Wanted: Hot Topics and Cool Demos

The 2015 RAO Program Committee seeks Hot Topics and Cool Demonstrations for provocative conversation and deep thinking at the SAA Annual Meeting in Cleveland, OH.  On Thursday, August 20, 2015 from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, RAO will host its fourth annual Marketplace of Ideas and seeks purveyors of hot topics and cool demonstrations to sell their wares to a savvy audience of RAO archivists.

What is an RAO Hot Topic?
An RAO hot topic is an issue, a concern, an idea that has sparked recent attention in RAO circles.  It can be something that seems novel or cutting-edge; it can be an enduring issue that is garnering new attention or approaches. 

What Makes an RAO Hot Topic HOT?
An RAO hot topic can be provocative and even fractious; it can also be surprising and funny. Above all else, a hot topic should engender passion, engagement and excitement.   

What is an RAO Cool Demo?
An RAO Cool Demonstration is a presentation of an approach or technique that has enhanced services, simplified processes, or transformed workflows and approaches. It could be a simple fix or adaptation, or a reinvention of the wheel.

What Makes an RAO Cool Demo COOL?
An RAO Cool Demo should be widely applicable to RAO archivists and simple enough to explain in a low-tech manner in a short period of time.  Think of it as an app that works without a mobile device.

Make a Proposal…

Applying to purvey hotness and coolness is simple and easy:

1.  Draft a brief description of the demonstration or hot topic and explain how and/or why it relates to reference, access, or outreach archivists and their work. 

2.  Come up with a working title.

3.  Determine who will lead the demo or moderate the discussion (this may be you, so talk to yourself).

4.  Please go to this Google form to complete the online proposal application.

5.  Deadline to apply is May 15, 2015.

6.  All applicants will be notified about the status of their proposal by June 15, 2015.

RAO Hot Topics Blog Series: Exploring Solutions to Providing Access to Born Digital Materials

By: Mary Manning, University of Houston, SAA RAO Section Past Chair


While great attention has been placed on best practices (although somewhat nascent) established for accessioning, processing, and preserving electronic materials, it seems that comparatively very little attention is given to how we provide access to these materials. Solutions for access to born digital materials lag behind. Yet these resources are preserved and processed precisely so they can be used by researchers, just like their analog counterparts.

What are our colleagues doing to provide access to born digital materials? What are the largest barriers to providing access? Are best practices for born-digital access taking shape yet? If so, what are these best practices? Is there a roadmap that archivists can follow to guide them to their desired destination of providing access to these valuable resources?

There are two groups that I know of who are working hard to answer these questions. The first is a research study while the second is an RAO working group.

A research study being conducted by the research team of Rachel Appel (Bryn Mawr College), Alison Clemens (Yale University), Wendy Hagenmaier ( Georgia Institute of Technology), and Jessica Meyerson (University of Texas at Austin) comprise the first group. These archivists note that archivists “lack empirical data that might empower those working with born-digital materials to map the landscape of born-digital access efforts and to work together to design future access solutions.” They hope to begin to help fill that gap by documenting existing trends, challenges, and forward strides in providing access to born-digital materials—in terms of both policy and practice.

Through a mixed-methods study (a survey conducted in fall 2014 and semi-structured interviews conducted in spring 2015), they aim to gather data and uncover insights about what types of institutions and professionals are working to provide access—and where, when, and how. They hope to highlight not just what those institutions and professionals have accomplished already or what they're tackling right now. Their study also “endeavors to capture the landscape they envision for access in the future.”

Anonymized data from the study will be made available to the profession, along with analysis of current trends and possibilities for further research. During a session at the 2015 SAA Annual Meeting, the research team will share a brief analysis of the findings and facilitate a hands-on hackfest to begin designing achievable best practice models for access. SESSION 110, Born-digital Access Hackfest: Collaborative Solution-Building for Current Challenges, is scheduled for 8/20/2015, 11:00:00 AM to 12:00:00 PM, and the research team hopes to see you there. I know I will be there.

The second group working to answer the questions is the Access to Electronic Records Working Group, which is co-chaired by Rachael Dreyer and Amy Schindler. Greg Kocken is the leader of the initial research subgroup, Alexis Adkins and Jarrett Drake are the leaders of the bibliography subgroup, and Stacey Lavender is the leader of the survey subgroup. The RAO Steering Committee approved the formation of the working group in June 2014, with the charge to investigate and share current best practices for providing access to electronic records.

The initial research subgroup went to work immediately as the work of the other bibliography and survey groups depends heavily on the initial research group’s findings. Members investigated current best practices, current strategies/technologies, and challenges. The subgroup’s work included surveying the professional literature from 2002 to 2014 from the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia to identify current technologies in use to provide access to electronic records.

The bibliography subgroup is working on an annotated bibliography and has been considering where and how to present the bibliography online, access points, the audience, scope, and other questions. The subgroup has already found that with the limited resources addressing access specifically, their work will dig into related works and broader topics to compile the parts related to access.

Additional information about the Access to Electronic Records Working Group’s efforts is available at http://www2.archivists.org/groups/reference-access-and-outreach-section/access-to-electronic-records-working-group.

As the research study group noted, to date, we, as a profession “lack empirical data to empower those working with born-digital materials to map the landscape of born-digital access efforts and to work together to design future access solutions.” However, this research study group and the RAO working group are making great strides mapping out that landscape, by gathering, analyzing, and making available information to the rest of us looking for solutions for providing access to born digital materials.

RAO Hot Topics Blog Series: Using Assessment to Build Outcome-Based Information Literacy Sessions

RAO Hot Topics Blog Series

Using Assessment to Build Outcome-Based Information Literacy Sessions

Greg Kocken, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, SAA RAO Communications Liaison

I still remember my first experience getting in front of a group of undergraduate students tasked with helping them develop archival information literacy skills.  In all honesty, I likely walked away from that session learning more than those students.  Delivering my first information literacy sessions, I relied heavily (admittedly, too heavily) on utilizing PowerPoint.  This is how I was taught to teach information literacy, but I soon realized that this approach was not effective at connecting with students.  My only evidence, however, was anecdotal.  It quickly became apparent that I needed a stronger assessment strategy. Nearly four years ago, I began utilizing modified versions of two surveys distributed through the Archival Metrics Project, the Teaching Support survey and Researcher Questionnaire.[1]  I developed one survey to distribute to the instructors I worked with and another for the students who attended instructional sessions I delivered. Although my responses from students were generally very positive, once I discontinued my use of PowerPoint, I observed a noticeable increase in the overall positive responses from students.

These surveys were simply a preliminary step towards developing outcome-based information literacy sessions.  An effective assessment strategy is constantly evolving.  In addition to these surveys, I now conduct post-session meetings with instructors, develop and review assignments designed to gauge comprehension of archival information literacy skills, and participate in a peer evaluation process.  This holistic approach to assessment allows me to constantly improve the information literacy sessions I deliver. 

 

This assessment strategy has greatly improved my performance as an instructor, and allows me to make stronger connections with students.  Over the years, like other archivists who deliver information literacy sessions, I learned several things through an evolving assessment strategy.  First, a one-size-fits-all strategy does not work in archives.  When your goal is connecting with students across various disciplines, you must treat every information literacy session differently; there is no script.  Second, active learning opportunities are popular and effective.  When students have an opportunity to explore, engage and discuss archival materials they are more likely to retain information.  Third, exploring resource discovery tools is a necessary evil.  Instructors have repeatedly told me they want more hands-on experiences and less time discussing the nature of a finding aid.  In comparison to reading a 19th century pioneer’s letter, who wants to talk about the finding aid?  If, however, the goal is to help students not only understand the content but also the context of archives, then discussions of resource discovery tools is necessary.  Finally, I learned that the foundation for outcome-based information literacy sessions is a strong assessment strategy.

---

[1] Learn more about the archival metrics project online at http://archivalmetrics.org/.