54  ·  Survey Results:  Survey Questions and Responses
one discipline is not quite comparable with that of another. Even within the same discipline, there is a difference in
publishing cycles between theory and applied articles. It remains controversial to use summative measures like scholarly
output assessments in terms of managing departments and their budgets.
Our new workshop series has been very successful, in part because a faculty member approached us with the idea,
and co-presented with us. He is a well-respected faculty member and his presence drew more participants to our
workshop. We now integrate portions of that workshop into other presentations to grad students (in particular) but also
faculty groups.
Partnerships are important. Take a needs-based approach.
Providing such services helps build faculty-library liaison relationships. Faculty are very pleased when we are able to help
them prepare for promotion and tenure reviews.
Start with one area of expertise and expand based on gaps or areas of need. Another recommendation is to identify
champions such as faculty members or administrative assistants who support the library’s efforts in this area. Ask the
champions for feedback when piloting new ideas or reports. When a report is requested, provide the report sooner
than expected and include other information to supplement the report. Be willing to test and become familiar with
new software. Be willing to review the literature on the topic. Attend non-library conferences such as the American
Evaluation Association or Science of Team Science.
Stay on track and be persistent.
Tailor your programs to address actual researcher scenarios. Funding applications, dossiers for renewal and tenure,
annual reports and promotion. Anticipate and address concerns and misconceptions.
The tools have limitations. Be mindful and explicit about this as you introduce, discuss, and utilize them. Publishing
cultures differ by discipline, and this needs to be acknowledged and understood when taking on this work. To provide
a full picture of an individual’s and/or institution’s scholarly output assessment, a broad and diverse range of scholarly
impact measures needs to be defined.
The tools to do this can continue to grow. Don’t plan on learning about just a few select tools because the faculty are
going to be stumbling upon other tools.
This area is growing so we should do it; seems to be a core role for liaison librarians. Library as publisher (formal or
informal) also requires that we do more of this type of work. We need to be proactive.
Try to understand the needs and motivations of the researchers, and tailor the program (or at least the messaging
around it) directly to that. Academic departments, news & communications staff, and subject liaison librarians
are key partners, as they are already working closely with the researchers in many related areas, and have
established relationships.
Understand the norms of the discipline and the expectations for faculty and graduate students in each department.
Understand the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate use of various platforms and measures, and how to
communicate this to users. Write scholarly output assessment activities into job descriptions to stress that scholarly
output assessment activities are increasingly a part of many librarians’ work. If output assessment is used by admin as a
contentious tool in faculty performance reviews, it’s important for the library to maintain neutrality and not be perceived
as taking sides.
We are eager to learn from other institutions.
Previous Page Next Page