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