Cambridge University asks: How to “provide training solutions for scholarly communication” in the UK? Not usually, it would seem from reading this article, by inviting along the member of the library school staff who teaches such things…
“It is fairly universally acknowledged that it is a challenge to engage with library schools [in universities] on the issue of scholarly communication, despite repositories being a staple part of research library infrastructure for well over a decade. There are a few exceptions but generally open access or other aspects of scholarly communication are completely absent from the curricula.” (my emphasis)
Amazing: one would have thought that Open Access — along with all the other ‘public and free-to-access’ online sources from Google Books to data sources — would have been covered in a compulsory double-module for an entire semester of the second year of a degree in librarianship. But apparently not, though no doubt there are a few unremarked exceptions quietly doing good work.
Note that this new article has an associated Google Docs list of the (currently very minimal) UK provision for Scholarly Communication training provision, including a useful linked list of online caches of free training materials.
The introduction to this Google Doc further suggests that such training is not always present even at the Masters degree level, or is not there of sufficient duration and quality…
“… the traditional educational route for library workers through a Masters degree does not always equip them with an adequate level of knowledge [on open access, copyright and research data]”
The implication of the Cambridge University article is that other professional groups may have to be asked to provide such training to researchers, since librarians as-a-class seem to be so unwilling to engage with these pressing topics. It seems yet another indicator that librarians as-a-class are at risk of being labelled: ‘Underutilized, consider discarding’.
dannykingsley said:
Hi David, I am sorry you feel so aggrieved. This blog does not come from a position of ignorance. I have actually been doing a considerable amount of research and workshops in this area for the past two years (see under ‘Library and Training Matters” here https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?page_id=20) and am repeatedly told by graduates of library degrees in the UK that they feel their training has not equipped them adequately for working in scholarly communication. I have a dedicated team member whose role it is to provide training to our substantial library community in the area of scholarly communication to fill this gap. She is a member of this discussion group. My understanding from my US and Canadian colleagues is that things are considerably better there. I have asked any UK library degree courses that feel that I have misrepresented to respond via info (at) osc.com.au
Danny
David Haden said:
Hi Danny, I’m not aggrieved at you. In fact, I’m not aggrieved at all. Just amazed. You’ve obviously read my post in the wrong way, it seems. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Let me restate: my amazement is on learning of the sorry state of Library Studies courses in terms of their neglecting Open Access, not at your making an apparently correct statement on that sorry situation. My post title ‘Underutilized, consider discarding’ alludes in librarianship terminology to what would seem to be a more general threat to the status of Library Studies, should their head-in-the-sand stance continue.
Danny Kingsley said:
Thanks David, I am glad we are in agreement! Danny