It seems that in every aspect of the work of academic libraries, there is an increased interest in frameworks. For example, in response to the ”rapidly changing higher education environment,” the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education transitioned to the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education. I am involved in a Big Ten initiative to develop a Framework for Discovery-to-Fulfillment Systems. Rutgers is also not immune to the charms of developing frameworks. Internally, there is a Libraries group developing a framework to describe the technical infrastructure and architecture of special collections (charge | minutes).
The framework presented in OCLC’s Realities of Research Data Management report may be useful as we think about the categories and framework we could use to describe our services.
Frameworks provide a way to divide complex goals and processes into manageable chunks while retaining information about relationships and dependencies between the components. Frameworks allow organizations to map multiple approaches to a goal and to tailor these pathways based on context. We have discussed the need to develop a better understanding of central and local services and responsibilities. We also need to develop infrastructure and services that advance the missions of our three campuses and a statewide health system. It seems that we would benefit from a framework that describes our services and illustrates the relationships and interdependencies between central and local units.
I have been following the OCLC Research Library Partnership Reports on the Realities of Research Data Management. This is a “four-part series that explores how research universities are addressing the challenge of managing research data throughout the research lifecycle.” The first three parts are now available and are quite good, digging a little below the surface to discover underlying drivers that influence practices. This topic alone is worthy of quite a bit of conversation that is beyond the scope of this post; however, I mention it here because, in Part One of the series, OCLC develops a framework for describing categories of services related to Research Data Management that may be useful as we think about the categories and framework we could use to describe our services. These are not going to map directly onto the needs of Rutgers University Libraries as a whole, but they demonstrate a way of thinking about these issues that will be valuable.
The categories of services included in Part One: A Tour of the Research Data Management (RDM) Service Space are:
- Education—educating researchers and other stakeholders on the importance, and in some cases, the necessity, of responsibly managing their data and making arrangements for its long-term curation
- Expertise—providing decision support and customized solutions for researchers working through specific research data management problems
- Curation—supplying technical infrastructure and related services that support data management throughout the research cycle
It seems to me that by generalizing and extending these concepts, we could develop service categories that would help us plan and implement new services. In recent years, we have been reacting to extensive changes occurring in the university, but with the larger environment stabilizing, we can start thinking more about the structure that will best support campus missions and begin to develop a common vocabulary to discuss planning and priorities. There will be more on this in the coming months, but I encourage you to visit the links in this post and start thinking about how these ideas can be applied to our work.
