LIS Journal Club

[lisjournalclub]

Our April article:

Christopher Michael Rosser and Tamie Willis. “Flip Over Research Instruction: Delivery, Assessment, and Feedback Strategies for ‘Flipped’ Library.” Theological Librarianship 9.1 (2016).

https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/view/413

If you’re using the Hypothes.is proxy: 

https://via.hypothes.is/https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/viewFile/413/1425

Abstract: 

To take fuller advantage of new models for transformative learning, the Beam Library at Oklahoma Christian University has implemented a “flipped classroom” strategy for research instruction. Traditional “one-shot” instruction suffers limitations of both depth and time. In the flipped model, conceptual and application-oriented instruction are provided through brief online videos prior to the class session; class time then becomes a workshop in which librarians are better able to provide in-depth, targeted, highly-interactive instruction. In this way, students become active participants in their learning and are empowered to teach each other through collaborative (rather than passive) in-class experiences. While flipped research instruction is not new, our strategy incorporates a means for assessment and feedback lacking from other approaches. This article describes our flipped pilot and the delivery, assessment, and feedback strategies we have employed to enhance flipped research instruction.

[lisjournalclub]

Our March 2017 Article:

Katelyn Angell and Gary Kose. “’The library catalog is definitely the best place to find articles!’ Overconfidence among Undergraduate Library Users.“ Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10.2 (2015): 1.

https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3514/3610

https://via.hypothes.is/https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewFile/3514/3610

Abstract:

Beginning in the 1980s, researchers in a wide array of academic disciplines surveyed undergraduate students to learn if they were overconfident with regard to their knowledge of disciplinary subject matter. The majority of researchers have found that students tend to overestimate their abilities within a certain body of knowledge. Up until recently, most of these projects were conducted in the fields of education, psychology, and economics. In the past few years, several academic librarians have applied these methodologies to their undergraduate patrons, curious as to whether this population demonstrates similar overconfidence in their grasp of academic research. The present study surveyed 34 undergraduates enrolled in psychology classes at a large urban university in the United States to determine if these students were overconfident about their knowledge in key library research areas. These questions included citing and referencing, identifying components of scholarly and popular sources, and developing and applying searches in electronic resources. A general knowledge survey was created for comparison purposes. Statistical analysis showed that students displayed marked overconfidence on both tools, signifying a need for increased library and metacognitive skill instruction. 

[lisjournalclub]

Our February 2017 article:

Anastasia Varnalis-Weigle. “A Comparative Study of User Experience between Physical Objects and Their Digital Surrogates,” Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies Vol. 3, Article 3 (2016).

You can find the article here: http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol3/iss1/3/

And use the hypothesis proxy here: https://via.hypothes.is/elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=jcas

Abstract: Librarians and archivists have embraced innovative technologies in providing users a way to engage with collections. This engagement is increased through various forms of social media “sharing,” which broadens cultural institutions' visibility to new or remote users. While we make strides in designing new ways to access digital collections, the question remains: what are users losing in sensory (sight, touch, sound, smell) and emotional experience at the digital level? A phenomenological approach consisting of observation and semi-structured interviews was used to investigate user experience with physical objects and their digital surrogates. Students, faculty, and staff from a large academic institution were grouped into two sets—ages eighteen to twenty-nine representing digital natives and ages thirty to sixty representing digital immigrants. The analysis was based on twenty interviews and forty video recordings, and observation notes. Using attributes associated with sensual, emotional, spatio-temporal, and numinous qualities, findings suggest users experienced little difference between the two and simple three-dimensional physical objects and their digital surrogates. However, certain physical elements from the highly complex three-dimensional object did not translate well in the digital environment. Depth, size, texture, and interactive complexities of this physical object was perceived differently in its physical form than in its digital—intrinsic information that could provide additional knowledge about the creator's meaning and intent or purpose of construction. Users overall spent more time with the textual context of digital objects than the physical objects. However, users experienced a high level of engagement with the complex physical objects based on their interest level or emotional attachment and less on supporting documents. Lastly, numinous qualities were experienced only at the physical level.

[lisjournalclub]

Happy new year! Our January article:

Heidi R. Johnson. “Foucault, the 'Facts,’ and the Fiction of Neutrality: Neutrality in Librarianship and Peer Review.” Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 1.1 (2016).

The article:

http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/view/24304

The abstract:

This paper brings together two discourses in librarianship, that of neutrality in the context of library services, and that of peer review, which is of concern for librarianship as it moves more into the realm of scholarly communication. It points out the shortcomings of this ethical principle within the context of library services, using LIS literature on the opposition between neutrality and the commitment to social justice. It also uses Foucault’s theories on discipline, and knowledge and power, and Latour and Woolgar’s analysis of the construction of scientific facts, to critique the concept of neutrality. Then it asks how that critique applies to the practice of peer review, in which the expectation is that reviewers will be neutral or impartial judges of manuscripts. Findings suggest that the principle of neutrality, with a slightly different meaning in this context, does have useful applications to peer review, ensuring fairness. Although neutrality may never be possible completely, cross-disciplinary literature suggests ways to limit the effects of bias. Thus, librarians can better understand the different meanings of neutrality in these different contexts, including its usefulness and limitations.

The Hypothes.is proxy:

https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/download/24304/19467

Or the PDF, for use with the browser extension:

http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/download/24304/19467

[lisjournalclub]

Our November 2016 article:

Lisa Di Valentino’s “Awareness and Perception of Copyright Among Teaching Faculty at Canadian Universities.” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10.2 (2015)

https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3556#.V8dz4fkrKij

The live chat will be on November 22nd, at our usual time of 3pmEST/8pmGMT/12pmPST. 

If you’re annotating with us, you can find the Hypothes.is proxy here:

https://via.hypothes.is/https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewFile/3556/3648

(or just use the Chrome extension!)

Here’s the abstract:

This article describes the background, methodology, and results of a preliminary study undertaken in 2014 to determine university faculty awareness and perceptions of copyright as it affects teaching and learning. An online survey questionnaire was distributed (via faculty associations) to teaching faculty across Canada, seeking feedback about the copyright policies and training opportunities at their institutions, where they go for copyright assistance, and how they would respond to various copyright-related scenarios that may arise in the course of teaching.

Most of the respondents are aware of the copyright policies or guidelines at their universities, but much fewer know whether or not their institution offers copyright training. Of those who are aware of training opportunities, only one third have taken advantage of them. When needing assistance, faculty members are most likely to go to a librarian or to the institution’s copyright policy.

Responses to the four scenarios suggest that faculty members are more likely to share digital copyrighted materials (including online works) with their students, whereas they are more likely to ask permission or guidance when it comes to print materials.

Comments from the respondents touch upon issues of the complexity of copyright, and the often time-consuming process of obtaining permissions for the use of copyrighted materials in teaching.

[lisjournalclub]

Our October 2016 storify is up!

This time around, we tried a more informal chat, since our audience is mostly LIS and the article is some archives inside baseball.

[View the story "#LISJC October 2016" on Storify]

[lisjournalclub]

Some comments on our September article!

Comments are starting to trickle in on Dave Hudson’s article about racialized discourse on information. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, there’s still time before our live chat on September 22nd!

[lisjournalclub]

Announcing our Fall 2016  - Winter 2017 schedule!

As many of you know, we’ve already lined up our September article - we hope the advance notice gave you some time to read it in amongst the back-to-school rush!

If you can’t join us ‘til October, that’s okay - here are the next eight months of articles for LIS Journal Club! 

September 2016: Dave Hudson. “On Dark Continents and Digital Divides: Information Inequality and the Reproduction of Racial Otherness in Library and Information Studies.” Journal of Information Ethics, suppl. Special Issue: Information Ethics and Global Citizenship 25.1 (Spring 2016): 62-82,149. 

https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/9862

Hypothesis proxy link: https://via.hypothes.is/Y6f5BGVeEeaJZhs6oqy8Gw/atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/9862/Hudson_On_Dark_Continents_and_Digital_Divides_IR_copy.pdf

October 2016:  Kodjo Atiso and Chris Freeland. "Identifying the Social and Technical Barriers affecting engagement in online Community Archives: A Preliminary Study of 'Documenting Ferguson' Archive." Library Philosophy and Practice (2016).

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1377/

https://via.hypothes.is/digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3777&context=libphilprac

November 2016: Lisa Di Valentino. "Awareness and Perception of Copyright Among Teaching Faculty at Canadian Universities." Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10.2 (2015): 1.

https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3556#.V8dz4fkrKij

https://via.hypothes.is/https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewFile/3556/3648

We’re taking December 2016 off for the holidays! 

January 2017:   Heidi R. Johnson. "Foucault, the 'Facts,' and the Fiction of Neutrality: Neutrality in Librarianship and Peer Review." Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 1.1 (2016).

http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/view/24304

https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.cjal.ca/index.php/capal/article/download/24304/19467

February 2017: Anastasia Varnalis-Weigle. "A Comparative Study of User Experience between Physical Objects and Their Digital Surrogates," Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies Vol. 3, Article 3 (2016). 

http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/jcas/vol3/iss1/3/

https://via.hypothes.is/elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=jcas

March 2017:  Katelyn Angell and Gary Kose. “’The library catalog is definitely the best place to find articles!' Overconfidence among Undergraduate Library Users." Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10.2 (2015): 1.

https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3514/3610

https://via.hypothes.is/https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewFile/3514/3610

April 2017: Christopher Michael Rosser and Tamie Willis. "Flip Over Research Instruction: Delivery, Assessment, and Feedback Strategies for ‘Flipped’ Library." Theological Librarianship 9.1 (2016).

https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/view/413

https://via.hypothes.is/https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/viewFile/413/1425

[lisjournalclub]

Our September article is “On Dark Continents and Digital Divides: Information Inequality and the Reproduction of Racial Otherness in Library and Information Studies” by Dave Hudson!

Here’s our September 2016 article - a collab with #critlib to read a much-anticipated article.

https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/9862

It’s a bit of a departure from our usual methodology focus, but we think you’ll enjoy the read.

Here’s the Hypothes.is proxy to the PDF:

https://hyp.is/Y6f5BGVeEeaJZhs6oqy8Gw/atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/9862/Hudson_On_Dark_Continents_and_Digital_Divides_IR_copy.pdf

Let’s tentatively schedule the Twitter chat for September 22nd (a Thursday), 12pmPST/3pmEST/8pmBST. If you’re not already swamped with back-to-school work, you can get started reading and commenting now! Use the #lisjc hashtag on Twitter and Hypothesis, or submit your thoughts here.

[lisjournalclub]

Our July article - “Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study”

I am delighted to say the authors have graciously given their permission and our July article is:

“Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study” by Lori Townsend, Amy R. Hofer, Silvia Lin Hanick, and Korey Brunetti

Here it is on the Communications in Information Literacy website!

If you’re using the Hypothesis proxy, here’s the link! 

Our Twitter chat will be likely on the 20th or 21st this month, Wednesday or Thursday. Stay tuned for another announcement! 

[lisjournalclub]

Hey team, we’re going to roll over our July article for the month of August! That will give: us a bit of break for the summer, you the option to catch up if you haven’t read it and still want to participate, and all of us a chance to figure out if we wanted to change it up from our one-article-a-month timeline. A second Twitter chat will be scheduled soon!

[lisjournalclub]

LIS Journal Club Chat - July 21st, 2016 (with tweets) · LISJournalClub

Here is an overview of the #LISjc twitter chat that took place on July 21st. Our reading was: “Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study” by Lori Townsend, Amy R. Hofer, Silvia Lin Hanick, and Korey Brunetti.

[lisjournalclub]

LIS Journal Club Chat - June 20th, 2016 (with tweets) · LISJournalClub

Here is an overview of the #LISjc twitter chat that took place on June 20th. Our first reading was: “Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals” by Chealsye Bowley and Micah Vandergrift.

If you missed it, here’s the Twitter chat for the June article!

[lisjournalclub]

Our July article - “Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study”

I am delighted to say the authors have graciously given their permission and our July article is:

“Identifying Threshold Concepts for Information Literacy: A Delphi Study” by Lori Townsend, Amy R. Hofer, Silvia Lin Hanick, and Korey Brunetti

Here it is on the Communications in Information Literacy website!

If you’re using the Hypothesis proxy, here’s the link! 

Our Twitter chat will be likely on the 20th or 21st this month, Wednesday or Thursday. Stay tuned for another announcement! 

[lisjournalclub]

Our June article - “Librarian, Heal Thyself” by Chealsye Bowley and Micah Vandegrift!

We’ve chosen our next article for discussion! It’s “Librarian, Heal Thyself: A Scholarly Communication Analysis of LIS Journals” by Chealsye Bowley and Micah Vandegrift, published in In The Library With The Lead Pipe in 2014. 

If you’re using Hypothesis, here’s the proxy link:

https://via.hypothes.is/www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/healthyself/

All comment should be tagged with #lisjc. You can follow along with the comments, without logging in, here:

https://hypothes.is/stream?q=tag:%23lisjc

You can also submit comments here on the blog, or to our Twitter account (we’ll retweet stuff so others can join the conversation). More info about each medium is here on the Participate page.

The live Twitter chat is (tentatively) scheduled for Monday, June 20th at 8pmEST (5pmPST). 

[lisjournalclub]

LIS Journal Club Chat - May 18th, 2016 (with tweets) · courtums

Here is an overview of the #LISjc twitter chat that took place on May 18th. Our first reading was: Schomberg, J. (2016). Examination of Cataloging Assessment Values Using the Q Sort method. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1072864.

[allanamayer]

#LISjc May 2016!

Hey team, we’re going to go ahead with reading and reviewing our first LIS article:

Schomberg, J. (2016). Examination of Cataloging Assessment Values Using the Q Sort method. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 54(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1072864

https://via.hypothes.is/cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/lib_services_fac_pubs/50/

https://via.hypothes.is/http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=lib_services_fac_pubs

(I’m using the Hypothes.is proxy here, because the Chrome add-on is giving me difficulties. YMMV.)

So! The asynchronous reading/annotating part happens now - you can make your own notes, or collaboratively annotate with Hyopthes.is. Our Hypothes.is annotations should be tagged with #lisjc.

The twitter chat will happen at #lisjc on May 9th (Monday) at 8pm EST. That gives you almost three weeks to read the article!

The idea here is to learn from and teach each other, based on what we know and don’t about research methods, statistics, and libraries (and library users). Critiquing is cool, and I expect I’ll do some of it myself, but we’re gonna keep it constructive and kind. 

The author has given her consent and you can reach her on Twitter @schomj if you have questions. 

And just a reminder: the planning doc is here! The questions for the Twitter chat (and to keep in mind while you read) are roughly:

Free-for-all: things you didn’t understand or couldn’t get behind

Strengths in the study’s methods, structure, instrument: best practices, clever solutions, cheap ways around expensive issues, etc.

Limitations in the study: badly-worded survey Qs, questionable rigour, response rate, how to get better samples, etc.

Future implications: potential for replication, use in other contexts, generalizability, or how we’d refute it

[allanamayer]

A librarian journal club for research and methodology.

Some people were interested in my suggestion of a reading club for LIS research. So far we have a hashtag on Twitter (#lisjc) and a Google doc for planning purposes. You can express interest just by signing your name, or by leaving comments about structure, or suggest an article!

I think we should plan to reach out to people whose articles we’re reading, to let them know what we’re doing. If you want to suggest an article and run the Twitter chat on it, it would be good to volunteer to do this (and keep it in mind, if that affects what you suggest?). 

I’m also messing around with hypothes.is, the website + Chrome add-on that lets anyone add annotations to the web. I think we’ll start a “group” in that system (the alternative is to have all our annotations publicly observable/commentable by anyone with an account) to keep our efforts organized. 

If you install the add-on or go to their website and then navigate to this article in EBLIP:

https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/26016/20189

(or https://via.hypothes.is/https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/26016/20189 )

You should see my and some other people’s notes and questions. Add your own and see how this process feels! The live chat would likely take off from the asynchronous conversations and notes from the article annotations.