Library and Archives Canada (A Modest Proposal)

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Mike Ridley

The recent news out of Library and Archives Canada (LAC) has been devastating: slashed programs, reduced or eliminated services, moratorium on new acquisitions, distribution of existing collections to other institutions, and other depressing announcements. This is more than a response to budgetary constraints. Clearly LAC has a mandate from the Harper government (I refuse to say “the Canadian government”) to turn LAC into a records management unit for the bureaucracy.

Nothing wrong with records management. However, it is not a memory institution; it is not stewardship of our history and culture; it is not what LAC was set up to do.

So, now what?

I applaud all my colleagues who have railed about this. They are writing letters, planning marches, stirring up support, and other good things. Among them: Michael Steeleworthy | Ontario Library Association | Canadian Council of Archives | Canadian Library Association and many other voices. It is hard to get libraries and archives on the national agenda. More power to them.

My problem is this: it is unlikely to be effective.

The majority Harper government has shown every indication that it will steamroller its ideology through the workings of the government and the country at large. It’s a done deal. And there is very little chance that a future government of any stripe will rescind these cuts. Frankly this just doesn’t happen; governments move on with other issues.

So? Give up?

My suggestion is not to save LAC but to repatriate it.
Not to try to fix it, but to take it over.

I want Canada to form a distributed, collaborative network of academic libraries and archives to take on the national responsibility of a memory institution. Maybe institutions like LAC are old school anyway. There are other ways to do this work in the 21st century.

Remember, the collections beyond to Canadians, not the government. The services should support citizens, not the bureaucrats. The legacy is not ideological but social and cultural. LAC is ours. Let’s run it.

To do this we need to form a collaborative organization linking libraries, museums, and archives to operate this distributed collection and service. We need to take on the long term responsibility that this government is refusing to do. Yes I know we have no money or space or staff; we need to do it anyway.

Shouldn’t we partner with LAC on this? OK but let’s be careful. Not being harsh here. LAC has a history of not always playing nice with others. The wonderful and visionary Alouette Canada initiative (now part of Canadiana.org; a good model for at least part of this mission BTW) was launched with strong support from LAC; they enthusiastically offered to seek federal funding for this national, collaborative project. Money they did get and it went to LAC digital projects not those of the consortium. Lesson: Don’t get fooled again.

Am I dreaming in techno-colour? Perhaps. But if we don’t take dramatic action based on radical collaboration, we will watch as all this erodes and is eventually gone. We could hope the Harper government comes to its senses. We could hope LAC defends itself and reclaims its role. Or we could take matters into our own hands.

So, to be colloquial, we need to hack the system to preserve it.

I suggest we oppose regressive policies with a positive, progressive spirit of collaboration and action. I’m not going to whine anymore; I’m going to organize.

…Mike

BTW for those attending the Canadian Library Association Annual Conference in Ottawa, Daniel Caron (Librarian and Archivist of Canada) is speaking on Thursday morning and holding a Q&A session Thursday afternoon. These are excellent opportunities for Mr. Caron to explain all this (as of now he has not made a public announcement) and assure us that I have it all wrong.

Depending on Mr. Caron’s defense of the role of LAC, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) might want to consider how appropriate it is to have LAC as a member. They hardly seem interested in being a research library or archive or in providing leadership in the community of interest that animates CARL.

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in Leadership, Libraries | 4 Comments

Forty Years in Higher Education

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Mike Ridley

Today I’m celebrating a rather special day for me. It is weird to write this but as of today I’ve been involved in higher education continuously, in one form or another, for the past 40 years. First as an undergraduate (Guelph), then an graduate student (UNB and Toronto), then as a staff/faculty member (Guelph, McMaster, Waterloo, Guelph), and now again as a grad student (Toronto).

Never during this time have I not been directly connected to a university in some capacity. So, is this deep experience or shallow exposure? Too much ivory tower, too little real world?

I'm not a good judge of this. All I can say is despite the challenges and frustrations of higher education, I could not imagine a more exciting, fulfilling and rewarding experience. Every day for me is a privilege. Sorry if that sounds sappy, it's true.

After 40 years I'm still fascinated by how crazy and weird and extraordinary universities are. And in Canada we are fortunate to have a large number of very high quality universities. Don't let the popular tirades fool you. Sure there are changes needed, sure some of our faculty live in a previous century, and sure some of our students don't belong here. But on balance these places are remarkable.

I'm still interested in making higher education in Canada better. I want it to be more accessible and more rigorous; I want it to be a place for understanding and a place to challenge orthodoxies. Sometimes we should shake our heads in disbelief at what happens at universities and other times we should be wide-eyed with amazement at the accomplishments. Universities are those sorts of places.

I'm proud of what the higher education system in Canada has become, and somewhat immodestly, chuffed to have been a contributor to it for the past four decades.

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in AboutMike, HigherEd | 2 Comments

AUCC & Access Copyright Deal

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Mike Ridley

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and Access Copyright (AC) recently announced a deal following a protracted, and sometimes acrimonious, negotiation. It’s a model license; each institution must sign on (or not) individually.

Should a university sign the model license?

At this point we (I) don’t have the text of the agreement so some of what I say here may have to be retracted. Frankly, I hope that is the case.

We do know the fee will go from $3.38 per FTE student to $26 FTE student. That’s a 669% increase. In addition to the blanket coverage, it will also include the $0.10/page for coursepacks.

Is there a 669% increase in the coverage of the agreement? Has the shrinking AC repertoire suddenly become massive? Does this help universities “bend the cost curve” (as we are being exhorted to do in Ontario)?

Some things to consider:

1. Many institutions have, for some time now, been operating quite successfully (and in full compliance with all legislation and contractual agreements) without an Access Copyright agreement. They have been paying appropriate clearance fees where necessary, using existing licenses that enable classroom/coursepack use, taking advantage of Open Educational Resources or open access publications, and adopting a variety of other effective ways of enabling access to publications.

(In this regard, it’s too bad AC has stopped providing transactional licenses for their repertoire. Presumably they did this to put pressure on AUCC to conclude a deal. In the meantime we learned how to find alternative publications, to work directly with publishers, or to use the Copyright Clearance Center in the U.S.)

2. The proposed new Copyright bill will broaden exemptions to include “educational” use. This will provide new options for learners under this expanded definition of fair dealing.

3. The recently much maligned “Big Deals” that library consortia have arranged turn out to have cost savings that have been unacknowledged. Many of these deals have negotiated clauses that allow the material to be used in courepacks or for other classroom/course use. Paying twice for such usage rights seems wasteful.

4. For me the most profound issue to consider is pedagogical change. Contemporary higher education is moving (in many places, has moved) to a more discovery-based approach where students are uncovering material in a self-directed manner. Coursepacks, assigned readings, and handing out articles to the class? So 10 minutes ago. The AC model is based out dated pedagogy. Are we being asked to pay for a 19th century view of learning?

5. If I understand it correctly, UofT and Western will pass on this massive increase to students through tuition fee increases. The concern that motivated them to sign their own agreements with AC was, presumably, legal liability not financial burden. However, since we know how to do all this without an agreement with AC, is downloading to students really the most appropriate response?

AUCC institutions should think carefully about whether to sign on to the model license.

…Mike

Just a reminder, all my comments and statements are mine, and may or may not reflect those of my employer.

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in HigherEd | 5 Comments

The Value of Human Capital in the Social Network

Posted on April 10, 2012 by Mike Ridley

Facebook just acquired Instagram for a whopping $1 billion. Why? And what does this mean? My two cents.

Almost everyone agrees that FB didn’t do this for Instagram’s technology; its just not that innovative. Most people think that the key motivation was mobility; FB isn’t doing so well in that space and Instagram will give them a platform in the mobile world.

I don’t think FB bought the technology or the mobile platform; I think they bought you.

And the price tells us a bit about how much you are worth. Instagram has ~30 million users. If you are an Instagram user that makes you worth $33.33. Humph.

You are the prize in this transaction because you are the source of the content FB will now monetize. Happy?

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in Digital Culture, Information, IT | 1 Comment

The Curse of Service

Posted on April 5, 2012 by Mike Ridley

This tweet from Bill Denton made me laugh … and then grimace.

As a profession, particularly those of us plying it in academic libraries, we have become too focused on the service aspect of our work. Yes I know we are supposed to help people but that doesn’t mean that “service” is the only modality.

The service role has overwhelmed the much more important learning role. I’m looking to re-balance this state of affairs. I’ll be talking about this soon at two conferences. The context is the so-called “crisis in academic librarianship.” A phrase I’m quite tired of hearing. Hope you can join me and my colleagues:

OCULA and WNYO ACRL Spring Meeting April 27th
Canadian Library Association Annual Conference May 31st

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in HigherEd, Librarianship | Comments Off

How to Write (Advice from David Ogilvy)

Posted on April 4, 2012 by Mike Ridley

I’m doing a lot of writing these days so I was taken by this recent post in Shaun Usher’s Lists of Note blog: How to Write.

On September 7th of 1982, advertising legend David Ogilvy sent an internal memo to all employees of his advertising agency, Ogilvy & Mather. The memo was entitled “How to Write,” and consisted of the following list of advice.

(Source: The Unpublished David Ogilvy: A Selection of His Writings from the Files of His Partners; Image: David Ogilvy, via Ogilvy & Mather.)

The better you write, the higher you go in Ogilvy & Mather. People who think well, write well.

Woolly minded people write woolly memos, woolly letters and woolly speeches.

Good writing is not a natural gift. You have to learn to write well. Here are 10 hints:

1. Read the Roman-Raphaelson book on writing*. Read it three times.

2. Write the way you talk. Naturally.

3. Use short words, short sentences and short paragraphs.

4. Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, demassification, attitudinally, judgmentally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass.

5. Never write more than two pages on any subject.

6. Check your quotations.

7. Never send a letter or a memo on the day you write it. Read it aloud the next morning—and then edit it.

8. If it is something important, get a colleague to improve it.

9. Before you send your letter or your memo, make sure it is crystal clear what you want the recipient to do.

10. If you want ACTION, don’t write. Go and tell the guy what you want.

David

*Writing That Works, by Kenneth Roman and Joel Raphaelson

 

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in Literacy | Comments Off

Online Learning (a response to Michael Steeleworthy)

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Ridley

Recently Michael Steeleworthy (currently at Wilfrid Laurier University) posted a manifesto on online instruction. Good for him. This is an area where we in libraries need a healthy debate.

Michael invited a dialogue and I can’t resist.

For the most part I’m good with his observations (particularly his focus on people rather than technology – although I admit to being a bright shiny object guy with respect to learning technologies).

However, I would take up two things he mentioned.

First, I think libraries (and everyone else for that matter) need to lose the term “instruction.” Not only is it so old school, it misses the point of what we are trying to do. Michael is taking about learning not instruction (or if he really is talking about instruction, like we used to talk about “teaching”, then I have bigger issues with his perspective). This isn’t a pedantic observation. The shift to a focus on learning is something the academy has been trying to do for some time; libraries need to get on board with this. Most consequentially this shift means a commitment to student centered learning. And I fully endorse that.

Secondly, I’m concerned that the library’s curriculum is so often separated (isolated) from the real curriculum; the one defined by our academic programs. I agree with Michael that the library needs to integrate it’s online learning with all the other library programs and initiatives (i.e. learning initiatives should be infused in all our work not a silo). I can accept the idea of a single coordinator (although this isn’t the case with other academic departments).

What I am arguing for is that “library instruction” should be so integrated into the academic curriculum that we construct it and implement it within this larger context. As long as we (libraries) continue to implement learning initiatives disconnected from the formal (read: real) curriculum, we will struggle to find attention and value.

The concept of “library learning” needs to disappear (become integrated) into the program curricula. It is not about us; it is about context based learning. As a result, the governance issues Michael raises are really about how libraries and academic departments or program committees fully articulate a broader strategy for learning outcomes. If libraries separate ourselves from this we have consciously chosen isolation and irrelevance.

My two cents. Good on Michael for his contributions.

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in Libraries | 1 Comment

Funding CANARIE

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Ridley

The recent federal budget announced continued funding for CANARIE, the national research and innovation network. This was both good and not so good news.

The reduced allocation was no surprise in a restraint budget but the two year mandate was. Normally CANARIE has been given a five year mandate. Five years is a good amount of time to plan, execute, evaluate, and prepare again. Networks and network services are complex; they require careful thought and they take time to evolve.

A two year mandate from government suggests uncertainty. And that is a concern.

The noise about R&D leading up to the federal budget was quite loud. The attempts to address it were modest. Lost in this was the critical role networks play in Canada’s R&D capability.

The problem is that CANARIE and other regional networks are invisible and taken for granted. It’s the tragedy of the commons. It is very hard to make real and apparent the value.

Infrastructure in the digital realm is not obvious like bricks and mortar. The cables are buried, the routes are hidden in closets, and the technology is in high security buildings few of us see. It invites neglect

At the same time, the good folks at CANARIE and the other networks (e.g. ORION, Cybera, BCNet, and the others) are always planning to expand the networks, increase capacity and reliability, and to add additional services and tools to support R&D.

Does the reduced term of the mandate signal that the government is having second thoughts about CANARIE?

If so it should think carefully. The networks are vital to the support of the R&D agenda and capacity. They may be invisible but if they disappear (or transition to an organization less sensitive to R&D) Canadians in all sectors will be diminished.

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in IT | Comments Off

Why I Want to Serve on the Board of Governors

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Mike Ridley

I’ve decided to let my name stand for the open faculty position on the Board of Governors at the University of Guelph. Faculty representatives to the Board are elected by Senate; voting begins April 2nd.

Why would I do this?

Power. Control. Domination.

Yeah, right.

The bicameral structure of Guelph, like most universities, means that the Board of Governors oversees “the government, conduct, management and control of the University and its property, revenues, expenditures, business and affairs. The Board is responsible for the appointment of the president and vested with all powers necessary or convenient to perform its duties and achieve the objectives and purposes of the University” (according to the BofG website).

I think I bring to this challenge an holistic perspective.

As a librarian I have engaged in professional practice in support of the academic mission, as an instructor I have experienced the joys (and frustrations) teaching and learning, and as an administrator I’ve wrestled the complexities of an extremely diverse organization. I’ve worked with faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends of the University in a variety of ways. I’m also a Guelph grad (albeit from a previous century).

However, as a former senior administrator (until recently I was the CIO and Chief Librarian), aren’t I going to be a lackey for my former administrative colleagues? Hardly. In the rough and tumble world of university administration you don’t get respect by towing the party line. My job was to tell my colleagues what I thought.

OK, enough about me. Why do this?

All academics should (must) take an active role in the governance of the institution. Universities are highly collaborative and inclusive, sometimes to a fault. However, it means (requires) that we engage with the participatory opportunities at the heart of the academic model.

I know there are some that believe the bureaucracy is stacked against faculty or students or some other group. They believe the Board is manipulated, Senate is powerless, and that the President pulls all the strings. My experience with many universities suggests that nothing could be further from the truth.

Universities are complex, messy organizations but they operate with extraordinary integrity and transparency. They are places where informed discourse (and the resulting differences of opinion) are crucial to their survival. The composition of the Board ensures a breadth of views and perspectives. This diversity a core value of any university.

Do I have an agenda? Yes. Sort of.

I believe in the old style university in a new style sort of way. By this I mean that the values which have guided higher education for a century or more need to continue to inform how we work. However, the means and the mechanisms have changed substantially (perhaps completely).

We may not easily recognize the university of the future but it will the same. It’s a bit Zen-like: to remain what it is the university must change; if it does not change, it will not remain what it is.

Serving on the Board at this time is especially important to me because Guelph (as with other universities in Ontario) is on the cusp of transformational change. Financial constraints, technological advancements, learning outcomes, research funding, online learning, and a host of other issues will fundamentally impact higher education. Some of these are significant opportunities (yes, I’m a “glass half full” kinda guy) while others are true threats to the role of the university in a vibrant, democratic society.

My voice on the Board isn’t going to be definitive on any of these issues. However, I do think my background and experience means I can bring context to these considerations. I hope I get the opportunity to contribute.

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in AboutMike, HigherEd, Leadership, UofGuelph | Comments Off

Pre Post Literate Thank You Gifts

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Mike Ridley

I speak about post-literacy (the end of literacy) at various conferences or as part of courses. So what do people give me in thanks? Books of course.

Here are two of my favourites.

This came from the folks at the Bookshelf (the wonderful bookstore in Guelph) after I talk I gave there as part of the Cafe Philosphique series:

And here’s what my last class of Beyond Literacy (UNIV1200 at the University of Guelph) gave me. Such nice students; they rebelled wonderfully throughout the course:

…Mike

TwitterFacebookFriendFeedDiggStumbleUponPrintPrintFriendlyEmailShare
Posted in AboutMike, Literacy | Comments Off