Search

Privacy should be a factor in every decision made around library services and the provision of resources. With staffing stretched to the breaking point, and only more so as a result of the pandemic, what strategies and tools could best help libraries ensure good privacy practices? This session will draw upon current scholarship, grant projects, and policy making in librarianship to highlight ways that librarians are engaging with these important issues. The panel features editors and authors from a special issue of Serials Librarian focused on library privacy. Highlights include discussing physical equivalent privacy, third-party tracking systems, and the development of model privacy license language for vendor negotiations. In this session, participants will talk about the latest concerns and what you might do in your library to assure your faculty, staff, and students that their privacy is front of mind.

This site links to literature relevant to the Data Doubles project, including: bibliographies from Data Doubles articles, other publications from Data Doubles authors, and other useful readings.

Data Management Plans (DMPs) for funding application and three research phases

This site includes presentations and publications by the Data Doubles team. Please see the index files for citation and abstract information. License terms for publications vary -- see individual articles for more information.

This site contains the research tools used during the three phases of the Data Double project. The three iterative research phases include: 1) preliminary interviews with students to identify themes about library participation in LA and LA generally with regard to privacy; 2) a survey to undergraduate and graduate students at each researcher’s respective institution; and 3) a series of scenario-based focus groups with students to explore possible applications of LA that respect and break expectations of privacy.

This site contains materials for Phase Three of the Data Doubles project, which consists of a series of scenario-based focus groups with students to explore possible applications of LA that respect and break expectations of privacy.

This site includes resources for reproducing Data Doubles research at other institutions.

Data files from a public-records request for circulation and EZProxy data.

IMLS funded research into student perspectives of privacy issues associated with academic library participation in learning analytics initiatives. More info: http://datadoubles.org/

This site contains materials for Phase One of the Data Doubles project, which consists of preliminary interviews with students to identify themes about library participation in LA and LA generally with regard to privacy.

Universities are pursuing learning analytics practices to improve returns from their investments, develop behavioral and academic interventions to improve student success, and address political and financial pressures. Academic libraries are additionally undertaking learning analytics to demonstrate value to stakeholders, assess learning gains from instruction, and analyze student-library usage, among other things. The adoption of these techniques leads to many professional ethics issues and practical concerns related to privacy. In this narrative literature review, we provide a foundational background in the field of learning analytics, library adoption of these practices, and identify ethical and practical privacy issues.

This site contains materials for Phase Two of the Data Doubles project, which consists of a survey to undergraduate and graduate students at each researcher’s respective institution.

This proposal outlines the design of a comparative analysis of the four institutional repository software packages that were represented at the 4th International Conference on Open Repositories held in 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia: EPrints, DSpace, Fedora and Zentity (The 4th International Conference on Open Repositories website, https://or09.library.gatech.edu). The study includes 23 qualitative and quantitative measures taken from default installations of the four repositories on a benchmark machine with a predefined base collection. The repositories are also being assessed on the execution of four common workflows: consume, submit, accept, and batch. A panel of external reviewers provided feedback on the design of the study and its evaluative criteria, and input is currently being solicited from the developer and user communities of each repository in order to refine the criteria, measures, data collection methods, and analyses. The aim is to produce a holistic evaluation that will describe the state of the art in repository software packages in a comparative manner, similar in approach to Consumer Reports (Consumer Reports magazine website, http://www.consumerreports.org). The output of this study will be highly useful for repository developers, repository managers, and especially those who are selecting a repository for the first time. As members of these respective communities and the organizations who support them are increasingly collaborating (e.g, DuraSpace), this study will help identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of each repository to inform the "best-of-breed" in future solutions that may be developed. The study’s methods will be presented in a transparent manner with documentation to support their reproducibility by a third party., International Conference on Open Repositories : Proceedings, The 5th International Conference on Open Repositories (OR2010), Madrid, Spain, 6-9 July 2010

Research institutions, particularly universities and colleges, often face challenges in understanding the range of research, publications, and collaborations occurring within their boundaries. They often struggle to keep up with the research and collaborations happening. Faculty and researchers are sometimes at a loss to find fruitful collaborations on campus. Libraries often lack the data to truly understand the publication patterns and trends among faculty. Repository managers spend much time trying to identify publications that can go into a repository. Faculty and departmental web pages are inconsistently complete and sometimes out of date; annual reporting processes are still sometimes paper-based or are not integrated into an institution-wide workflow. Grants and contracts offices generally can only provide a view of the departments that are heavily reliant on grants. There is seldom one place where an administrator, a faculty member, a funder, a potential graduate student, a subject librarian can go to better understand the research occurring on campus. Within this environment a number of tools are in development to help fill gaps in managing, displaying, searching, and mining the publication and citation data that are byproducts of the scholarly communication process. Cornell’s VIVO (http://vivo.cornell.edu/), Harvard’s Catalyst (http://catalyst.harvard.edu/), MIT’s Citeline (http://citeline.mit.edu/), and the BibApp, the subject of this paper, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Wisconsin at Madison (http://bibapp.org with a pilot installation at http://connections.ideals.illinois.edu/) are all examples of such tools., International Conference on Open Repositories : Proceedings, The 5th International Conference on Open Repositories (OR2010), Madrid, Spain, 6-9 July 2010

Keynote talk given at the Edinburgh Repository Fringe 2008 conference (www.repositoryfringe.org) The institutional repository is dead -- long live the institutional repository! Despite their rocky beginnings, IRs are finally finding their niche and surging forward. What were their initial mistakes, and how can further missteps be avoided? How do we best build on IRs' current momentum? What do IRs need to succeed? Let's get the conversation started!