LIRG
meeting 115 - 06/11/07 – London, Kings College, 12-3:30.
Venue:
Room L39, Maughan Library & ISC, Chancery Lane. King's College
NB For
details of how to reach King's you can print off the Strand map from
the
following
web page: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/campuses
Apologies
for absence – David Ball, Pauline Blagden, Andrew Booth,
Caroline Oades, Seamus Simpson
In
attendance: Alison Brettle, Louise Cooke, Biddy Fisher, Eric Davies,
Juliet Eve, Alan Poulter, Pete Smith, Frankie Wilson, Jean Yeoh
Minutes
of Meeting 114 on 28th June 2007 [Doc 1]
Apologies
were added and minor amendments to referenced names were made.
Matters
arising
Item
12.1
Strategy/action
planning was on the agenda later.
Item 4
JED would
not continue as Group Councillor
Idea for
conference tying research into CPD should be commented on by SS
Action: SS
Item 9
Critiera
needed to be added to compare UG with PG work.
Item
12.2
CO was too
busy at work to progress this.
Item
12.3
The
previous idea to host a research databases fits into the New
Directions initiative.
Item
12.4
This would
be progressed by student dissertation research.
Report
from the Chair
BF will
remain as meetings chair but not as LIRG Chair. BF was also taking
responsibility for Treasurer Office but Jo Horsfall would do the
actual work.
JY will
take over as Chair.
Guy Daines
thinks groups will feed into CILIP future, especially LIRG. LIRG has
a high presence in CILIP because of its work. JED raised issue of
whether CO could cope with the work of both Trusteeship and LIRG
Treasurer.
Report
from the Group Councillor
JED raised
whether shrinking to just twelve persons in charge was wise –
could the range of the profession be represented by this number? The
size of CILIP reserves still an issue – they still might be too
small for future needs. In 2008/9 CILIP may still be in the red –
this could best be avoided by an increase membership. The FOQ
consultation cost had jumped from £20K to £34K. CILIP had
backed off from making Branch membership optional.
[Online]
‘Communities’ was taking off ok – but what were the
criteria for success?
Future
funding for groups should reward success in meeting CILIP’s
objectives, member expectations, activity etc. This sounds nice but
is vague. There is no hard performance criterion/metric. There was a
possibility that reserves in groups/branches might be called in by
CILIP. JED said that LIRG reserves should committed to activities, if
they were no already.
LIRG
should be driving quantitative and qualitative research in LIS.
Important issues were getting lost in CILIP’s worries over
money. Trade unions were funding research into the profession but not
MLA, BL etc. In the debate held at the PLA Annual Conference over the
importance of professional skills, the side supporting professional
just won, 60/40.
BF thanked
JED for his efforts as Councillor.
Report
from the Treasurer
AC had
left. CO will b e taking over in 2008, BF will be interim Treasurer.
Post Expenses forms should still be sent to AC. It was reported that
LIRG had £18K deposit and 3K in current accounts. JED asked if
CO could be Treasurer if she was also a Trustee.
The new
Treasurer needed to work out long term implications for income and
expenditure. Recent planned LIRG events had not taken place, but
these were needed to bring money.
Report
from the LIR Editorial Team
LC
reported that two issues were out now. The Team were still getting
to grips with software, so there was still no opportunity for users
to add comments etc. A future meeting was planed in Birmingham, where
new developments would be discussed. Issue 100 was planned for April
2008. There was a problem getting papers.
JEF
suggested Jack Meadows be asked for a paper. BF suggested Andrew
Booth be asked for a paper on his work in health information. BF also
suggested asking David Streatfield for a paper on impact research.
Discussion
then veered into the public perception of library profession and how
the profession had a weak image. FW thought that the crucial issue
was how to get practitioners to engage in research. BF said research
was much alive in the American library profession especially in
academic libraries. BF suggested investigating the difference between
the information and learning ‘commons’. Margaret Haynes
could be asked to write a paper. JED suggested Bob McKee and Lynne
Brindley for papers.
JE asked
if the LIR readers and their activities could be tracked? AB used the
same software (Open Journal) and had used it to track readers –
she had been surprised at the quality of results on usage.
BF passed
on the Committee’s thanks to Colin Johnson for the book reviews
section.
Report
on Prizes and Awards [Doc 2]
JY had
raised the issue of a bigger prize with Elsevier. Since their budget
had been cut they declined to comment. JED suggested that there might
be other sources of funding e.g. TALIS.
JE/LC
volunteered to be judges for the Research Prize. JED would act as
referee if needed.
The
Student Prize was not exclusively for PGs anymore, so that UG
dissertations could also be submitted.
AP/JE to check existing criteria for suitability
AB/FW
volunteered to be judges for the Student Prize. BF would act as
referee if needed.
Events
JED
suggested that LIRG members should get a discount on events. He
suggested than an Events group - consisting of SS/PS/FW/AP – be
formed. FW suggested joint events with other groups. There was a
suggestion of a conference event around a themed LIR issue.
BF raised
need for AGM speaker(s). JED thought John Feather might be available.
Evidence-based librarianship was suggested as a topic for drawing
members to the AGM.
Discussion
items:
Committee roles (BF)
This had
been already covered under earlier items.
Research Coalition (BF)
BF
reported on a exciting trend, that had begun in November 2006 with
the invitation only seminar in memory of Bryan Perry. The next round
had involved meetings with those parties involved in promoting LIS
research (e.g. MLA, JISC, UKOLN) etc, who were also keen to get
involved with supporting LIS research as a group, the Research
Coalition. The next step will be a stakeholders seminar on November
30th. A project manager was needed to get things up and
running, also a web presence showing the research landscape. Part of
this will be the research database that LIRG had proposed. A guide to
research funding options was needed. LIRG should be involved by
planning a research skills course. LIRG could also encourage
dissemination activities. LIR could play a part here. Bob McKee had
promised money/support from CILIP for the Coalition. It was proposed
that LIRG would support that activity from its current reserves. This
was supported by the Committee. The AHRC was trying to get a position
statement on LIS research funding from all Research Councils. There
was support from SLIC and CILIP Wales. Members of Coalition were
contributing their existing budgets and were looking to the Coalition
to ending duplication and enable better sharing resources, under the
direction of a Project Manager to be appointed. BF said there was
initial funding for this post, a website and a database.
BF said
that the Coalition aligned with LIRG’s objectives and
membership of the Coalition would give us a higher profile for LIR,
more effort in teaching research skills and funding for a research
database. FW said LIRG also represented practitioners doing research,
not just a CILIP thing.
JE saw
need for a LIRG branded contribution. JED agreed. JED noted that the
private sector were not in the Coalition e.g. OUP. AP suggested
bigger research awards. FW wanted to facilitate the commissioning of
needed research. BF agreed that Awards could be LIRG/CILIP branded,
plus publication of LIR. Rather than just LIRG run the database, it
could be hosted by UKOLN, and JISC/Research Councils could oversee
its content. FW said that we should chip into database to get brand
recognised. JED thought higher LIRG profile would get better response
to calls for Research Award.
BF
summarised LIRG contribution in initial funding of start ups plus
ongoing awards.
JE raised
idea of research mentors. LIRG provides a unique group of
practitioners and academics. JED suggested money put in could not
exhaust reserves – agreed on £5K initial contribution
plus enhancement of our awards. JED suggested a reserves policy for
managing reserves, linked to LIRG’s role in the Coalition. BF
agreed that this was a sensible suggestion. All agreed
BF
summarised that LIRG would add its expertise in dissemination (LIR),
research courses/Awards and arranging research mentors and that its
funding would be completely committed to these tasks.
IFLA LTR Committee (BF)
BF
reported that a meeting had been arranged for Dec 3rd with
CARL.
LIRG Strategy/Action plans (BF)
Mentioned
above in 10.2 – LIRG’s role in the Coalition provides a
strategy.
Working Group on IM for Accounting/Finance (CO)
No new
information as CO not in attendance.
Library research database (AP)
Covered
above in 10.2
Research skills audit (AP)
AP said
that this will be set as a possible research topic in three library
schools.
Action: AP/JE/SS
Use of CILIP ‘Blogs+Communities’ (PS)
PS thought
that a ‘voice’ for the blog would be difficult with
multiple contributors.
It will
need publicising – by links from other blogs, mention in the
Gazette. It will need content e.g. research reports. FW said the blog
would allow members to join into LIRG activities.
It was
raised that the requirement for a printed Newsletter had gone –
could it not be distributed as a PDF.
Action: JE to investigate
PS thought
that the newsletter could become an RSS feed+wiki. BF said that the
whole issue of ‘output ‘from Groups needed a rethink.
AOB
None
Date of next meeting
Tuesday
Feb 19th.