Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use

Authors: Nelly Cancilla, Bobby Glushko, Stephanie Orfano, Graeme Slaght

Abstract: Academic libraries have the privilege of serving many roles in the lives of their institutions. One role that is largely untapped is their ability to actively leverage their collections to support faculty teaching and to reduce student out-of-pocket costs by eliminating systemic double payment for course materials.  This paper details a project by the Scholarly Communications and Copyright Office (SCCO) at the University of Toronto that aimed to reduce this systemic double payment by leveraging collections and electronic reserves to provide a new service, the Zero-to-Low Cost Courses. Building on existing relationships with faculty, SCCO staff reached out to potential candidates, identified library licensed materials in their printed course packs, and created digital course packs which students could use at no cost.

Citation: Cancilla, N. et al., (2017). Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 4, p.eP2137. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2137

View

Source: Engaging Faculty and Reducing Costs by Leveraging Collections: A Pilot Project to Reduce Course Pack Use

Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University

Authors: Steve Van Tuyl , Gabrielle Michalek

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Recent changes to requirements for research data management by federal granting agencies and by other funding institutions have resulted in the emergence of institutional support for these requirements. At CMU, we sought to formalize assessment of research data management practices of researchers at the institution by launching a faculty survey and conducting a number of interviews with researchers. METHODS We submitted a survey on research data management practices to a sample of faculty including questions about data production, documentation, management, and sharing practices. The survey was coupled with in-depth interviews with a subset of faculty. We also make estimates of the amount of research data produced by faculty. RESULTS Survey and interview results suggest moderate level of awareness of the regulatory environment around research data management. Results also present a clear picture of the types and quantities of data being produced at CMU and how these differ among research domains. Researchers identified a number of services that they would find valuable including assistance with data management planning and backup/storage services. We attempt to estimate the amount of data produced and shared by researchers at CMU. DISCUSSION Results suggest that researchers may need and are amenable to assistance with research data management. Our estimates of the amount of data produced and shared have implications for decisions about data storage and preservation. CONCLUSION Our survey and interview results have offered significant guidance for building a suite of services for our institution.

Citation: Tuyl, S.V. & Michalek, G., (2015). Assessing Research Data Management Practices of Faculty at Carnegie Mellon University. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 3(3), p.eP1258. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1258

View

Scholarly Metrics Baseline: A Survey of Faculty Knowledge, Use, and Opinion about Scholarly Metrics

Authors: Dan DeSanto and Aaron Nichols

Abstract: This article presents the results of a faculty survey conducted at the University of Vermont during academic year 2014–2015. The survey asked faculty about: familiarity with scholarly metrics, metric-seeking habits, help-seeking habits, and the role of metrics in their department’s tenure and promotion process. The survey also gathered faculty opinions on how well scholarly metrics reflect the importance of scholarly work and how faculty feel about administrators gathering institutional scholarly metric information. Results point to the necessity of understanding the campus landscape of faculty knowledge, opinion, importance, and use of scholarly metrics before engaging faculty in further discussions about quantifying the impact of their scholarly work.

DeSanto D & Nichols A. (2017). Scholarly Metrics Baseline: A Survey of Faculty Knowledge, Use, and Opinion about Scholarly Metrics College & Research Libraries vol. 78 no. 2, pp 150-170 doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.150

View