Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5856 results in Facet Publishing

Page 267 of 293

  • Preface

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp xv-xviii

  • Summary

    There are two competing maxims concerning performance measurement:

    If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

    and

    What gets measured, gets managed.

    This book is an attempt to steer a course between these two, perhaps overly cynical, viewpoints. Performance measurement is vital to management. Without clear and reliable information about what is happening within an organization and in its interactions with its customers and suppliers, it is impossible to make well founded decisions to guide future development or even to monitor the effects of decisions that have been made in the past. Equally, there is always a danger that managerial attention focuses on the data that happen to be available, rather than on the rounded picture of all activities, including those which are by their nature very difficult to measure. The effect of this is that the wrong activities are prioritized and incorrect assumptions made about performance. So both dangers – attempting to manage without measuring performance and managing sub-optimally by concentrating on the information that happens to be available – need to be avoided.

    Libraries have been measuring their performance for a very long time. However, whereas for many years the key measure was the size and quality of the bookstock, in more recent times attention has shifted towards the effects that the library has on the population it is intended to serve. Measures concerning stock and the provision of access to local and remote resources remain important but it is now recognized that, without a user focus, it is all too easy to lose sight of the purpose for which libraries exist and are funded. For this reason, this book is organized with its initial emphasis on the user – on satisfaction and impact – and only then on the library's processes. It is hoped that this will indicate the priority that needs to be given to these issues.

    Performance measurement can never be more than a tool. Its techniques and approaches are designed to help managers to discover how well their services are performing, to identify where action is needed and to monitor what is being achieved. It may also be used to support advocacy for libraries.

  • 8 - Outputs

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 113-121

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    While the importance of outcomes and impacts has been stressed in earlier chapters, it remains the case that assessing outputs is an important way of measuring performance. While bigger does not necessarily mean better, it is certainly true that the average reader is likely to find more of interest in a large library than in a small one – all other things being equal. Because a larger stock almost always means a more varied stock, the large library has an inbuilt advantage. Of course other factors are at play. We would want to ask how old the stock is. How well is it described in the catalogue? How readily can items be found on the shelves? How liberal are the lending policies? How helpful are the staff? Each of these issues will be reflected in the volume of business that the library transacts, so that measuring those outputs will be helpful as we seek to measure overall performance.

    Outputs often feature prominently in libraries’ reports. The statistical summaries which were discussed in Chapter 6, ‘Inputs’, contained a considerable amount of data on outputs as well as inputs, not surprisingly since quantitative data are often reported as a whole. Although there is a huge range of potential outputs that could be counted, the most common ones that libraries report are volume of issues, which measures items that users have borrowed, and number of visits, which measures physical visits to library services; LISU calls these ‘the most prominent output measures’ (Creaser et al., 2005).

    ■ Usage of library materials Usage counts

    The amount of usage of library materials is one of the most frequently measured outputs and this is often presented under the heading of ‘document delivery’. The performance of the library is assessed in relation to the number of items delivered during a specified time period, sometimes associated with factors such as delivery times. For example, the interlibrary loan (ILL) service may best be judged by a combination of its success rate in obtaining items requested by users and the speed with which it is able to arrange delivery of those items to them. Monitoring this activity regularly will be fundamental to assessment of the library's ongoing performance.

  • 10 - Infrastructure

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 129-137

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    Libraries rely heavily on their infrastructure for the delivery of services. The library building is the most prominent and probably most expensive part of that infrastructure but information and communications technology facilities will be of almost the same importance. Clearly it is imperative that the performance of these investments be monitored to ensure that they are helping the library deliver value, and that they are not in themselves an untoward constraint.

    ■ The library building

    The building from which services are delivered is a very significant input to library service as a whole, especially in relation to those services that require the user to come to the building, such as physical book lending or access to workstations. At one time it was usual for detailed norms to be published for the building itself, often by government agencies, and although this is now less common it is an approach which can still be found. Compliance with such standards is then the basic measure of performance. An example of this approach can be found in the ‘Library building standards’ published by the State of Queensland in Australia (www.slq.qld.gov.au/serv/publib/policy/guidelines/four). These suggest, for example, that for a main branch library the total floor area should be related to population size:

  • • Population: 10,000–15,000 there should be between 49 and 45 m2 per 1000 population

  • • Population: 15,000–50,000 there should be between 45 and 41 m2 per 1000 population

  • • Population: 50,000–100,000+ there should be between 41 and 37 m2 per 1000 population.

    • The standards also state that for a new library there should be space for each of the functions listed in Figure 10.1. This then becomes a checklist against which performance can be measured.

    Note that all of these are inputs to the service. The fact that there is, for example, a ‘toys and games area’ tells us nothing about what has been provided there, who has used that area or what effect that use had on them. This is not to say that such information is useless: unless a library has this kind of designated area it might be very difficult to attract very young children. As was stressed in Chapter 6, ‘Inputs’, these performance indicators thus take us to the first stage and tell us something about that library's capabilities.

  • Appendix 2 The analysis of data

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 216-223

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    Having spent time and resources collecting data, it is clearly important that they be analysed thoroughly and properly. A lot will depend on the type of data collected – especially on whether they are quantitative or qualitative – and on the purpose for which they have been collected. For example, a survey of existing users in a small branch library on a specific topic might merit only manual analysis and a very straightforward report. At the other extreme a national study, possibly including comparisons between different libraries or even across sectors, will probably require detailed and complex analysis. In the latter case it might well be necessary to employ a trained statistician or other professional.

    However, in each case the aim is the same. It is sometimes expressed as three stages (Miles and Huberman, 1994), especially when some of the data being analysed are qualitative in nature:

  • • data reduction, by gathering data together, coding them and expressing them in comparable ways so as to create datasets from which meaning can be extracted

  • • data display, which takes the datasets and presents them in ways that make their meaning clear, for example in lists or charts or graphs; note that this is still part of data analysis – presentation for reporting purposes is covered in Appendix 3, ‘The presentation of results’

  • • drawing conclusions, which finds the patterns and themes that emerge from the data; this stage also looks for exceptions and contradictions.

    • In this appendix the aim is simply to present the rudiments of data analysis as might be applied within a single library conducting its own studies. However, it should be stressed that it is very easy to analyse data wrongly, and advice should always be sought by anyone who does not have the expertise and experience gained through training and practice. Even the calculation of averages is not as straightforward as it may seem!

    ■ Quantitative data

    Most studies produce at least some quantitative data even if they only relate to the numbers of people surveyed or the numbers of items analysed. In very small studies it may be feasible to analyse these data by hand, using a calculator, but it is usually better to make use of suitable computer software.

  • 1 - Background

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 1-18

  • Summary

    the ultimate criterion for assessing the quality of a service is its capability for meeting the user needs it is intended to serve, and … the value of a service must ultimately be judged in terms of the beneficial effects accruing from its use.

    (Richard Orr)

    ■ Introduction

    Performance measurement is central to library management, since without a firm grasp on what is actually being achieved it is impossible to move forward to improved service – or even to maintain the status quo. Measuring achievements against aims and objectives reveals the relevance of the service and enables managers to judge whether staff effort and resources are being used in the best possible ways. Gathering data on levels of service provides a basis for comparative assessments, either against similar organizations or against guidelines and standards. Analysing the effects the service is having on its users enables evidence of impacts and benefits to be presented, providing the ultimate justification for the service's existence.

    Librarians and other information professionals have long been interested in measuring the performance of their services. Important theoretical work was undertaken in the 1940s by S. C. Bradford at the Science Museum in London (Bradford, 1948), influencing the design of the highly innovative National Lending Library for Science and Technology, later to become part of the British Library. In the 1960s Philip Morse published a groundbreaking book on library effectiveness (Morse, 1968), while in the early 1970s the concept of the ‘goodness’ of library services was explored by Richard Orr (Orr, 1973). He suggested that it is important to distinguish between the question ‘How good is this service?’, which is a matter of quality, and ‘How much good does this service do?’, which he characterized as a question of value. In 1977, F. W. Lancaster'sMeasurement and Evaluation of Library Services appeared, marking the entry of the topic into the mainstream of library practice (Lancaster, 1977). During the 1980s among the most influential figures in this field were Nancy Van House and Charles McClure: their work is well summarized in the influentialMeasuring Academic Library Performance, published in 1990 (Van House, Weil and McClure, 1990). In the same year José-Marie Griffiths and Don King prepared a manual on public library performance indicators for the British Library Research and Development Department (Griffiths and King, 1990).

  • 12 - Benchmarking

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 147-159

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    No library exists in isolation, for within any sector the services offered will share many common characteristics. The user populations may be similar, though clearly not identical, equivalent types of resource will be stocked or made available and the processes engaged in will be comparable. For this reason it can be very useful to compare the performance of one library with others. It can also be useful to make internal comparisons between branches, departments or sections. The termbenchmarking is used to describe such processes of formal comparison.

    Over ten years ago Charles Handy recounted an anecdote about benchmarking in his bookBeyond Certainty. He said: ‘

    They went, they saw and they learnt – but not what they expected. They learnt no new techniques or pieces of electronic wizardry, but discovered instead that some firms expected failure rates up to 100 times better than theirs or had absenteeism levels ten times lower and, in one comparable case, new product development times five times shorter. Standards were different, that is all.

    This form of organized learning has recently acquired a label – benchmarking, the discipline of measuring yourself against best practice in any function or field, often in industries very different from your own. The label, however, reduces to a technique what surely ought to be an ingrained habit – to aim to be not just good enough but as good as can be, to look beyond oneself in setting standards for oneself, to shun complacency and the false comforts of talking only to people like oneself.

    (Handy, 1995)

    That story is a useful antidote to any idea that benchmarking is either an arcane art or an optional extra. Handy's argument is that it must become an integral part of everyday organizational life.

Measuring Library Performance
  • Principles and Techniques
  • Peter Brophy
  • Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006
  • Measuring the performance of a library's services is a crucial part of good library management, since without a firm grasp of what is actually being achieved it is impossible to move forward to improved service. The key measure is no longer size and quality of bookstock, but the impact of staff effort and resources on the population the library is intended to serve. Analysing this enables evidence of benefits to be presented, providing the ultimate justification for the service's existence. This important book is the first to provide an accessible account of current thinking and research on the evaluation of library services, both traditional and - importantly - electronic. Illustrated throughout with a range of internationally based examples across the different library sectors, it is structured to focus primarily on the intended service user (outcome and impact perspectives), then to look at service management (output and process issues) and the building blocks of services (inputs), and finally to draw together these strands by examining some of the broader frameworks for evaluation that have emerged. Each chapter features a list of key resources, and the extensive appendices offer practical guidance on data collection methods, the analysis of data and the presentation of results. The key areas addressed include: background and theoretical considerations; user satisfaction and impact on users; social and economic impact; inputs, processes and outputs; staff and infrastructure; services for all; and, standards, benchmarking and the balanced scorecard. The emphasis on both principles and techniques in this book means that it is perfect reading for busy LIS practitioners but it is also eminently suitable for LIS students and researchers trying to get to grips with this complex area.

  • 9 - Staff

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 122-128

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    Libraries, as do many other organizations, often state that their staff are their most valuable asset. If this is to be more than a platitude then it is important that they too form part of the performance measurement processes of the library. Such assessment must be undertaken with the utmost sensitivity and it is important that staff do not feel that they are on trial. Indeed, it is almost always the case that if staff are not performing to expectations then lack of training and/or lack of leadership are to blame rather than incompetence. Any action to evaluate staff performance should be undertaken with this in mind.

    Measuring the effects of investment in staff, including training, is never easy because there are so many variables in play. As Oldroyd (1995) noted:

    it is usually simple to measure the time taken up by training, but extremely difficult to measure its benefit. It becomes progressively more difficult the further one moves from tasks towards responsibilities. Some benefit is selfevident and shows itself in improved competence (particularly in a crisis), positive feedback from customers and good working relations. Other visible benefits are seen in high motivation, openness to change, trust and flexibility. A library with high morale, a good reputation among its users, and a good ‘feel’ can be an important factor in successful outcomes.

    ■ Staff surveys

    One starting point for the assessment of staff performance is to begin with the staff themselves and undertake a staff satisfaction survey. It is surprising how infrequently this is done given the prevalence of user satisfaction surveys. Many of the principles discussed in Chapter 3, ‘User satisfaction’, are relevant to this kind of survey. In addition, there are sensitivities to observe and it is wise to gain institutional approval (you may be setting a precedent for other departments!) and to ensure that staff members, where appropriate including union representatives, are fully engaged with the process. This means, among other things, that data produced from such surveys should always be confidential and almost always anonymous.

    The results of a staff satisfaction survey can be used to highlight issues of which senior managers may either be unaware or whose significance to their staff they may not realize.

  • Appendix 1 Data collection methods

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 175-215

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    This appendix contains descriptions of the main methods used in libraries for collecting data in support of performance measurement. This, together with the succeeding appendices on data analysis and the presentation of results, is intended to offer practical advice to those engaged in designing and carrying out assessments of library services.

    Comments in the earlier parts of this book on data collection methods should be read in conjunction with these appendices. In particular, care should be taken to select methods which are appropriate to the question being asked and the differences between quantitative and qualitative methods should be borne in mind. Further, it is important to bear in mindhow the data will be analysed and presented when selecting methods for data collection. There is no point in gathering sets of data which cannot be analysed, either because the tools are not available or the resource implication is too great.

    It is assumed that before deciding on a method to use, and before designing a data collection instrument, an overall evaluation plan will have been put in place. Chapter 1, ‘Background’, outlines the elements that such a plan should cover.

    ■ General issues about surveys and other data collection methods

    It is appropriate to begin with some general advice about the conduct of surveys and other data collection methods. This is presented in the form of ten golden rules of data collection and applies particularly to methods involving human subjects.

  • Always observe strict ethical standards and in particular never do anything which could subject a data subject to harm, humiliation or embarrassment. Where necessary obtain permission in advance to carry out a survey or other data collection exercise. Allow participants to withdraw at any stage, without demanding a reason.

  • Always explain the exact purpose of any survey and the use to which data gathered will be put.

  • Explain who you are and always provide contact details.

  • Do not assume knowledge on the part of respondents. Explain everything clearly. Keep language simple and unambiguous.

  • Arrange questions in a logical sequence. Ask one question at a time.

  • Avoid leading questions which might suggest what is the ‘right’ answer.

  • 4 - Impact on users

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 54-76

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    Ultimately, libraries and information services are judged by the effects of what they do. If they can demonstrate that people have become more knowledgeable or have developed new or improved skills from contact with the service, then the message to their constituencies and their funders is positive – and likely to be reinforced by the resources needed to sustain and develop those services. If there is no evidence available of any beneficial effects, then they are vulnerable to questions over their purpose and the value of maintaining them. It is not surprising that questions ofimpact therefore loom large. In this chapter the focus is on qualitative methods of assessing impact; in the next chapter the focus shifts to the question of economic impact.

    It is worth noting again that terminology in this area is somewhat fluid. In particular, the termoutcomes is sometimes used, especially in the USA, in place ofimpact. This explains why many US libraries and programmes concern themselves with outcome-based evaluation (OBE) – see, for example, the web pages of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) at www.imls.gov/applicants/obe.shtm. Even in the UK there is ambiguity. For example, the Inspiring Learning for All website (www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk/), designed for supporting public libraries in their learning activities, talks of ‘Tools to assess the impact of learning’ on its home page, providing a link to a page which doesn't mention ‘impact’ at all but instead addresses the question ‘What are learning outcomes?’! One of the reasons for this is that in education it is usual to talk ofoutcomes rather thanimpact: so, for example, when the Department for Education and Skills commissioned an evaluation of the University forIndustry (UfI), the resulting report was entitled:Tracking Learning Outcomes: evaluation of the impact of the UfI. In this book the convention of treating ‘outcomes’ as the more immediate effects and ‘impacts’ as those of the longer term is observed.

    Impact assessment has become particularly important since governments introduced much more explicit policy agendas for libraries and their parent bodies. For example, throughout the world there has been high level policy concentration on matters such as lifelong learning and digital inclusion. It is not surprising, therefore, that individual libraries are called on to demonstrate that they are contributing to the achievement of strategic goals in these areas.

  • Appendix 3 The presentation of results

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 224-234

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    It is sometimes tempting to breathe a sigh of relief when the data collection is finished and the analysis is complete. The results are to hand, so what else needs to be done? In fact the next stage is one of the most crucial – the presentation of results to the intended audience in a manner which is both clear and unambiguous and which highlights critical issues. Hopefully, the purpose of the exercise will have been decided before the data collection itself was designed, so that the intention behind the whole activity will be clear. However, it is worth reiterating at this stage that performance measurement can be carried out for a wide range of reasons including:

  • • advocacy and public relations, or even self-justification

  • • accountability over the short or long term

  • • management of services with a view to change and improvement

  • • reallocation of resources between services, including innovation.

    • ■ Deciding on the message

    The most critical part of presentation is deciding on what the key message should be. Of course there may be more than one but it is worth bearing in mind that as the number increases the impact diminishes! A useful rule of thumb is that, except for extensive evaluations, it should be possible to write an executive summary (see also below) which is no more than one page in length. A reader with limited time will be able to absorb the main messages in this way, using the body of the report to explore detailed findings and the logical argument.

    Regular reports may have a standard format or house style, so that there is no need to devise a new one each time, although such formats will of course need to be reviewed from time to time.

    ■ Deciding on the audiences

    With an internal study, the audience may be obvious – the managers who commissioned it. However even here it is worth considering whether there are other audiences who need to, or have a right to, know about your findings. For example, a study of library circulation will also be of interest to staff who work on the issue desk.

  • 2 - Theoretical considerations

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 19-34

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    All performance measurement is a form of research, involving structured investigations to try to reach a better understanding of a particular phenomenon. Because of this, it is useful to explore briefly some of the theory underpinning research studies and the gathering of evidence. This chapter offers a brief introduction to some of the key concepts. For more information the reader is directed to Robson (2002) or Sarantakos (1998).

    ■ Causal relationships

    At the heart of all research is a belief that relationships between observed phenomena may be due to causality, and that elucidating what causes something to happen, or to be experienced, or to be felt, enables the development of knowledge. When libraries examine levels of user satisfaction, they are not simply interested in recording percentages of users with particular views but in finding out why these levels of satisfaction exist and establishing how they may be improved. Thus studies that seek to measure performance will always have an underlying aim to illuminate cause and effect. This means that such studies are never simply observational or descriptive: they seek to be incisive and analytical.

    ■ Theoretical perspectives 1: the positivist standpoint

    Deriving originally from the work of August Comte, positivism sees scientific method as the only way to achieve new knowledge and therefore all research efforts should be clearly designed on this basis. Karl Popper, most notably inThe Logic of Scientific Discovery published in 1934, argued that the critical issue is that of falsifiability. This in turn relies on the idea that progress is made by developing hypotheses and then by testing them to see if they are true. Popper pointed out that the truth of a hypothesis can never be demonstrated with 100% certainty since a case might exist, which has not yet occurred or been tested, which would disprove it. A single instance showing the hypothesis to be false disproves it and a new hypothesis then has to be formulated, to be disproved in its turn. So science progresses not by proving but by disproving each hypothesis.

    This leads to an approach to research where the formulation of a hypothesis is the first crucial step, with research methodologies then selected to enable the hypothesis to be tested.

  • 13 - The balanced scorecard

  • Peter Brophy
  • Book:
    Measuring Library Performance
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 November 2006, pp 160-165

  • Summary

    ■ Introduction

    It will be readily apparent from earlier chapters and especially from the description of benchmarking in the last chapter that the performance of a library can only be assessed by examining a range of measures and indicators so as to achieve a balanced view of its various services and operations. This observation brings us back to the issue first raised in the preface, namely that ‘what gets measured gets managed’. The ever present danger of performance measurement is that by focusing attention on particular aspects of service, it will encourage partial and therefore deficient management attention. To achieve a holistic vision and strategy is extremely difficult with social systems such as libraries and information services, where human interactions make measurement and assessment difficult, if not at times impossible. There is always a temptation to make assumptions on the basis of readily available, and thus often quantitative, data rather than on the information that would in fact illuminate the situation, but which is more difficult and more expensive to collect. To try to counter this tendency, management theorists and practitioners have emphasized the need for broad models which are capable of reflecting the complexity of real world organizations acting in complex environments. Thebalanced scorecard is perhaps the best known example, with the widest acceptance. There are a number of other models in use, one of which, the EFQM Excellence Model, was described in Chapter 12, ‘Benchmarking’.

    ■ Defining the balanced scorecard

    Devised initially by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in the USA (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996), the idea of the balanced scorecard was to try to create assessments of organizational performance which took into account all the different relevant factors. In many ways, this development was a reaction to the excessive reliance on financial measures – and in particular the financial ‘bottom line’ – which had dominated industrial and commercial enterprises for many years.

    Kaplan and Norton were particularly concerned that financial measures tend to be backwards looking. They may tell us what the business has done in the past, but they do not necessarily tell us where it is going in the future. They also ignore many of the assets of an organization, such as reputation, knowledge, loyal customers and skilled employees.

  • 6 - Understanding e-literacy

  • from Part I - Literacies in the digital age
    • By Maryann Kope, Co-ordinator, Learning Services University of Guelph, Canada
  • Edited by Allan Martin, Dan Madigan
  • Book:
    Digital Literacies for Learning
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 September 2006, pp 68-79

  • Summary

    Abstract

    The technological changes which have infused almost every aspect of our lives have raised new questions and issues about what it means to be literate. ‘E-literacy’ is a relatively new term, created to attempt to capture the converging and emerging literacies necessary to function in the digital age, including, in particular, information and computer literacy. In this chapter, the author proposes that academic literacy be included in the definition of e-literacy and discusses some key components of the three literacies that e-literacy would then incorporate. By examining areas of convergence between academic literacy and information and computer literacy, some previously unrecognized commonalities are illuminated. The implications of these commonalities for learning support in a higher education context are discussed.

    Introduction

    ‘E-literacy’ is a relatively new term, created to attempt to capture the converging and emerging literacies necessary to function in the digital age. The organizers of the eLit2003 Conference defined e-literacy as a combination of information and computer literacy (eLit, 2003). This chapter unravels some of the concepts incorporated by the term e-literacy and proposes that, to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of e-literacy, an additional skill set needs to be considered as part of the e-literacy equation – academic literacy.

    The first part of this chapter examines the meanings of the three literacies of which e-literacy is comprised in order to arrive at the definitions which underpin the rest of the chapter. The second part explores some of the key connections between academic literacy and information and computer literacy. This approach is more focused than the work of Bawden (2001), to which readers can refer for a detailed review of information and digital literacies. My perspective is also different. Although I work in a university library, I am not a librarian; but as a learning professional, I have an interest in the evolution and merging of literacies relevant to student learning.

    The connections between academic literacy and computer and information literacy have received little recognition from researchers or university professionals. Because this recognition has been lacking, the links and overlaps between academic literacy and information and computer literacy have not been exploited to the mutual benefit of staff, faculty and students. By exploring some of these commonalities, this chapter aims to promote a richer understanding of e-literacy.

  • 2 - Strategies for digital preservation

  • Edited by Marilyn Deegan, Simon Tanner
  • Book:
    Digital Preservation
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 September 2006, pp 32-59

  • Summary

    In this chapter, the author is drawing on a number of projects at Leeds University which he has participated in over many years. His use of ‘we’ throughout indicates the multi-participant nature of such projects.

    Introduction

    Since computers were invented in the 1940s and 1950s, the impact of digital technology has grown to the point where it underpins the everyday lives of most people in the developed world. Increasingly, information stored and processed digitally is involved in preserving our cultural heritage. The technology itself is indeed a part of that cultural heritage. As digital information technology is barely 60 years old, and all the software from the earliest machines is already lost, we IT practitioners need to mend our ways. We should plan that our digital information will still be safe and accessible in 100 years. It is then likely that developments over that time will render the material safe for millennia. This involves a time-span over which all our existing hardware technology is likely to become obsolete, and also much of the software – a time-span often far from the minds of those of us who work in IT.

    The purpose of preservation of anything, whether it be a painting by Canaletto or a database of climatic measurements, is to enable access at some unspecified date in the future, for purposes not necessarily anticipated by the creators. Furthermore, that future access has to provide meaningful access to the intellectual content of the original material. In the case of the painting, there is a certain self-evidence in the visual image, but more data about the image add markedly to the meaning of the image. Such data are, of course, metadata.

    In the case of our database of climatic information there is a need for metadata about who collected it, and why. In order to make any sense of the data, future users will also need to know in what format the data are held, so that they can use appropriate software to access the information. Such metadata (sometimes called technical metadata) might seem to be a special requirement of digital information but, for the painting, information about the techniques used in its production can help in ensuring its material preservation.

Page 267 of 293