the opening! It might encourage more people to get involved.  The conference was superb. Excellent speakers, programs, and a wonderful group of colleagues with which to share a profession.  See earlier comment - try to set aside time for unconference session (i.e. topic chosen at the time of the session by vote of those present)  Thank you for the yogurt at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, morning break  Great location. Great theme.  Philadelphia was a great location for the RBMS Preconference because there are so many wonderful places to see and visit.  Unnecessary to have bus to Amer Phil Soc (money could be saved); Always too much food (more money to save)  More sessions for catalogers. The discussion section for catalogers was very popular, between 50 and 100 people. Dormitory staff were very helpful with directions and other matters. The location of alternative housing was good with good access to public transit and taxis.  I joined the Tuesday tour of phs, ans, and free library, which was terrific at the three libraries but a logistical disaster. the tour guide didn't lead the group, and she abandoned us at the free library at the end.  Excellent job by programmers and local arrangers.  The amount of food at receptions: there was SO much food available at the reception on restaurant night (when many people weren't going to eat much) and very slim pickings at the Liberal Club-- it would have been great if it was the other way around--maybe adjust the budget so that the restaurant night reception is light and the next night is heavier.  The new members dinner get-together did not seem to be very well organized. The restaurant service was very slow and the room setup not conducive to conversation especially after the band started playing.  well done!  PLEASE do not use plenaries as vocational training or how-to sessions!  I have never been to a conference that was a clique-ish as this one. This was my first time attending (my rare books/mss work has largely been in public libraries), and I have never felt more excluded or shunned (even by the vendors!!) This after I made a conscious attempt to be approachable and open to meeting others. It is highly unlikely I will attend another RBMS conference or continue my membership.  I'd like to see more speakers from small or medium-sized libraries. Also, every year I count up male vs. female speakers. This year I got 33 male, 37 female. It surprises me that the numbers don't reflect the gender make-up of our profession. Or do they? Year by year the numbers have been getting better for women, but it still surprises me how men seem to dominate plenaries and some sessions. Ah well, it's not a horrible problem or anything.  Good job local arrangements!  I know lots of people complain about the pre-conference being in a different location than that of ALA, but I like the fact that it gives the opportunity to see other institutions in locations that would otherwise not have the larger ALA conference.  I think there still is an unspoken division between professionals and paraprofessionals that permits people to engage effectively. I think experience speaks more loudly in terms of involvement and commitment to the profession, than regulated education. I think it's an issue that should be addressed and acknowledged.  I can't tell you how pleased I was not to hear every plenary speaker in turn announce sententiously that times are changing and Special Collections had better step up to the plate. I thought the theme was positive and forward looking, and it gave rise to a lot of interesting discussions.  This was a really fantastic conference, in terms of content. I really feel like I got practical knowledge that I can apply at my institution from nearly every session I attended.  The evaluation form is poorly designed. (a) The individual queries are hard to distinguish from each other. (b) The evaluation should include a meter of one's progress through the form. 2. The cover letter is poorly written. (a) cf."We hope you enjoyed your conference experience [the conference]." Aside from word- smithing, yes, one wants to enjoy the conference, but the point is whether or not one benefits professionally from it. (a) cf. "Thank you again [blah blah blah]." In this short compass, thanking once is enough; we're busy people, you know, with plenty to read. (b) cf. "We look forward to your participation in future ACRL/RBMS professional development events." Of course we look forward to the future (hardly ever looking forward to the past). Better: "We hope you will participate in ACRL/RBMS professional development events in the future."  Great tours. Loved APS and Union League.  I can't respond to this (or many of the previous questions) because I had to leave early due to illness.  This was simply a wonderful experience for me. I found the entire conference to be warm and embracing as well as intellectually stimulating and fun! I am very grateful for the support given me, both professionally and financially, as a scholarship winner. I hope to return next year.  Only sorry I couldn't be in two (or three) places at once.  Fabulous preconference; I've never seen such a happy marriage of a theme (collaboration) with its practical demonstration in local arrangements and programming.  I'd go more often if I didn't have to join ALA in order to join ACRL  Although I appreciate the RBMS bags, I now have a number of them. This particular one was the least practical. The extra flap was cumbersome.  It was strange to have chartered buses to take us to offsite meeting location in the morning, but not have buses to take attendees to plenary site after all of the tours; it proved to be especially inconvenient because of the thunderstorm.  Topics tended to be sophomoric at times. Not sure who selects what presentations are offered, but things are getting dumbed down and that's really quite worrisome.  This year's conference was awesome and Philly was a great location!!!  nice job  Overall great! Thanks!  Confirmation needed to be sent out on dorm confirmation at the time payment was processed not 3 days before the conference.  I felt this preconference less hectic and more relaxed than others in the past. The hotel staff was very professional and the facilities more than adequate. My one negative is that there were too many people! I have always liked the small, intimate feel of RBMS, and in the future where the location may not be as central as Philadelphia, there will be fewer. That's just a real personal thing.  I may have missed the emails asking us to sign up if we need a buddy. Perhaps such emails could be clearer in future.  This was my first RBMS conference, and I will definitely attend next year's RBMS conference as well: it is a tremendously useful professional experience.  A cheaper place with larger portions for new member social  Thank you so much for enabling me to attend this conference with your generous scholarship support! It was exciting to see the field in action and interact special collections librarians from across the country and beyond.  I was surprised at how many speakers/topics addressed were focused on archival materials and archival practices.  RBMS conferences are the best - I never regret paying out of my own pocket to attend!  I had a tremendously good experience! Thank you so much  Just wonderful--a great professional and personal experience. Thank you.  The Book Arts fair was a particular pleasure. I know that not every location would have the community to support this type of event, but it was certainly a highlight of the pre-conference for me.  I'd have tried harder to get in for the first evening meal if I'd been more aware of it. This is probably just me being a first time attendee and unable to stay downtown. I felt a bit of an outsider.  The opening plenary was presented as more of a case study. The closing plenary was very interesting indeed, but stretched the concept of collaboration for our practical purposes.  Great badge holders and tote bags! I'm still using both in "real life"  I really enjoyed that the conference had several venues that we weren't always in the hotel (Union League, Chemical Heritage, etc.)  The location was fantastic! The local arrangements committee did an excellent job showcasing the city.  An excellent experience overall and a great way to for me to connect professionally with others in the field.  It would be nice to negotiate free wi-fi in the hotel rooms.  I regret not going on the tours. The area is so rich with special collections!  Local arrangements did a lovely job. Twitterers did a great job--wish that feed could be sponsored, acknowledged, put on the website. Reaction to it reminded me how conservative and slow to change this group can be.  I thought it was very well conducted.  I greatly enjoyed the Thursday events at the APS & CHF & union league.  I had a lot of fun, and I hope I can return to future preconferences!  Though I am not a big fan of "dinner night" it was nice to have one evening free; at past preconferences, three receptions in three evenings has been "too much." I would stick with the two receptions and one "free evening" formula. I think it works well.  One of the best preconferences in 10 years  The local arrangements committee did a terrific job.  The level of my interest in attending the conference is related to location- old eastern historic cities are endlessly fascinating and great locations for RBMS  Having a longer shuttle bus schedule on Thursday afternoon would have helped to get attendees back to the Union League from tours and activities in the historic district  It was really a very positive experience - I was truly impressed with the scope of offerings, and the apparent seamless execution of all events.  Many good sessions this conference!  There were so many sessions related to manuscripts & archives I almost thought I was at an SAA conference (but liked the mix pretty well)

Load more

  28

Copy Link