When I came to the iSchool, I thought that I would have to conduct a big research project in order to fulfill the intellectual requirement, but no topic of information science research reached up and grabbed me. Instead, I spent my efforts on applying argument to practical issues surrounding me, both at school and at work.
During Fall Quarter, 2003, I took David Levy's Digital Libraries course (LIS 559). The main assignment for that class was a practical group project, working with a department on campus to design and/or implement a digital collection. I worked with Elinor Appel and Christina Kulp, and our mission was to create a digital collection of marbled papers for Sandra Kroupa and Kris Kinsey in Special Collections (of "Manuscripts, Collections, University Archives"). Elinor and Christina tackled the problems of metadata, of which there were many, and I attempted to form the basis of a copyright and "terms of use" policy on which MSCUA could build.
Kris explained to us that most digital archives have no published policy with regard to copyright and use restrictions. It is a very new and developing area, and most archives seem to be throwing things up on the Web without thinking too hard about the implications. One of the unforeseen implications is that digitization can actually increase usage of original objects instead of decreasing it. Therefore, my contribution to the project was an eight-page exploration of copyright and the effects of digitization on original objects.
This was a new kind of project for me, because although I had studied intellectual property in LIS 550 with Stuart Sutton, the final assignment in that class was a half-fictional case study, and our write-up was an exercise only. Not only did we work intensely with Sandra and Kris during the whole project, but they saw our finished paper. I hope that our work was useful to them, as was our intention.
One of my tasks at KCLS is to develop and maintain automated scripts that generate shelf-lists and other reports for staff (more about that in Technology). KCLS is migrating from a Dynix ILS to Innovative's Millennium system, and when Innovative came for a demonstration, my job was to figure out whether my report functionality could be ported to Innovative. The answer is that it can, but it requires an Oracle database backend rather than Innovative's proprietary database. I wrote up that information and my argument supporting the purchase of Oracle in an email to my supervisor, Kathy, so that she could incorporate it into her decisions and arguments. The information that I provided had a direct effect on the purchase decision for Oracle.
My research project for LIS 570 was an attempt to apply research to my practical work setting. KCLS' catalog migration presents an opportunity for change and improvement in library service, and our study was intended to present KCLS staff with information about their users and to enable them to make more informed decisions about the new catalog system. We learned a little bit about the KCLS catalog, a little more about KCLS patrons, and a lot about research and what we should have done better. I forwarded our paper to my supervisors at KCLS, and they are both interested in the results and more than willing to explore the recommendations that we put forth.
On the process of research, the hardest lesson was that we set a too-ambitious goal for our ten-week timeline. If we were to do it over again, we would either scale down the scope of the project or allow ourselves more time to consult with stakeholders at KCLS, pilot our survey more thoroughly, and collect more data. Now we have a much better concept of how much time is needed for each of the steps in constructing a research study, especially when attempting to navigate an organizational bureaucracy.
Our initial hypothesis was that "user-friendly" language, which KCLS already attempts to use, helps users to understand and use catalogs better. We also thought that the best source of user-friendly words would be the language that patrons themselves used to describe catalog functions. Our data seem to prove us wrong on both counts; on the contrary, patrons seemed not fully to understand the concepts behind catalog language. No two-word descriptor can explain an important information retrieval concept to someone who does not understand it; therefore, the emphasis of research and of catalog development, in KCLS' case, should be documentation for the catalog, so that users will at least have some more lengthy description to which they can turn. What I would like to see happen at KCLS is for a few librarians to get together and write up some good documentation for the myriad search options in the catalog, and for that documentation to replace the standard "help" provided by the catalog vendor (which is usually not at all helpful). My supervisors have expressed willingness to listen to my ideas, and I hope I will have the chance to see them realized.