School of Information University of Michigan
SI 596 – Practical Engagement Workshop: Digital Librarianship
Winter 2008 Syllabus and Schedule
Thursdays 9 am – 12 pm, Room WH 412
Class mailing list: si596w2008@ctools.umich.edu
Instructor: Soo Young Rieh
Email: rieh@umich.edu
Office: West Hall 305 D
Office Hours: Tuesdays 12-1 pm and Thursdays 12-1 pm
Telephone: (734) 647-8040
IPL Staff Information
Cathay Crosby, Assistant Director, User Services (cathay@ischool.drexel.edu)
Mike Galloway, Manager, Digital Collections (mike.galloway@ischool.drexel.edu)
Malissa Ruffner, Administrative Coordinator (malissa.ruffner@ischool.drexel.edu)
COURSE OVERVIEW
Digital librarianship (Practical Engagement Workshop course) will present an overview of
digital librarianship with a focus on the Internet Public Library. We will use the IPL as a test
bed for testing innovations in digital services in libraries. Students will prepare to become
managers and practitioners of digital reference services by exploring information technologies
for digital service provision, developing collections of resources in digital form, and discussing
issues related to digital reference service design and maintenance.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
Upon successful completion of this course, students will be able to:
 Identify technology trends and issues that impact digital librarianship
 Make management and policy decisions with respect to digital library collections
 Provide reference services in a virtual information environment
 Evaluate the collections and services of digital library
 Utilize collection development software associated with one digital library (Internet Public
Library)
COURSE READINGS
Each student is expected to actively participate in class discussions. In preparation for doing so,
students should read weekly readings before the class. These readings are also critical to
understanding the lectures. There is NO textbook that students are required to buy. There are
two types of readings in the course. IPL readings are available here as URLs. Weekly course
readings are available on CTools.
1
IPL General Readings:
Ask a Question Digital Reference Service: Student and Volunteer Training Manual. Available online
at:
http://www2.ipl.org:2000/backroom/refvols/students/
Or in PDF at:
http://www2.ipl.org:2000/backroom/refvols/students/IPLTrainingManual.pdf
IPL Collection Development Training Manual. Available online at:
http://www.ipl.org:2000/backroom/col/
Weekly Readings and Lecture Slides on CTools
Weekly lecture slides, course readings, additional resources for class assignments, and other
useful materials will be maintained on CTools: http://ctools.umich.edu
Course Requirements and Evaluation
Readings and class participation: 10%
A1. Environmental scan assignment: 15%
A2. Competitor analysis assignment: 15%
A3. IPL Staff Work and two reports: 30%
A4. Grant proposal presentation and report: 30%
SCHEDULE
Week 1 (January 3): Course Overview; Digital Librarianship and IPL
Choi, Y. & Rasmussen, E. (2006). What is needed to educate future digital librarians. D-Lib
Magazine, 12(9). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september06/choi/09choi.html
Lynch, C. (2003). Colliding with the real world: Heresies and unexplored questions about
audience, economics, and control of digital libraries. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P.
Buttenfield (Eds), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 191-216).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Week 2 (January 10): Introduction to IPL; Environmental Scanning
Janes, J. (1998). The Internet Public Library: an intellectual history. Library Hi Tech, 16 (2), 55-68.
Abels, E. G. (February/March 2002). Environmental Scanning. Bulletin for the American Society for
Information Science and Technology. 28(3) http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Mar-02/abels.html
De Rosa, C., Dempsey, L., & Wilson, A. (2004). 2003 Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition.
2
OCLC Online Computer Library Center. http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/toc.htm
Week 3 (January 17): Collection Development in IPL
Kovacs, D. K. & Elkordy, A. (2000). Collection development in cyberspace: building an electronic
library collection. Library Hi Tech, 18(4), 335-359.
Salinas, R. (2003). Addressing the digital divide through collection development. Collection
Building, 22(3), 131-136.
Lee, S. D. (2002). Electronic collection development: a practical guide. New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers. Chapters 4 & 5 (pp. 62-125).
Week 4 (January 24): Hypatia 2.0 (IPL collection management tool)
Guest Speaker: Mike Galloway (Drexel University)
IPL Collection Development Training Manual. Available online at:
http://www.ipl.org:2000/backroom/col/
Week 5 (January 31): Introduction to Digital Reference
Janes, J. (2003), Introduction to Reference Work in the Digital Age. New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers, Inc. Chapter 2.
Lankes, et al. (2001). Implementing digital reference services. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers,
Inc. Chapter 16 (pp. 171-183).
Carter, D, and J. Janes. (2000). Unobtrusive data analysis of digital reference questions and
service at the Internet Public Library: an exploratory study. Library Trends, 49(2):251- 265.
Week 6 (February 7): QRC (IPL question-handling system)
Guest Speaker: Cathay Crosby (Drexel University)
MARS Digital Reference Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee. Guidelines for Implementing and
Maintaining Virtual Reference Services. (2004). ALA RUSA. [Available online at
http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm
Ask a Question Digital Reference Service: Student and Volunteer Training Manual.
http://www2.ipl.org:2000/backroom/refvols/students/
Week 7 (February 14): Users’ information need and seeking; Understanding IPL users
Horrigan, J. B. (2007). A typology of information and communication technology users. Pew Internet &
3
American Life report. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ICT_Typology.pdf
Case, D. O. (2007). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and
behavior. 2nd edition. New York: Academic Press. Chapter 4: Information needs and information
seeking.
Week 8 (February 21): Evaluation of digital reference services
Nilsen, K. & Ross, C. S. (2006). Evaluating virtual reference from the users’ perspective. The
Reference Librarian, No. 95/96, 53-79.
Pomerantz, J., Nicholson, S. Belanger, Y. & Lankes, R. D. (2004). The current state of digital
reference: Validation of a general digital reference model through a survey of digital reference
services. Information Processing and Management, 40, 347-363.
White, M.D. (2001). Digital reference services: framework for analysis and evaluation. Library &
Information Science Research, 23(3), 211-231
Week 9 (February 28) NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK
Week 10 (March 6):
Guest Speaker: Susan Hollar (University of Michigan Library)
Week 11 (March 13): Digital library use
Borgman, C. L. (2000). Ch 5. Why are digital libraries hard to use In From Gutenberg to the global
information infrastructure (pp. 117-141). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Marchionini, G., Plaisant, C., Komlodi, A. (2003). The people in digital libraries: Multifaceted
approaches to assessing needs and impact (pp. 119-160). In A. P. Bishop, N.A. Van House, B. P.
Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social practice in design and evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Week 12 (March 20): Evaluation of digital library
Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: Toward an evolution of concepts. Library Trends,
49(2), Fall 2000, 350-369.
Fuhr, N., Hansen, P., Mabe, M., Micsik, A., & Sølvberg, I. (2001). Digital libraries: A generic
classification and evaluation scheme. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2163, 187-199:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/24000/http:zSzzSzwww.sics.sezSz~prebenzSzpapersz
Szecdl-2001.pdf/fuhr01digital.pdf
4
Week 13 (March 27): Future Directions of IPL: Collection, Service, and Technology
Madden, M. & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”. Pew Internet & American Life report.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf
Anderson, J. Q. & Rainie, L. (2006). The future of the Internet II. Pew Internet & American Life
Report. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Future_of_Internet_2006.pdf
Week 14 (April 3); Presentations of Proposal
Week 15 (April 10): More Presentations; Issues and Wrap-Up
5
Assignments
A1. Environmental scan assignment: 15%
Plan is due January 17
Handout and Log are due March 13
Students will develop an environmental scan plan and perform an environmental scan to
identify information technologies that might be incorporated into a digital library such as the
IPL.
Develop a scanning plan: Students will develop a list of publications and websites to include in
their scans. Scanning activities should include a variety of daily newspapers (Washington Post,
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, WSJ, etc.) as well as weekly and monthly magazines (Business
Week, PC Magazine, PC Week, Info Today, Online, Forbes, Fortune, etc.). Students may read either
the electronic or print version of these publications. Radio broadcasts (e.g., NPR) and television
news (e.g., CNBC) can also be included in the scan. Remember that to come up with new and
interesting ideas, it is necessary to read broadly and to read between the lines; look for unusual
technological applications in other settings. Monitoring related listservs may also be useful in
identifying digital reference technologies. The scanning plan should include a citation for the
publication/broadcast/website, the frequency with which this item will be scanned, and the
reason for including.
Scanning log: Students are to maintain a log of readings and exploration. Each entry in the log
will contain a brief citation of an article or newscast (or the name of a digital library and URL
including date accessed or date scanned) and a brief annotation that discusses the technology
identified.
Deliverables:
Scanning plan which includes the list of publications and resources with complete citations and
frequency with which scan is recommended. The plan should note why the item was included.
Note that you may include some items in your plan which ultimately are not useful and do not
yield any technology ideas – you may discontinue scanning this item and note that on the final
plan submitted. List should include a variety of items, including publications or different types
and different media. 30 points.
Handout for classmates that highlights technologies identified during the week (we will have
about 5 short presentations per week). 40 points.
Log of specific readings with annotations. 30 points.
6
A2. Competitor analysis assignment: 15%
Report is due February 7
Students will complete competitor analysis on another service out there which is similar to or
relevant to the IPL. Examples include: Librarians’ Internet Index, Yahoo! Answers, The
Educator’s Reference Desk, etc. Students will submit a 5-page-long report (single-spaced). The
report will contain the following sections: (1) a short description of the IPL; (2) on what aspects
you can define a competitor(s) (in terms of audience, service, values, etc.); (3) detailed
comparative analysis of the competitor’s service or product. The analysis will include: what this
service does; the clientele; the service providers; how this service is financially supported; and
other relevant policies and issues.
7
A3. IPL Staff Work: 30% (each paper 15%)
Report 1 is due February 21
Report 2 is due March 27
All student staff members will work as an IPL staff member either as a Reference Administrator
(RefAdmin) or a Collection Developer (ColDev). Students need to inform their role to the
instructor by February 7.
If you are interested in working as a RefAdmin, you must take steps in the training process by
completing one practice question. If you took SI 647 and already took these steps in Practice
Question, you can be opted out from it and move on to real questions in QRC. The RefAdmin’s
job will be composed of two tasks: Answering 5-10 user questions through Ask A Question and
reviewing at least five user suggestions for addition to the IPL, and forward their decision to
ColDev.
ColDev’s work activities will include link checking; source evaluations; keyword exploration;
and FARQ and Pathfinder updating. ColDevs are encouraged to include a wide range of
activities in their weekly work to best understand the breadth of collection development
activities.
If you decided to work as a ColDev, pleas submit your Gmail address through this form
http://www.ipl.org:2000/div/backroom/col/gmailsubmissionform.html
Deliverables
Students will submit two activity reports. Report 1 will be shorter (2-3 pages) while Report 2
will be about 3-5 pages. Each report will contain the following sections: a) accomplishments to
date (or since last report); b) problems encountered; and c) suggestions and thoughts about the
IPL. Grading Rubric for reports include:
- Covers accomplishments, problems encountered, suggestions and thoughts
- Activities described represent required IPL contribution
- Discussion reflects understanding of IPL mission, goals, and operations
- Overall presentation, e.g. neatly presented, well organized, well written
8
A4. Innovation Proposal presentation and report: 30%
Report is due April 10
Presentation will be scheduled either April 3 or April 10
Students, as an individual or as a group (no more than three), will write up a proposal and
present it in the class. Students need to come up with innovative ideas that can advance the IPL
for the next one or two years. A proposal can present new ideas of creating significant digital
resources as well as development of tools and features while incorporating new technologies. A
proposal should show how your project can ensure that the new ideas can promote access to the
IPL resources and services. Proposed projects may:





develop and disseminate new tools that facilitate management, preservation, sharing,
and use of digital resources;
increase community access to digital resources through innovative use of existing
technology-based tools;
increase community access to institutional resources by improving practice in use,
dissemination, and support of existing technology-based tools;
digitize, preserve, and aggregate digital content in IPL
develop new approaches or tools for IPL
Deliverables
Abstract (1 page): A project abstract not exceeding one single-spaced page (600-word
maximum) must be provided. Information in the abstract should cover the following areas as
related to the proposed project: What is the time frame for the project? What community need(s)
will the project address? Who is the intended audience for the activities? What will be the
project’s activities, outcomes, and tangible products?
Narrative (10 pages): Limit the narrative to ten single-sided, single-spaced, numbered pages.
Your proposal should include the identification of a problem, assessment of potential solutions,
development of a proposed approach, and presentation of creative solutions to significant
problems. Ideas need not be entirely new, but can have innovative impact. The best proposals
may improve on or extend previous practice in a significant way. Successful proposals will
explain how results will benefit the professional community as well as the public.
Budget (1-2 pages)
Schedule of completion (1 page)
9