Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe different collective ways that archivists, librarians and those with dual-roles experience archives.

Using a phenomenographic approach, a total of 24 librarians, archivists and dual-role individuals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analyzed to create categories that described the varying ways in which archives are experienced.

Librarians experienced archives in four ways: historical resources, preserving history, preserved access and political. Archivists experienced archives in four ways: accessible collections, connection, collaboration and stewardship. Dual-role individuals experienced archives in five ways: collections, preserved access, progress, connection and knowledge creators. There are variations among and within each group on how archives are experienced. However, there is a significant overlap in many categories in terms of access, preservation, use and collections.

Understanding each other’s different perspectives could lead to stronger partnerships among librarians, archivists and dual-role individuals. These partnerships have the potential to increase the visibility of archives, providing greater access and engagement for community members.

The study supports previous phenomenographic research on experiences of archives and provides a more nuanced understanding of information professionals’ varying collective experiences of archives.

This study aims to investigate the reference and public service models used at academic libraries in the California State University system.

This exploratory study used a qualitative mixed methods design with an online survey and follow-up interviews with public services librarians.

The majority of the libraries in this study continue to use a traditional reference model with a physical desk staffed by librarians. Some libraries have moved to tiered or on-call reference using students and staff to triage patron questions. The majority of libraries’ public service points also follow a traditional configuration with separate service points for reference and other library public services.

As this research is limited to one public university system, the results may not be generalizable to all academic libraries. Replicating this research in other systems would increase the generalizability of the results and allow for the generation of potential best practices for reference models and public service point configurations.

Librarians who are considering changes to their reference models and service point layouts can use the results as a starting point for conversations about the benefits and challenges of various models as well provide support to create an environment where changes to the models can be successfully implemented.

This study is one of the few to investigate multiple academic libraries’ approaches to reference and public services in the research literature. As such, it addresses a gap in the literature that case studies alone cannot fill.

The purpose of this paper is to explore graphic design best practices and approval processes used by librarians.

This paper used an online, qualitative survey to collect data on librarians’ design processes and best practices. The responses were reviewed to determine categories and themes of librarians’ design processes and best practices to gain an understanding of the state of graphic design in libraries.

The majority of the respondents reported that there were no formal guidelines, design committees or approval processes at their libraries. While some librarians were aware of and used graphic design best practices, many respondents were unsure of what constituted a best practice in graphic design.

The paper was exploratory and the respondents cannot be said to be representative of all librarians and, therefore, generalizations to all librarians are not possible.

Findings may help librarians who assume design duties in their libraries in exploring best practices and discussing design approval processes.

This paper is one of the few papers in the library science literature on graphic design as applied specifically to librarians. It increases our understanding of graphic design in libraries.

This paper aims to explore the varying ways in which academic archivists in the USA experience archives, how these experiences compare to those of academic librarians and how we can use these findings to improve communication and collaboration.

Using a phenomenographic research approach, academic archivists were interviewed and the transcripts were examined to develop categories reflecting varying experiences.

There are three different ways of experiencing archives: as organizational records, as archival enterprise and as connection. The connection category is a more complex way of experiencing archives as it incorporates the aspects of the other two categories as well as the awareness of archives connecting people to their histories.

This study is limited to academic archivists in the USA.

Understanding that there are different ways of experiencing archives means that information professionals should clarify their definitions of before beginning collaborative projects. Also, by understanding these varying experiences, information professions should be able to communicate and engage more fully with each other and their users in projects and programs that leverage archival collections.

This is the first study to use phenomenography to investigate archivists’ experiences of archives. This understanding of the lived experience of archivists, combined with understanding how librarians experience archives, should enable better communication and ultimately collaboration between the two professions.

This paper seeks to compare the accessibility features and ease of use of three tutorial creation products – Camtasia® 6 (by TechSmith®), Captivate® 4 (by Adobe®), and VoiceThread® – to determine which product creates the most accessible tutorials.

The paper tested the accessibility of the tutorials created using Camtasia, Captivate, and VoiceThread against the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template® (VPAT®) criteria. The tests were completed using JAWS®, a screen‐reading software application. Results were compared to determine which product(s) created the most accessible tutorials. The products' ease of use and user manuals were also evaluated.

Camtasia and Captivate exceed VoiceThread in terms of accessibility compliance. In testing the products, the paper concluded that the VPATs were accurate, with minor exceptions. All products provide user manuals and help guides; Camtasia and Captivate have steeper learning curves than VoiceThread.

This study compares only three of the available tutorial creation products. Accessibility features may change with new versions.

The results of the evaluation will enable other librarians to make more informed decisions when purchasing and using tutorial creation products.

Ensuring accessibility of online resources is everyone's responsibility. This paper will help readers to meet that goal.

While there are comparison studies of the features of Camtasia, Captivate, and VoiceThread, accessibility features are largely uncovered. This study adds this dimension to the literature, enabling librarians to make more informed decisions when selecting and using these products to create accessible tutorials.

Prior to 2020, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Library's research services spanned multiple service points. Multiple locations were staffed by Library Student Research Assistants (LSRAs) and each location was supervised independently. While efforts to increase collaboration had been underway, much of the work and services remained siloed and often duplicated training and service hours.

With the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), UCLA Library rapidly transitioned from entirely in-person to entirely online services. With multiple service points pivoting, UCLA was redundant to have multiple online desks providing Zoom appointments and that quickly became apparent. Moreover, transitioning in-person student work to remote work was paramount to providing both normal services to users and allowing LSRAs to keep jobs during a time of uncertainty and insecurity.

While the authors' original consolidation of services and implementation of shared supervision was a result of the pandemic and primarily involved online services, the authors have maintained this shared approach and collaborative vision in returning to in-person services. For the past year, the authors have offered shared in-person (at two library locations) and online services. As subject-specific library locations begin to reopen their desks, the authors continue to identify ways to leverage shared supervision and a robust referral model for those on-site services while negotiating student staffing and the need for both general and subject-specific services.

The authors present a novel approach to peer-to-peer teaching and learning and research services and shared student worker supervision with services coordinated across multiple locations and disciplines within a large academic library serving a large student population.