Beyond the Search I

I, along with Valori Banfi attended Beyond the Search I: Protocol Development and Methodology for Systematic Reviews.

This webinar, held on October 22, 2014, was part of the continuing education program of the Medical Library Association. The webinar was hosted  for New Englanders at the Lamar Soutter Library of the University of Massachusetts Medical School but was conducted by two informationists from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Each presenter, Mark MacEachern and Whitney Townsend, has authored several systematic reviews.

The goal of the webinar was to provide the audience with the tools to develop protocols for systematic reviews.  Systematic reviews are a type of publication frequently seen in medicine. They are also becoming popular in other fields concerned with treatment outcomes, such as psychology and health communication. Systematic reviews “attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question” (Higgins & Green, 2011). A protocol is simply is a plan that explains how a systematic review will be conducted. As such the protocol is outlined before the review begins.

Why establish a protocol? Systematic reviews are meant to be comprehensive and exhaustive, which means they take a long time to complete. Many systematic review standards (Institute of Medicine, 2011; Liberati et al, 2009) recommend protocols in order to notify the research community about a forthcoming systematic review on a topic. This helps to prevent a duplication of effort. Protocols also serve as a means to reduce bias ex post facto. The presenters recommended several online templates for protocol-building and suggested registries where protocols can be filed.

Besides this helpful advice, the webinar also focused on how to communicate with prospective systematic review writers, including how to educate them through the process. Perhaps most interestingly for librarians was the discussion on how to negotiate roles and expectations with members of the systematic review team. For example, if the librarian/informationist wants to co-author or be acknowledged in the publication, those wishes need to be made known during the initial consultation.

This was the first installment of MLA’s systematic review series. The second installment, which will be held on December 3rd, will cover the exportation and management of systematic review data.

Higgins, J.P.T, & Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0.   Available from http://www.cochrane.org/handbook.

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Available from http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-  Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx

Liberati A, Altman D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis. , J.P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 151(4), W65-W94. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Advisory Board Meeting and Conference

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Last October I attended the Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Advisory Board Meeting and Biennial Conference: Prensa, Latinidad y Legado: Spanish-Language Press and Print Culture in Syracuse, NY.

The Recovery Project is “a national program based at the University of Houston that locates, identifies, preserves and disseminates the literary contributions of U.S. Hispanics from colonial times to 1960*”. This project was established in the 1990s by Nicholas Kanellos, “Brown Foundation Professor of Hispanic Studies and director of both Arte Público Press and the Recovery Project.*” The people involves with the Recovery Project feel very strongly about making sure that the documentary evidence of Hispanics in the United States don’t get lost or destroy because of lack of institutional or financial support at the state and federal level. This project was started in the 1990s because many Hispanics felt at the time that there were few ethnic archives supported by archival institutions (either private or state institutions), especially those interested in acquiring and preserving materials that documented the long history of the presence of Hispanic in the what it is known today as the United States. At the time, private funding was plentiful and they were able not only to create the first newspapers’ union catalog that track Hispanic newspapers from the XIXth century to the 1960s but later on to find, acquire and microfilmed many of these newspapers to make them accessible to researchers. Through a partnership with Readex* this collection was digitized and made available online as a product from which the Recovery Project gets royalties that they then reinvest to continue acquiring, cataloging and preserving these materials. After the success with Hispanic newspapers, they extended the project to include archival collections such as personal papers of distinguish Hispanic American involved in the civil rights movement. These collections of rare newspapers and archival collections that they acquired are now available at the University of Houston Hispanic Collection archives.

After 9/11 in 2001, funding for this kind of project has diminished and the Recover Project decided to partner with EBSCO to digitize and make available these new materials (pamphlets, books, newspapers, images, manuscripts, etc.) through a new product, The Latino-Hispanic American Experience: The Arte Público Hispanic Historical Collection** (Part 1 and 2) as a way to generate royalties that again are reinvested into the project to continue their works.

Every two years, as members of the Advisory Board, we meet to discuss Recovery current projects and new projects and this year the main discussion was to decide new directions for the Recovery project, in specific, to extend the time period for acquisition of materials from 1960 to 1990. Although we didn’t achieve a final consensus about the extension, there were many good discussions on why it is important to find sustainable ways to acquire, preserve and give access to materials that document the cultural heritage of Hispanic people in the United States after the 1960s especially considering the arrival of the Internet and the Web, electronic media and social media networks.

After the Advisory Board meeting, as board members we support the biennial conference as moderators of panels. I had the pleasure to moderate the panel: “Pedagogy, Research and Archives”. The panelists, Dr. Enrique Mallén, director and general editor of the On-line Picasso Project, https://picasso.shsu.edu/, Caryl Ward, subject librarian for Latin American Studies at Binghamton University, and Lisa Cruces, archivist of the newly created Hispanic Collections at University of Houston, talked about how to incorporate freely accessible digital collections, and archival collections into the teaching and research of Hispanic American print and media culture. A variety of challenges were discussed such as insufficient financial support and/or staffing, changing technologies, and quality of scanning, but all panelists agreed that it is worth the effort to make primary sources available freely to complement what is behind pay walls. They also emphasized the important to establish collaborations between librarians, archivists and faculty to make sure that their classes benefit from materials both found online and offline (in the archives).

Another panel that I attended of great interests to librarians and faculty alike was the presentation done by the library staff at Syracuse University which regaled us with three great presentations of the many hidden treasures that document Hispanic literary culture in the United States. For example, Brett Michael Barrie, Rare Book Cataloger and Lucy Mulroney, Interim Director of Special Collections shared their experience of processing donations that document the relationship between a NYC independent press (Grove Press) and many Latin American writers such as Octavio Paz, Juan Rulfo and Pablo Neruda (and the correspondence between editors, translators and writers) about the translation of these writers works into English; and a Spanish professor’s book collection that documented  relationships between major writers from Latin America and Spain during the 20th century.

There were many other panels during the conference that I couldn’t attend but some of the ones I attended were for example one on the research documenting the presence of Dominican(s) in New York City, one example was the case of Juan Rodriguez, who was in New Amsterdam (today New York City) in 1613– while another focused on the strong presence of Cubans in New York city prior of 1898, especially the presence of Cuban Independence champion, José Martí. Other panels focused on the struggles of Mexican American in the United States after the Mexican-American War as documented in newspapers and personal correspondence. Much of the research done and discussed in this conference came from materials found by the Recovery project and available through Readex or EBSCO.

As a final note to this post, EBSCO did a presentation about Series II of the Arte Público collection and acknowledged that because missteps from their parts it hasn’t sold as well as series I. Part of the reason is that many libraries are unable or unwilling to pay the price set by them since it is too high and it used the whole FTE of an university regardless if only a fraction of the registered students would ever used this resource. Therefore EBSCO is considering for their pricing scheme to use instead something called relative FTE that account better the actual potential usage based on the departments and their student body size, instead of all the students at a particular university. So there is hope not only with this Arte Publico product but other primary sources products to be priced on a more reasonable way so more university can acquire it for their faculty and students.

Overall, this was a very worthy conference to attend and I am happy to be part of the advisory board of this commendable project. In 2016 is the 25th anniversary of the project which I hope to attend.

—-

Librarians on the Threshold: An Overview and Panel Discussion of ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education

Event held Friday, Oct. 31, Barnard College, New York City
Co-authors of this post: Shelley Goldstein and Kathy Labadorf

To say that the new ACRL Thresholds Concepts have been facing an easy transition within the info lit world is like saying that the library world waved flags of delight when the card catalog drawers were recycled as planters and print journals joined the list of extinct species. Trudi Jacobson On Halloween, we ventured to the upper West Side in New York to hear Trudi Jacobson, co-chair of the ACRL Info Lit Competency Standards Revision Task Force and Head of  the Info Lit Dept at SUNY Albany, where she  reviewed  the latest draft version (coming out soon) of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy built on Threshold Concepts, a theory of teaching and learning developed by two UK professors, Meyer and Land.

It has been a rocky road for the revisions of the ACRL IL Framework, originally released in February 2014, and haunted  (excuse the pun) with criticism for its complex lingo, particularly its focus on “metaliteracy.” Jacobson  indicated that the language has now been been modified and assured us that the new draft includes an added “lightness.”

Jacobson allowed for a fairly interactive 90-minute presentation, beginning the session by asking participants to describe in one sentence how they perceived students’ research skills. Comments such as “more Google and Wikipedia,” “seeking tried and true tools,” and “immersed, yet unaware,” allowed her to segue into her own slides.ACRLNY She highlighted the research of  Alison Head from the Project Info Lit  (PIL) [http://projectinfolit.org/] and reviewed the tenets of the threshold framework, stressing that info lit in the new framework goes beyond teaching students to push buttons or work with a checklist. Instead, the frames are derived from the core concepts  or big ideas that underlie a deeper understanding of Information Literacy. This allows for flexibility of instructional content within disciplines and varied instructional situations at a variety of educational levels. Unlike the Standards, the Framework aims to develop students’ abilities as “content creators,” involving a more rich understanding of the process of information creation and the contextual nature of authority, two of the frames.

In discussing what the thresholds’ potential may be, despite predominant support by many who indicated that we are moving away from the mechanical way of instruction, concerns were also raised about how to realistically apply concepts within the classroom, obtain support from colleagues, and assess impact. Assessment has always been difficult in Information Literacy because of its distributed nature — it has single no home, not just the library or course classroom, a constantly changing playing field of formats and delivery mechanisms. Jacobson offered some help to the audience recommending Megan Oakleaf’s “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” [http://meganoakleaf.info/framework.pdf]

After Jacobson’s overview, panel members Silvia Lu,  Laguardia Community College, Nicole Brown, New York University, and Ian Beilin, New York City College of Technology offered some more insight. Lu’s lively presentation was based on the premise that “learners don’t start at the same place, nor do they leave at the same place.”  While teaching a multi-session course she uses newsworthy events, such as the Snowden incident, to encourage evaluation of a variety of sources. Brown has gained some support from first-year writing faculty by hosting a wine and cheese event and including an activity that asked them to revisit the time when research “came alive for you?” Predictably, it was a was not during a first year writing class and the responses opened the door for discussion about the new framework offered by ACRL. Brown has also hosted brown bags for teaching librarians to encourage dialog about threshold concepts.

Ian_BeilinBeilin, who shared a variety of critiques from approximately 493 responses from a survey, twitter, and the blogosphere, indicated that most librarians showed enthusiasm about the threshold concepts and felt that it was a step in the right direction. In terms of assessment, he stressed that the language was deliberately vague so that it could be tailored to particular disciplines within institutions. His criticisms of the Framework centered on critical information literacy issues of unearthing the hidden assumptions and accepted practices inherent in teaching about information. Issues like the unquestioned acceptance of “peer review” as the gold standard, awareness of unequal power and unheard voices in scholarship — these are integral to information and could be addressed in the Framework. Students need to question sources, their quality, their authority, and become more aware of how information affects their lives and how information can be a powerful force in changing their lives and affecting the world they live in.

The program ended with a Q&A between all presenters and the audience. One topic which took most of the focus was the fate of the 2000 Competency Standards. Some librarians mentioned that they have built their whole programs on that document and would prefer to just continue in that way without using the Framework. There was a discussion of the inherent problems in the Standards and the benefits of the Framework. Trudi responded that ACRL still expects the Standards to be sunsetted once the new Framework receives official approval and, indeed, that is the intention of the Board. Change is hard. These are still in draft so the adventure continues. How long did it take to give up those card catalogs?

At this time, we awaiting the final draft in November and subsequently approval  by the ACRL Board.

Works Cited

Meyer, J. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. (ETL Project Occasional Report 4). Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf