Scholarly Communication Education Initiatives · 15
and regional library groups. From the comments,
it appears that in some cases libraries are banding
together with others in their region to tackle SC is-
sues. This is probably an effective tack as faculty
often collaborate with other faculty at nearby insti-
tutions. Due to the small size of the sample and the
diversity of the audiences that were identified, it is
not advisable to draw many conclusions from the
data for this group. Topics and methods of delivery
to these audiences were consistent with delivery
to other groups. Due to the nature of the audience,
formal presentations were judged the most effec-
tive means of communicating, though one-on-one
conversations were also effective.
Collaborative Activities
The majority of responding institutions have made
presentations (62%) or given reports (49%) to the
faculty governance body on their campus regard-
ing scholarly communication issues. (It would be
interesting to determine how many of these have
been about topics other than those driven by the
“serials crisis.”) Many campuses have developed
and proposed SC resolutions and 38% of the cam-
puses have passed resolutions at this point.
Most Effective Activities
The respondents were invited to describe up to
three SC education activities that, in their estima-
tion, were particularly effective. Forty-five institu-
tions provided one or more descriptions for a total
of 113 activities.
The most frequently mentioned effective means
to deliver the SC message were one-on-one con-
versations and presentations. One-on-one interac-
tions, in person or via personal e-mails, were good
for reaching individuals such as faculty editors,
department heads, or regular faculty members.
Presentations were an effective means to reach
groups such as graduate students, librarians, and
the Faculty Senate Committee on the Library. Many
also reported that symposia are effective; several re-
ported that their campuses hold annual symposia.
Several listed Web sites as effective tools, without
much explanation. Other activities that were men-
tioned multiple times were marketing campaigns,
passage of Senate SC resolutions, and newsletter
items. Workshops—both library-sponsored and
campus-sponsored—were also an effective means
to reach the campus. A number of institutions have
found it effective to work through their Faculty
Senate Committee on the Library.
Survey respondents were invited to relate signifi-
cant challenges their library has faced in educating
library users and staff about SC issues. They were
provided three open-ended text boxes for their re-
sponses. Fifty institutions listed one or more chal-
lenges for a total of 126 challenges.
Not surprisingly, the biggest obstacle in getting
the faculty to care about scholarly communication
issues is concerns about promotion and tenure.
Some faculty show a “reluctance to accept that
OA journals can be every bit as scholarly as non-OA
journals.” Of course they also do not want to hear
of any restrictions on where they should or should
not publish. Some are fearful that, if they attempt
to use copyright addenda, their articles will be re-
fused by prestigious scholarly publishers such as
the ACS. As one person put it, “Faculty are hesitant
to do anything that will disadvantage them in the
promotion and tenure process.”
Two other huge challenges to reaching the fac-
ulty are that they either show a lack of interest in
the issues or are satisfied with the status quo and
that they are too busy to focus on what many ap-
parently feel is a “library problem.” Quite a few re-
spondents said their problem was coming up with
a clear message with which to reach the faculty and
mobilize them into action.
Some respondents commented on challenges
that involve the campus, such as lack of adminis-
trative support and the decentralized nature of the
campus, which also make it difficult to reach the
The biggest challenge for librarians revolved
around having adequate staff, time, and funding to
Previous Page Next Page