Alison Hicks and Alison Graber
This paper seeks to re‐conceptualize Web 2.0 tools within the intellectual and theoretical frameworks currently driving changes in academic learning communities and to explore the…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper seeks to re‐conceptualize Web 2.0 tools within the intellectual and theoretical frameworks currently driving changes in academic learning communities and to explore the effect of this paradigm shift on academic libraries.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper explores an intellectually rather than technologically driven definition of Web 2.0 and its potential effect on teaching and learning in libraries. Reflections are based on paradigm shifts in learning theories implicit in the adoption and implementation of Web 2.0 technologies. The paper also discusses applications of Web 2.0 designed to improve student and faculty engagement in the research process.
Findings
The paper encourages librarians to think beyond the technology and to consider how Web 2.0 can support intellectual teaching and learning objectives in an academic library.
Practical implications
The paper discusses applications of Web 2.0 designed to improve student and faculty engagement in the research process.
Originality/value
The paper offers insights into rethinking current conceptions of Web 2.0 based on participation in and collaboration with faculty during a summer institute session. It provides a common conceptual framework of teaching and learning theory for librarians to use when implementing Web 2.0 tools and applications.
Details
Keywords
Alison Graber, Stephanie Alexander, Megan Bresnahan and Jennie Gerke
Reference data collection tools facilitate the collection of in‐depth data about reference interactions. Since this information may influence decisions, library managers should…
Abstract
Purpose
Reference data collection tools facilitate the collection of in‐depth data about reference interactions. Since this information may influence decisions, library managers should examine how these tools are used and assess how these data entry behaviors may impact the accuracy of the data. This paper aims to analyze reference staff perceptions and data entry behaviors using a reference data collection tool.
Design/methodology/approach
The two‐year mixed method study analyses reference staff perceptions and data entry behaviors related to the reference data collection tool used at the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries. The authors identified six distinct data entry behaviors for analysis in this study.
Findings
The survey results indicate that staff consider the tool to be both easy to use and useful. These findings, under the technology acceptance model, indicate technology acceptance, which influences adoption and use of the tool. Though rates of adoption and use of the tool are high, the authors' analysis of behaviors indicate that not all users record reference interactions in the same way, and this inconsistency may impact the accuracy of collected data.
Practical implications
Inconsistency in data entry behaviors should inform the design of staff training sessions, best practice guidelines, and the tool's interface.
Social implications
If data are used to justify changes to services and collections, decision makers need to be confident that data accurately reflect activity at library service points.
Originality/value
Previous studies related to reference data collection mention the importance of consistent data entry practices, but no studies have explicitly evaluated how inconsistencies in use may impact the accuracy of data.
Details
Keywords
Litigation is part of the American policymaking playbook as diverse groups routinely turn to courts to pursue their agendas. All of this litigation raises questions about its…
Abstract
Litigation is part of the American policymaking playbook as diverse groups routinely turn to courts to pursue their agendas. All of this litigation raises questions about its consequences. This essay examines the literature on the political risks of litigation. It argues that this literature identifies four potential risks – crowd out, path dependence, backlash, and individualization – but offers less insight into the likelihood of these risks in practice. It ends by offering suggestions about how to advance our understanding of when litigation casts a negative political shadow in the current age of judicialization.