different sort of process, one that requires a variety of library personnel to
communicate with one another, with the vendors, and with the scholars
interested in accessing the data. It also requires a significant level of
documentation beyond that generally gathered. Each transaction and the steps
for each order required documentation to ensure the acquisition of the correct
data, completed payments, and eventual acquisition of the requested data.
Next Directions for FY 2012
Furthering this project and building it into a program requires that the
University Library continue to experiment and tweak the process. To that end,
the Office of Collections intends to continue supporting this endeavor for FY
2012. In an effort to improve the program, the Data Services Committee began
identifying and discussing particularly successful examples from the FY 2011
applicant pool that can be publicized through local media sources. However,
even without additional local publicity, the interest demonstrated in our first call
for proposals indicates that there is some continued need for this type of
programming. The challenges that we face in improving it during FY 2012 reside
in laying a firm foundation for successful negotiations with the vendors. To that
end, efforts have already begun to refine the application form and application
process in order to ensure that all of the appropriate data is gathered and to
accelerate the application calendar so that we can leave as much time as possible
to successfully negotiate the licenses for these resources.
1
For a concise history and discussion of the issues related to “big data,” see Jeffrey M. Stanton et al.,
“Education for eScience Professionals: Job Analysis, Curriculum Guidance, and Program
Considerations,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 52, no. 2 (2011): 79–94.
2
Catherine Soehner, Catherine Steeves, and Jennifer Ward, E-Science and Data Support Services: A Study
of ARL Member Institutions (Washington, DC: ARL, 2010),
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/escience_report2010.pdf.
3
Ibid., 7.
4
Karla Hahn, “Introduction: Positioning Liaison Librarians for the 21st Century,” Research Library Issues,
no. 265 (Aug. 2009): 1–2, http://publications.arl.org/rli265/2; Kara Malenfant, “Leading Change in
the System of Scholarly Communication: A Case Study of Engaging Liaison Librarians for Outreach
to Faculty,” College and Research Libraries 71, no. 1(2010): 63–76, http://crl.acrl.org/content/71
/1/63.abstract; Linda Daniel et al., “Engaging with Library Users: Sharpening Our Vision as Subject
Librarians for the Duke University Libraries,” January 14, 2011, http://library.duke.edu/
about/planning/2010-2012/subject-librarian-report-2011.pdf.
RLI 276
18
Collecting Small Data
(
C O N T I N U E D
)
RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A QUARTERLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC SEPTEMBER 2011
Previous Page Next Page