24 Association of Research Libraries Research Library Issues 292 2017 identify opportunities for the future. While this geographically dispersed research group invested significant hours collaboratively drafting the mechanics of the study, such as the literature review and the survey questions, we could have paid closer attention to the nuances of capturing the perspectives of a diverse and cross-sectoral group of stakeholders in a transparent and objective manner. Conclusion While the original research project “failed,” it offers invaluable lessons, both for the project group and others considering effective research design methodologies, including the importance of clear communication and an unbiased approach. Perhaps more critically, this experience highlights the importance of partnerships and/or effective engagement and outreach—depending on the project objectives and the nature (demographics, perspectives, etc.) of the participant group(s)—as a means to ensure the proactive involvement of all players when designing survey research. While this more collaborative approach to the project goals, methodology, and design may have extended the original scope and timeline for the project, doing so would have enabled all stakeholders to meaningfully forge a shared vision and values in building resources and infrastructure to support publishing initiatives. To this end, in July 2016 CARL convened a multi-stakeholder Canadian Scholarly Publishing Working Group (CSPWG)7 with representatives from university presses, research libraries, publishers, education and industry groups, a federal funding agency, and several researchers. The group was charged with developing a framework for “robust, sustainable, collaborative models” for dissemination of research outputs and released its final report in July 2017.
Previous Page Next Page