the impact of scholarly communication on lis education carol tenopir university of tennessee...

The Impact of Scholarly

Communication on LIS Education

Carol TenopirUniversity of Tennesseectenopir@utk.eduweb.utk.edu/~tenopir/

What is the role of scholarly communication in LIS Education?

1. An extension of our academic home and discipline

2. A methodological framework

3. A specific area of research

LIS programs in North America

56 programs accredited by the American Library Association in the U.S. and Canada

ALA accredits only masters degree program

30 years ago most were separate programs or part of humanities or education

University Of Tennessee

College ofCommunication

AndInformation

School of Information

Sciences

School ofCommunication

Studies

School ofJournalism and

Electronic Media

School of Advertising

And Public Relations

College ofCommunication

AndInformation

School of InformationSciences

School ofCommunication

Studies

School ofJournalism and

Electronic Media

School of AdvertisingAnd Public Relations

Conveying Meaning

Science Communication

Risk Communication

Scientists Working Photos

Data Sets

Direct Observations

Sounds

Conversations

Meetings

Publications

SpecimensLab/Field notebook

• Proceedings

• Preprints

• Journal Articles

• Books

PhotosData Sets

Direct Observations

Sounds

Conversations

Meetings Publications

Specimens Lab/Field notebook

Scientists Working

The Information Life Cycle

Shared Theories

Diffusion of innovations Sense Making Grounded Theory Shannon-Weaver Communication Model

LIS Course Titles Influenced by Scholarly Communication

Scientific and Technical Communications Computer Mediated Communication Computer supported collaborative work Human Information Interactions Biodiversity Informatics Information Policy

Switching to methods…

Main Methods for Studying Scholarly Communication and Users

Usage transaction logs Surveys (questionnaires or interviews) Observations and other experiments Focus groups Bibliometrics (citing and authoring

patterns)

What Conclusions Can You Draw?

• Usage logs • What people do on specific online systems

• Interviews/surveys • Opinion, what individuals say they do, and why, and outcomes

• Experiments • What individuals do in a controlled or natural setting, and why

• Focus groups • What individuals say they prefer and might do in the future

Usage logs give much useful data, but…

Logs don’t show why or outcomes Requests or downloads may not equal

use or satisfaction Log sessions may be difficult to

differentiate or compare across systems For privacy or other reasons, logs do not

show behavior by demographic groups Logs show only a fraction of total use

Surveys use different types of questions

Demographic Recollection of behaviors (how often

something is done) Opinions (reactions to statements on a

scale, valuing services on a scale) Critical Incident (specific event and

outcomes)

420

348288

240

156

0

50100

150

200

250300

350

400

450

Med Science Eng Soc Sci Hum

Average Articles Read per year per faculty academic discipline

Year of Studies

Recollection and demographic and opinion questions only go so far…

…add longitudinal to get a picture of trends

…add critical incident and you get a more detailed picture

150172 188

216252

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1977 1984 93-98 00-03 04-06*

Average Articles Read per year per University Faculty Member

*280 with outliers

48 47

36 34

05

101520253035404550

1977 1993-1998

2000-2003

2004-2006

Average Minutes per Article by University Faculty Member

Ave

rage

Min

utes

Per

Art

icle

Year of Studies

24

35

43

36 37

0

510

15

20

2530

35

40

45

Med Science Eng Soc Sci Hum

Average Minutes per reading per University Faculty Member

Ave

rag

e n

um

be

r o

f art

icle

s re

ad

pe

r sc

ien

tist

Year of Studies

Demographic (faculty or student) plus critical incident (source of article)

Faculty

11%14%

75%

PersonalSubscriptions

LibraryProvided

SeparateCopies

46%

12%

42%

Doctoral StudentsFaculty Doctoral Students

Keeping Up 22%

Consult/treatingOther

4%9%

Teaching 17%

Research 48%

#4#1

#5#3

#2

Purpose and Ranking of Importance: Medical Faculty

33.5%

10.3%

56.3%

1st1st YearYear

28.8%

18.1%

53.2%

Library

Personal

Separate

2-5 Years2-5 Years9.2%

17.5%

73.3%

Over 5Over 5 YearsYears

Older articles are judged more valuable Older articles are judged more valuable & are & are more likely to come from more likely to come from librarieslibraries

Surveys provide much useful data, but…

All surveys rely on truthfulness Surveys rely on memory Response rates are falling

Scholarly Communication and LIS