Tag: organization

Library, Library Science

Metadata Is More Than “Data About Data”

Laura Pasquini

For my Introduction to Digital Libraries course I enrolled in this summer, our final project was to create a digital library with at least one collection containing at least ten cataloged items. The secret librarian in me was excited to put together a comprehensive repository of the higher education learning & development items I have been studying in my research. Both the project and course have concluded, but I am still working on editing and updating this digital library. There are a few more things I want to organize and catalog before I share it; however you can get an idea of what I’m compiling from this call for resources tweeted below. (p.s. I promise to blog about this digital library for higher education colleagues soon, so others can add and contribute to it.)

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

What has me STILL working on this digital library project are two things:

  1. Rights – This requires me to identify what is the copyright or rights OR to get permission. A number of items I found are accessible online; however few have explicitly listed it’s copyright (e.g. Creative Commons, Public Domain, or other) to designate the “rights” and permission to use for library cataloging standards; and
  2. Metadata – adding the required and recommended descriptive, administrative, and structural information for each digital object/resource I’m adding to the collections in this digital library.

There are no shortage of standards, acronyms for these standards, and protocols required to guide the shared use of these metadata standards. I’m not planning to launch a full lesson on ALL of these metadata standards, but rather share what I am working with and learning about for my digital library “in progress.” If you’re interested in checking out this full glossary and visuals about metadata, have at it with these brilliant Creative Common metadata maps/visuals created by Jenn Riley & Devin Becker:

Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe

First, let’s define the term, metadata. It’s all around us! Some say it’s “data about data,” however this simplistic definition does not explain the complexity of what metadata does and how it operates in the world today. Monson (2017, pp. 88-89) better defines metadata as

“structured data that is associated with an information resource. It may be either created by hand or captured by a computer system… [and] can be described in terms of its functionality, which includes finding, identifying, sorting, selecting, gathering obtaining, and navigating items within collections of resources because it is structured according to certain sets of rule – purpose for search, discovery, browsing ,and collocation, identification and access.”

With ubiquitous technologies and connected systems of information metadata is all around us. Metadata helps us to buy books, find photos, and search for ALL THE THINGS! Formally known as “information in the library catalog” we now see metadata on a number of digital objects and things we use every day – music, podcasts, videos, books, phone calls, text messages, articles, websites, magazines, files, documents, and more. That being said, I don’t even want to think about the amount of data and metadata even being produced at this given moment — it IS exhausting (Pomerantz, 2019):

From cataloging digital objects, I have learned that metadata work should NOT be a solo project. Metadata creation should be a collaborative effort of people working together — just like we work today (Baca, 2016). This metadata creation process not only contributes to identifying items for a collection or to provide information for individual resources, but it also provides other perspectives and input as to how items will be found and shared. Monson (2017, pp. 89-90) shares the types of metadata required for each resource or object I have be cataloging:

Descriptive metadata: data that describes and objective. This is closely associated with the functionalities of searching and browsing to find the item, e.g. creator or author, title, data of creation, type of object, and subject or keyword associated with the object.

Administrative metadata: data that contributes to the management and administration of objects within a collection; this includes data such as data of digitization, type of equipment used to digitize, file name, and name of the organization that created the digital object e.g. pdf, mp4, mp3, jpeg, png

Structural metadata: how the items within a collection re logically grouped and presented on the screen; it provides information about the internal or “physical” structure of a digital resources, tied to components to form a whole. e.g. text, image, internet media type, StillImage, MovingImage

Metadata provides meaning as it offers explicit information about indexing, accessing, preserving, sharing [rights], and discovering digital resources. As we accrue a growing volume of digital information and objects, both online and offline, it is critical to have standards that offer ways for users to find, retrieve, and manage within our digital networks and overwhelmingly, complex information in our own evolving world. This might be from how things are classified to how the end user will find, navigate, and utilize this resource. I am using the Consortium Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI), specifically this best practice for descriptive metadata in these CARLI Guidelines for the Creation of Digital Collections [PDF]. These were the suggested metadata standards recommended to guide our work from the original project, so I’m continuing to follow these protocols. This guide also follows a commonly used standard in many academic libraries, that is, the Dublin Core metadata scheme: https://www.dublincore.org/ which is similar to what is currently utilized at my own institution => UNT Libraries Quick-Start Metadata Guide. For each element that is “required” and “recommended” by CARLI (2017) that I am searching, imputing, and cataloging for EACH resource for my digital library, and a few of the “optional” elements that are available for each object:

Element

Definition

Example
Title

(required)

 A name given to the resource; this would describe or identify the file name or object The OER Starter Kit

TOPcast: Teaching Online Podcast

Research Shorts
Creator

(recommended)

 An entity primarily responsible for making the resource; this can be an individual, group of people, or organization/institution Pasquini, Laura

TechKNOWtools, LLC

University of North Texas
Contributor

(optional)

 An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource; good if there is a team or group(s) making this item Austin, Jane

Pixar Productions

US Department of Education
Description

(recommended)

 An account of the resource; this might be the table of contents, abstract, overview, or “about” page/section of the object detailing what this resources is about The Academic Advising (#AcAdv) Twitter Chat discussing advising and student support issues on Twitter every other Tuesday from 12-1 pm CST. We tweet with the hashtag: #AcAdv

YouTube Channel to disseminate and share scholarly work using whiteboard animations.
Publisher

(optional)

 An entity responsible for making the resource available; could be a publisher, platform, group, or individual. WordPress

Journal of Comics and Graphic Novels

MIT Press

University of Guelph
Date

(recommended)

 A point or period of time associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource; created, valid, available or issued, copyright date, or date accepted/submitted 2001-11-24

2018-05

1999
Subject

(recommended)

 The topic of the resource; general information about the item, object, or resource Indie band posters

Sustainable eating practices

The Global Community for Academic Advising (NACADA) — History
Language

(required)

 A language of the resource (if applicable) eng

spa

fre
Type

(required)

 

 The nature or genre of the resource; this would identify the DCMI type of vocabulary from the Dublin Core Image, SillImage, MovingImage

InteractiveResource, Sound

Dataset, Event, Physical Object
Format

(recommended)

 The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource; extent wav, mp4, mp3, jpeg, png

csv, doc, pdf
Coverage

(optional)

 The spatial or temporal topic of the resources, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resources is relevant Texas (state)

Niagara Falls (waterfall)

1999-01-31
Source

(optional)

 A related resource from which the described resource is derived, e.g. IBSN for books, or URL for websites https://techknowtools.com/

9780349108391

https://flic.kr/p/XrroZS
Identifier

(recommended)

 An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context; might be part of a bibliographic citation with a unique number scheme or code to the file. doi: 10.9776/13527

978-0-9952692-1-7

http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7228223.v1

 
Relation

(required)

 A related resource; it has version, is replaced by, replaces, is required by, requires, is part of; OR has part, is referenced by, references, format of, has format, etc. Public Domain Picks (The New York Public Library)

Community Media (The Internet Archive)

Miniature Book Collection (University of North Texas)
Rights

(required)

 Information about rights held in and over the resource; access rights; license pertaining to copyright and permission; open education resources will typically share with a Creative Commons license. Permission is granted under a Creative Commons Attribution License to replicate, copy, distribute, transmit, or adapt this report freely provided that attribution is provided as illustrated in the citation below. View this license: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Public domain

We interact and create digital objects every day and with increased digital/information structures, we need to think about how we are naming, storing, and cataloging resources, especially in the digital. That being said, metadata also carries some consequences for that create a digital shadow to follow and track. With increased privacy and personal data concerns, it’s not just what the metadata information says, but also what and who is attached to this information.

It’s critical to consider what the metadata says about a particular collection. To make digital resources shareable, metadata gives these objects meaning in terms of the proper context, content coherence, standard vocabularies, and consistency (CARLI, 2017). Digitization and digital content does not necessarily mean equal access for all. Digital copies or making materials digital does not make these objects “findable, understandable, or utilizable to our ever-expanding audience of online users. But digitization combined with the creation of carefully crafted metadata can significantly enhance end-user access” (Baca, 2016). It is essential for metadata creators to consider how these classifications within the descriptive metadata is formed. We need to think about who is saying what about particular resources with the metadata schemes we use (Pomerantz, 2015):

This side project of mine is making me think more about metadata and how we classify information, data, resources, and objects in the digital age (or even how many of us do not). Don’t be surprised if you get a DM, email, or e-nudge from me asking you about permission/rights AND to give me some feedback on what I am creating. Knowing that the best digital libraries require collaboration, I will be reaching out soon to get your input, feedback, advice, suggestions, and contributions for this digital library. Back to my metadata descriptives and digital library cataloging for now, as I continue to learn and absorb these concepts.

References:

Baca, M. (2016). Introduction to Metadata, 3rd Ed. Getty Publications. Los Angeles, CA: Retrieved from http://www.getty.edu/publications/intrometadata/

Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI). (2017, January 9). Guidelines for the creation of digital collections: Best practices for descriptive metadata. CARLI Created Content Committee. Retrieved from https://www.carli.illinois.edu/sites/files/digital_collections/documentation/guidelines_for_metadata.pdf

Monson, J. D. (2017). Getting started with digital collections: Scaling to fit your organization. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Pomerantz, J. (2015). Metadata. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dissertation, Social Media

Policing Social Media in Higher Ed: Implementing Policies on Campus

Laura Pasquini

During the course of my dissertation research, a few events connected to the scope of my study, and directly to the social media documents I was gathering.  I ended up building a database of 250 post-secondary education (PSE) institutional guidelines and policies to completely understand HOW the PSE sector is ACTUALLY  “guiding” social media. More importantly my research uncovers the organizational identity and cultural values of social media among 10 different countries. {More to be shared post dissertation defense June 12, 2014.}

If you are interested in either research around policies and/or social media impact to organizations, specifically post-secondary education, then you most likely heard about the Kansas Board of Regents approval to amend their policy manual back in December 2013 to outline “improper use of social media by University of Kansas faculty.” If not, I have an article and infographic of the timeline of events for you:

KBOR Policies

Image and article credits from The Daily University Kansan ().

Concerns about social media use have been a continual debate and topic for higher education for at least a decade. There have been challenges to using social media accounts for “official” use, faculty blogging, HR employee regulations, or just a general “need” for increased policy implementation among a number of colleges and universities.  The PSE sector is not alone. The K-12 sector and other industries also are keen to social media polices around use and sharing for their stakeholders.

All THAT being said, I have a few questions for you:

  • HOW does (or will) a social media policy influence and impact your institutional culture?
  • Does (or will) your social media policy support your student services or research at your organization?
  • What goals and outcomes do you (or will you) achieve by implementing a social media policy on campus?
  • Does your (or will your) policy consider helpful guidelines, suggested practices, and/or training and development?
  • How does (or will) your social media policy be implemented with regards to teaching, service, and research scholarship?

Or is your PSE concerned with communication control and organizational management?  I would hope your institution of higher learning does not limit user interaction, community engagement, or general opportunities to share opinions.

From my dissertation findings, I hope to continue on this thread of research to identify ACTUAL use, related to the social media guideline and policy documents I have studied, to further understand how participation and interactions on these social media channels influence organizational identity and culture on campus. Is your campus listed in my PSE institution sample? Are YOU interested is getting involved in this type of research? Let me know.

Social Media, StudentAffairs

Guiding #SocialMedia in Our Institutions [SURVEY]

Laura Pasquini

Many of you might know I am interested in researching, working, teaching and socializing with social media in higher education — so it is only fitting that I want to assess HOW social media is being used within organizations. Dr. Tanya Joosten (@tjoosten) and I are collaborating to research this topic further; however WE NEED YOUR INPUT.  Please share your insights/experiences for Guidance for Social Media at your Institution [SURVEY] before Sunday, October 28, 2012 12 am PST

COMPLETE THE SURVEY HERE => Guiding social media in our institutions

Study Focus:

To better understanding what our institutions need to consider in guiding social media use, specifically around the questions which address student support, teaching, training and development, research, policy, infrastructure, and more. Please consider contributing to this study to help advance social media use and development at our institutions – AND both Tanya and I would greatly appreciate YOUR input. Thanks!

Study Description:  The purpose of this research study is to examine institutional support for the implementation for social media. Approximately 200 subjects will participate in this study.  If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey that will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.  The questions will ask you for your opinion on institutional support for the use of social media.

Risks / Benefits:  Risks to participants are considered minimal.  There will be no costs for participating, nor will you benefit from participating other than to further research. 

Confidentiality:  Your responses are completely confidential and no individual participant will ever be identified with his/her answers.  Data from this study will be saved on a password-protected computer for one year.  Only Primary Investigators and UWM Learning Technology Center staff will have access to the information.

Voluntary Participation:  Your participation in this study is voluntary.  You may choose to not answer any of the questions or withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.  Your decision will not change any present or future relationship with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

Who do I contact for questions about the study:  For more information about the study or study procedures, contact Tanya Joosten at tjoosten@uwm.edu.

A few tips and more information about the survey:

  • Please answer any of the questions for which you have an answer.
  • If there are questions you cannot answer,  please skip those questions.
  • Due to the broad and general nature of the survey, we understand that there may only be a limited number of questions each respondent can answer.
  • This survey structure has a number of open-ended questions that require a response, URL link, or ideas about social media at your institution.
  • When possible, please forward the survey to others in your institution AND outside your institution that may be able to answer these questions.
#phdchat, PhD, Virtual Communities

Organizational Learning Constructs

Laura Pasquini

The nature of learning at the organizational level is a challenge to measure. Huber (1991) defines  organizational learning as the development of new knowledge or insights that have the potential to influence behavior.

There are a number of human resource development articles that reflect the individual learning experience and objectives. In considering the organizational learning process, I began to look at the organization level for learning in online communities of practice for an organizational science perspective.

Image via Organizational Learning Software… <http://www.sqakki.com/LearningOrg/>

In researching and working on my final organizational theory paper, I began to assess how learning characteristics can be evaluated in online learning networks and communities of practice. There are a number of models and evaluation instruments to assess learning in organizations; however the constructs established by Yang, Watkins, and Marsick (2004) provide a solid framework for methodology and empirical assessment:

Systems Thinking – Senge (1990) identifies a learning organization as an organization that has the ability to creat alternative futures and possesses the following five disciplines: team learning, shared visions, mental models, personal mastery and system thinking. 

Learning Perspective – The learning organization is an “organization that facilitates the learning of all of its members and continuously transforms itself in order to meet its strategic goals” (Pedler, Burgoyne & Boydell, 1991). Eleven areas are identified through which this occurs: a learning approach to strategy, participative policymaking, informating, formative accounting and control,, internal exchange , reward flexibility, enabling structures, boundary workers as environmental scanners, inter-company learning, learning climate and self-development for all.

Strategic Perspective – a learning organization requires an understanding of the strategic internal drivers necessary for building learning capacity. Goh (1998) identifies five core strategics building blocks: clarity and support for mission and vision, shared leadership and involvement, a culture that encourages experimentation, the ability to transfer knowledge across organizational boundaries, and teamwork and cooperation.

Integrative Perspective – the concept of the learning organization is “on that learns continuously and transforms itself..Learning is continuous, strategically used process – integrated with and running parallel to work” (Watkins & Marsick, 1996).

These constructs will help define and lay the ground work to establishing a solid theoretical framework for assessment. I welcome any and other suggestions to reviewing online communities of practice with regards to organizational learning.

References

Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2; 88-115.

Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. S.A. M. Advanced Management Journal, 63(2); 15-20.

Peddler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Random House. 

Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V.J.(2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1); 31-55.