Name:
The Road to Increased Diversity in Our Collective Collections: Steering Ourselves in the Right Direction Recording
Description:
The Road to Increased Diversity in Our Collective Collections: Steering Ourselves in the Right Direction Recording
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/174374b3-25d7-4863-895d-6318393d2553/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=9ZakZPOiDdiH8fjqc%2BN3uJG68Tr8JG9JDcrgj3sbroo%3D&st=2024-04-29T14%3A12%3A00Z&se=2024-04-29T18%3A17%3A00Z&sp=r
Duration:
T00H47M02S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/174374b3-25d7-4863-895d-6318393d2553
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/174374b3-25d7-4863-895d-6318393d2553/Session 27.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=KS4Vi6te7SmtlG3jtajrHOaodZ7ilvQT0KyMyxe%2Bmq8%3D&st=2024-04-29T14%3A12%3A00Z&se=2024-04-29T16%3A17%3A00Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2022-11-17T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Joining you for what I hope will be a very lively session. This is build as a lively session. And so we will have time for discussion at the end of the presentation. My name is Teri Oaks Gallaway, I'm the Executive Director of SCELC, which is the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium. And today, I'm joined by my colleague, Susan Stearns, the Project Director for EAST, and Jason Price, the Research and Scholarly Communication Director for SCELC.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Today, we'll be talking about our work on a mutual IMLS planning grant, where we'll examine what it means to have a diverse collection while simultaneously, exploring how to foster diversity of participation in a program. As a lively session, we have brought discussion questions for you to consider. I'm going to put those up here, and you also should have them on a sheet of paper.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: We hope to offer a bit of time to offer you to ask questions of us as well. As we present the background on this project, we ask you to consider these the value proposition that's articulated, and support a shared print. Is it relevant and important to minority serving institutions, to your organization? Are there strategies that we can use to embrace and address potential barriers to participation?
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: What are the pathways to participation in leadership? What techniques are available today to evaluate the diversity of print book collections? What are their strengths and weaknesses? And finally, how do we facilitate a project in the hope that it benefits a community to which we don't belong? OK, a little bit about what we'll cover today.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: We're going to talk a little bit about our organizations. And sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't going to see the slides in front of me. We're going to give you a background on shared print. We'll talk a bit about our award, the details of it. We'll talk about the role of a community counsel. Jason will cover our research goals and then we'll lead into discussion questions and your feedback.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: So I'm delighted to be representing SCELC. And for context, SCELC is a library consortium and we are based in Los Angeles, California. We serve over 300 institutions in nearly 40 states, though as you can see here, the majority of our core members of about 100 represented by the blue points in the top image are situated in California. SCELC is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation, and is one of the top five consortia in licensing volume and all in North America.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Our portfolio of consortia licensing, programming, and services is enabled by our commitment to building relationships and nurturing networks between our libraries, as well as with our vendor and publisher partners. In addition to licensing, SCELC offers a shared print program for members and affiliates. We currently have 48 members participating in our shared print program, and at last count, our partners have retained approximately 2.7 million titles out of a total 10.4 million titles held by the group, or 26% of the titles held.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Our program partner EAST, has a sizable community as well. And I'll hand the mic over to Susan who will tell you a bit about EAST.
SUSAN STEARNS: Thanks Teri, hear me OK? Excellent. Thanks. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone and for those of you who are not familiar with the Eastern Academic Scholars Trust, we are a shared print program established in 2015, 2016. From our 40 founding members, we have now grown to over 80 libraries as you can see from the map here.
SUSAN STEARNS: Our retention partners have committed to retain over 10 million books and just over 29,000 journal titles. Of late, much of our growth has been from library consortia. This has opened some new opportunities for membership models for us, including the ability to have discussions with institutions serving more diverse communities. Next slide.
SUSAN STEARNS: Before we delve into our discussion, we wanted to provide a brief overview on shared print. And I guess, I'd like to get a sense of the audience here, those of you who are either involved in shared print programs or who may know a bit about shared print, could you raise your hands? OK, thank you very much, much appreciated. Well, apologies to those of you who are very knowledgeable of shared print, I'm going to go into just a little bit of background.
SUSAN STEARNS: Next slide, please. The phrase, shared print, is used in a variety of ways. It can refer to a shared print program such as SCELC or EAST, whereby a number of libraries have formally agreed to make commitments, retention commitments, usually based on a collection analysis of some kind. They commit to retain specific titles for an agreed upon period of time. And typically, also share those materials with the partners in their program, usually using standard interlibrary loan resource sharing capabilities.
SUSAN STEARNS: Shared print can also be used in the context of the collective collection that is created by a shared print program. At its core, shared print is a collaborative effort across the member libraries done at scale to provide maximum advantage to the members and to minimize the risk of loss of the print scholarly record. And while shared print in various forms, has been around for some time, it is increasingly seen as an important component of the strategies that libraries employ to manage their print collections.
SUSAN STEARNS: In fact, as the quote at the bottom of this slide indicates, college and research libraries acknowledge shared print as a top trend in academic and research libraries this year. Next slide, please. In a few minutes, as Teri indicated, we'll be asking you to comment on the value of participation in shared print, including barriers that prevent participation, particularly for libraries serving minoritized communities.
SUSAN STEARNS: Our work with libraries to date, has looked at ways in which shared print aligns with the values of their library and of their institution. If your library values being student or learner-centered, shared print enables the repurposing of library space in ways that most directly support student success. The collective collection of a shared print program such as that of SCELC or EAST acts as a safety net, allowing member libraries to weed their print collections when needed based on the retention commitments of their partner libraries.
SUSAN STEARNS: If your library values sustainability, shared print helps reduce the impact of the collective collection, excuse me, by distributing responsibility for long term preservation across the member libraries. If your library values collaboration, shared print brings libraries and librarians together, not only to share collections, but also to share expertise in many areas of library work.
SUSAN STEARNS: If your library values equity, diversity, and inclusion, shared print expands access to your library's print collection, as well as providing your users access to other diverse collections. And if your library, excuse me, values serving the distinctive needs of your community, participation in shared print can enable you to invest in local collection development and management that focuses most directly on your institution's curriculum and research needs.
SUSAN STEARNS: And, of course, shared print directly supports the values of preservation and access. Next slide, please. The shared print landscape today, is one that is growing and thriving. Over 350 academic and research libraries as well as a smattering of public and additional independent libraries, participate in shared print across the United States and Canada.
SUSAN STEARNS: Those libraries have made commitments to retain tens of millions of book titles and hundreds of thousands of journal titles. While shared print is focused primarily on managing a library's print collection, a growing set of initiatives are beginning to integrate the management of both print and digital collections of libraries. Both individually as shared print programs and through federations of like-minded programs, we're working with vendors and service providers in the library community to offer a growing set of tools to better facilitate analysis of print collections and more effectively, embed shared print in standard library workflows.
SUSAN STEARNS: Back to you Teri.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: So as Susan just-- I need a mic.
SUSAN STEARNS: Back to you without the mic. [LAUGHTER]
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: As Susan described, shared print programs are a critical element in the collection lifecycle and we're a subject of interest as we considered our mutual strategic plans, mission, vision, and values. SCELC, for example, holds a shared value of diversity and inclusion. We state that equity, diversity, and inclusion are fundamental values of the consortium and are reflected in both the internal operations of SCELC as an organization and in the resources and services provided to all the libraries we serve.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Thus we're consistently looking at ways to infuse those values into what we do. As Susan described, preservation is a key goal of these shared print programs. The millions of retention commitments represented by these types of programs will certainly shape the access that future generations have the materials. Scholarship will be influenced, and it's imperative that we ensure that the retained collections offer diverse and inclusive viewpoints, and the whole of scholarship is represented.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: As Jason and Susan will describe, this discussion reflects both a research and a community building effort. Last academic year, we began discussions with EAST on this subject which resulted in the development of our IMLS project that we're showcasing today. The project will identify strategies to encourage additional, minority-serving institution participation to safeguard collections and to enhance access to collections for participants.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: By adding an additional research agenda of testing how diverse institutions contribute to collection diversity, the project team hopes to lay the groundwork for additional funding to subsidize shared print participation and future digitization and digital access programs. In preparing this project, SCELC and EAST looked at our own programs and those of peers to assess the participation gaps by institutions serving minoritized populations in the US.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: In particular, at designated MSIs and predominantly Black institutions or PBIs. Two institutional categories that are defined in the US higher education policy. We also looked at the impacts of the pandemic and looming enrollment cliff on the institutions we serve and how that might influence the long term program. With data indicating that HBCUs are at a high risk for enrollment declines and low HBCU PBI participation in shared print programs, SCELC and EAST have begun a concerted and inclusive effort to engage those groups of institutions in questioning the benefits and barriers of shared print.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: As we see here, reductions of this magnitude certainly threaten the survival of some of these institutions and then jeopardize the stability of library collections within. Though some institutions budgets were shored up through pandemic stimulus, longer term predictions are for increasing closures and mergers for colleges. The immediate impact of closures and mergers however, does not represent the entire threat to print collections.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: The utility and centrality of library buildings to academic priorities also represents a threat to access via mass weeding projects for space reallocation. The potential risk of loss of representative collections created by and for the community serve particularly those held exclusively by MSIs and PBIs is troubling. National data evaluated in preparation for this proposal indicate that MSIs which make up 16% of iPads identified four-year institutions, do participate in shared print at the same rate as non-MSIs or 9%.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: But HBCU and PBIs participate at 6% and Native American, Native Hawaiian, Native American, and tribal colleges are currently at 0% participation rate, and are significantly under-represented. At SCELC, nearly half of our shared print participants are currently from an MSI, and a high percentage of SCELC's overall consortium participants are from the MSI community as compared to the academic institutions within SCELC and throughout the US.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Furthermore, of the 43 MSIs across all shared print programs, 20 participate via SCELC. The expertise in this community is deep and so our stakeholders have been instrumental in the support that we needed to write this proposal. In July, we learned that our project was funded, it is a two-year planning grant, and it supports the following goals.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Community building, and we'll hear more about that from Susan. Program development and collection assessment, and as Jason will share we're exploring a hypothesis that increasing the participation of MSIs and shared print contributes to an increase in the diversity of the collective collections, in ways that contribute to the overall preservation of a diverse and inclusive collaborative collection.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: And finally, we look to build best practices that eliminate participation gaps. Critical to this work, are effective and inclusive community developed strategies. Facing this question here has been important for our group, should we lead? How do we lead? What is our role, if we are not ourselves from minoritized communities?
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Our approach therefore has been to focus on how we could serve in the role of community builder. I'm going to turn it over to Susan, who's going to discuss the role of the Community Council and how it will factor into this project.
JASON PRICE: Oh.
SUSAN STEARNS: I'm sorry. Save your computer. [LAUGHTER] Thanks Teri. Next slide, please. One of the ways that we hope to integrate more diverse voices in the work of this planning grant is through our Community Council. This group includes representatives from institutions serving minoritized groups.
SUSAN STEARNS: Some of them with expertise and experience of shared print and others with none. Council members will provide feedback and advice to the project team over the two years of the grant. As you'll see, each of the major goals that Teri has described includes an opportunity for us to work closely with the Community Council to review the work undertaken in that phase, to seek their input, and to ensure that the diversity of voices is represented as our work progresses.
SUSAN STEARNS: Next slide, please. Here you see the members of the Community Council. We want to thank them for agreeing to spend time with us, with the project team in the coming months. As you can see, their membership has been drawn from institutions of varying types and sizes. Some of these libraries are members of the Eastern Academic Scholars Trust Shared Print Program.
SUSAN STEARNS: Others are members of the SCELC Shared Print Program, and others have little or no experience of direct participation in shared print. Next slide. And here you see the objectives of the grant mapped to the work that we're doing with the Community Council. We kicked our work off with them in late September and are in the process now of planning for a meeting in early December, during which we'll focus on understanding their perspectives on the value of shared print, talk about the results of assessment work that both EAST and SCELC have undertaken over the course of the last couple of years, and begin to prepare for interviews and focus groups we'll be conducting in the new year as part of the grant work.
SUSAN STEARNS: In addition to this work of community building and better understanding barriers to participation in shared print, particularly by minority serving institutions, the planning grant has a major research component, and I'll turn it over now to Jason Price from SCELC to talk more about this, Jason.
JASON PRICE: Thanks Susan. So the overarching research question that we've tasked ourselves to answer under the guidance of the Community Council is, how can we measure the impact of expanding institutional diversity in shared print participation on the diversity and inclusivity of shared print collective collections? The reviewers of our preliminary proposal posed three, how do you know questions, designed to test our assumptions and whose answers will help support future shared print diversity efforts.
JASON PRICE: We can ask these questions upfront because as you've heard, we already have many minority serving institutions already participating across our two shared print programs. So the first question is, do minority serving institution collections contain more rare or unique books? Or more specifically, do they contain proportionally more rare or unique books relative to other members of the shared print community?
JASON PRICE: The second question is, do minority serving institution collections reflect the minoritized community they serve? And then third, do minority serving institutions shared print retention commitments reflect the minoritized community they serve? I also think it's worth pointing out that these questions are related but independent of each other and the direction and the degree of the answers, will help to guide future efforts.
JASON PRICE: So we may find yes or no to various ones of these questions, but what we learn from that will help us to figure out how to best support increased diversity and participation and collections. So next slide. What are the major challenges to our efforts to answer these questions? Scale. These print book collections contain tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands of titles.
JASON PRICE: So manual lookup and any effort in that direction in comparison is not an option. The second challenge that I've called identification is definitely the biggest. How can we effectively and reliably identify the set of titles that reflects ethnic studies in each MSI category? I think, we're even still uncomfortable with the language you're using to name these sets that is reflecting ethnic studies in each MSI category, and working at the search strategies that identify which books should be included in each category is even a much bigger challenge.
JASON PRICE: The third challenge is around the tools that are available. The costs and complications of the disparate history and functionality of these tools. So some of our libraries use Green Glass some use Gold Rush, some systems cover or still contain complete book collections while others only contain retention commitments. And neither were designed to address our categorization challenge. But on the next slide, we are forging ahead with profile based analyzes of current shared print participants since those are systems that are designed to work at scale.
JASON PRICE: For identification, the default is LC call number ranges, but those are blunt instruments with based on problematic structure and so we're looking for-- and though, while we're looking for the best possible range sets for this, we may have to work with what we've got. On the bright side, we've just seen a demo of OCLCs soon to be released WorldCat based analysis tool called Choreo. It uses fast subjects built with faceted application of subject terminology which might help us to get around some of the limitations of the LC call numbers and LC subject headings.
JASON PRICE: They've also employed a National Center for Education Statistics, two and six digit classification of instructional program codes mapped to LC class ranges or actually mapped to individual collections of books to map book records to academic programs. So for tools, there are new ones emerging. We are working on a possible partnership with OCLC for Choreo, for the reasons I just referenced.
JASON PRICE: And are very excited to announce a partnership with EBSCO to create an interactive panorama dashboard that will allow us to visualize and share the results of our research covering data representing a large number of institutions. Now, I'll turn it back over to Teri, to move us into an opportunity for discussion.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: OK, so we were not sure how we would be arranged today and how we could best facilitate a discussion with this group, but we do have a handout. If you haven't received one yet, we will get some out to you. What we ask is that you get into groups of 2, 3, 4, get to a new neighbor. We are going to give you-- what's our timer here, Jason?
JASON PRICE: We have another half hour.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: OK, so we will give you probably three to five minutes to look at each of these questions. If you want to do a think, pair, share framework we are going to call you back and have you share out some of your concerns, your ideas about each of these sessions. Susan, Jason, and I, will work around the room and come and visit with you, and make sure you're doing your homework assignment.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: And we'll come back, share out and then we'll move into some additional Q&A time as well. And Susan, if you are in need of a handout, please do raise your hand, we're looking for people to stand up. I'm assuming you just ate lunch and getting a little sleepy so we're looking for bodies to stand up and make some connections in the room.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: OK, everyone we're going to come to the share out portion, please do stay in your groups. We'll take each question one at a time, we're not going to force every group to share out all of their observations. Keandra has the microphone, and we'll just ask that you raise your hand, give her a chance to get to you, and then share your thoughts on each of these questions.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: So the first one is, hopefully one that got you all talking quite a bit, especially those of you that are currently participating in shared print. Are the value propositions articulated in support of shared print relevant and important to minority serving institutions, or to your organization? So I'll call on groups.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: I have a few plants out there and we'll call on or I'll wait for you all to raise hands. I know you all were chatting a lot, so let's hear it.
JASON PRICE: It's OK to be controversial, this is Charleston.
SUSAN STEARNS: A hand over here.
JASON PRICE: Yeah.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: If you'd like to share your name and what?
SUSAN STEARNS: Institute.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Institution too.
SUSAN STEARNS: We should have a prize for the first group, I'm sorry, I didn't bring us lot of those.
MARIA SAVOVA: I guess I'm one of them plants. Maria Savova, oncologist part of SCELC, and have been involved in the SCELC shared print program in the early days, not recently. One of the things that we just talked about here, none of our institutions are minority serving institutions. And the difficulties about identifying diverse titles in our collection is that there is no list out there to compare against.
MARIA SAVOVA: But maybe with the addition of these minority serving institutions, their collections they might have identified titles from authors from their community, or they might have local collections and a local note about this is from indigenous altar or so. So actually some of their metadata within their catalogs of things that identify because of specific interest to them could enhance the metadata of the union catalog and help the rest of the institutions then compare against that.
MARIA SAVOVA: You should add something there. Anybody want to add something?
AUDIENCE: Do I want to add anything, I don't know. In the last few seconds talked about using a sparkle query potentially to find such a list of names than running that against the authority file but it's would be really, really messy. So no easy way to do that to get a list to check against, that's some of what we were talking about. We also expressed concerns that maybe it would actually drive traffic away if people were having to wait for a shared collection that was not local, and concerns for platform independence to be able to analyze collections across institutions.
AUDIENCE: I hope that was all audible, sorry.
JASON PRICE: It was.
SUSAN STEARNS: It was.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Thank you. Any other groups have differing discussion on value proposition of shared print that you want to share? Glen, Amy?
JASON PRICE: Andy. Andy's--
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Oh, Andy. OK.
SUSAN STEARNS: Tentatively raising his hand.
JASON PRICE: Yeah, OK.
ANDY BREEDING: Yes, I'm Andy Breeding with OCLC, and I think, overall the answer was yes, and we had a fair amount of discussion around it. But the one call out that I found particularly interesting was in the public library space, typically, if it doesn't get used it gets thrown out in so many instances and that, that's an area where getting increased participation in shared print would be really awesome.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Well, take the next question.
JASON PRICE: Anyone else. Last call on the first question? OK, we'll move to the next. What strategies can today's shared print programs embrace to address the barriers in shared print or provide new pathways to participation and leadership? What did you all come up with from in terms of those strategies? I'm seeing a hand in the back.
SUSAN STEARNS: [INAUDIBLE].
AUDIENCE: Hi, so our group-- I don't think our group even necessarily got this question because we got really involved in questions one and four so-- but I felt like we should contribute something. And one thing that I think, comes up a lot is just worrying about that does some of the-- it says what strategies can today's shared print program embrace to address and potentially overcome potential barriers.
AUDIENCE: And I'm just wondering, what other barriers exist for MSIs that are out there beyond the shared print. So helping them to address with those needs are that then may free them up to think about potential future involvement with shared print programs. And that one of the things that I think, a lot of libraries, and maybe not even MSIs need right now is people who are really skilled with data analysis and who can really spend the time to do the deep dive.
AUDIENCE: And I'm just also wondering, one of the questions that came up in question number four was thinking about, are the questions that we have with shared print and trying to identify unique titles, are those the only questions and concerns that are coming up for MSI? So while you're looking for unique titles, well what other questions can you help address using the data analysis skills that you possess rather than making more work for these institutions?
AUDIENCE: And I know that SCELC is doing this by providing some of the incentives for helping get these programs going. So I think, that this is on the right track but that people need a lot with data analysis, so that's one thing that I think. Does anyone else in my group want to speak? OK.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: Susan, I was going to ask if you wanted to share out some of the known barriers to participation that we're seeing in our mutual assessments?
SUSAN STEARNS: Loose my water this time. I've learned my lesson. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I think, Teri mentioned earlier that both-- or maybe I did, both EAST and SCELC undertook more formal program assessments over the course of the last couple of years. And in both cases, ask questions about the value of shared print to those institutions. And barriers to continued participation, to further participation by existing members, and in the case of SCELC, to participation at all by those who had not yet participated in shared print.
SUSAN STEARNS: And some of the themes that we heard had to do with concerns about costs, both the one time cost typically, one time. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be, of collection analysis, as well as any ongoing membership fees that might be needed of the program. Certainly, and this was, I think, even more true of the smaller institutions participating, a concern about available resources on the side of the library, both to meet the needs of the collection analysis work, being able, for example, to in a timely way provide the data, the metadata extract that's needed to do collection analysis, being able to work with their local systems to record retention commitments locally and maintain them on an ongoing basis.
SUSAN STEARNS: So those kinds of local resources, particularly as we see both system staff, and metadata cataloging tech services staffs being reduced in libraries as people retire and in many cases, other positions get created for what had been a cataloguer in a library. And then, I think, also just on a more general basis, a concern that they want more control over determining what titles they keep in their local systems.
SUSAN STEARNS: The models that exist for determining what titles a library will keep are typically based on some combination of unique, or uniqueness, or scarcity across the totality of the program and in some cases, usage of materials. And although those make sense at scale, sometimes in an individual institution, that might mean a library is keeping things that aren't as relevant for their local programs and their local curriculum and research.
SUSAN STEARNS: So I think those are probably the three major categories that were identified as part of our program assessment work. I don't know if either of you have anything to add. OK. Thanks.
JASON PRICE: [INAUDIBLE]
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: OK, the next question is about strategies, this concept of diversity audit that folks have been hearing about, what does that mean? How do we evaluate whether or not our collections are diverse? Is it a data analysis question? Is it meeting the needs of individuals? How do we find out if we truly have a diversity of print book collections? What strategies are you using and strengths and weaknesses that you see in those methodologies, including ones that we discussed today?
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY:
JASON PRICE: [INAUDIBLE]. We got plans.
KEANDRA: I'll come to you.
LEV RICKARDS: This is Lev Rickards from Santa Clara University, part of SCELC. We talked a bit in our small group about-- well it's the same challenge at a local level, it's just scaled up. It's still the problem of diversity assessments. Subject headings do a decent job for content, but we're often curious about whether the author themselves belongs to a minoritized group, and it's hard to asses that out.
LEV RICKARDS: I think, sculpturing lightning talks a couple of years ago had a great presentation from Michelle Gibney and she found that it takes a lot of work. If you can throw trained student workers and library staff at trying to figure that out, but you're never going to get 100%, and what else? It's different to do a diversity assessment as a way to prove to your provost that you need more funding for acquiring diverse material.
LEV RICKARDS: This project has a harder goal, which is to say, what do we actually have? It's easy to prove that there's a gap there that you can fill with more money, it's harder to actually find the material that you want to save. So none of that is helpful, but maybe some context.
JASON PRICE: I don't know, I appreciate the recognition of the challenge that's before us. But we felt like we need to try, we need to do the best that we can with the tools that we have right now. So it helps me to think about it as a planning grant and also to recognize that well, what if the answer to the question do minority serving institutions have collections that reflect their ethnic studies in there, and the minoritized communities they serve is, no.
JASON PRICE: That's important to recognize and if we are able to have even a reasonable way to say, these books do reflect these communities, these books don't, then we can address that issue, like any other research type of approach, we're going to have more questions than answers when we're done with that. But if we find that we're able to identify that and then the minority serving institutions don't have those books but others do, then we have a different goal that changes the approach to shared print, but one that is based on things that we've learned.
JASON PRICE: So I'm excited about that.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
JASON PRICE: Hey.
TERESA ECKERT: I am Teresa Eckert from the University of Arizona, and our group talked a little bit about libraries that have large print collections and how it just-- I don't even know how to answer that, when you have millions of print holdings to even-- and what someone in my group mentioned was, just thinking about going forward, which is more to the gaps than going backwards at least, for now because at least you're doing something.
TERESA ECKERT: I mean, that sounds whiny but I don't know. I mean, the other thing I want to say is we are a R1, so federally designated R1, Hispanic serving institution. And you look at what that means, the library is not represented at all. It's so vague. We have to ask ourselves, what does that mean for the library, we don't even know.
TERESA ECKERT: And so that also is just incredibly difficult. I understand we need to know in our 4 million collection of print, what we might have that meets that designation but I have no idea how to do it. So I think I'm looking to you all. So go.
JASON PRICE: It's a planning grant.
TERESA ECKERT: Yeah
JASON PRICE: And that's what we're trying to do is just begin to learn and take stuff forward. And I think, the answer is usually both and, so when I think about author diversity in shared print my brain explodes, it's really hard to figure out how with books that go back that far and are that old, how do we do that? Well, maybe we can do a better job of author diversity prospectively, like moving forward. And so then we're addressing it in that way and we're addressing what we can do here, but just asking the questions.
JASON PRICE: We're a minority serving institution, we know what that means for our library, asking these questions encourages us as libraries to figure it out, as best as we can. And even though it's-- I'm very humbled by how do we actually do this? And not feeling like have any sense of really how it's going to work, it's still good to do, especially if we can be guided by that community, which is why that Community Council piece is such a key one for what we're doing.
JASON PRICE: Other comments or questions?
AUDIENCE: Yeah. I don't think that's going to be terribly helpful, but it just occurred to me, one, because we're dealing with a known set of libraries trying to figure out I think, how you stated it or I'm paraphrasing what you said is, how do these collections differ from non-MSIs? And so maybe, does it make sense comparing it their holdings against the aggregate EAST holdings?
AUDIENCE: Or maybe come up with comparative non-MSI schools to compare them against and see where they differ and then dig into that difference. It certainly doesn't help with as a general strategy to evaluate diversity but at least it can answer that question of, are these library collections different in some distinctive way? And then look at what that distinction is.
JASON PRICE: Absolutely. And part of the reason for our focus on tools to start with is, what can we actually manage to do in that way? Can we compare against a big group? If we need some institutions that aren't part of shared print yet, but we want to be able to compare to them in order to have the right numbers to be able to look at a control group, how do we do that? Can we pair them up?
JASON PRICE: What are the right ways to do that? All of those are things that we're thinking about as part of the research planning process.
TERI OAKS GALLAWAY: One more.
AUDIENCE: I got excited by what you were saying and I'm really excited to hear, Jason, that you think that by starting to work on answering these questions, it's going to lead to more questions and well how come this does look this way? Because I was having those thoughts as well. I went to a talk this morning with the founder of iris.ai, and just thinking about machine learning but also thinking about the fact that with titles going forward, not going backwards in our collection, but going back to a certain extent, we have the publisher description data inside of it, so the table of contents, the summary, what questions can we ask within there that will help us, that don't have traditional words like diversity or whatever kind of words, we want to substitute to define because the LC system is not going to be the way.
AUDIENCE: But I don't know anything about Choreo, but maybe that's not the way either. But maybe you're looking at it from that and feeding and all of those publisher descriptions for the unique titles that are held, that are in these MSIs that might be like a really exciting way although I am terrified at the prospect of even how would she do that? I don't know. But anyway, this is exciting.
SUSAN STEARNS: Shall I draw it to a conclusion? OK. I think, we're at the end of our time there is one more hand here and I'm seeing it, so I'm going to see if we can get the mic there in time.
KEANDRA: Absolutely.
SUSAN STEARNS: It doesn't look like there are people standing in the hallway waiting to get into this room.
KEANDRA: No.
AUDIENCE: Just on this question of identifying ethnicities of authors, I just wonder if it might be worthwhile to look at what's in the cataloging of these historically Black colleges. I know for New York Public Library or the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, we always cataloged books noting Black author if it was an author of African descent and have done that for almost 100 years now, so I don't know. And that's probably not in OCLC, that might not be an OCLC, but that's in our catalog.
AUDIENCE: So just there might be unique information in the catalogs of these libraries to draw on.
JASON PRICE: Yeah.
SUSAN STEARNS: Thanks so much for that. OK. Since we didn't get an opportunity to talk about the final question, if you've made any notes or would like to just come up and chat with us about any ideas you have in addressing the question of, how do those of us who are involved in this project really ensure that it benefits a community to which we today do not belong.
SUSAN STEARNS: So thank you so much for your feedback, for your lively discussion. We hope this was an interesting session for you, and we'll be back at some point and talk to you a little bit more about the results of our planning. And hopefully, we'll be able to move on to the next stage. Thank you so much everyone. Have a great rest of the conference. [APPLAUSE]