April Update – 60 seconds special

Continuing my gentle potter to clear the backlog of CILIP Updates I reach April and an issue where I was the subject of the “60 Seconds with” (CILIP login required).  This was fun to be asked to do and I had a few people get in touch about it at the time so clearly some do read it.

In the news this month were a few bits on lobbying work – a new chair for the all party parliamentary group for libraries and details of the submission to the Seighart Review.  I was glad to see a clearer position adopted on the role of volunteers.

I liked the look of Copyrightuser.org a site I had not heard of before. A good looking resource aimed at explaining copyright to creatives and the public.

I found the reporting of a survey of PMLG disappointing.  A good response rate was claimed but not quantified which is unhelpful.  I also found it hard to follow the thread of the results.  The report on development around Information Management interests within CILIP was encouraging.

A couple of tech bits – Phil Bradley reports an interesting tool for looking at twitter Gwittr which could be handy for investigating details of how people use accounts (amused on trying it that it notes I tweeted Clang quite a lot).  I should use DuckDuckGo more but the wandering lifestyle my role requires means I end up on lots of different PCs and tend to stick to the default (it does mean I use Bing a bit).  The idea of emerging from the filter bubble is appealing.

I was glad to read about the work of the Internet Watch Foundation.  Interesting to put this work in juxtaposition with the research on internet filtering in Public Libraries.  Given the bluntness of filtering tools it is a worry that these are in place at most libraries and even imposed by their ISP in some cases.  Another nail in the coffin of the digital native was the observation that some of them have no smart phone and no internet at home.

This months library envy article is the Inner Temple library – pretty.

Point of Care tools a four way look

I prepared this poster for the London Health Libraries NHS HE Conference yesterday (it won second prize!).

It was an attempt to find out more about point of care tools than the fact people like one in particular a great deal. I was disappointed not to get more feedback but given the small group I was working with, and Library Survey response levels generally, I think the level of response was acceptable.

I asked other questions about the kinds of questions they were trying to answer which was not very telling. I also have a certain amount of qualitative data that was hard to represent on the poster.  Generally there were not many surprises though the extent to which this group were not keen on BMJ Clinical Evidence was of note given that we have been providing them access to it for some time.

I had a very useful conversation with someone from Ebsco at the conference about Dynamed with some promising developments due in the not too distant future – in particular changes to have a proper app.

Despite the obvious limitations I think it was a worthwhile piece of work.

Occupational therapy training session thoughts

I ran a session this morning on literature searching for a group of hand therapy specialist occupational therapists.

Looking ahead of time I noted some general sites

OTSeeker a good place to find details of OT interventions

OTCATS for Critically Appraised Topics

and a nice general libguide from Edith Cowan University in Australia

I went with CINAHL for the demonstration but this proved to be a challenge as the subject headings lack detail around the structures of the hand.

We did some interesting searching around trying to retrieve PIPJ (Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Injuries) but it was hard to pin this down through the subject headings at all.

Arthoplast* Rehabilit* proved a nice example of a typo that returns results

I had a nightmare when we found Finger Joint Surgery/ as a subject heading from examining the full record but I was then unable to get CINAHL to map to it.

A mixed bag of a session!

In the journal club

Yesterday was the last of a trial series of journal clubs at work.

These were intitiated (myself and Lynne Meehan plotted them over coffee) to provide a forum where the then Research and Learning Liaison team could examine their practice, consider the research base, learn more about research methods and generally carry out some useful CPD. While a number of participants were familiar with the concept of Journal Clubs most had not participated before.  We drew on this handy guide to running a successful journal club. (you can see our introductory Journal Club discussion if you like).

During the year we aimed to meet on alternate months and generally had around half the team in attendance.  The September session was (slightly predictably) cancelled due to competing commitments that month.

We looked at the following:

February – A report “New roles for new times: transforming liaison roles in research libraries” from the Association of Research Libraries.

May –  Evaluating the Impact of Academic Liaison Librarians on Their User Community: A Review and Case Study Louise Cooke, Michael Norris, Nial Busby, Thomas Page, Ginny Franklin, Elizabeth Gadd, Helen Young New Review of Academic Librarianship Vol. 17, Iss. 1, 2011

July – Creating information literacy partnerships in Higher Education Clare Joanne McCluskey Library and Information Research Vol 35, No 111 (2011)

September (cancelled but paper had been picked) – Mirna E. Turcios, Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Linda Watkins, How Much of Library and Information Science Literature Qualifies as Research?, The Journal of Academic Librarianship

November – Michael M. Smith, Leslie J. Reynolds, (2008) “The street team: An unconventional peer program for undergraduates”, Library Management, Vol. 29 Iss: 3, pp.145 – 158

The papers provided plenty of grist for the mill with an hour of wide ranging conversation each time. I do not propose to dredge my memory for the earlier ones but would recommend the new roles paper and suggest not worrying too much about the one on how much of the LIS literature qualifies as research (answer – not a lot).

The street team paper yesterday was a disappointment.  I selected it quite quickly as it spoke to a lot of our current interests.  Sadly the paper is big on describing what they are planning to do but predates them actually going live (there are signs of them having done so). I had hoped that it would be less descriptive and more about impact and what worked. For all that I was interested to see the thoroughness with which they planned for the recruitment and training of those who would be involved.

We debated to what extent this model depended on factors in the US academic library environment (like high levels of student employment in the Library) and possibly also the business students targeted. We generated some interesting ideas for how we might work more closely with students in the UK. The example of the NHS Evidence Student Champions was used as one model that has seen participation from our students already with benefits in terms of promotion, engagement and peer to peer learning. I think Journal Clubs are a great form of CPD.

Are others engaged in doing this face to face?  Or online (I am aware of the Library Leadership Reading Group for example).  Now that all CILIP HLG members get HILJ as part of their benefits I wonder what might be done using this on a quarterly basis?