1. “A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Academic Support”: Data and Response Mellon Design Event May 11, 2006

2. Project Team Wendy Pradt Lougee, University Librarian, Principal Investigator CLA Dean & Associate Dean (Planning and Technology) Karen Williams, Associate University Librarian Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow Kate McCready, Librarian Project Coordinator Two Graduate Research Assistants Digital Library Development Lab Programming Support: –John Butler, Director –Paul Bramscher –Shane Nackerud –Jen Tantzen

3. Project Focus & Goals What are the discipline-specific and general needs for facilities, information content, services, tools & expertise that support research in the humanities and social sciences? Identify research support services for humanities & social sciences Explore the needs for new services--physical and virtual Improve library services that directly support research Identify discipline-specific needs, areas of common interest

4. Project Strategy Interviews with faculty from 16 CLA departments : African and African American Studies, American Studies, American Indian Studies, Anthropology, Asian Languages and Literatures, Chicano Studies, Classical and Near Eastern Studies, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, English, French and Italian, Geography, German, Scandinavian, and Dutch, History, Political Science, Sociology, Spanish and Portuguese Studies Focus groups with graduate students Survey of CLA faculty and graduate students (target audience ~1200, over 50% response rate )

5. Key Question Areas Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What usage trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment? Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research? Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where? Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?

6. Key Question Areas Research Practices: What methodologies are used? What usage trends can be identified? What is an ideal research environment? Interdisciplinary & Collaborative Research: What are unique information/data needs of each “discipline”? Interdisciplinary research? Collaborative research? Library Research: What role do libraries play in meeting needs? What expertise is needed where? Resource Organization and Storage: What materials do researchers use, collect and preserve?

7. General Researcher Characteristics

13. Discovery Identifying resources and materials, keeping up with fields…

18. Discovery: General Themes As a result of the highly interdisciplinary nature of faculty and graduate students’ work (more than 90% of faculty consider their work interdisciplinary), as well as the diverse types of materials and media they consult, scholars need better methods of addressing the specificity and uniqueness of their research topics. Faculty find their methods only adequate when it comes to identifying obscure sources, keeping up with their field (and various fields), and organizing the materials they do acquire. Faculty and graduate students are extremely comfortable with electronic sources for their research (from articles to artifacts) and with electronic forms of communication (email). Despite the preference of electronic research materials, archival research is one of the top three research methodologies employed (after textual analysis and historiography), and nearly 80% of faculty consider browsing shelves at the Library to be extremely or somewhat important. (Although, almost 75% of faculty report that they browse Library stacks only monthly or occasionally.) Graduate students report a pronounced need for training in research practices, especially in the areas of archival research methodologies and grant funding opportunities and procedures.

19. Gathering Acquiring Materials, Organizing Resources, Sharing Resources

25. General Themes: Gathering Faculty report that it is easier to identify needed research materials and sources than it is to actually acquire them (23% vs. 42%). Graduate students nearly the same amount of difficulty identifying materials and acquiring them (35% vs. 32%). Humanities and Social Science researchers have been slow to embrace electronic or web-based programs for managing citations (Refworks) and prefer word processing methods (although there is greater adoption among social scientists). Faculty and graduate students report having inadequate methods for organizing and storing their research materials. Researchers amass unique and potentially valuable research collections that are inaccessible to other researchers. Faculty are aware that they need innovative ways to manage their research collections. A few engage in scanning activities, but methods are generally haphazard, idiosyncratic, and dependent on word processing-based lists. 93% of faculty would use assistance with acquiring materials. 70% would use assistance with general organization and preservation of research materials.

26. Creation Writing and presenting research, working collaboratively, synthesizing resources

27. 68.5% of faculty work collaboratively

32. Researchers wish that the University Libraries would provide more secure study spaces for grad students, online access to outside archival collections or finding aids, easier interface for using Lumina to U and interlibrary loan, direct collaboration with librarians on research projects, and more.

33. General Themes: Creation Humanities and Social Science researchers are not accustomed to thinking of the Libraries as partners in the production of their scholarship. Nearly 69% of faculty say they work collaboratively. Over 70% of faculty who participate in collaborative research work indicate they work with colleagues at other institutions. The number one obstacle to working collaboratively is distance from colleagues (45%). Nearly 80% of both faculty and graduate students consider the Libraries as playing an important role in the development of technology. The Libraries have a special opportunity to support collaborative research projects and to bridge the distance between colleagues. The use of technology is key to this effort. Approximately 66% of faculty and graduate students would use assistance with creating presentations. Graduate students would benefit from a stable physical space within the Libraries where they can work collaborative and individually

34. Dissemination Sharing research results, publishing

37. General Themes: Dissemination Faculty consider themselves very effective at disseminating their research. Graduate students find dissemination challenging. Only a third consider their methods effective. Graduate students also have a greater need than faculty for assistance with editing. Most faculty and graduate students rely on email or face-to-face interactions to share ideas. Faculty depend on traditional venues for publishing and dissemination: paper journals (and the occasional electronic journal), books, and conferences and professional meetings.

38. Analysis and Prototype Development Primitives Behaviors Data Services

39. Discover ShareGather Create Primitives Mellon 060328

40. Discover Structured Finding Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors Keeping Current Collaborative Finding Mellon 060328

41. Discover Gather Structured Finding Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors Keeping Current Collaborative Finding Collecting Organizing Acquiring Mellon 060328

42. Discover Gather Create Structured Finding Reviewing & Rating Writing Annotating Analyzing Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors Keeping Current Collaborative Finding Collecting Organizing Acquiring Mellon 060328 Describing

43. Discover ShareGather Create Structured Finding Data Sharing Reviewing & Rating Writing Annotating Rights Publishing Analyzing Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors Keeping Current Collaborative Finding Collecting Organizing Acquiring Teaching Mellon 060328 Describing

44. Discover ShareGather Create Structured Finding Data Sharing Reviewing & Rating Writing Annotating Rights Publishing Analyzing Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors => H/SS Data Keeping Current Collaborative Finding 49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field. 87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields 43% - Problem: Too Few Sources 85% - Important: Browsing Stacks 56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies Collecting Organizing Acquiring Teaching 43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts 73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials 39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials 35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials 37% - Have Unique Research Collection 52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other Institutions Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations 67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations 68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively 56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research 46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance from Colleagues 60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy Mellon 060331 53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources 57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic Describing 76% - Share ideas via Emali or in Person Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/Expertise

45. 43% - Problem: Too Few Sources Discover ShareGather Create Structured Finding Data Sharing Reviewing & Rating Writing Annotating Rights Publishing Analyzing Serendipitous Finding Primitives => Behaviors => Services Keeping Current Collaborative Finding 49% - Less than Effective at Keeping up with their Field. 87% - Draw on Literature from Multiple Fields 85% - Important: Browsing Stacks 56% - Use Archival Research Methodologies Collecting Organizing Acquiring Teaching 43% - Less than Effective Storing Notes/Drafts 73% - Would Use Assistance Organizing/Storing Materials 39% - Less than Adequate Methods for Organizing Materials 35% - Most Challenging: Acquiring Materials 37% - Have Unique Research Collection 52% - Collaborate with Colleagues at Other institutions Faculty Rely on Colleagues’ Recommendations 67% - Seek Assistance with Presentations 68.5% - Faculty work Collaboratively 56%- Less than Effective: Disseminating Research 46% - Collaboration Obstacle: Distance from Colleagues 60% - Share Source Materials via Hard-Copy Mellon 060331 53% - Seek Assistance with Analysis or Synthesis of Sources 57% - Problem: Obscurity of Topic Describing 76% - Share Ideas via Email or in Person Lack of Knowledge: Campus Resources/Expertise U Knowledge Map Customized Search Archives ID & Mining Current Awareness-RSS TOC MNCAT Archives/UDC - Lit. databases Browsing Tool Scholar’s Horizon Current Awareness-RSS - TOC - MNCAT - Archives/UDC - Lit. databases COLLECTOR’S TOOL Integrated Request Processes Grants Manager File Storage U Goals Annotation Tools Text, Stats, Geospatial, Design Analysis Tools Bookmarking, Tagging, Mark-up Social Networking Tools Listable.EDU Digg.EDU Blogs, Wikis, Lists, Chat Copyright, Schol. Comm. Decision Tools Collaborative File Space Shared, Group Info Mgmt. Sys. Feeds, Bookmarks, Object Sharing Course Support & Integration Digital Conservancy 43% - Problem: Too Few Sources Recommender Sys.

46. Focus for the Future Identify and pursue changes in physically-based services: use of Library spaces, book delivery, and more Develop online research methodologies tutorial for graduate students Identify areas of potential collaboration between CLA and Libraries with respect to support services Pilot online research communities Develop model to integrate tool-based research services in an online context

47. Online Research Environment for Scholars - Prototype Each “Primitive”: Discover Gather Create Share has a Separate page…

49. Additional Discover Components :

51. Additional Gather Components:

53. Additional Create Components:

56. For More Information Cecily Marcus, Post-Doctoral Fellow –email: marc0082@umn.edumarc0082@umn.edu Kate McCready, Library Project Coordinator –email: mccre008@umn.edumccre008@umn.edu John Butler, Director, Digital Library Development Lab –email: j-butl@umn.eduj-butl@umn.edu