Monday, January 4, 2016

Music and Beer, Beer and Music in 2015

My new job makes it harder to listen to music (note: do not interpret this as a complaint, yet), so we're going to do things a bit differently this year. Rather than ranking, here are twenty albums I liked in 2015, and continue to like, in alphabetical order by artist. Not interested in music? Beer here.



A few trends, if one can call it that:

Two Australian artists, Courtney Barnett and Royal Headache.
Heterodox black metal, or if you want to be snide about it, "hipster metal." The orthodoxy around genres sure was fun to argue about in the 90s. Now I reap the musical benefits of bands that sit slightly outside a scene.

Albums

Alabama Shakes - Sound & Color: Not sure I’d ever find myself in the position of praising a soul revival group for their use of negative space and minimalism in arrangements, but here we are.

Algiers - s/t: An incendiary, politically and otherwise, mix of post-punk, and no-wave. Picture James Baldwin fronting early TV on the Radio with Liquid Liquid and ESG producing and you're close.

Courtney Barnett - Sometimes I Sit and Think, Sometimes I Sit: Wry, ramshackle alt-country reminiscent of both Uncle Tupelo and Pavement. One of the smartest lyricists around.

Cheatahs - Mythologies: These year-end lists usually contain a nu-gaze group, so here you go. (In all seriousness their first album sounded like a 90s tribute and they’ve done a good job breaking out of that mould here, incorporating post-punk rhythms, synths, and nifty production tricks.)

Beach House - Depression Cherry: Some subtle tweaks to their formula (louder guitars, organ loops, and even EDM) result in their best album yet. Throw a second 2015 release, Thank Your Lucky Stars, too.

Bjork - Vulnicura: Arca’s not my cup of tea, but the interplay between his beats and the strings are often challenging, and lyrically this is as real as Bjork’s gotten. It’s nice to have her back. Her best since Vespertine.

Chvrches - Open Every Eye: At times harsher, more industrial, and angular than their first. Closer to Depeche Mode. As it should be.

Dead to a Dying World - Litany: At their most beautiful they sound like a Godspeed You! Black Emperor 33 1/3rd LP being played at 45.

Deafheaven - New Bermuda: A bit more black metal, especially in the drumming, this time out, and none the worse for wear.

Holly Herndon - Platform: Out of chaos, order.

Jeffrey Lewis and Los Bolts - Manhattan: A man with a voice that can be described as “a more nasal Weird Al” does a Jim Carroll Band/Jonathan Richman thing, which reminds me of all that New York has lost.

Myrkur - M: I like the one that opens with haunting, ethereal vocals; Nordic folk instruments; and piano followed by abnormally well-produced, punishing black metal.

Obsequiae - Aria of Vernal Tombs: Putting the “folk” in folk metal.

Panda Bear - Panda Bear Meets the Grim Reaper: An oddly funky psych-pop record, co-produced by a member of Spacemen 3, that still feels grounded, rooted, and homey.

Pinkish Black - Bottom of the Morning: Dungeon synths, metal, krautrock, and that drumming.

Royal Headache - High: The best album to sing along to this year.

Sufjan Stevens - Carrie & Lowell: Another quiet gem. His most personal album, and maybe his best.

Tall Tales and the Silver Lining - Tightropes: Hook-heavy west coast 70s AM radio goodness.

Viet Cong - s/t: “March of Progress” alone is worth the price of admission.

Waxahatchee - Ivy Tripp: Indie rock has taken a beating lately, but Waxahatchee’s last two albums have carried the torch.

Cheers: The triumphant returns of Belle and Sebastian, Bjork, Cannibal Ox, Faith No More, Sleater-Kinney, and The Sonics. Whatever is going on with Ryan Adams and Taylor Swift.

Jeers: I just can’t with a lot of hip hop these days. Sad. So it goes with getting older? The Swift-Adams thinkpieces.




Songs (in no particular order)

March of Progress - Viet Cong
The Blacker the Berry - Kendrick Lamar
Ondine - Lower Dens
Blank Space - Taylor Swift
Should Have Known Better - Sufjan Stevens
Energy - Drake
Need You - Royal Headache
24 Frames - Jason Isbell
Ex’s & Oh’s - Ellie King
Something to Believe In - Tall Tales and the Silver Lining
Signs to Lorelei - Cheatahs




Beer (Either new to the market or a new brewery release in 2015, in no particular order)

The locals:

Home - Ocelot (IPA): An admitted homage to Alpine's famed Nelson rye pale ale, see below, with slightly more cereal and grain in the body.
Nanticoke Nectar - Real Ale Revival (IPA): This brewery is crushing it. Big things. One thing a beer professional can do is introduce people to new things and champion them. Jace Gonnerman did that with RAR and Fairwinds, see below.
Diamonds, Fur Coat, Champagne - Right Proper (Berliner Weisse): Not too sour that I can't drink three of them. Floral, bone dry, and made within walking distance of my house.
Raspberry Dissonance - 3 Stars (Berliner Weisse): Not sure I can drink three of them, but I can drink two.
Black Twig - Albemarle Ciderworks: Their single-apple varietal ciders continue to impress.
Siren’s Lure - Fairwinds (Saison): Always nice when a brewery opens and immediately medals at the Great American Beer Festival.
Now in cans: Union Old Pro Gose, Port City Optimal Wit, 3 Stars Ghost White IPA.

National:

Oktoberfest - Sierra Nevada-Brauhaus Riegel: Basically liquid perfection.
Left of the Dial - Notch (Session IPA)
Down to Earth - 21st Amendment (Session IPA): These session IPAs are the two best examples of hop-bursting I've encountered so far, moving this style away from what I'd ordinarily call a "bitter" to a category of its own.
Coffee Cinnamon Barrel-Aged Abominable - Fremont (Imperial Stout): This beer was so good that it literally silenced the room at a tasting.
Deux Rouges - Yazoo (Sour/wild ale): My favorite sour from SAVOR, no small feat.
Vinosynth White - Upland (Sour/wild ale): My second favorite, sorry Allagash.

New in the market:

Anything from Tired Hands: Greg Engert's persistence pays off yet again, as NRG bars and restaurants carry this Pennsylvania brewery. Look for more of this kind of arrangement in 2016.
Anything hoppy from Alpine: Not paying the six-pack prices, but it's nice to have these guys on tap.
Ballast Point Grapefruit Sculpin (IPA): My official beer of the summer.
Avery Liliko'i Kepolo (witbier): White Rascal was already my go-to Belgian in a can. Tropical fruit flavors and tartness take it up a notch.
Firestone Walker Pivo Pils: Yet another stupid good beer from a stupid good brewery.
Boulevard Ginger Lemon Radler: Danner knows what's up.

Cheers!

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Why Critical Librarianship? Or, the #whyicritlib Post

Many moons ago, when I was pursuing a PhD in political science, a professor I looked up to told me something that's stuck with me. Marxists, he said, don't often have the right answers, but they ask the right questions.

Gif via ina.fr and gifwave.com
So why am I a critical librarian?
  • Because it's important to ask "who benefits?" and I wish more of us in the library and information sciences would follow in the footsteps of Sanford BermanE.J. JoseyHope Olson, Rory Litwin, and others in asking these kinds of questions.
  • Because critical librarianship is, in large part, what you make it. It's one of the few places where I feel like I have a significant degree of agency in librarianship. I hear the critiques of the #critlib chats being an echo chamber, and while on some level I think that opinion is a valid one (this blog post might be evidence of that), if someone wants to propose a chat on a topic they think is under- or unexplored, they can and should do so. Last June I moderated a chat, attempting to critique whatever critlib is (movement, mindset, group, place,...) from the inside, and I suspect that with his questions above, this critique is something that Kevin would like to explore as well.
  • Because I'm not neutral, and neither are libraries. There are intended and unintended policies and consequences that do real harm that I think we can mitigate. But only if we ask "who benefits, how, and why?"
  • Because one of the highlights of my year, or any year, really, was being in a room with Jessica Critten, Donna Witek, Kevin Seeber, and Kenny Garcia, listening, talking, and learning. I've found fellow "critlibbers" to be friendly, kind, patient, smart, and caring, among other positive traits.
  • Because as a community, critical librarianship keeps me accountable to myself, my ideals, and challenges me to continue to listen and learn and refine, among other things. 
  • Because before I lurked in critlib chats, I was a critical political science student. A professor introduced me to the work of Michel Foucault, and that was as close to an "a ha!" moment as I'll have (I maybe even crossed a threshold, if you will). I got to spend a day with James Scott, one of my professional heroes. And then I got to apply critical theories from the social sciences and humanities to libraries, in theory, and in practice, thanks to people like Maria Accardi
  • Because this is my life homey you decide yours.


Why do I identify with these ideas?
  • Because I've never not been critical. I grew up in New York City in the 1980s. My parents told me not to walk on Amsterdam Avenue (also called Murderdam or Cracksterdam), to take Broadway instead, and I began to ask questions. I saw how people who weren't white were treated. By police, by teachers, by peers, by the law. That was the start. It took me a while to find the theoretical frameworks to help me process what I saw, but I'm glad I did. 
Why do I participate in these chats?
  • It's more often the case that I lurk, listening, liking tweets, saving things for later. I feel like I have a voice, however limited, in this profession, and I want to hear what others have to say. The last thing librarianship needs is another cis het white dude taking up space. That being said, thanks for reading, and thanks to Kevin for asking. 

Monday, December 7, 2015

The Academic Library Job Market is Broken

Here are some blind items from my interactions with academic libraries over the past few months. They don't paint a pretty picture of the hiring processes therein.
  • The university that schedules a phone interview, then, out of the blue, a second phone interview three weeks later with an entirely different search committee and no explanation.
    • That same university, when asked during the second phone interview, has no timeline to bring anyone in for an on-campus interview, a clear sign that they have no idea who or what they're looking for in the position.
  • The multiple instances in which the person you report to isn't part of the search committee.
  • On-campus interviews where the people you'd manage aren't part of the hiring process.
  • Places where you're told "the position is what you make it" even though there's a long, almost unicorn-like job description and a title that strongly suggests which area of academic librarianship the position falls into. Again, a clear sign that they have no idea what they're looking for in the position.
  • Places where more than a third of the students are non-white, but all the librarians are Nice White Ladies. 
  • Place that check your references and then ghost. 0_o 
  • Places that ask for a salary range and when supplied with one, with tons of wiggle room, might I add, feel the need to note that they're a non-profit. Passive aggressive much? 
  • Places that have lost a significant percentage of their staff, but those that remain are clinging to their silos rather than trying to reorganize, reward versatility, and become more agile and open. 
    • The counter: Places that awkwardly combine two or more positions into one to compensate for budget cuts. See that unicorn-like job description, above. 
  • Places where it's clear you'll be punished for wanting to publish, to share knowledge, whether that's peer reviewed, presented, or blogged.
    • "So, I see you publish," I was told, with a tone and body language that made it clear I shouldn't aspire to such things. 
    • "I've read your blog and twitter," remarked one hiring official, who did not and would not expand on that when I asked them what they thought of my online presence. 
    • "Why can't you stick to beer?" is something that I was told by someone in human resources at one institution. If I weren't a cis het white male, I'd send that into the LIS Microaggressions zine. 
Errata:
All directors, with no exceptions, think that if I, as an ex-director, interview for a librarian position, then I'm out to steal their job. Meanwhile, other library staff at these organizations can't fathom why I'd give up a directorship, not understanding how fraught middle management in academic libraries can be, often feeling trapped between library staff and academic administration, which can sometimes be at cross-purposes. Why is it not okay to be a librarian, a part of a team? We don't all have to aspire to management, even those of us in management. 
A sign you're in a good place: when someone eats a fruit cup with both breakfast and lunch and not once touches the honeydew. Honeydew is a garbage melon.  
The performance of whiteness is an important barrier to diversity in library and information science. I was aware of this before job hunting, but nowhere is this more true than when you're on the market. "Small talk" is crucial to determining whether or not one "fits" in an organization. I mentioned farmers markets, Cub Scouts, homebrewing, and many other topics, some consciously, some not, to show employers that I'm "like" them. No doubt it helps that I look like them, too. If you're looking for a job in libraries, I encourage you to read Angela Galvan's "Soliciting Performance, Hiding Bias: Whiteness and Librarianship," and April Hathcock's "White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS," both published in In the Library With the Lead Pipe
Do you have horror stories you'd like to share? If you're able to, I'm here for that.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

The Beerbrarian Moves On

Over the course of eight years, I held three positions at my former place of work (MFPOW). For more than half that time, I served as Director of Library Services. I started as a paraprofessional, with "Specialist" in the title, got an MLIS on the job, and worked my way up. I'm grateful to them for the opportunities and growth, and I hope they're as proud of what we were able to accomplish as I am. No doubt they took a risk in making me a director. Working with other library and university staff, faculty, and academic administration, we were able to
  • modernize the library, including adding discovery services and a link resolver.
  • promote the use of open educational resources (OERs) to the point where every introductory science course uses them, saving our students a lot of money.
  • hire, train, promote, and maintain a diverse library staff 
  • break down silos by cross-training all library staff on both public and technical services, with robust documentation.
  • create a culture of experimentation, where staff aren't afraid to fail and learn from it.
But all those things cost a lot. They cost political capital. They cost emotional labor. And after those eight years, I got the sense that there wasn't much more I could do except maintain. I got the sense I wasn't wanted anymore, but I tried to stick it out. I was lonely as a middle manager, operating between university administration and library staff, and balancing those two often-competing roles was tough. I wasn't happy. I let it get to me. To their credit, the powers that be realized this. The timing wasn't perfect, but hey, it rarely is. I should have started my job hunt earlier, and I shouldn't have taken MFPOW for granted-- if you're thinking about going on the job market in "six months," start now! Though we occasionally disagreed on strategy and tactics, the mission of my former place of work remains a worthy one, and I wish them the best of luck. It's telling that the staff who remain, including the current university librarian, are people I hired and trained. It's a nice legacy to have. Onward. 

I came to librarianship as a failed academic, having dropped out of a political science PhD program. This new job gives me a chance to put that other Masters to good use (I applied for pretty much every Political Science Librarian position on the east coast, but never got past phone or Skype interviews--more on this later), and is right in my wheelhouse in terms of what my dissertation was to be: an examination of the role, or lack thereof, the globalization of the English language plays in state language policies, if you're wondering. I'll also get to work with area studies materials and other resources from my poli sci days.

In addition, I hope to bolster my skill-set. Some front-end web development, often involving integrated library systems (ILS) and learning/content management systems (the LMS is the scene of one of my better failure stories); more project management; more committee work; and maybe more instructional design. Also, a chance to turn a weakness, marketing and outreach, into a strength; and an opportunity to explore what critical librarianship looks like in a special library, as this position is in the academic wing of a federal library.

That being said, it's not an academic library, at least not in the traditional sense. I want to find out what I like more: librarianship or higher education. I want to make sure I'm not in the former as a way to stick around the latter.

I wasn't the job I left. I am not the job I just accepted. We are not our jobs. Not the ones we left. Not the ones we want to take. You are not your job.

Let's see where the day takes us.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Parsing Elsevier: Lingua and Open Access

Yet again, http://www.cafepress.com/fakeelsevier 
In late October, the editors and editorial board, six and thirty-one people, respectively, of the linguistics journal Lingua resigned. They did so to protest the publisher's, Elsevier, policies and pricing, having unsuccessfully asked the company to convert the journal to open access and hearing from libraries that one of linguistics premier journals was becoming too expensive. Per Inside Higher Ed:
Johan Rooryck, executive editor of the journal until his resignation takes effect at the end of the year, said in an interview that when he started his editorship in 1998, "I could have told you to the cent what the journal cost," and that it was much more affordable. Now, he said, single subscriptions are so expensive that it is "unsustainable" for many libraries to subscribe. Rooryck is professor of French linguistics at Leiden University, in the Netherlands, where academic and government leaders have been sharply critical of journal prices.
This was not the first instance of a journal editorial board quitting over Elsevier, as The Economist noted in 2012:
In 2006, for example, the entire editorial board of Topology, a mathematics journal published by Elsevier, resigned, citing similar worries about high prices choking off access. And the board of K-theory, a maths journal owned by Springer, a German publishing firm, quit in 2007.
Simmons hosts a comprehensive list of journals that have declared independence.

Tom Reller, Vice President and Head of Global Corporate Relations at Elsevier, addressed this most recent resignation in a blog post. In it, Reller makes a number of claims that should go fact-checked. I do so below.

I am not the first person to parse Elsevier's statement. Martin Eve, Senior Lecturer in Literature, Technology and Publishing at the University of London and head of the Open Library of Humanities, which will play host to the new journal to be run by the previous editors of Lingua, Glossa, does an excellent job clarifying some of what Reller wrote. Eve notes that it was not Rooryck, solo, who wanted to take ownership of the journal, as Reller asserts, but rather the editors, writ large, and counters Reller's claim that Elsevier founded the journal. More importantly, Eve takes issue with Reller's definition of "sustainable," given that Elsevier reported a 37% operating profit in 2014.

These are the 2012 numbers. Chart via Alex Holcombe at the above link.
Reller argues that lowering the article publishing charge (AAPC), a fee that authors and/or institutions pay Elsevier for publication, for Lingua from $1800 to $440 is unsustainable, yet given the publishers' profit margins this seems unlikely. Indeed, Elsevier does publish other journals with lower APCs, more in line with what Rooryck, other editors, and the board asked for. At issue here is a definition of sustainability that takes Elsevier's profits into account, but not the balance sheets of academic libraries.

To Eve, let me add:
  • In Reller's response, he notes that Elsevier is "the world’s third largest open access publisher," but this, too is misleading. His company is the largest publisher of scholarly journals, but of the 2,500 journals they publish, only 300 are fully open access. Another 1,600, including Lingua, have some hybrid form of open access. Elsevier's claim comes from its size, a function of how many journals it publishes. Elsevier is not a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, as some of its competitors are, including Springer, Wiley, Taylor and Francis, SAGE Publications, and Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, among others, which signals a lack of commitment to Open Access Gold, immediate free and open dissemination. Indeed, if one were to point to the largest strictly open access publishers, it would include the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central Ltd., owned by Springer, among others. Not Elsevier. 
  • Reller claims that "Elsevier will receive 1.2 million article submissions this year, publish 400,000 of them into a database of 12 million articles," for an acceptance rate of 33%, higher than that of the American Psychological Association, and many other publishers.* One effect of "the big deal" for libraries includes charging for lesser journals that don't get much use, similar to paying for cable television for just a few of the hundreds of available channels. 
    • To wit, the Massachusetts Institute for Technology notes that "UC economist Ted Bergstrom concludes through his calculations (including price per citation) that 59% of Elsevier titles are considered a “bad value.” In comparison, The American Physical Society has 0 titles that are “bad value” based on the same calculations." 
  • Elsevier is more than entitled to make a profit, which includes happy and productive employees that can exercise on the job, but sustainability is a two-way street. There are ways to make money in strictly open access environments that academic librarians should invite them to explore, such as "generating better metadata for... open access items; designing stronger, more relevant search functionalities; and creating attractive and user-friendly platforms." (Source
  • Per usual, when discussing issues of open access, faculty are barely present. So long as faculty cannot or do not or refuse to recognize the political economy of scholarly communication, the longer it will remain a moral hazard in which they are immune to its costs. If it is professionally and personally possible, academic librarians should initiate these conversations with faculty and academic administration. That means you, tenured librarians. To colleges and universities that employ scholarly communications librarians and help them succeed: thank you. 

Elsewhere on this site, explore the open access tag.
A Chronicle of Higher Education article on Lingua.

* Yes, I know that this is a problematic argument for a variety of reasons and I lack access to Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities at the moment, but bear with me.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Ride, Live at the 930 Club, September 17th, 2015


In 2013, My Bloody Valentine reformed, recorded a new album, and went on tour. In 2014, Slowdive did the first and third of these, prompting me to joke that in 2015 it was Ride’s turn. And here we are.
Of these three shoegaze groups, Ride were the rock traditionalists; MBV and Slowdive were forerunners of post-rock, using guitars and pedals to make sounds free of form, at times experimental, ambient, and discordant. Ride, on the other hand, rejected the shoegazer moniker, were more likely to listen to the Nuggets box set–they’ve covered The Creation’s “How Does It Feel to Feel?”–and it’s no accident that after they broke up guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter Andy Bell joined Oasis, albeit as a bassist.

And so on Thursday, September 17th, a rock show broke out at Washington, DC’s 930 Club. Ride opened with “Leave Them All Behind,” as close to a defining statement as they have. The band clearly wasn’t content to “play the hits,” as they were, busting out “Birdman,” live for the first time since 1995, as well as “Decay” and “Seagull,” both for the first time since 1991. “Twisterella” followed the first of these rarities, with Bell, doing his best guitar god impression and inexplicably clad in a Neu! trucker hat, turning the song into a southern boogie workout via his clean, single-note picking. “Black Nite Crash” and “Time of Her Time” similarly rocked, with the middle-aged crowd pogoing and bopping along. Mark Gardener, Ride’s other guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter, broke up the group when Bell brought these songs to the studio, but he was all smiles this evening, harmonizing with his co-vocalist in the style of The Byrds. Meanwhile, Laurence Colbert dished out plenty of hi-hats and cymbal crashes and bassist Steve Queralt held down the low end.

Ride may still reject the shoegaze label, but delay, reverb, and other effects pedals were employed on many songs, including an extended freakout in the middle of “Taste,” while the vocals from Gardener and Bell were appropriately buried in the mix throughout. When Bell asked the crowd if this was their, our, first Ride show, many hands stayed down, and there was plenty of singing along during the concert. “Vapor Trail” was dedicated to us first-timers, Bell’s guitar and pedals mimicking the famous cello solo. The band closed with “Seagull,” sending the audience out into the night ears ringing, and thus ends the holy trinity of shoegaze reunions.

Ride Setlist 9:30 Club, Washington, DC, USA 2015, Reunion Tour

Elsewhere on this site and beyond: 
My review of Slowdive 
My review of My Bloody Valentine
This review was originally posted at Midnight to Six

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

On Institutional Repository Success: Discovery, Search, Metadata

Over the summer I was asked to talk about institutional repositories and how to define what makes them successful as part of a job interview in an academic library. The text of what I said, along with some of the accompanying images, is below.


DIGITAL REPOSITORY SUCCESS

I've been asked to present my thoughts on what it means for a digital repository, an institutional repository, to be successful, and how to measure that success.

Very few people I know go into an institutional repository (IR) to look for something. It's not the way that search and discovery work. What I propose we do is to link the IR to our current search and discovery workflows, that is, link the IR to things that people already use.

It's not about making the repository more visible, it's about making the stuff in the repository more visible.

The IR is nothing without the things inside it; we need to have things that people want, and people need to know that they want those things, those items. Those items need to be where people can find them.

Don't have an IR just for the sake of having one. I turn here to one of my favorite library and information science theorists, Frank Zappa.

Thanks, Zappa estate.
Zappa once said that if a country wanted to be taken seriously, it needed two things: a beer and an airline. For Zappa, these are symbols of modernity. I want to make sure that an institutional repository isn't just a symbol of modernity, that we don't have one just because everyone else does, or because it's what academic libraries "should" have, but because it will be used. And for sure, having one is nice. On its own, an IR sends a positive signal concerning open access initiatives to faculty, to an academic community, and that's good, but it shouldn't be the main reason for having one.

Furthermore, we shouldn't have an IR because it's seen as a solution to non-existent or undefined problems. In organization theory, this is known as the "garbage can model" of decision making.

Not sure why PBS hosts this smushed image.
If we're going to have an IR, it should solve existing problems. It should help, not hinder, and it shouldn't exist for its own sake.

So with that in mind, we have an IR here, and an open access initiative and policy. We can improve the IR, and more importantly the stuff in it, in two ways, discovery and search.

For discovery, there are a few options. At my former place of work, we used widgets as well as a tab in our discovery search box.


Note the widgets, circled. (And yes, this is called burying the lede.) 
If possible, add a facet in the discovery layer search results. We already teach the use of these facets, may as well make the IR, and thus the stuff inside, more visible.

Note: no IR facet here. 
Results can also be expressed such that the IR is more visible. In "bento box" results, there could be an IR section of results, for example.

And of course if we don't have strong metadata for items in an IR, this won't matter. Application Platform Interfaces (APIs), Omeka has one, for example, are a good way to bring robust metadata into discovery. Digital Commons uses Open Authentication Interface, which is also workable. There's certainly room for collaboration with vendors here.

Metadata is also important in searching outside the library. Plenty of us, and faculty, use Google Scholar. With a link resolver we can bring faculty back to the library site, to the IR.

What success can look like. 
The library isn't a gateway, isn't always a starting point, so we need to bring what we have to where our users are. The library may not function as publisher, but it can certainly act as distributor.

Why is metadata so important here? Because Google Scholar works better with some schemas, some formats, than others. It doesn't play nicely with Dublin Core, for example. Without that robust metadata, we might come across our friend the paywall.

We've all seen one of these before, right? 
Ahhhh, the paywall, simultaneously too expensive, "you want how much for that paper?," and insultingly inexpensive given all that work that goes into research and publishing. Poor metadata will send people to a paywall instead of an IR for the same paper.

So discovery and search are two ways to build on IRs, to expand their capabilities. But if these methods work, how will we know? How can we track the output and measure the impact of an IR?

Traditionally, we use bibliometrics: citation tracking, pageviews, downloads, and the like. Our good friend COUNTER fits the bill. As the number of digital-only items grows, altmetrics become more important. Are articles being shared on LinkedIn or twitter? I know that one organization has tried to measure the effects of "#icanhazpdf," article sharing on social media, with mixed results. And increasingly, the line between biblio- and altmetrics are blurring.

Return on investment is also an opportunity to measure IR success, albeit crudely. Back to that paywalled article; we know that Elsevier thinks it's worth $36. Could we then write, in an annual report, that we added x-number of articles to our IR in 2015, or a fair market value of x times whatever the median article value is? That might be effective in terms of telling a story to academic administration.

Qualitative methods could also prove useful. Interview faculty, either individually or in focus groups, ask how IRs work, or don't, for them.

Speaking of faculty, this doesn't work without buy-in from them. It's why open access policies and initiatives are so important. Open access papers tend to get cited, get read, and get used more than those that are paywalled. Academic publishing looks like a moral hazard at times; faculty publish stuff and then we in the library have to buy it back from publishers.

Want one? Buy one!
We're asking a lot from faculty here, with the open access policy and the repository. We're asking them to trust us with their research, their work, and we librarians need to continually earn that trust. And that trust is part of success.

So to recap, institutional repository success is, to me, when you find the stuff, whether you notice the repository or not. When the repository is
  • Easy to use. 
  • Useful.
  • Interoperable, in that it works with what we have in terms of discovery platforms and search.  
  • Smooth and seamless, reducing friction so we don’t have to search in multiple places. That is, the IR can be unseen and still work! 
  • Branding/marketing can be useful: be consistent.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present, and I look forward to your questions and comments. 


Take this with a grain of salt because I did not get the job.