“A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Academic Support”: Data and Response

Mellon Design Event

May 11, 2006

Project Team

• Wendy Pradt Lougee, University Librarian, Principal Investigator

• CLA Dean & Associate Dean (Planning and Technology)

• Karen Williams, Associate University Librarian • Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow• Kate McCready, Librarian Project Coordinator• Two Graduate Research Assistants• Digital Library Development Lab Programming Support:

– John Butler, Director– Paul Bramscher– Shane Nackerud– Jen Tantzen

Project Focus & Goals

• What are the discipline-specific and general needs for facilities, information content, services, tools & expertise that support research in the humanities and social sciences?

• Identify research support services for humanities & social sciences

• Explore the needs for new services--physical and virtual

• Improve library services that directly support research• Identify discipline-specific needs, areas of common

interest

Project Strategy• Interviews with faculty from 16 CLA departments :

African and African American Studies, American Studies, American Indian Studies, Anthropology, Asian Languages and Literatures, Chicano Studies, Classical and Near Eastern Studies, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, English, French and Italian, Geography, German, Scandinavian, and Dutch, History, Political Science, Sociology, Spanish and Portuguese Studies

• Focus groups with graduate students• Survey of CLA faculty and graduate students

(target audience ~1200, over 50% response rate)

Key Question Areas• Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What

usage trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment?

• Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research?

• Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where?

• Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?

Key Question Areas• Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What usage

trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment?

• Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research?

• Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where?

• Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?

General Researcher Characteristics

Where Researchers Work:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

a. Home b. Office c. UniversityLibraries

d. Non-UArchives

e. OtherInstitutions

Faculty Graduate Students

Research Methodologies Used:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

a. A

rchiv

al

b. T

extu

al Ana

lysis

c. Hist

oriog

raph

y

d. E

thno

grap

hy

e. E

xperim

enta

l

f. Fiel

dwor

k

g. L

inguis

tic

h. O

ral H

istor

y

i. Quan

titativ

e

j. Sta

tistic

al

Faculty Graduate Students

Research Materials Used:

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

a. P

ublis

hed

Mat

erial

s

b. Im

ages

and

Pho

tos

c. D

ata

Sets/

Statis

tics

d. In

terv

iews

e. A

udio

Record

ings

f. Vid

eo/F

ilm R

ecor

ding

s

g. E

phem

era

h. A

rtifa

cts

Faculty Graduate Students

Research is Interdisciplinary b/c of:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

a. Literature b. Methods c. Collaboration d. NotInterdisciplinary

Faculty Graduate Students

Methods Somewhat/Not Effective For:

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%

a. M

ater

ial O

rgan

iz...

b. N

otes

c. K

eepi

ng u

p w

/ Fie

ld

d. D

isse

min

atio

n

e. E

ditin

gf.

Trac

king

Sou

rces

Faculty Graduate Students

DiscoveryIdentifying resources and materials, keeping up with fields…

Major/Moderate Problem Finding and Acquiring Materials:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

a. O

bsur

e Top

ic

b. T

oo F

ew S

ourc

es

c. To

o M

any S

ourc

es

d. U

L Far

Away

e. O

rgan

izatio

n of

UL

Faculty Grad Students

Faculty Finding Aids:

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

i. Dept. Resources/Collections

h. Librarian (online)

g. Librarian (in-person)

f. Library Stacks

e. Other Institutions

d. Search Engines

c. Bibliographies/Citations

b. Online Scholarly Databases

a. Library Catalog

Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not At All Important

Faculty Visits To Library Buildings:

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

a. Check out books

b. Browse stacks

c. Access print journals

d. Seek assistance

e. Use computers

f. Study or read

g. Use archives

h. Request ILL

Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never

Faculty Visits to www.lib.umn.edu:

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

a. Access online indexes

b. Access online journals

c. Request Lumina to U

d. Request ILL

e. Renew books

f. Seek research assistance

Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Never

Discovery: General Themes

• As a result of the highly interdisciplinary nature of faculty and graduate students’ work (more than 90% of faculty consider their work interdisciplinary), as well as the diverse types of materials and media they consult, scholars need better methods of addressing the specificity and uniqueness of their research topics.

• Faculty find their methods only adequate when it comes to identifying obscure sources, keeping up with their field (and various fields), and organizing the materials they do acquire.

• Faculty and graduate students are extremely comfortable with electronic sources for their research (from articles to artifacts) and with electronic forms of communication (email).

• Despite the preference of electronic research materials, archival research is one of the top three research methodologies employed (after textual analysis and historiography), and nearly 80% of faculty consider browsing shelves at the Library to be extremely or somewhat important. (Although, almost 75% of faculty report that they browse Library stacks only monthly or occasionally.)

• Graduate students report a pronounced need for training in research practices, especially in the areas of archival research methodologies and grant funding opportunities and procedures.

GatheringAcquiring Materials, Organizing Resources, Sharing Resources

What is the Most Challenging?

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

a. AcquiringMaterials

b. IdentifyingMaterials

c. ManagingResources

Faculty Graduate Students

Citation Management Systems By Area:

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

1. Refworks, Endnote,etc.

2. Word-processingprogram

3. Paper-basedsystem

Humanities Area Studies Social Sciences

Methods of Storing Print Materials:

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

1. File or store physically 2. Scan

Faculty Graduate Students

Methods of Storing Digital Materials (pdfs, word, xls, jpg, etc):

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1. Make hard copy 2. Save as digital copy

Faculty Graduate Students

Methods of Sharing Source Materials:

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

a. H

aven

't Sha

red

b. H

ard

Copies

c. Em

ail

d. P

hone

/FAX

e. M

eetin

gs o

r Con

fere

nce

f. W

ebsit

e

Faculty Graduate Students

General Themes: Gathering• Faculty report that it is easier to identify needed research materials and sources than it is to

actually acquire them (23% vs. 42%).

• Graduate students nearly the same amount of difficulty identifying materials and acquiring them (35% vs. 32%).

• Humanities and Social Science researchers have been slow to embrace electronic or web-based programs for managing citations (Refworks) and prefer word processing methods (although there is greater adoption among social scientists).

• Faculty and graduate students report having inadequate methods for organizing and storing their research materials.

• Researchers amass unique and potentially valuable research collections that are inaccessible to other researchers.

• Faculty are aware that they need innovative ways to manage their research collections. A few engage in scanning activities, but methods are generally haphazard, idiosyncratic, and dependent on word processing-based lists.

• 93% of faculty would use assistance with acquiring materials. 70% would use assistance with general organization and preservation of research materials.

CreationWriting and presenting research, working collaboratively,

synthesizing resources

Collaborative Working Groups:

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

a. S

ingle

colle

ague

b. M

ult. C

ollea

gues

c. Cam

pus

rese

arch

...

d. N

on-U

gro

up

e. S

ame

Disc.

f. Diff.

Disc

.

Faculty Graduate Students

68.5% of faculty work collaboratively

Obstacles to Working Collaboratively:

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%

Faculty Graduate Students

Researchers Would Use Assistance With:

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

a. B

iblio

grap

hies

b. In

dexi

ngc.

Pre

serv

atio

nd.

Dat

a co

llect

ion

e. O

rgan

izat

ion

f. P

rese

ntat

ions

g. A

naly

sis/

synt

hesi

s

h. E

ditin

g

Faculty Graduate Students

The University Libraries are Very Important/Important For:

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Faculty Graduate Students

Q18. Importance of U Libraries to Faculty:

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Very Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not At All Important

Researchers wish that the University Libraries would provide more secure study spaces for grad students, online access to outside archival collections or finding aids, easier

interface for using Lumina to U and interlibrary loan, direct collaboration with librarians on research projects, and more.

Desired Library Services

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%

General Themes: Creation• Humanities and Social Science researchers are not accustomed to thinking of the

Libraries as partners in the production of their scholarship.

• Nearly 69% of faculty say they work collaboratively.

• Over 70% of faculty who participate in collaborative research work indicate they work with colleagues at other institutions. The number one obstacle to working collaboratively is distance from colleagues (45%).

• Nearly 80% of both faculty and graduate students consider the Libraries as playing an important role in the development of technology.

• The Libraries have a special opportunity to support collaborative research projects and to bridge the distance between colleagues. The use of technology is key to this effort.

• Approximately 66% of faculty and graduate students would use assistance with creating presentations.

• Graduate students would benefit from a stable physical space within the Libraries where they can work collaborative and individually

DisseminationSharing research results, publishing

Methods of Sharing Ideas:

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

a. E

mail

b. M

eetin

gs o

r Con

fe...

c. Pho

ne/F

AX

d. H

ard

Copies

e. W

ebsit

e

f. Hav

en't S

hare

d

Faculty Graduate Students

Methods of Sharing Drafts and Co-Authored Works:

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

a. E

mail

b. H

ard

Copies

c. M

eetin

gs o

r Co.

..

d. H

aven

't Sha

red

e. W

ebsit

e

f. Pho

ne/F

AX

Faculty Graduate Students

General Themes: Dissemination

• Faculty consider themselves very effective at disseminating their research.

• Graduate students find dissemination challenging. Only a third consider their methods effective.

• Graduate students also have a greater need than faculty for assistance with editing.

• Most faculty and graduate students rely on email or face-to-face interactions to share ideas.

• Faculty depend on traditional venues for publishing and dissemination: paper journals (and the occasional electronic journal), books, and conferences and professional meetings.

Analysis and Prototype Development

Primitives

Behaviors

Data

Services

Discover

Share Gather

Create

Primitives

Mellon 060328

Discover

Structured Finding

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

Mellon 060328

Discover

Gather

Structured Finding

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

Collecting

Organizing

Acquiring

Mellon 060328

Discover

Gather

Create

Structured Finding

Reviewing & Rating

Writing Annotating

Analyzing

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

Collecting

Organizing

Acquiring

Mellon 060328

Describing

Discover

Share Gather

Create

Structured Finding

Data Sharing

Reviewing & Rating

Writing Annotating

Rights

Publishing

Analyzing

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

Collecting

Organizing

AcquiringTeaching

Mellon 060328

Describing

Discover

Share Gather

Create

Structured Finding

Data Sharing

Reviewing & Rating

Writing Annotating

Rights

Publishing

Analyzing

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors => H/SS Data

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field.

87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields

43% - Problem: Too Few Sources

85% - Important: Browsing Stacks

56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies

Collecting

Organizing

AcquiringTeaching

43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts

73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials

39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials

35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials

37% - Have Unique Research Collection

52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other

Institutions

Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations

67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations

68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively

56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research

46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance

from Colleagues

60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy

Mellon 060331

53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources

57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic

Describing

76% - Share ideas via Emalior in Person

Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/Expertise

43% - Problem: Too Few Sources

Discover

Share Gather

Create

Structured Finding

Data Sharing

Reviewing & Rating

Writing Annotating

Rights

Publishing

Analyzing

Serendipitous Finding

Primitives => Behaviors => Services

Keeping Current

Collaborative Finding

49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field.

87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields

85% - Important: Browsing Stacks

56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies

Collecting

Organizing

AcquiringTeaching

43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts

73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials

39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials

35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials

37% - Have Unique Research Collection

52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other

institutions

Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations

67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations

68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively

56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research

46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance

from Colleagues

60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy

53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources

57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic

Describing

Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/ExpertiseU Knowledge Map

Customized Search

Archives ID & Mining

Current Awareness-RSS TOC MNCAT Archives/UDC - Lit. databases

Browsing Tool

Scholar’s Horizon

Current Awareness-RSS - TOC - MNCAT - Archives/UDC - Lit. databases

COLLECTOR’S TOOL

Integrated Request Processes

Grants ManagerFile StorageU Goals

Annotation Tools

Copyright, Schol. Comm. Decision Tools

Collaborative File Space

Shared, Group Info Mgmt. Sys.

Feeds, Bookmarks,Object Sharing

Course Support & Integration

Digital Conservancy

43% - Problem: Too Few Sources

Recommender Sys.

Focus for the Future

• Identify and pursue changes in physically-based services: use of Library spaces, book delivery, and more• Develop online research methodologies tutorial for graduate students• Identify areas of potential collaboration between CLA and Libraries with respect to support services • Pilot online research communities• Develop model to integrate tool-based research services in an online context

Online Research

Environment for Scholars -

Prototype

Each “Primitive”:

•Discover•Gather•Create•Share

has a Separatepage…

Additional Discover Components:

Additional Gather Components:

Additional Create Components:

For More Information

• Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow– email: marc0082@umn.edu

• Kate McCready, Library Project Coordinator– email: mccre008@umn.edu

• John Butler, Director, Digital Library Development Lab– email: j-butl@umn.edu