May 17, 2007 Symposium

"Mainstreaming Collections Reference" - librarians and curators working together to improve access to primary source materials for teaching and research at Yale

BREAK-OUT SESSIONS

Ideas for Improving access to primary source materials for teaching and research at Yale

A. Below are some ideas that have been suggested or implemented earlier. How would you rank them according to the following scale:

       1 = most important; worth pursuing aggressively

       2 = nice idea, but not as important

       3 = not worth pursuing

(a) Use a list serv or web site to report new accessions of primary source collections, for an audience of Yale librarians and curators involved in reference and instruction.  

Comments (individual and groups):

Group A: Rating 1

Members of the group were less interested in a discussion list than in a Web site for new primary source collections and RSS feeds. There was also interest in having the ability to filter such feeds by subject so that one would be alerted to new materials in a particular subject or type. 

Group C: Rating1

A wiki as a website, where there would be multiple participants would be better than a listserv, though listserv postings would be available through an RSS feed. Could be linked to various cataloging mechanisms so that mention of a new collection or newly processed would be alerted to.  Infrastructure should allow disseminated maintenance of site, with little reliance on centralization. Ideally, automate cataloging/accession workflow so that appropriate special collections additions [with metadata already created] could be pushed out to site with little rekeying/duplication of effort. Technical infrastructure would allow other librarians and public to annotate and link back to entries, creating additional knowledge paths to the resource announcements. Site should be nicely designed with smooth interface (access isn't just about putting information up, but about creating way for people to find and read it easily), preferably site could also point out to services that users use to organize online resources, i.e. del.ic.ious, diggit, connotea, etc.

Group D: Rating 2

New accessions should be recorded in Orbis and info. fed from there somehow, rather than creating another place where info has to be entered.

Group E: Rating 1 (although we didn't actually do a rating).  We thought this was a very good idea, but better to have a website than a listserv.  We also thought it would be great if we could develop tools that would allow Orbis, the finding aids database, and other tools to automatically push content out, through rss feeds or other technologies, so that we could repurpose the metadata we already create for new resources.

Group F: Rating:2

We agreed that RSS feeds could be effective ways to disseminate and aggregate updates about new accessions of primary source collections.  Some concern was voiced about how that might impact and strain public services resources.  A counterpoint to that reservation was that feedback coming from better public awareness of newly accessioned collections could help set cataloging/processing priorities and help justify to funding sources an increase in resources for description.

(b) Create a category for "Primary Sources" within the MetaLib Multi-Database search function. 

Comments:

Group A: Rating 3

The category of "primary materials" would be problematic and that MetaLib may not be the right tool to use for a cross collection search as many databases of primary materials are not federatable.

Group C: Rating 3

All members in the group infrequently use MetaLib and were concerned for the definition of “primary source.” Would only be useful if there was federated searching of databases of campus repositories.

 

Group D: Rating 1

Good idea

Group E: Rating 3 (although we didn't actually put a number on it).  We didn't like the category "primary sources" because we thought it was too ill-defined.  That said, we supported the inclusion of systems and databases that largely describe primary sources into metalib searching, such as the finding aids database.

Group F: Rating 2

We agreed that this sounded useful but did not discuss in detail.

 

(c) Hold biannual forums related to primary sources, for librarians and curators (like the presentations scheduled for this afternoon.)

Comments:

Group A: Rating 1

Group members thought this should be expanded to include faculty and students (graduate students?), should be scheduled twice a year, should have thematic hooks to attract faculty, use Yale faculty and staff as speakers, but also invite outsiders (like Ken Hamma).

Group C: Rating 1

Invite the larger university community and solicit short papers. More forum, less symposium. No less than biannual since it could set the stage for favorites or only big collections getting attention. Maintain a record of the proceedings that is available and persists, such as a wiki (like this one!). Forums could be structured with well-articulated theme, conceptualized with distinct "carry-aways" for participants-- i.e. knowledge/tools that they would know in advance they could take away from the forum, as an incentive to attend.

 

Group D: Rating 2

It would be good to add faculty to such gatherings

Group E: Rating .  We liked this idea a great deal because organizing forums seemed relatively easy, compared to some of the other work on this list.  And more importantly, because it brings us together to discuss common concerns.  Our discussion of this issue also devolved into a larger discussion about sustainability of the "spirit" of the collections collaborative and an initial exploration into what structural changes would foster collaboration among various collections.  We thought that there should be at least a position who had the responsibility to focus on special collections at Yale as a whole, with the intention of bringing us together on issues of common concern and letting necessary diversity from collection to collection flourish.

Group F:  Rating 1

We thought regular gatherings of the Yale special collections community would be very valuable.

 

(d) Systematically enhance the topical subject guides on the library's website to include more information about primary sources.

Comments:

Group A: Rating 1

noted its relation to the next two suggestions; (e) and (f). Group members felt we are doing these things now; felt the guides needed to be up-to-date, based closely on work with individual faculty, automated as much as possible.

Group C: Rating 1

Current subject guides are outdated or missing information. A wiki (non-public, but with a password for Yale staff or selected group) could be appropriate here too. Wiki model was raised because there must be an infrastructure for continual and dynamic updates; again, technical infrastructure should allow websites, blogs, and other onlines sources to point to specific components of the subject guides. Subject guides are important since they offer a way into a subject for researchers, especially undergraduates. With retooling, this could be a great resource. Must, however, move away from print-based modes of thinking that don't take advantage of dynamic modes of the web, and that select themselves out of the network by not allowing easy referral, linking, etc. (Points about well-designed site were made here again.)

 

Group D:  We're not sure than anyone uses these topical subject guides

Group F: Rating 2

We agreed that both (d) and (e) are important and good work to pursue.  We felt that the library should pursue more dynamic systems that will avoid the development and eventually neglect of static HTML pages.  Ideally, a system could repurpose content for both generic subject guides and class-specific guides.

(e) Focus efforts on interactions with specific faculty members or courses, rather than building generic guides.

Comments:

Group A: see (d) above

Group C: Rating 1

Initiate these interactions by inviting faculty. Building on dynamic subject portals, could create course/faculty-specific modules that intersect with and build on base content of subject guides, modules that are reusable and easily adjustable, that can be maintained both by the library staff and the faculty member/department with an interest in the module. This is the kind of collaborative workflow that the web is very well-suited for. [Student work and resource creation could be modules that are part of this network as well, linked to from faculty/course modules]

 

Group D: Rating 1

This is very important

Group F: Rating 2

We agreed that both (d) and (e) are important and good work to pursue.  We felt that the library should pursue more dynamic systems that will avoid the development and eventually neglect of static HTML pages.  Ideally, a system could repurpose content for both generic subject guides and class-specific guides.

Group G: We agreed on the challenge of and importance of outreach and making personal connections with faculty and students, especially through collaborative cross-collection in-person presentations with a topical focus and that involved close interaction with primary materials followed by instruction in search strategies.  

(f) Work more closely with Yale History Department senior essay director to inform students about primary source collections.

Comments:

Group A: see (d) above

Group C: Rating 1

This biases one particular department and should be reconsidered to include other departments (including those outside of the humanities). Natural first partners (if this relationship building is conceived as a phased effort, with rollout to various departments over time) besides the History department include American Studies, African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Religious Studies, and so on.

 

Group D: Rating 1

Should be equal participation in this from across campus repositories

Group F: Rating 3

Although we thought this worthwhile, we assumed it was already going on and wondered why we shouldn't be speaking with other departments.

Group G: See (e) above

 

(g) Focus efforts on creating web-based "cross-collection" search engines for identifying primary source materials (self-service model).

Comments:

Group A: Group members thought this would be superior to #2 above (MetaLib). Some discussion on difference between creating a new stand alone search cross collection search tool and implementing an effort to publish our metadata at the network level per Ken Hamma's presentation earlier in the day.

Group C: Rating 1

This refers back to a few of the other questions. This would be a great resource and could potentially be tied in to subject guides with instruction for how to search for specific kinds of content, structure research strategies, etc.

 

Group D: Rating 1

Important to include in-process material too

Group E: Rating 1.  We thought developing cross-collection searching strategies to be of the utmost importance.  Many agreed largely or wholly with the vision outlined by Ken Hamma earlier in the day. 

Group F: Rating 1

We had too little time to discuss this in detail, but we felt that cross-collection search functionality should be a very high priority for the library.

Group G: We, too, felt that Ken Hamma had addressed many of the issues and presented a very compelling case.  There was real interest and enthusiasm for being able to find primary source materials and digital surrogates of Yale's holdings in a web-based "cross-collection" search engine or aggregator.