Browsing by Subject "policies"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item “A Battle Axe in the Time of Battle” - Procedures, Policies and Other Protectants When Working With Sensitive Content(2016-05-25) Ames, Eric; Baylor UniversityEvery collection has them: materials that contain sensitive content, from songs that disparage cultural groups to forms with identifying information like Social Security numbers and birthdates. And as more and more archival resources are digitized and made available online, it can be a challenge to ensure nothing slips through the cracks. Fortunately, there are concrete steps digitizers can take to keep unpleasant surprises from derailing digital content. This presentation will focus on three key concepts when dealing with sensitive content: prescreening archival collections, working with stakeholder groups and creating policies to help the institution prepare for and address negative feedback. Eric S. Ames, Baylor University’s curator of digital collections, will share the steps Baylor has taken over the years to ensure proper handling of materials ranging from sheet music to campus yearbooks and beyond.Item Beyond Web-based Scholarly Works Repositories: The effect of institutional mandates on the faculty attitudes towards Institutional Repositories(2014-03-25) Tmava, Ahmet Meti; Alemneh, Daniel; University of North TexasIn the last decade there has been a push from academic institutions to encourage faculty to deposit their work in web-based scholarly work repositories, commonly known as institutional repositories (IR). IRs are responsible for collecting and preserving the intellectual works of faculty and students and making them widely available. In light of the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, IRs seek to move beyond the custodial role and actively contribute to the advancement of scholarly communication. Understanding and addressing the issues faced by IRs requires a multidimensional approach that involves all stakeholders including: individual scholars and researchers, academic institutions and librarians, scholarly and scientific society publishers, commercial publishers, and government institutions. However, most researcher (Kim, 2010) agree that the main players are faculty members that can make-or-break an IR. In spite of the fact that IRs are an innovation in scholarly communication they have been met with a resistance from faculty members. Academics have been slow to embrace the concept of IRs, according to recent studies by Primary Research Group (2014), only 5% of journal articles published by the faculty members of the organizations have been archived in the IR. While a range of factors seem to influence use of repositories by researchers there is still no agreement how to resolve the challenge of getting authors to deposit content. The most recent survey by Nicholas et al (2014) suggested that while the size and use of repositories has been relatively modest, almost half of all institutions either have, or are planning, a repository mandate requiring deposit. However, Crow (2002) warned that faculty submission will have to be voluntary or risk encountering resistance from faculty members who might otherwise prove supportive. The current situation of IRs is rather bleak and calls to question the effectiveness of the current ways of recruiting content, including institutional mandates. Nicholas et al argue that mandates vary based on the research community and/or institution. Their findings reveal that none of the participating institutions reported any attempt to force researchers to comply with the mandate and describe the current mandates as more educational rather than binding. The same study concludes that 22 percent of the researchers were directly influenced by mandate to deposit their work, and this varied based on the age. Thus, the hope remains that with the mandates in place the new generation of researchers will get used to the idea of depositing their work. This poster will revisit the content recruitment issues in general. Although there is an extensive body of relevant knowledge, discussions about IRs transformations, they are often based on opinion, and isolated experience of commentators, leaving out the main issue (i.e. institutional policies) and the main players (i.e. faculty). This paper will attempt to assess the effect of institutional mandates on the faculty attitudes towards IRs. We believe that analyzing and spotlighting the possible correlations between and among various factors are pertinent for understanding and shaping the ongoing transformation of IRs.Item Crafting a Digital Preservation Patchwork: Stitching the Pieces Together(2016-05-25) Buckner, Sean; Texas A&M UniversityCharged with developing a digital preservation program at Texas A&M University that would provide coverage for the University Libraries and those they serve, in 2015 the newly hired Digital Preservation Librarian began assessing the Libraries’ goals, content, resources, and needs in regards to digital preservation. What he found was a set of existent and missing elements that were generally not interdependent or connected. This poster would visually represent the actions taken at A&M to “stitch” together a Libraries-wide digital preservation program, a gradual and ongoing process that involves interweaving previously independent or non-existent elements into one blanketing program. This patchwork of elements include, among others, the development of guiding documentation, selection and/or implementation of crucial asset management/storage systems, modification of preexisting and future workflows, reorganization of legacy content with retroactive acquisition of associated metadata, and coordination with interested or overseeing units. The poster would detail and describe the reasoning, methodology, and results for crafting a nascent digital preservation program in this manner at A&M.Item How Digital Libraries Can Create a Culture of Open Access on Campus(2013-03-21) Keralis, Spencer; Helge, Kris; Waugh, Laura; Stark, Shannon; Najmi, Anjum; University of North TexasAs Open Access has flourished into an International movement that is shaping the progressive landscape of scholarly communication, a growing number of institutions are implementing policy changes aimed at the higher institutional levels. Policy implementation, however, is only the one step in creating a culture of Open Access on a campus. Digital Libraries have led the movement by instituting Institutional Repositories for scholarly works and research data, but it has become increasingly evident that academic institutions must implement strategies for raising the awareness of Open Access and promoting the involvement of their academic scholars and students. It is no longer a question of whether or not to promote the open accessibility of these works among our academic community, but how best to do so. This roundtable discussion will offer ideas, strategies, and thoughtful conversations on how to equip a campus with the resources it needs to promote and assist researchers in adopting Open Access. This panel will feature faculty; a graduate student; scholarly communications, institutional repository, and strategic projects librarians to provide a balanced perspective of Open Access implementation at one Texas institution.Item United States policy towards rogue states(2012-08-10) Stiles, Robert; Stiles, Robert E.; Bechtol, Bruce E.; Taylor, William; Nalbandov, Robert; Osterhaut, John; Angelo State University. Department of Security Studies and Criminal Justice.One of the United States' main security challenges in the post-Cold War era is rogue states. Given that such states are an ongoing security concern, a review and evaluation of U.S. policy towards rogue states will be useful in formulating future policies. Each chapter will cover the recent history of United States' policy towards rogue states. The first chapter will cover U.S. policy towards Iraq. The second will focus on the Islamic Republic of Iran and how the U.S. government has tried to counter it. The third and last chapter will focus on the U.S.-North Korean relationship. These chapters, in addition to providing a recent history, will evaluate our successes and failures in these policies.