Currently viewing the tag: "Melissa Guy"

Moderator: David Dressing, University of Notre Dame
Rapporteur: Marisol Ramos, University of Connecticut

David Dressing, University of Notre Dame: The purpose of panel was to discuss the history of both organizations inside the bigger structure of CRL and clarify the difference between LAMP and LARRP mission.

Judy Alspach—Building on A history of Collaboration: The evolution of LAMP and LARRP

Judy Alspach, CRL Area Studies Program Manager, offered a brief history of CRL and LAMP and LARRP to give a historical context to their creation and original missions.

CRL was founded in 1949 and located in High Park neighborhood in Chicago. It supports original research in the humanities, sciences and social sciences through physical and electronic collections. It also supports collective decision-making among its members. These include consortia purchases of electronic databases or microfilms collections, pre-archiving, etc. Originally, CRL started with ten founding institutions from the Midwest. Right now they have over 200 North American members in the US and Canada and their recently added new membership category, Global members include Germany, India, Hong Kong. Members get the following benefits:

  • Extended Interlibrary Loan of CRL collection
  • Digital Delivery of CRL materials
  • Access to LLMC-Digital Cooperative collection programs and services
  • Licensing of specialized databases
  • Access to Charleston Advisor

Under CRL there are six projects that Judy referred to as the “AMPs”, which work to acquire library and archival materials from different world regions. The first one created was the Cooperative Africana Materials Project (CAMP) founded in 1963, LAMP was the fourth AMP created in 1975. There are 49 members and currently they pay $765 in dues.

LAMP: When originally constituted, LAMP focused first in acquiring microfilm materials from Mexico and Brazil based on an analysis of the needs of the 16 members at the time. Choosing these countries was a strategic decision by the members as they started this collaborative collection building in areas of great interests for the membership. At that time, LAMP purchased microfilm and did original microfilming.  For a complete history visit, http://www.crl.edu/pt-br/area-studies/lamp/membership-information/project-history. Judy encouraged the LAMP members in the audience to continue this strategic thinking when considering projects and purchases so gaps can be filled based on the collective needs of institutional members.

Today, LAMP continues to acquire newspapers, archival collections, government documents, periodicals, ephemera and other rare material from/about Latin America but it is not limited to just buying microfilm or microfiche, or microfilming materials but it has expanded its mission to support digitization projects. There are over 10,000 reels available for lending to LAMP members.

LARRP (Latin Americanist Research Resources Project) was launched in 1994. When it started there were 20 members and now there are 46 paying $900 in annual membership dues. Seven LARRP partners in Latin America do not pay dues but they have historically contributed to LARRP projects. LARRP was launched with the help of several grants: a matching grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and two TICFIA (Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access) grants from the U.S. Dept. of Education in 1999-2002. The first grant for $405,000 purchased equipment and anything else necessary to support LARRP work and the second of $585,000 supported the acquisition of Latin American grey literature in the social sciences to be shared through an Open Archives Portal.

LARRP had always been about collaboration and open access to information from Latin America and the Caribbean as some of the early initiatives attested. For example, LAPTOP (The Latin American Periodicals Tables of Contents) was started in 1994 to give access to print journals from Latin American and the Caribbean not indexed elsewhere. LARRP members contributed content from 1994-2009. Currently this legacy database is hosted at Vanderbilt University and it is available for searches at http://laptoc.library.vanderbilt.edu/query/basic_search.jsp. The focus has not been collection building like LAMP but to create access to hard to find information.

Another example is LAOAP (The Latin American Open Archives Portal) a project created to provide scholars with a portal to find grey literature created in Latin America and the Caribbean. Currently it is hosted through LANIC at the University of Texas-Austin, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/laoap/. LAOAP includes working documents, preprints, research papers, statistical documents, and other difficult-to-access material published by research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and peripheral agencies, and that are not controlled by commercial publishers. Major contributors to this project include Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales-Chile (FLACSO-Chile) and Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica (CIRMA).

Finally, LARRP has for many years supported a collaborative collection development project called the Distributed Resources Project where each member of LARRP commits 7% of their collection budget to purchase monographs and other materials in their declared area of focus (geographical area or around a topic, folklore, music, etc…). The total reallocated funding has been more than $170,000 per year.

Melissa Guy—LARRP Today: Strategic Directions and a Vision for the future

Melissa presented on the big transition and new directions that LARRP undertook back in 2012 when all grant-funded projects were done or winding down. In a LARRP executive meeting at Austin in 2012, Dan Hazen raised the question of what to do next? What else LARRP should be doing besides paying for the Advisory Board members to meet, now that these projects were over or almost over? They decided to strategically plan new directions. For that purpose and as a suggestion from Judy Alspach, LARRP Advisory Board draft their first By-laws to formalize the governing structure of the organization and allow more participation beyond the Advisory Board by creating Working Groups that would assist them in moving forward. The By-laws were approved in 2014, together with the election of chairs and new working groups.

Although the core mission of LARRP remained the same, a new document was developed. This Strategic Directions Document created to guide the creation of new activities into the future.

Three areas were identified as priorities:

1)      Access to primary sources through digital initiatives. E.g. the Princeton Ephemera digitization project.

2)      Collections analysis and the continuation of the Distributive Resources Program (DRP) (mentioned by Judy).

  1. The data that will be gathered will be use to better communicate with administrators the value of LARRP projects to participating members and to help plan better collection development activities that will benefit all members.

3)      Promote visibility of Latin American and Caribbean content in various arenas including indexes, web-scale discovery solutions, and other similar tools.

Working groups were created to tackle these issues. Some of the activities assigned to these working groups already had been done through committee in the old structure but the creation of the new structure promises to allow for better focus and participation from the membership at large. The working groups include:

Communication and Outreach (chaired by Teresa Chapa): Main charge is to advertise and promote LARRP projects and serve as a liaison with the broader Latin Americanist community. A recent addition to the group’s duties includes encouraging and facilitating membership and participation in LARRP.

Collaborative Collections and Analysis (chaired by Paul Losch) – promotes the expansion of the Latin American Studies collection by analyzing its members’ acquisitions trends and encouraging deep collecting in specific areas of interest. It is responsible to continue the work of DRP.

Digital Initiatives Working Group (chaired by Mei Mendez): focus on increasing access to primary sources for research on Latin America through digitization and other initiatives. Post-custodial archives may become a priority for this group.

Resource Discovery Working Group (chaired by David Dressing) is a completely new group that facilitates the visibility of research resources for Latin America. This group will work with content aggregators, discovery tool providers, and other information creators for the benefit of the Latin Americanist research community.

There will be opportunities for LARRP members to become involved in all of these initiatives. A call will go out after the SALALM meeting.

In October 2014, the new elected working groups chairs, members at large, and the rest of the advisory committee (both current and “legacy members”) met in Chicago to start working on goals and objectives for each working group. One goal of great importance was the drafting of new criteria for LARRP proposals. Mei Mendez, chair of Digital Initiatives, led on this task. The resulting document served to clarify many issues regarding the type of projects that LARRP will support from now on, both from the membership and the advisory board. During this meeting, the new Strategic document guided the discussion on what the criteria should be for projects, based on 6 principles found in the document:

1)      Work within existing systems, rather than building new infrastructure

2)      Adhere to open access principles

3)      Support scholarship in a variety of disciplines

4)      Provide models for future collaboration

5)      Involve institutional partners within Latin American whenever possible

6)      Provide added value to the Latin Americanist research community as a whole

The 2015-2016 call for proposals was the first submitted under the new criteria. Several traditional digitization projects were received, but also a request for an endorsement of an Argentine open access approval plan project.

What is next?

  1. LARRP will continue to be an entity that vets and provides funding and support for open access projects. A new faculty rep was selected, Gustavo Fischman from Arizona State, who has a solid academic background in this area, particularly focused on Mexico and Brazil.
  2. Through our new working group setup, LARRP is in the position to take on some of the major issues and challenges facing Latin American and Area Studies librarianship

Melissa finished her presentation by thanking Dan Hazen for being the inspiration to the changes that LARRP experienced in the last several years. He asked the hard questions that enabled the group to justify the dues we gather from our members, to collaborate with partners in Latin America, and to lead the way in international librarianship. Melissa expressed her commitment to honor Hazen’s legacy by pushing LARRP in this new directions.

Suzanne M. Schadl, University of New Mexico—LAMP (CRL): Collaborative Preservation of Brazilian Primary Source Materials

Suzanne opened her presentation with a note on the relevance of microfilm, which remains a reliable and accessible preservation method that does not depend on software and can still be accessed in the absence of electricity by placing it in front of a light source. More importantly, engaging in microfilming archival projects helps expand the amount of critical primary sources from Latin American and Caribbean. LAMP plays a big role helping international institutions to preserve their archival collections through microfilm projects, and making them accessible to institutional members in United States and Canada.

Instead of talking about the history of LAMP—which Judy from CRL had already covered, Suzanne chose to address specific examples of LAMP projects that connect with the theme of the conference, “Brazil in the World, the World in Brazil: Research Trends and Library Resources.” These example showcase cooperative engagement and partnerships across boundaries. They showcase how microfilming and digitization as well as LAMP and LARRP complement each other. Suzanne noted that she had a personal reason to pick these examples: As a graduate student, some of the materials from Brazil that LAMP helped preserved were vital to her own dissertation research.

In the context of the conference theme, LAMP is dealing with the same issues being discussed in the conference: the need to build sustainable practices through collaboration/cooperation and partnerships, and the need to provide library services that support learning and research in higher education (Discovery, Knowledge, and Design). For Suzanne, LAMP has excelled especially in the area of knowledge by preserving and making accessible rare and difficult to access materials. She emphasized that this history of collaboration and cooperation in LAMP (and LARRP) reflected library trends current today such as the 2015 ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee which emphasized “deeper collaboration” as a unifying theme under new trends, looking specifically at “data, device neutral digital services, evolving openness in higher education, student success initiatives, competency-based learning, altmetrics, and digital humanities”.

Suzanne discussed the history and background of the Brazilian Government Document project. This LAMP project funded in 1994 by a Mellon Foundation grant, aimed to explore the viability of digitizing microfilm. LAMP engaged the Biblioteca Nacional and the Arquivo Nacional  to collaborate in the scanning and indexing a selection of 19th and 20th century Brazilian Government documents of great importance in the history of the country: Provincial Presidential Reports (1830-1930) Presidential Messages  (1889-1993) Almanak Laemmert  (1844-1889) Ministerial Reports  (1821-1960) from microfilm [to learn more about this project visit, http://www-apps.crl.edu/brazil] LAMP representatives including Scott Van Jacob, David Block, Ann Hartness, Dan Hazen, Marlys Rudeen, and James Simon worked in collaboration with the University of Notre Dame, Cornell University, University of Texas at Austin, Harvard College Library, Center for Research Libraries, and the Biblioteca Nacional, Arquivo Nacional to coordinate this project.

Suzanne asked, what has changed in LAMP? Have the means changed, the purposes? Is there still a reason for preserving materials through cooperative agreements? And if the mean have changed, what have we learned from actions of the past? To compare the past with the present, Suzanne shared highlights from a report by Scott Van Jacob about the Brazilian Government Document Project. Van Jacob reported that the BGDP project increased scholarly access to rare materials by expanding these corpus through digitalization. It also implemented new mechanisms for better bibliographic and structured access and indexing, explored levels of demand and patterns of use through assessment and statistics, and helped refine the process of creating digital image files from preservation microfilm.

What new directions is LAMP taking in its cooperative projects? Suzanne mentioned improving access to data, working to develop new device-neutral digital services; inspiring new evolving models that promote openness in higher education; encouraging initiatives for student success and competency-based learning; and offering alternatives and new models such as Altmetrics and digital humanities.

An example that Suzanne discussed briefly and that showcased similar ideas is the case of Ann Hartness’ Subject Guide to Statistics in the Presidential Reports of the Brazilian Provinces 1830-1889 printed in 1977 by the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin. This print source was later digitized to increase access of both the bibliographic information and the digitized materials, see the Hartness’ Guide to Statistical Information at http://brazil.crl.edu/bsd/bsd/hartness/index.html.

Suzanne asked: How do we expand partnership (old and new) in the future? LAMP is committed to exploring new and expand old partnerships to promote digital humanities, for examples, by continuing what LAMP already is good at: Set the standards for preservation and selection of content and we have readings related to that content. The new direction should include finding collaborators with experience in design to help us design better interfaces for content.

Finally, she briefly mentioned a project that served as an example of the way forward – a model for how collaboration might help achieve greater accessibility. The recently finished Brazil: Nunca Mais Project, is a microfilm collection that was digitized to increase access  http://www.crl.edu/impact/brazilian-human-rights-evidence-preserved-nunca-mais-project and http://bnmdigital.mpf.mp.br/#!/ This project not only offers access to over 1,000,000 digitized records that document human rights violations by the Brazilian Military Court from 1964-1979 but also have an interface that allow searches across all the documents in the collection. Check out other LAMP projects at http://www.crl.edu/area-studies/lamp/collections/guides

Comments:

Gail Williams, Florida International University: Shared historical background about LARRP. She reminded people that originally LARRP was founded under the auspices of ARL (Academic Research Libraries) but in 2005-2006 they decided to let LARRP moved to CRL.

Other historical tidbits: In the 1990s there was discussion to hire agents in Mexico and other key countries to collect extensively ephemera but that plans did not happen.

Finally, Gail asked the question, what is the difference between LAMP and LARRP? Should they co-exist? Or should they merge? She felt at this point that “we still do not have the answer to those questions”.

Judy Alspach, CRL: To answer Gail’s questions here are some considerations. She shared a slide that shows the differences and commonalities between the two groups. She mentioned that she sees a couple of different scales, but also a continuum between LAMP and LARRP that can serve as a guideline to think about these two groups.

Differences:

  • One of the main differences between LAMP and LARRP is that LAMP’s main concern is to build and own collections, while LARRP is not interested in building collections of materials.
  • Collaboration is important for both groups but for LARRP collaboration between members is expected, and many projects in LARRP encourage active participation of all its members one way or another. While for LAMP, although collaboration is considered important, all members are not required or expected to participate in the same projects in the same way as LARRP does. For example, LAMP members contribute with monies to collectively purchase, microfilm or digitize materials, while in LARRP, projects such as the Distribute Resource Project, or the past LAPTOC project, needed the participate of all (or most) of its members for its success.
  • [Later added by Judy as part of AJ Johnson, UT-Austin, comments]. LAMP always had a commitment to invest in the “preservation for access” of rare and endanger primary materials as part of their core mission.

Commonalities:

  • Both groups articulate the value of involving international partners in an on-going contributing way
  • Both groups believe in open access. Both groups promote projects that benefit the broader Latin American research community as a whole. Both groups support projects that contain elements with broad appeal to its members, and non-members as well

Melissa Guy, Arizona State University: Regarding demarcation between LAMP and LARRP. She commented that although there are similarities between both groups and even projects that both group may fund together, because the new Strategic Directions Document created recently, and the new working groups created based on these new directions for LARRP, it will mean that new projects will tackle bigger and broader issues, beyond digitization.

Gail Williams, Florida International University: Gail reminded people that LARRP since the beginning was able to tackle big granted projects by having members institutions volunteer to be PIs (Principal Investigator), for example UT-Austin and UCLA.

David Dressing, Notre Dame: Agreed with AJ Johnson that LAMP’s core mission is preservation and that LARRP mission is finding way to give more access to information instead of getting content available. He also asked how technology changes will affect LARRP’s mission to find new ways to make information and content more available.

Melissa Guy, Arizona State University: Melissa addressed this issue by saying that LARRP after the experience with LAPTOC decided to stop chasing technology. LARRP’s job is not creating infrastructures that may become obsolete through time. LARRP will focus instead for on discoverability and working with vendors and providers to educate on how to make Latin American and Caribbean materials more discoverable using their tools. The Resources Discovery working group was created to tackle these issues. s.

Suzanne M. Schadl, University of New Mexico: Suzanne added that we should consider other models such as the archival post-custodial model. Also she sees LARRP as a broker between international partners and our university administrators to justify purchases of technology that will benefit partners and hopefully avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. Instead of trying to do projects individually, LARRP can do it as a group.

Judy Alspach, CRL: Judy mentioned that one of the biggest challenges moving forward is tackling copyright issues related to technology and access. CRL can control access through IP address so only members can access materials with copyright issues but that may defeat open access efforts. Also, technology capacity is an issue. She used as an example an audio files proposal discussed recently in the LARRP meeting which she declared at this point may be impossible to tackle by CRL/LAMP/LARRP because they have not the technology to handle audio files yet. She felt the project was more appropriate for LAMP since it has a preservation component. But she admitted that sometimes it is difficult to decide what can be done with a project because of copyrights and capability issues.

Chris Hernández, Tulane U.: She asked clarification regarding LAMP and LARRP guidelines since she felt that they were confusing when she was deciding which group to apply for the audio files projects referred by Judy. Chris thought that her project did not qualify for LAMP because in the website it said that LAMP was more interested in preserving “newsworthy” content and her project contains content that is entertainment related.

Marisol Ramos, University of Connecticut: She reminded panelists that CRL staff and LAMP and LARRP advisory committee members are available for consultation and clarification regarding projects suitability and which group is more appropriate for applications We welcome all questions, so don’t hesitate to ask. She expressed that regarding the Tulane project, the material in question had incredible scholarly value for researchers so it is appropriate for LAMP. Suzanne M. Schadl (UNM) mentioned that this confusion may have occurred because the website is listing past projects which included many newspaper microfilm projects.

Marisol Ramos (UConn), also made the suggestion that CRL should have an in-house expert regarding copyright issues or to contact experts in the copyright issues in libraries/archives on behalf of its members when such questions arise. For example, she reached out to Peter Hirtle, an archivist and Senior Policy Advisor to the Cornell University Library with a special mandate to address intellectual property issues, for advice regarding the Tulane proposal’s copyright issues. He was very gracious and he sent his response to Chris Hernández with very good advice. We should identify such experts and make sure that we at CRL/LAMP/LARRP are abreast of these issues and make that information available to all our members to help them when considering writing a proposal with an open access component.

John Wright, Brigham Young University: John asked if LARRP and LAMP could push for a series of seminar for faculty and students to promote LARRP and LAMP content/projects/collections. He felt that both LARRP and LAMP need to promote their work and collections. Melissa Guy (ASU), answered that she liked the idea of the seminars and that is something that the Communication and Outreach Working Group can explore more.

Lynn Shirey, Harvard University: Lynn asked for clarification if to apply for grant money from LAMP or LARRP, does the applicant need to be member of these groups or can non-members apply for funding? What about international applicants?

Judy Alspach, CRL: Judy said that they will like to encourage new memberships for either LAMP or LARRP since membership support the work of these groups but both groups will consider applications from non-members. Similarly, it is not require that international applicants be members but it helps a lot if they team up with a LAMP or LARRP member to help them with their application/project.

Molly Molloy, New Mexico State University: Molly had the last word before closing the panel. She explained that the advantage of membership is that the monies collected from the dues are used to fund all the great projects discussed today. The more members are in LAMP and/or LARRP the more projects can be funded.

 

Monday, May 20, 8:30-10:00

Moderator:  Sarah Yoder Leroy – Latin American/Hispanic Languages Catalog Librarian, University of Pittsburgh

Rapporteur:  Melissa Guy

Presentations:

Wikipedia and libraries collaborating to increase world knowledge of Latin America

  • Leigh Thelmadatter – Wikipedia Education Program. Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México
  • Adding Value and Increasing Access with a Static Budget: the PDA Acquisitions Model and Institutional Repository of the Inter-American Development Bank Alyson Williams – Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC  & Ivette Fis de Melo – Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC
  • Gifts-In-Kind: A Model for Increasing Benefits, and a Boon for Area Studies Michelle Elneil – Gifts-In-Kind Program Manager – MSLIS Graduate Student, University of Florida

We apologize for any inconvenience, but technical difficulties with our taping equipment during this presentation inhibit a thorough report. Please contact individual presenters for additional information.  Thank you.

 

 

Tagged with:
 

June 16, 11-12:30, 2012 Hibiscus Room and June 18, 3-4:30, Maraval Room, Trinidad and Tobago
Submitted by: Paula Covington, Chair
Members present: Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez, Anne Barnhart, David Block, Hortensia Calvo, Angela Carreño, Paula Covington, Pamela Graham, Melissa Guy, Peter Johnson, Alma Ortega, Richard Phillips, Laura Shedenhelm.
Others: Adan Griego, Joseph Holub, Elmelinda Lara, Martha Mantilla, Mei Méndez, Craig  Schroer, Lynn Shirey, Gayle Williams
Finance met twice in Trinidad to review the current and proposed budgets, conference budgets, the state of investments, and proposed new fiscal policies and procedures.  Melissa Guy was welcomed as a new member to the committee.

Treasurer Peter Johnson reviewed the current and future fiscal outlook for SALALM.  Hortensia Calvo reported that the status of the current Secretariat budget is on track for this fiscal year.  Joe Holub presented his final report for the 2011 Philadelphia conference and reported approximately $11,000 in profit.  Elmelinda Lara estimated a profit of $12,000-14,000 for the Trinidad conference.  Mei Méndez and Gayle Williams reviewed preliminary figures for the 2013 Miami conference.   Laura Shedenhelm reported on the subcommittee, the Investment Working Group (IWG), which met earlier on June 16.

New business included a discussion of the need for liability insurance for the directors and officers of the organization.  Richard and Paula will have the pleasure of reviewing the proposed insurance policies.  Also discussed was the fraud report recommendation for an audit and the response from Howard Azer and Associates, P.A., a CPA firm specializing in non-profits.  Given the small number of transactions, all backed up by receipts and bank-generated documentation, Azer felt that a full audit is not necessary. The other options are a review report or the less expensive compilation report (this basically reviews the financial statements and banks reports and issues no opinion).  The committee also approved moving the IRS990 preparation and filing to Azer.
The IWG recommended that SALALM consider using TIAA-CREF to manage SALALM’s investments.  The group will submit its investment goals to TIAA to determine the best strategic investment plan.  The objective is to invest conservatively to provide regular stable annual returns and achieve an endowment that will be sufficient to cover the anticipated administrative costs of running a Secretariat in the future.

The committee reviewed Peter Johnson’s recommended changes to the member registration policy.  The draft was discussed and revised and sent forward to the Executive Board.

Peter Johnson reported on the new SALALM Scholarship.  The committee recommended that recipients be given a one-year membership in SALALM, one free webinar, and that their conference registration be waived during that year.

The software QuickBooks that was recommended by the auditor will be purchased from the Secretariat’s miscellaneous funds and implemented at the Secretariat.  Hortensia Calvo submitted the Secretariat’s proposed budget of $67,247 for the upcoming fiscal year and it was approved.  Dues will remain the same.

Hortensia Calvo reviewed the membership numbers that indicate no appreciable shift between the last two years, though institutional memberships are down from earlier years.  Payment of dues in September when they are due would be very helpful in planning and reducing the cost of reminders.  A general discussion included cost-saving measures, publication costs, and new personal and institutional membership generators and offerings.

Panel 2, May 30 2011, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm

Moderator: Holly Ackerman, Duke University
Presenters: Bix Gabriel, International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (not present); Pamela Graham, Columbia University; Patrick Stawski, Duke University; Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez, Princeton University
Rapporteur: Melissa Guy, Arizona State University

Holly Ackerman presented Bix Gabriel’s paper titled “Remembering Guantanamo: How Can We Build a Public Memory of this Site’s Century-long History?” which focused on the Guantanamo Public Memory Project, an ongoing project of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (ICSC).

The Guantanamo Public Memory Project highlights the reality that Guantanamo as a place of detention has a long, complex past. Today, nearly 200 prisoners remain indefinitely detained at the U.S. Naval Base in Cuba, but prior to 2001, Guantanamo also housed detainees. In 1991, the George H. W. Bush Administration held Haitian refugees fleeing the Aristide regime. In 1994, the U.S. government created camps to house Cuban refugees who had attempted to flee to the United States. The Clinton Administration created Camp X-Ray as a separate facility to house those refugees who “caused trouble” in the camps, which remained open for over a year.

Gabriel found that Guantanamo has had many “ends,” and each time the camps are closed, public memory fades. The Guantanamo Public Memory Project, which began in 2009, seeks to preserve memories of Guantanamo. The ICSC began the project to encourage individuals connected to Guantanamo to tell their stories. The short term goal is to “learn how it has been used and re-used,” to imagine its future, and become involved in determining the outcome of what happens there today. The long term goal is to establish comprehensive documentation about activities, individuals, and policies associated with Guantanamo. The project seeks an “ongoing forum for truth-telling, dialogue, and collective accountability.”

The ICSC is a network of about 250 historic sites of contested history. All sites of conscience are based on the idea that “preserving and interpreting history is as much an act in support of human rights as is waging a campaign for justice.” In 2009, the organization held its first international working group to develop a framework for the Guantanamo Public Memory Project with various stakeholders including historians, librarians, detainees and their lawyers, members of the military, and directors of sites of conscience. Four principles emerged: 1) the entire history of Guantanamo should be included in the project; 2) it must include multiple perspectives; 3) the project should avoid considering Guantanamo a “closed” history; 4) the coalition should be international in scope. Already the coalition has identified more than 1,000 resources (books, archives, films, etc.) on Guantanamo. The creation of a virtual site is also in progress, since the actual camps at Guantanamo are not accessible. Ackerman is a member of the Advisory Board of the project. More information can be found on the ICSC website at: http://www.sitesofconscience.org/activities/guantanamo-public-memory-project

Pamela Graham followed with her presentation titled “The Center for Human Rights Documentation & Research: Collecting, Preserving, and Promoting the Record of Human Rights.” The Center at Columbia was built around the acquisition of the archives of several major human rights organizations beginning with Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First. The records of these organizations were originally acquired and organized at the University of Colorado, Boulder by Bruce Montgomery in the early 1990s. In 2004, the collections were transferred to Columbia where they have undergone additional processing, arrangement, and description. These particular archives are on deposit at Columbia; the human rights organizations continue to own the records.

In 2005, Columbia founded the Center for Human Rights Documentation and Research to extend the scope of the collections acquired from Colorado, to expand the focus to the library’s general collection, and to develop digital projects. Archival materials are managed by the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library while the Center focuses on programmatic collecting and promotion of materials. Graham runs the Center and collaborates with library staff including subject specialists in global area studies; processing archivists; the oral history research office; web collection curators; technical services; and the digital program division.

Collections include archival primary sources, published scholarly materials in the general collection, and born-digital material. This particular presentation focused on the archival material; a separate presentation in Panel 9 described the Center’s efforts to archive born- digital material on the Web.

Within the archival materials, the records of greatest value are those that document “what advocacy looked like.” Examples from the Amnesty USA collection include: circulars distributed to country groups, records related to disappeared persons in Chile, and correspondence from the Executive Director and Executive boards. Human Rights Watch/Americas Watch records reveal connections among NGOs including the Committee to Protect Journalists (whose records are also housed at Columbia) and also contain news releases, field notes from hot spots, and legal testimony.

Graham concluded her presentation by describing some of the challenges associated with collecting in human rights, including creating the actual archives, since the organizations are focused on advocacy, not records management. Legal and privacy issues are unique with human rights records; balancing those concerns with the desire to make the records accessible to users can be difficult. Preservation issues are always a concern, particularly with regard to born-digital materials and the shift to online production of records.

More information on the Center for Human Rights Documentation & Research can be found at: http://library.columbia.edu/indiv/humanrights.html

Graham’s presentation was followed by that of Patrick Stawski, the Human Rights archivist at Duke University, whose presentation, “History in Action: Connecting Students, Scholars and Community to Human Rights Histories & Practice” focused on human rights archival collections and outreach efforts at Duke. The collections at Duke focus on human rights activism of individuals and NGOs. Their 25 collections are format-neutral and global in scope.

Major Latin American holdings include the records of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and those of Coletta Youngers, a WOLA associate. The WOLA records span the years from 1974 to 2005 and contain information on human rights abuse cases, documentation of the organization’s efforts to lobby U.S. officials for policy change, and evidence of WOLA’s collaboration with local human rights organizations in Latin America.

Duke also houses the Marshall T. Meyer Papers, which document the Argentine rabbi’s role as a human rights activist, religious leader, and scholar from the 1950s through the 1990s. The records also detail his involvement with CONADEP, Argentina’s truth commission, of which he was the only Argentine-born member. A traveling exhibit highlights materials from this collection.

The collection at Duke also contains materials that focus on human rights issues in Latino communities in the United States. The Student Action with Farmworkers records document working conditions of immigrant communities and activism among labor and student groups.

Other collections at Duke include the records of the Center for International Policy and the papers of Patricia Murphy Derian, the first Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under President Carter.

Outreach for these collections focuses on creating a bridge between students, faculty, the community and records creators and includes, among other things, the WOLA/Duke book award and a documentary film series. More information on the human rights archives at Duke can be found at: http://library.duke.edu/specialcollections/human-rights/

Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez completed the panel with his presentation, “From Underground to Open Access: Civil War, Society and Political Transition as Documented by the Archive of the Guatemala News and Information Bureau,” which focused on the transition of records from microfilm to open access digital material. The records of the Guatemala News and Information Bureau (GNIB) have been housed at Princeton since 2002. GNIB was created in 1978 in San Francisco as an activist group that sought to call attention to issues such as labor rights, indigenous rights and movements for peace and justice in Guatemala through informational campaigns, lobbying of U.S. officials, as well as educational and cultural programs.

Princeton had the collection microfilmed in 2004 with Primary Source Media. Nine academic libraries in the United States (including the Center for Research Libraries) own the 112 reels of film. In addition, Princeton donated a complete set to the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica (CIRMA) in Guatemala. Documents range from the 1970s to the present and include records related to the civil war in Guatemala and the peace accords of the 1990s. The microfilm is comprised of four sections: 1) grey literature and ephemera (about 60%); 2) serial runs (141 titles); 3) studies and reports (56 titles); and 4) news clippings (less than 1% of total.)

Princeton is now in the process of creating an open access digital collection of the first section of the GNIB archive. The first section (grey literature and ephemera) will be the only portion digitized due to its research value and unique content. Only the Guatemalan section of the NACLA archive comes closest to matching the richness of the GNIB records, but Princeton’s materials are unique in that they cover the years preceding and immediately following the peace accords. Section one of the GNIB records also complements the records of the National Security Archive project on Guatemala.

The open access digitization project was the result of conversations between the library and Princeton’s program for Latin American Studies about alternative access models for the Latin American political ephemera collection as a whole. In those conversations, five models of access emerged as possibilities:

1)      Outsourced microfilming and commercial distribution (already in place)

2)      Outsourced digitization, publishing, and distribution

3)      Outsourced digitization, internal publishing, and non-commercial distribution

4)      Internal digitization, internal publishing, and non-commercial distribution

5)      Consortial agreement with costs and responsibilities shared among participating institutions

Ultimately, Princeton decided to substitute the first, already established option with a combination of options three and five: outsourced digitization, internal publishing and non-commercial distribution as part of a consortial agreement. The GNIB archive was chosen as a pilot project because of its research value, the structure of the archive, the types of materials it contained, and its potential to reach wider audiences on a global scale. The ultimate goal is to create a searchable website for section one of the GNIB materials with contents described at the item level and open access to all images.

Partial funding for this ongoing project has been provided by the 2009 Cooperative Digitization of International Research Materials Project, sponsored by the Council of American Overseas Research Centers, and a four-year TICFIA grant.

Acosta-Rodríguez concluded that the project has been complex and labor intensive, but also worthwhile. He believes that a consortial open access model for digitization is the best way to move forward with similar projects, and he hopes that SALALM and LARRP will be involved in future endeavors.

Questions & Comments:

Paula Covington (Vanderbilt University):Fernando, who funded this project?” Acosta-Rodríguez responded that funding came from a U.S. Department of Education TICFIA grant: $45,000 with matching funds plus labor from Princeton. James Simon (CRL) confirmed that TICFIA stands for Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Information Access.

 

Panel 13, May 31, 2011, 2:00 pm-3:00 pm

Moderator:     Adán Griego, Stanford University
Presenters:     Melissa Guy, Arizona State University; Felipe Varela, e-libro.com; Lluis Claret, Digitalia; Barbara Casalini, Casalini Libri
Rapporteur:    Meagan Lacy, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis

These presentations focused on e-book trends from the perspectives of students, academic librarians, and vendors.

Adán Griego opened the panel with a PowerPoint presentation introducing the evolution of the e-book, emphasizing that the availability of e-books in Spanish are not meeting user expectations. Griego cited a study in Library Journal to show that academic libraries are ripe to provide e-books in Spanish. Griego also cited an informal survey (sent out to SALALM libraries) that collected information about which platforms these libraries used (Ebrary, Netlibrary, Digitalia, Alexander Street Press) and whether or not, to the respondents’ knowledge, they provided content in Spanish. These results implied that public libraries are more ready than academic libraries to provide e-books. Anticipating skepticism, Griego stressed that e-books are a solution to space issues in libraries and that future college students, “digital natives,” will expect to have access to e-books. Griego concluded the presentation by listing resources academic librarians can peruse in order to keep current about the e-book market. Resources included: Blog de Libros y bitios (http://jamillan.com/librosybitios/), Libros electronicos (open group on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/universoebook), and Javier Celaya (on dosdoce.com).

Melissa Guy continued the panel discussion (see PowerPoint here) describing how the systematic, patron driven acquisitions (PDA) program at Arizona State University (ASU) has affected e-book usage. ASU serves over 70,000 students in the Phoenix metropolitan area, many enrolled in its distance education programs. In order to serve this scattered student body, ASU prefers electronic sources. Due to the recession, however, ASU was unable to purchase anything for its collections between 2008 and 2010. This environment forced ASU libraries to devise a new system.

In 2009, Guy noted, ASU partnered with Coutts because they could provide an immediate, e-preferred approval plan. This plan had three components to accommodate the purchase of electronic books, books in print, and books from university presses. E-books are collected using a three-click model. Records to titles not exceeding $150 and that fit subject parameters are streamed in the catalog and after the third user clicks on the title, that e-book is purchased (so two uses are free). For print books, again records are streamed in the catalog, and titles are purchased automatically (through acquisitions) after the first click. Books from university presses are collected using the more traditional approval plan method (arriving automatically in print). One challenge with this system is deciding when to stop streaming MARC records in the catalog after they have been loaded (i.e. how to remove records to materials not purchased). ASU can buy books from other e-book vendors, but the PDA program runs on the Coutts My iLibrary platform.

At this point, there are 4,700 MARC records for print titles. E-books were loaded in 2009. It took an additional year to get print titles going because of backend issues. Because the plan is e-preferred, ASU has a 90-day hold on print titles. What this means is that when a print title is available, Coutts waits 90 days to see if the title will be made electronic, at which point it will be streamed as an e-title. If there is no e-version after 90 days, the record to the print title is streamed. If a book available in print becomes available as an e-book, the electronic book record replaces the print record, which has caused challenges for acquisitions.

Not surprisingly, social sciences and humanities disciplines dominated print titles, while demand for e-books was led by STEM disciplines. Almost all print books were selected by faculty (45%) and graduate students (40%). In FY2011, ASU spent $100,000 on print titles from University Presses, $152,000 on PDA e-books, and $24,000 on print books (much of these orders were fulfilled by Amazon since Coutts doesn’t have titles in stock).

Another challenge, according to Guy, included assessment as well as implications on area studies and foreign language collection development. Involving subject librarians from the beginning, continuing the approval plan with university presses, and permitting firm orders have all worked to mitigate some problems. When the PDA program was established all of the regular fund codes were eliminated, so subject librarians were drawing from the same pool of money for firm orders. Presently, since less money is spent on PDA, more money is available for firm orders. Also, area studies librarians were the exception; they had their own budget outside of firm order funds, so approval plans with international vendors could remain in place.

Following Guy, Felipe Varela (e-libro.com) opened his presentation by providing updates about changes happening at e-libro. First, ProQuest bought ebrary, and ebrary and e-libro have been working in tandem since 1999. So, ebrary and ProQuest will now distribute e-libro around the world. Ebrary will distribute e-libro in the United States; ProQuest will distribute e-libro throughout the rest of the world. Also, if any libraries subscribe to Academic Complete with ebrary, they can now update to Academic Complete con Español, which includes approximately 3,700 e-libro’s titles. The e-libro’s platform is exactly the same as ebrary so the features (highlighter, dictionary, translator) and the process for searching the text are familiar except that the searches can now be accomplished in Spanish. Students can print twenty pages a session or 40 pages per day – a restriction e-libro grants in order to please publishers and thus sign them. Also, every student can create their own library, which allows them to save their highlighted text and notes for later review. Currently e-libros holds about 45,000 titles including theses, articles, and books. Every year, e-libros is building momentum, and it is getting easier for the company to obtain new titles. For instance, they currently have 86 titles from Fondo (working toward another 200), Instituto Politécnico Nacional, UNAM, and Universidad de Guadalajara. In Spain, they have Siglo XXI. Other titles come from the Universidad de Buenos Aires and Grupo Planeta.

 

Valera further explained that the price for e-libro depends on FTE at the university. Worldwide, e-libro has approximately 500 clients – doing well especially in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru. In the US, they have four clients (all in Florida because Varela lives in Florida). Since e-brary is now distributing e-libros titles, e-libros expects to have more US clients.

 

Next, Lluis Claret (Digitalia) introduced his products and services. Digitalia was formed five years ago with a mission to provide quality e-content to libraries without disrupting traditional models for selection and acquisitions. The company has concluded that there are basically two purchasing models: subscription and ownership. Subscription works well in Latin America but not the US, where libraries prefer perpetual access. Claret admitted that PDA is a third option but intimated that it is not realistic for publishers who would be forced to do more “commercial stuff.”

 

Digitalia offers three purchasing models where customers can subscribe, buy, or lease-to-buy. New York Public Library uses this latter model, which allows them “the best of the subscription” as well as some perpetual rights. One feature that sets Digitalia apart from other vendors is that they provide subscriptions to e-books and e-journals. In addition, all titles are accessible by multiple users, and users can print as much as they want. The platform is very similar to myilibrary. Claret emphasized that Digitalia is academic and research focused and is working mostly with academic libraries. Digitalia is committed to acquiring quality academic titles in Latin America and the Caribbean as quickly as possible.

 

Finally, Barbara Casalini (Casalini Libri) explained how Casalini Libri, founded in 1958 in Italy, is fulfilling its mission to bring publications in the Romance Languages to Academic Libraries worldwide in the digital age. Its digital division started in 2000, and in 2004 they launched Editoria Italiana Online (EIO) and in 2006 Edición Española Online (EEO).

 

Recently, the EEO platform was launched. To demystify how Casalini Libri operates, Casalini explained the process of acquiring e-content. First, she said that they contact publishers who provide a print-ready PDF of the content. Then, MARC records are created. Finally, they sign the Digital Rights Management contract. The objective is always to develop a collection that is of enduring value to libraries (“long tail” titles). Casalini acknowledged that libraries need to know what content is available electronically in a timely manner.

 

Next, Casalini demonstrated EEO, mentioning that it holds approximately 500 books from 14 publishers and is growing. Spanish content is provided in the eBook format only (as opposed to being divided into clickable chapters), but features will eventually be enhanced. Currently, the subject content is focused heavily in Social Sciences and Law though subject content is expected to grow.

 

The new EEO platform was designed to sustain different economic models and meet Web 2.0 expectations. Its interface is available in 5 languages (Spanish, English, Italian, German, and French) and allows for customizable skins (to match institutional theme). From the user end, libraries can choose to either show e-content that it has acquired or show all of the content available, accommodating PDA in a variety of manifestations. Also, the platform was designed with federated searching (SUMMON, PRIMO Central) and usage statistics in mind.

 

In the future, Casalini Libri aims to acquire more titles from university presses and content that is already available in Open Access and to design a mobile interface. Finally, it is striving to facilitate agreements with CLOCKSS and Portico to promote digital solutions to publishers in Spain and Portugal and to collect more regional content.

 

Questions & Comments:

 

Jesús Alonso-Regalado (University at Albany, SUNY) questioned the fairness of pricing models based on FTE since Spanish readers are a minority on university campuses, and he asked the vendors whether or not they charge customers for Open Access content (such as that from CLASCO). Varela responded that FTE is the best solution they currently have to charge customers and that customers pay for a subscription – whether or not some of the individual titles are freely available. (E-libro was deleting free content, but customers complained when titles started to disappear from the database.) Casalini said that Open Access content has no fiscal bearing on the subscription price. Valera added that whenever e-libro signs a publisher, he only obtains what the publisher wants to give. In other words, he does not obtain exclusive rights. So, publishers are able to put their content anywhere else they choose, including through Open Access channels.

 

Peter Johnson (Hunters Point) asked what consideration the vendors have given to important publications (monographic and serial) that are issued by Think Tanks, NGOs, and branches of the government (at a national, provincial, and city level). Valera said that e-brary has close to half a million titles from NGOs and the like, but e-libro, still concentrating on finding publishers and university presses, is not even close to that number. However, he added that e-libro hopes to gather this kind of content in the future. Claret cited a publication from the government in Valencia that is included in his database and said that it took him three years to negotiate the deal – suggesting that the dearth of these kinds of publications might be traced to the time consuming process associated with obtaining them. Casalini agreed with Claret’s comment, saying his experience resonated with her own.

 

Patricia Figueroa (Brown University) addressed Casalini, asking whether or not she had plans to merge EIO, EEO, and any other platforms. Casalini clarified that the content is already available from one platform but that the interface is available in five languages.

 

Melanie Polutta (Library of Congress) asked Guy how they are receiving MARC records for titles they are streaming but haven’t yet been purchased. Guy replied that Coutts supplies those records but that for items obtained through Amazon, additional processing the MARC records is required on the part of ASU Libraries.

 

Martha Mantilla (University of Pittsburgh) asked the vendors whether or not, when they negotiate with publishers, they obtain exclusive rights. Claret responded that, though they do have some exclusivities, this is not always the case. They are not pushing for exclusivity because it is so difficult to obtain exclusive agreements. In the future, he expects to see that many platforms will have similar content and that it will then be up to the customer to decide which platform she wants to use. Mantilla restated her question, asking whether or not a publisher granting exclusivity to Digitalia could also sell that content to e-libro. Both Claret and Varela said that in the case of an exclusive agreement, no, but that such instances are rare. Now, agreements are almost always non-exclusive.

 

Miguel Angel Valladares (Dartmouth College) addressed Guy wanting to know whether or not there is a limit to the amount patrons can spend. In response, Guy recommended first that the audience participants interested in PDA go to the Library-Bookdealer-Publisher Relations committee meeting where Holly Ackerman (Duke) is expected to give a talk about PDA at Duke. Then, she explained that at ASU the library has the ability to deactivate this feature at any time. In addition, ASU Libraries set aside a large reserve of funds in case “people went nuts.” As it turns out, people didn’t abuse this feature, and ASU actually had a surplus for firm orders. Valladares followed up, asking whether or not ASU publicized the feature. Guy said that ASU libraries did not publicize PDA at all. Valladares’ also wanted to know how many eBooks titles ASU was able to acquire. Guy said that she would find this information and contact Valladares directly. In jest, Valladares asked Guy if he could use her name with his Coutts representative.