University Governance
LIBRARIES FY09
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES FOR FY 09
STANDING CHARGES
1. Monitor the Libraries’ allocation of resources—staff, physical space, collections, digitally-based information, and equipment—in light of the needs of different academic disciplines. Assess the adequacy of these resources to support teaching and research. Communicate with the Dean of Libraries as appropriate and report important issues and any recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)
Matters related to this charge were discussed several times, but committee members proposed no specific actions. Associate Dean for Libraries Deb Ludwig informed the committee of the plans for a Center for Scholars to be located on the 4th floor of Watson library, aimed at facilitating faculty and graduate student research; its placement will result in a move of periodical collections to the 2nd floor.
2. Monitor the effectiveness of communication between the Libraries and students, faculty, and staff, including appropriate library-based instruction into existing curricula and academic programs in support of articulated university-wide learner outcomes. Communicate with the Dean of Libraries as appropriate and report important issues and any recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)
Matters related to this charge were discussed at all three meetings of the committee during this year.
a) A number of committee members remarked favorably on the libraries’ decisions to inform faculty members of the costs of online course reserves. Most faculty were unaware of the substantial costs to the library of copyright clearance associated with the service. In light of this, the decision to phase out online reserve as it has been used in the past and move towards use of Blackboard (which most faculty seem already to use) makes sense. In the coming year, it will be necessary to devise a system to help faculty with this transition and to continue with efforts to educate faculty about copyright issues.
b) Committee members were impressed by the libraries’ commitment to developing its instructional outreach. Jennifer Church-Duran reported throughout the year on the plans for a Learning Commons to be located in Anschutz library. This collaborative project between the libraries and the Office of Student Success aims to provide the flexible space and services students need at the right times for students’ schedules, and in what is already the busiest study space on campus (700,000 student transactions/year). The project will mean moving some of the government documents collection within the building or, in the case of materials available online, into the Annex. It will also mean beefing up wireless internet access, and developing strategies to maintain a good study environment Throughout the year, the library sought faculty and student input on this project with focus groups.
c) At the March 6, 2009 meeting the committee heard a report on the Open Access Initiative, aimed at making KU research openly available to scholars throughout the world. The advantages of doing so are that open-access scholarship is more often cited, and that major funding bodies often require that funded research be publicly disseminated. But there are a number of challenges associated with the project, including the perception of increased workload and the fear that making work publicly available will diminish its value to publishers and journals. Successful implementation of this program will require education of faculty in which the libraries may play an important role.
d) At the committee’s final meeting, members underscored the significance of libraries educational role, asking the library to work with faculty not just to develop “information literacy,” but to help foster a culture where the value of reading and the power of the written word is realized and championed.
3. Communicate with the Dean of Libraries concerning long range planning by the Libraries and methods to assess the effectiveness of library services. (ongoing)
Shrinking budgets present the greatest current challenge to the libraries. At the December 8, 2008 meeting, Dean Haricombe outlined her budget plans aimed at preserving collection buying power and funding for new programs. After years of increasing costs for journals and painful decisions about serials subscriptions and acquisitions, it seems clear to the committee that there is no room for cuts in the library budget. Cuts would likely mean loss of access to scholarly resources or personnel cuts (79% of the budget is taken up with collections and salaries), both of which obviously imperil the vital mission of the library in a research university. The libraries are actively exploring every avenue to save money, such as negotiating costs of electronic resources, considering the sale of unprocessed collections, and assessing the quality of approval plans.
SPECIFIC CHARGES
Initiative 2015 posits several recommendations that are relevant to the Libraries Committee since collections and services provided by the KU Libraries broadly impact the educational and research mission of the University of Kansas. Given the importance that collections and services have on all disciplines across the University, the Libraries Committee should in particular:
1. Review and make recommendations about policies regarding unfettered access to research and scholarly resources in their various formats on the Lawrence and Medical Center campuses, as well as satellite and distance learning affiliates. Such policies may concern, for example, ability to borrow materials from either campus and access licensed electronic resources and databases. Report recommendations to SenEx by February 15, 2009.
2. Communicate with the Academic Computing and Telecommunications Committee and other governance committees regarding library/IT-related infrastructural issues that support greater local-, state-wide, national-, and global-connectivity, especially regarding enhanced access to research and scholarly resources. Report recommendations to SenEx by February 15, 2009.
[a report on these specific charges was submitted in February]
Conclusions
It is worth considering how this committee could better facilitate communication between the libraries and the rest of the university community. For example, student representatives to this committee never came to any of its meetings; is there a better way, then, to involve students in the committee’s work? Also, nearly every academic department has a “library liaison” but there is no formal way for those people to hear about the plans and challenges that this committee discusses. In the same vein, members of this committee rarely know what issues are of concern to the constituencies they ostensibly represent. We invite University Governance to help us find better ways for information to move both directions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie Tuttle, Chair 2008-9
May 15, 2009