 Good morning, afternoon, evening, wherever you may be. I'm Steve Hiller, Co-Chair of the 2020 Library Assessment Conference, and it's my great pleasure to welcome you to the conference founded and sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries and the University of Washington Libraries. This is our eighth biennial conference dedicated to effective, sustainable, and practical assessment. But this will be a much different conference, and this is a much different world. Just a year ago, the conference steering committee met at our Chicago Conference Site Hotel. We toured the hotel, viewed meeting spaces, and planned for an exciting year. In December, we issued the call for paper, poster, and workshop proposals with those due in early February, and we received more than 200 submissions. However, by the end of that month, COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates began to climb. In the spring, many of our colleges and universities switched to online classes, closed or reduced access to the physical library, and we started working from home. As the pandemic spread, many of us had friends and family who came down with COVID, some with mild symptoms, others that had to be hospitalized. With the ensuing recession, we all knew someone who lost a job and needed help. Then in May, America woke up to the police and civilian killings of black Americans. There was a new emphasis on seeking an end to systematic racism and promoting equity in America. And in the background, probably the most important American presidential election in generations in an environmental crisis that rages out of control. Our world literally changed before us in a moment in a couple of months. And it's still changing. Institutional and library budgets have been cut. This fall, some schools have in-person classes, as usual. Many others have a mixed model. And some continue with virtually all online instruction. Some libraries facilities are open with social distancing. Others are open with reduced services. And again, there are some not open at all. Some staff have been furloughed or how their hours reduced. And many of us are still working from home. And we're still grappling with equity issues. For the most part, accepted conference papers and posters dealt with the world before COVID, although some have been updated. The steering committee reviewed submissions in April and sent acceptances out later that spring. By then, we knew that there would not be an in-person conference in 2020. And we examined the range of options before settling on the present format. The accepted papers are high quality. They're very relevant to the work we do. And we felt a commitment to not only have them published, but have them presented at the conference so that all could hear, listen, and learn. And they're very relevant to the work we do, as I said. And we'll do in the future. And we can certainly see it in such areas, diversity and equity, services and resources, and applying appropriate methods and measures. Many of you are now assessing this changed institutional and library environment. Learning and learning analytics in a virtual setting, information seeking and using behavior when the physical library is closed, and there's reliance primarily on online resources, and the robustness of those online resources and services. Reference and liaison work and other contact when faculty and students are away from campus and maybe scattered across the country or the globe. And how we demonstrate library value and impact when our physical library is closed or with reduced hours, and again, our services are primarily virtual. However, the library changes and endures, and we hope to see papers on these topics at our next conference in 2022. So on to our virtual conference, my co-chair, Sue Boffman, will fill you in in a couple of minutes on the conference structure and the opportunities offered. But you'll also notice some things are very different this year. And of course, you can look at the library website and get a pretty good sense of that, but so we'll have no key notes or workshops, just the papers, no concurrent sessions, no conference supplied coffee, breakfast or reception, you're on your own. But no problems getting to the meeting, you can step into your office or your dining room, and no transportation, lodging, or registration costs. Next slide. So you don't have to get there early to get a seat. You don't have to wait out in the corridor or out by the doors. No finding the crowds at in-person poster sessions, although we'll miss the personal engagement. And finally, no business casual dress needed. Wear whatever you want, wherever you are. However, presenters, please don't present your charts like Stephen Colbert did in this scene. So in the past, I've done metrics in my conference introduction. This would be numbers of papers, themes, participants, geographic distribution, type of library, conference budgets. I've also offered an election forecast, which was spot on in 2012, and disastrously wrong in 2016. So no predictions this time. As to data and metrics, the ones that really matter to me are just two. COVID-19, and the Johns Hopkins site does a great job with COVID data. Before I travel, which isn't too often these days, I always check what the incidence rate is in the county and a plan accordingly. And of course, the 2020 election, American election, polls, models, and predictions. The place to go is 538. They didn't quite get it in 2016, but they came closer than anyone else. And so looking at polls and models and predictions. My personal metric is of election anxiety, is how many days do I, times a day, do I access 538? And here you can see this chart from 30 days before the election. That was just twice a day. But you can see the trend line here. I'm doing 25 times a day. And soon when I finish, I'll be checking again as I do at least twice per hour. And finally, in 2016, I tried to keep us reassured with these World War II British slogans, keep con and carry on. However, in 2020, I think this one is probably more appropriate. Freedom is in peril, defended with all your might, and vote. It's amazing that nearly 80 million votes have already been cast. For those registered, please vote. And now I'd like to turn it over to my coach here, Sue. I'm going to turn it over to my coach here. And now I'd like to turn it over to my coach here, Sue Boffman. Thank you, Steve. Hi, everyone. It's very exciting to be here today and to welcome you to the 2020 Library Assessment Conference. As Steve said, this is not our usual conference. But we are thrilled to hold our first of several virtual sessions and highlight our first set of papers today. So thank you for being a part of this incredible community and for being here with us. So I have the privilege of introducing a few colleagues who have helped make this conference happen. This event is a team effort, and Steve and I value this group's hard work, their guidance and support, as we work through some tough issues when we decided to go to a virtual conference and for their continued efforts as we hold our sessions and complete all of our tasks. So all of you know my aero colleague, Angela Papalardo, organizer and planner extraordinaire. She's a key partner in all aspects of the conference and keeps everything plus the steering committee running on time. Right now she is behind the scenes managing our technology. So our deep thanks and appreciation to you, Angela. This is also a chance for me to thank all of our other aero colleagues who have assisted with this conference. Steve and I are also very appreciative of our colleagues who joined us as members of the conference steering committee. This is the group, as Steve said, that puts all of the pieces together from reviewing proposals and recommending papers and posters, editing the papers for the proceedings and serving as moderators for the upcoming sessions. This conference would not be successful without each of them. So our thanks to all of you for being a part of this 2020 steering committee. Thank you. As Steve said, the 2020 conference is a bit different, and I wanted to share how. We have planned six sessions, one three hour theme sessions every month for the next six months. We are offering 15 minute presentations of our accepted papers. And in some cases, the presentations will be offered synchronously and for others asynchronously. You will have an opportunity for questions and comments during the presentations. The papers are organized by topic and cover very relevant and useful assessment practices and issues as Steve just said. We will be posting the recordings of the presentations following each session, putting them on the library assessment conference website. So we've already received some poster sessions and have placed them on the conference website and will continue to add more as we receive them from our poster authors. And we do hope you'll take the opportunity to contact any of the authors. We also know and want you to encourage you to use the conference Twitter to share information and the Twitter address is here. So as I've said, upcoming sessions are coming, starting in November, and we'll run through March 2021. And the registration for each session will open one month before each date. And you can see here the themes for the sessions and this information is also on our website. So we look forward to seeing you at the upcoming sessions. And please, please register. We'd love to have you join us. And finally, I would like to share with everyone that we are dedicating the 2020 conference to our colleague and friend, Jennifer Ford-Pastinbaugh. Jennifer was serving as the university librarian at Brigham Young University. When she lost her long battle with breast cancer in November 2019. She provided substantial leadership to ARL's research and analytics program through her service as chair of the research and analytics committee in 2016 to 2017. She chaired the assessment program visioning task force in 2017, which was instrumental in helping ARL to create a new vision for our program. She was a member of the 2016 and 2018 library assessment conference steering committees and co-chair of the ACRL-ARL Joint Advisory Task Force on IPEDS Academic Libraries Component Definitions from 2016 to 2019. She was such a strong supporter of this conference, of this community and of learning. So the steering committee thought it fitting to honor Jennifer in this way. And I know as we go through the next few months of our virtual conference, I will be thinking of her often. So our hearts are with Jennifer and her family. So Steve and I have two more brief welcomes. And without further ado, I would like to now turn the podium, the virtual podium that is, over to Mary Lee Kennedy, the executive director of the Association of Research Libraries. And I want to thank Mary Lee for your continued support of this conference and of the assessment community. So Mary Lee, without further ado, over to you and thank you. So thank you so much for that wonderful introduction. I'm just thrilled that we've dedicated this to Jennifer, who has been such an important part of our lives and has left a lasting impact on how we will move forward in our own lives ourselves. So today, I want to add my welcome to everyone. I am so pleased to join all of you for this kickoff session of the Library Assessment Conference and truly appreciate your participation during this historically challenging time. On behalf of the Association of Research Libraries, we value our partnership with the University of Washington Libraries in providing this conference that has created such a strong learning community. We recently completed our action plan for the next several years. And what we have learned this year as we navigated these same issues that Steve so eloquently mentioned is that data and assessment are even more important than ever. It is important that our libraries demonstrate impact and value. We need now more than ever to tell these stories and all of you play a critical role in helping us to do this. I also wanted to let you know if you didn't already that Sue Boffman is leaving ARL at the end of the year. To say we will miss her is an understatement. She has ably served as co-chair of the Conference Steering Committee for the past three conferences. Her colleagues particularly noted her incredible repertoire of organizational skills and broad perspective and her deep knowledge of academic libraries in higher education and really her commitment to advancing underrepresented groups among graduate students and new librarians. I like to thank her for her leadership and the emphasis she places on our partnership with the University of Washington, the Steering Committee who plans the conference and all of you as contributors who make this conference the success it is. ARL colleagues Kevin Borden who is the Senior Director of Research and Analytics and Deborah Grayson the Senior Director of Leadership and Organizational Development will work with Sue to ensure a smooth transition in collaboration with Steve, Betsy and other University of Washington colleagues. I look forward to this afternoon's sessions to future conferences and the opportunity to engage with all of you. Thank you so much. So let me now turn the microphone over to Steve. Steve, we need you to unmute. Thank you, Mary Lee, and I'd like to add my deep appreciation for Sue's many contributions as co-chair during the past five years. In addition to being just a great and valued colleague, she's given so much to her she's given so much to us, I think certainly with the travel award winners really ramping that up is as Mary Lee said for underrepresented graduate students and new librarians. Sue, we wouldn't have been able to do it without you. And now a conference welcome from Betsy Wilson. Betsy couldn't join us today. She told me that only a meeting with our president or provost would keep her away. And as I speak, she's meeting with the provost. She did pre-record her welcome and we'll play that now. Good morning from Seattle. My name is Betsy Wilson and I am the Vice Provost and Dean of the University of Washington Libraries. I am so pleased to add my welcome to the Library Assessment Conference. For 14 years, the UW and the Association of Research Libraries have partnered with hundreds of participants. Many of them are online right now to establish, develop, and expand this biannual conference. Each conference is built on the prior as the assessment field has grown and matured. The conference has always been about pushing boundaries and what we know and what we need to know in assessment events. In assessment, evaluation, outcomes, and the impact in and of our libraries. I don't need to tell you that so much has changed in the last seven months. We have adapted to life on Zoom, well at least kind of, built stronger communication webs and created new practices and approaches to sustaining and dare I say accelerating research, learning, and service at our respective institutions. I believe that assessment has always been a foundational piece of our libraries. But today I suggest to you that during this time of COVID, racial reckoning, political uncertainties, and economic challenges, it is even more important to the choices we collectively make as a profession and to building a preferred future. Congratulations to the planners for all their work in making the Library Assessment Conference COVID style and best wishes to all of you for engaging and meaningful sessions. May you take away many ideas that spark your creativity as we work together in this new world. Thank you very much and have a great time. Thank you, Betsy. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize Betsy for hitting instrumental and getting this conference started with the University of Washington and ARL as co-sponsors and her continued strong foundational support and institutional commitment to assessment. Betsy will be retiring in the middle of next year after 28 years at the University of Washington. The last 20 is Vice Provost and Dean of Libraries. She came to the UW Libraries in 1992 from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to be our new Associate Director for Public Services. Coincidentally, we had started our assessment efforts just a couple of months before with planning for one-time user survey. Betsy helped move us to an ongoing program that conducted cyclical user surveys and other assessments and built organizational capacity for assessment. She became Dean of Libraries in 2001, continued her stellar supportive assessment based on the value of assessment data for planning, decision-making, and advocacy. She also promoted sharing assessment expertise regionally, nationally, and internationally. This included support for a UW visiting program officer and assessment in ARL. That was me and sponsorship of the Library Assessment Conference. She's attended all of our previous conferences with the exception of 2012 when Tropical Storm Sandy got in the way and disrupted travel. Well, Betsy has received many honors during her career. She's exceptionally proud of her role in helping to establish and sustain the Library Assessment Conference. So thank you very much, Betsy. Well, I did have the opportunity to check 538 and the honors now are up to 89% for Joe Biden. So with that, on a positive note, let's say, let's move on and it's my pleasure to introduce your moderators for today's session Megan Oakleaf and Martha Kevenly-Dew. Thank you, Steve, and I hope you'll keep updating us on that. So I want to say good morning or good afternoon or good middle of the night for those who are watching this on a recording because you're overseeing remote school or doing some other important task right now. So thank you for joining however you are joining. I'm really excited to see you at today's virtual offering of the Library Assessment Conference and we are all delighted that you are here for today's presentations on diversity, equity, ethics, and privacy issues. My name is Megan Oakleaf and I'm the moderator for today's session with my co-moderator being Martha Kevenly-Dew and I'm excited to work this out with her. We'll both be watching for questions and working on making sure you have the important links in the chat. Before we begin, let me share a few logistics with you. Today we have seven presentations and one will follow after another. Each paper presentation will be introduced separately with up to five minutes of for Q&A for each paper. There will also be a few minutes for general questions at the end of the entire session. Here's some logistics that are really important to know. For you to be able to participate as much as you can. The first thing is that we would like you to use the chat feature for technical questions and issues and an ARL staff member will respond to that and help you out. But if you have a question for our session presenters, we don't want you to use the chat. We want you to use the Q&A feature. So if you find that at the bottom of your Zoom screen, usually it's at the bottom, you might have to mouse over a little bit to get it to pop up. So we're going to ask you to use the Q&A feature when you're asking questions of the speakers. Note that we might not be able to answer all questions during the time allowed. But if there is time at the very end, we might be able to come back to any final questions. So again, chat for technical, the Q&A feature for questions for the speakers. The PowerPoint slides, session recordings, and the final edited conference papers will be made available by ARL on the conference website. This session is being recorded and will be posted to the conference website. Note that the recording will be paused during one presentation as one author has opted out. So let's get started. Our first paper is on ethical assessment locating and applying the core values of library and information science presented by Scott Young, associate professor and user experience and assessment librarian at Montana State University. Hi, everyone. This is Scott Young. I'm here today to talk about on ethical assessment, locating and applying the core values of library and information science. So I'm Scott Young. I'm the user experience and assessment librarian at Montana State University. This is the library assessment conference 2020 and we're online. So hi again, Scott Young. Today's talk is about values-based decision making in the practice of library assessment. So I can be found online. That's my handles, Scoglio and my website, scottwhyoung.com. These slides, this video recording and a transcript is available on my website at this URL. I have a long link and a short link there. The materials will also be available on the conference website soon. So I'm talking today about a research project that I'm doing now and the presentation today is one part of a bigger project. And so what I'm getting at initially is some of these questions related to values. So what they are, they include which values, which values matter to LAS professionals, then which values matter to library assessment practitioners. And then how do those values support ethical decision making in library assessment? So to get at those questions today, I'm going to talk briefly about professional identity and some of the characteristics of a profession. Then I'm going to look at some original research that I've done to highlight professional values. And so I'm going to talk very brief history about LAS professional values. And then I'm going to talk about values in action and some of the practical applications of the values. Okay, so starting with professional identity. So going back to 1957, the sociologist Greenwood outlined five basic attributes of a profession. Systematic theory, authority, community sanction, ethical codes, and culture. So my focus here is on ethical codes. And so even though this was written some time ago, it's a really important concept that's still relevant today. And the idea of an ethical code being definitional for a profession is really important. And so it's sort of our claim as a profession or our claim to values come from our identity as a profession. So more recently, the librarian Prair says, I believe that a measure of a profession's development is its understanding of the values that govern its practice. So starting with this idea, LAS is a profession. We have values and it's important for us to understand what they are. So let's talk about that a little bit, professional values. So I draw on Seminelli for the definition, the values of a profession are the beliefs of the group. For practitioners in library and information science, understanding these values improves our ability to recognize ethical situations and to make ethical decisions. So let's do a very brief history of LAS professional values. The earliest published set of values for a profession is most commonly cited as Ranganathan's five laws of library science. But following that publication, the discussion of professional ethics and shared values appeared only infrequently throughout much of the 20th century. During this time, a few writers issued some calls to action for our profession to commit greater attention and greater resources to studying values and ethics. For example, library journal editor Moon in 1968 wrote that the LAS profession does have ethical questions to grapple with and should find a way to formulate a position on some of them. As evidence in the literature, however, the LAS profession did not really demonstrate a widespread interest in ethics or values until the introduction of automation and new information technologies more fully showed themselves as the century drew to a close. So in the 80s and 90s, we start to see a lot more articles and attention about values in our profession. So in a speech in 1989, ALA president Summers enumerates a set of professional values. For him, he cited individual autonomy, privacy, equality, freedom, access. And he closed his speech by talking about the challenge that we face in trying to embrace technology without losing our basic values and about how technology can alter those values. So there was this question in the 80s and 90s about the values that are inherent or original or essential or basic or core. And this becomes fertile ground for debate in the 90s, leading up to the turn of the millennium. Many practitioners and writers take up this question. I include a party set of references at the end of this presentation. But no consensus emerged as to which values were the most important or even which should be included in a core set. So as the response as a response to this growing but inconclusive debate around core values, this question was elevated to the national level and the ALA convened a couple of tasks, task forces in the early 2000s. And those task forces produced what's now known as the ALA statement on core values. And so here they are. These are the ALA core values. They are referenced in our literature. Whether we agree with them or not, they're a point of reference. They're something for us to respond to. So in responding to them, what I kind of came at this with is a question of which are more important in which different situations. And so these are unranked, these values. We don't know which supersede others if they come into conflict in certain situations. And so that's kind of the questions that I'm asking. So what I did then was I looked at all of the literature that mentions professional values published between 1931, Ranganathan's Five Laws, and 2004, the publication of the ALA core values. And this is what I found. I found that there are 36 values in fact mentioned. And here they are ranked one to 36 by frequency of mention in the articles. So here they are. The bold faced are the ALA core values. So we see a cluster at the top. The top five are all including the core values. Then mixed in their stewardship, individual autonomy. That's kind of interesting. Number nine. And then we have a couple more down the list, the public good at 14th diversity, 26th diversity is a newer value that we're citing. But there's some interesting ones on the list here. Number 20 care. Number 32 beauty. Number 33 rights. Neutrality is on the list at number 35. So this is an interesting finding. This is kind of the heart of my presentation today in the paper that will be in the proceeding. Here's a visual representation of these values. So service was mentioned 12 times. Access nine. And then so on down the list. The long tail in the graph represents the lack of consensus around the values. But the fact that we have some agreement at the top does suggest that there's some possibility for us to identify an actual core set maybe tighter than 12. But now that we kind of see what values are on the table, I really love this Emily Droginski quote, values are continually produced and reproduced in the library discourse. And they are ideas to be struggled over in both discourse and practice. So let's take a look at what some of that struggle is. What these values look like when they're put into practice. I found sort of three main purposes for values for us. Practical ethics, values as a stabilizing force and then vocational law. So looking at first practical ethics, values are strongly held beliefs that serve to guide our actions. And as a practice based profession, practical ethics is the predominant way that we kind of see ethics as values in practice, values in action. And so this is the main focus of the literature. And this represents the sort of principal purpose of articulating a set of values for us as a grounds for practical and professional ethics. So in this way, values can help guide our everyday action and our decision making. So Fister in 2012, for example, cites our traditional values as a way to guide the practical steps needed to build a more just world that LAS professionals wish to inhabit. So our professional values can provide a framework for ethical conduct, policies and services. In addition to that, the library literature reveals an interest in examining the past and the future of library values as a means of creating stability through time, especially in the face of change driven by technology or economic pressures. Enumerating and adhering to a set of professional values reflects a desire to root the unknown future of libraries in a knowable past. Through uncertain change, shared values are seen as a way to guide the profession into a future as the foundation of professional activities and services. In addition to signaling internally, professional values can also serve as a tool for communication and engagement with those outside the profession. So in this, there's a secondary call to share our values to external stakeholders such as publics, other campus entities and wider communities so as to communicate our lasting value as a profession and to build trust. So finally, the emerging concept of vocational law. So this adds a useful critical dimension to this discussion. First introduced by ETAR in 2017. Vocational law is the idea that libraries as institutions are inherently good. It assumes that some or all core aspects of the profession are beyond critique and it in turn underpins many librarians sense of identity and emotional investment in the profession. That's a quote from ETAR. So one of those core aspects is core values. Vocational law and when we see vocational law as applies to core values I'm kind of riffing on ETAR a little bit looking here at how values that are canonized, idealized and then they can be weaponized. So vocational law theorizes that LAS is a sacred calling and that its values are canonical and thus incontestable. The core values of access ETAR points out has not been achieved equally in American society as non-white citizens have been systematically denied access to libraries for much of the 20th century. When LAS values are positioned as an unquestionable canon ETAR argues that such a positioning prevents the profession from examining and addressing its historical and contemporary flaws including these practices that perpetuate race and gender-based oppressions. Vocational law further shows that LAS values represent a hegemonic ideal of practice that excludes those who object to the core values or wish to expand beyond the set of core values. So just as certain values are included in the canon others are excluded and the core values they don't come from nowhere they reflect a certain cultural perspective that being a Western enlightenment tradition. So rather than expressing universal truths from a neutral point of view the LAS core values maintain or contain inherent cultural biases that over time have been idealized into a dominant norm of behavior. This normative behavior can exclude librarians of historically minoritized identities resulting in negative effects for those who do not conform to the ideal. So when values are canonized and idealized in this way they can become weaponized against dissenting views or practices that seek to change or challenge these dominant modes of librarianship. So my research shows that service is the most referenced value and indeed service may be said to be the dominant mode of our work even to the detriment of workers themselves. So Itar describes the effect of overwork and undercompensation when she theorizes vocational law. In this way the library professional is compensated not in material goods or a healthy workplace but rather the good feelings of working for a profession that espouses good values. So when service for example is upheld as the highest priority taking precedence over healthy relationship building or workplace democracy negative impacts can be seen in staff retention morale productivity. And that point draws on Ortega and Kendrick again cited in the end of the slides. So taken together the canonization idealization and weaponization of the core values that complicate the core values as potential pathways for professional and societal growth. Okay that takes us to the end. I covered a little bit of ground here on professional identity. A little bit about professional values and then talking about what this looks like in action. So there's a lot more here. This is just a little taste. The proceedings will have all of this in more detail and I'm going further than just these questions. I want to get at how the values relate to decision making in our practice of library assessment. So I want to look at the common ethical dilemmas that we as assessment practitioners encounter. I want to look more at how we respond to those dilemmas what actions we take to resolve any value conflicts that we find. And then I want to try to develop a new framework or some sort of decision aid that can support a values based assessment practice. So I'll end by just saying if you want to get involved in this research as a participant please contact me or I also have a contact survey here at cutlee slash assessment survey that's cout.ly slash assessment dash survey. And it's just an email request. So if you want to share your thoughts let me know. So that's what I've got today. Thank you so much for listening and watching and a big thanks to the conference organizers for creatively pivoting to allow this presentation. I'm really happy to share this work and be a part of this assessment community. So you can find me online at these places and there's a Q&A I'll talk with you there. I hope you're doing okay wherever you are. Thank you Scott for all of you out there listening to Scott's presentation please use the Q&A Hi Scott the Q&A function and I'll read the question for the speaker and the audience. Scott we have a couple questions coming in so that's exciting and as I was sharing in the chat as we go through this afternoon or whenever it is feel free to ask questions as you're listening as they come to you. Okay so our first question is are there any changes in ranking of values over the years? So as you looked at that time you know there's a timeline aspect as well can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah that's a that's a great question and I'm also looking ahead at the Q&A and I see a question about analyzing the identities of the authors who publish the works on professional values. I think I can take those questions together because they're really interesting. There are so many sub questions to ask about values and I didn't go in those directions for this paper. I basically just established that there is a landscape of values and there's a lot of values on the table and so I'm kind of setting up this this problem of there being a lot of values and it's uncertain how they interact in these situations where they may conflict. So that's kind of what I was trying to do with this research right now but I love these questions that are leading to all these other questions about how do the values where do they come from? Because yeah there are certainly some people who value that have some values other people have different values and then that leads to the same question. What happens when those people are working on the same project together or have similar goals? So those those are questions that I've left unanswered but I would love to see us answer them. So yeah. Great great. I'm going to come to a question about the weaponization aspect. So the question is this the weaponizing of our values is really intriguing. I've seen this in practice presented as proving our value to the institution overall. Have you run into this in your research at all? Yes, absolutely. I really am grateful for the work of Itar and Katrina Kendrick who have done incredible work on morale and values and vocational law and thinking about what happens when as I cite in the presentation service is a really high profile example of this. We we sacrifice a lot to uphold the service value and sometimes that can be to our own detriment and it can be kind of productive. We can deliver a good service in the moment but over the medium or longer term sometimes it can have detrimental effects that then in in fact hurt service over the long term. So thinking about what other values are in play like thinking about relationships for example upholding good relationships with each other and with ourselves vis-à-vis the workplace. You know, relationships wasn't really in the values that I found but maybe it should be and it could provide an interesting counterbalance to service because what do we give up when we promise that we're going to deliver such high service? So that's something that Kendrick and Ortega and Itar prompt us to consider. So I'm trying to bring that into this work too. Here's a here's kind of a fun question. What was the context of beauty being articulated as a value? I felt like a collective like you know, kind of laugh or ripple even though I can't see anyone. I just sort of felt that when you mentioned talk a little bit more about that. It's really interesting. I include a full list of the references at the end of the slides and they'll be in the paper too and so in the 90s there was this almost this rush to establish the core values. And so that's what prompted ALA to step in and sort of settle the dispute. It's still ongoing but it was really there was a lot of activity in the 90s and so lots of different writers came in. You may have read Michael Gorman. He was like a pretty notable writer at that time. And so there were a lot. I also saw a comment in there about different types of values. That's another sub question. There's sort of aspirational values and then there's instrumental values. Which ones can we apply in practice and which are kind of like this ideal that we're trying to get at. So beauty kind of fell into that aspirational ideal category. We want to sort of act in a way that is beauty but that just shows how subjective it all is because what's beautiful to one person is not to another. So yeah. In the eye of the beholder for sure. Okay. So another question. This attendee is curious about the processes ALA task forces have gone through to come up with newer core values. Can you talk about that process as you're aware of it? Yeah. That's an interesting question. The history of the task forces is pretty interesting. I touch on that a little bit in the paper. And there was a core values task force one and a core values task force two. And when the core values task force one released their initial set of values. There were eight I think and they were not met very positively. And so there was a big push back from the community. People didn't want to be hemmed in. And so they sort of pushed back and said you need to go back and redo this. And so they did. So then a slightly different different people came together and then that's what produced in 2004 a set of 11 values. And so then that persisted for sometime I think 10 or 12 years. And then a few years ago the list was expanded to include sustainability. So there were an initial set of eight then expanded to 11. And then we came back and we added sustainability to the list. And I think that was just two or three years ago. So the values are somewhat a living document but I think they could be a lot more in terms of us sort of as the Drebinski quote that I include returning to them and sort of struggling struggling with the values in our discourse and our practice. I think we could do more of that. So things move fast. So we have to move fast as well. Okay. And this is because we have only one minute before the next session is about to start. This is going to be the last question for now and we'll save those questions everyone for the end if we can come back to them. So this question is can you spell out the connection between the values investigation and assessment work a little bit more? So one of the questions there is when we as assessment practitioners encounter a situation where our values may be in conflict. How do we resolve those conflicts? That's kind of the key question. So there may be a scenario where we're asked to conduct a certain type of assessment, for example, that we may not fully agree with. And how do we move through that situation? And that doesn't necessarily involve just the core values. We could have personal values. We could have values that we draw from other professional societies. So for example, you may have values that you want to try to put into practice that come from a tradition of feminism or a tradition of disability studies. And so those values aren't necessarily included in our high profile sets like the ALA core values. So how do we bring those into our practice where there may be conflicts and then how do we resolve them with our collaborators? So I want to try to get at that a little bit more. So stay tuned. And I'll say again, if you want to talk more with me about that, what that looks like for you in your practice, reach out and we'll talk more. Thank you so much, Scott. This was fascinating. I appreciate your time. Great presentation. Thank you. Okay. So now we're going to turn it over to our next presentation which is titled Mindful Self-Compassion at Harvard Library and is presented by Rachel Llewellyn, Head of Assessment and Program Management at Harvard Library and Kim No, Data Analyst at Harvard Library. Their co-author, Richa Gawande, Research Scientist, Mindful Self-Compassion Teacher and Senior Faculty at the Center for Mindfulness and Compassion at Cambridge Health Alliance will join them for questions at the end of their presentation. Well, thank you, Megan. And hello, everyone. I'm Rachel and as Megan said, I'm here today with Kim and Richa. A little extra introduction is that Kim and I were participants in the Mindful Self-Compassion course and Richa was one of our teachers. So we would love to talk to you for at least an hour but we will be attentive to time. So we'll briefly introduce the Mindful Self-Compassion course, talk about how it fits into our diversity, inclusion and belonging framework and highlight the course evaluation and the pre and the post course survey results. The Mindful Self-Compassion program was developed in 2010 by Chris Germer and Kristin Neff. And the course is structured around the three essential components of mindfulness, common humanity and self-kindness. So I was noting value number 20 of care. You'll see how that fits into here. Perhaps the best known definition from mindfulness comes from John Kabat-Zinn and it is paying attention on purpose in the present moment and without judgment. And common humanity is the recognition that we all struggle, make mistakes and get it wrong sometimes at work and at home and it's the understanding that feelings of inadequacy and disappointment are universal. So when that happens, we respond with self-kindness which is warm and understanding towards ourselves when we suffer, feel or feel inadequate. Sometimes described as treating ourselves the way we would a good friend. So the course which started in January of 2020 and finished in March consisted of eight two and a half hour sessions. We held them in the afternoon. They were during work hours and our last two classes in March were on Zoom because we were all working from home. There was also a half-day retreat and 27 staff participated. The Cambridge Health Alliance Center for Mindfulness and Compassion taught the course with two very highly trained and very experienced teachers. So Susan Pollock and Richard Gawande's contributions to the class was really key as we were customizing the course with our workplace focus and we were creating something new. They also conducted the program evaluation and an all-staff meeting, introductory all-staff meeting open an introduction that was open to all staff as well as the practice continuation program. To give you a sense of the classes they were very experiential. So it was a combination of instruction and discussion, guided practices that included seated or movement-based practices, journaling, reflecting, and out-of-class practices. And if we had more time we might have tried to practice here today. So the course was offered as part of our diversity inclusion and belonging framework. And research shows that mindfulness increases the ability to listen with an open mind and increases awareness of judgment and bias. And common humanity recognizes that when we struggle others in our situation might be feeling similarly and that struggle is common to being human. And self-kindness is about including ourselves in the circle of belonging by treating ourselves with the same kindness we extend to others. It's about lessening and befriending the inner critic and the skills to be an ally are taught as fierce compassion in the course. So why do this at work? Self-compassion is an intrinsic skill that can be strengthened over time. It is associated with higher motivation to learn and grow, less fear of failure, a higher likelihood to try again after failing and reductions in stress, anxiety and perfectionism as well as increases in gratitude, curiosity and connectedness with others and who wouldn't want more of that at work. Our program evaluation included 125 pre and post course survey items. So we're very grateful for our classmates who answered all of those questions twice as well as 51 post course evaluation questions and student and teacher feedback as well. Of the 27 participants, about 90% were white and about 90% were women. And it's important to say that we don't know the demographics of the survey respondents. So we don't know who is included or excluded in our analysis. We do know that there were a range of job levels, ages, years of experience, wide distribution across the system and a variety of managerial roles, including participants who were in direct reporting relationships with each other. And in the end, we had 17 complete pre and post pairs and 21 post course evaluation. See, as part of the program, the Cambridge Health Alliance administered the surveys, managed the data collection, storage and anonymization, and they will prepare a final report for Harvard Library in December. And together we decided which measures to include. So skills of self compassion, self criticizing, emotion regulation and body awareness are often used in mindfulness and self compassion programs. Less typically paired were our workplace measures related to change, failure, work group inclusion, and workplace well-being. So we were really looking forward to those results. Nine of the 11 measures saw statistically significant change in the greatest areas of improvement being in internal body awareness, enhancing self compassion, minimizing self criticizing and increasing workplace well-being. So I'll turn it over to Kim and she'll talk a bit more about these results. Thank you, Rachel. We analyzed pre and post survey data using paired t-test, pre-post percent change and Pearson's correlation. Whoa, did we just lose that? Okay. So we also report the co-hensity for effect size. All negatively worded items scores were computed by reverse coding. We used R for data analysis. Here is the result of a pre and post survey. The pre-post percent change indicate improvement in all measures and most of the improvement are statistically significant. The result showed large or moderate effect on internal body awareness, self compassion, workplace well-being and self criticism. The next few slides highlight survey items in these measures. There are 10 items in internal body awareness and the average score was increased 32 percent, mainly in body listening and self regulation. There are 12 items in self compassion measure and average score was increased 30 percent. The bigger changes were found across all sub skills such as self kindness, common humanity, over identified self judgment and isolation. The average score of workplace well-being was increased 19 percent. The result indicated that MSC course had moderate effect on achieving the integration between work and personal life. There are 22 items in self criticizing. The average score was increased 19 percent, mainly on minimizing self in advocacy and reassuring self. There are 10 items in work group inclusion and average score was increased 9 percent, particularly gained confidence in their uniqueness at work. Finally, there are 10 items in fear of a failure and it was increased 9 percent. All items in this measure are negatively weighted so the increase in score indicates the decrease in fear of a failure. Pearson's correlation was used to measure the linear association between survey measures within each time point. Post survey showed more significant and stronger positive correlations between survey measures, particularly self compassion, self criticism, perspective taking, internal body awareness, emotion regulation and fear of a failure. This indicates that the improvements in internal body awareness, self compassion and self criticism are strongly associated with enhanced emotion regulation and perspective taking and reduced fear of a failure as well. Now, Rachel will talk about post-course evaluation survey results. Thanks, Kim. In the post-course evaluation, we heard that 85 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the curriculum was relevant to work life. And staff wrote about the many course skills and practices that they used at work, helping with meetings, technology, improving relationship, improving communication, lessening the inter-critic, the inter-critic at work are a few examples. And even spite of the many examples you can see here, we've heard also that staff would welcome even more workplace focus as part of the course. So I mentioned the inter-critic, which was a reoccurring theme. In her introduction to the mindful self compassion programming, Martha Whitehead wrote about the inter-critic and she said, in pursuit of excellence, there can be a critical inner voice with demanding and unhealthy expectations to succeed. Self-compassion, on the other hand, is a key element in sustaining ourselves and our work and its impact and individual well-being as well established in the literature. So we saw in Kim's slide earlier that self-criticizing improved, but staff also reported in their own, their self-reported measures, they found the course to be helpful in that regard. With 81 percent of respondents thinking the course impacted their ability, the impact of their relationship with the inter-critic, either a great deal or quite a bit. And we received a lot of participant reflections with participants writing about their relationship with the inter-critic and how the course impacted that. We also heard the staff would be interested in focusing on the inter-critic to an even greater extent. So clearly a theme at work. 71 percent of respondents thought the course impacted their ability to be aware of others' pain or struggle, especially those who might be different from themselves, either a great deal or quite a bit. And similarly, 71 percent of respondents thought the course impacted their awareness of common humanity, a great deal or quite a bit. Of the 21 people who responded to the post-course evaluation, every single one of them had something to say about the pandemic. This was kind of an add-on question since we have gone home and we said, hey, let's ask about this as well. And staff wrote about how helpful the course was in terms of managing emotion and uncertainty, being patient with Zoom and technology snacks and learning new tools, recognizing how common humanity helps them to feel less isolated, the ability to figure out what is needed and taking care of reporting needs, and using the practices and skills to support well-being. So it was a pretty powerful testament to hear what staff had to say about how the course had impacted them given the pandemic. And this was just one example. Also, all 21 respondents recommended that the course be offered again. There was really a strong support and enthusiasm for the opportunity to participate. That's not to say that we didn't receive many constructive ideas or feedback because we did around how to improve the course in terms of content, logistics, and practices. So what comes next? At the conclusion of the course, there was an optional continuation program to support ongoing practice using skills. We'll do some evaluation of that. And given the enthusiastic experience of participants, the challenges of working during the pandemic, Zoom is an option for unlimited participation. We offered a spin-off course that was open to all library staff and we had around 90 participants. So that course, in that course, there was a greater explicit focus on the awareness of diversity and social bias and diversity, inclusion, and belonging were more explicitly the lens for teaching and this way a more direct focus rather than a byproduct or outcome. We repeated a subset of the pre and the post test questions and some of the same course evaluation questions. So we're really looking forward to that analysis. And we also asked more directly about the impact of the course related to our stated diversity, inclusion, and belonging learning outcomes. It was a very different format though at eight weeks, three times a week, 15 minutes per session and entirely on Zoom. So we'll also be sharing our results widely in the library and with our partners. And I have to say we are very grateful for our partners. Gratitude was a component of the course and I'm very grateful to have worked with Kim and Richa on this presentation and paper and to have been in class together. We also received tremendous generosity from so many who were connected with course. This is pretty amazing. People just were so enthusiastic and willing to see how we could bring this program together. And that includes Martha Whitehead and our senior leadership who funded and supported the program in a multitude of ways. So I think that brings us to our questions. We'll stop to share. Oh, this is so exciting. Okay, so thank you, Rachel, Kim, and I hope Richa is joining. Yes, she is. Hi, joining us. So audience, if you have questions, please feel free to type those in the Q&A so that I can share them with our speakers. Okay, so the first question, oh, we have lots of good questions. Okay, the first question is how did the demographics of the participants in the Mindfulness Program compare to the demographics of the library overall? So the library staff overall is much more diverse than the participants in the course. Great, thank you. And how did participating in the Mindfulness course impact overall staff morale if you were able to assess that? We didn't ask that question directly in terms of morale. One of the follow-up evaluation pieces to talk to the people who are in the core continuation group. So that group has continued to meet, even though the Formal Program has ended, and sort of anecdotally listening to the people in that group really have continued to talk about the connection and the community that's created as a result of that. So a little different than morale, but definitely a strong sense of community and connection. So that, thank you. That leads right into the following question, which is a question about measuring results over time. I see you have this core community, but then I assume adding folks as you diversify the offerings around in which you're delivering this. So what are you thinking about in terms of longitudinal assessment? Right, such a good question. And you can just see, we so want to do that. We don't have a plan to retest or re-score the original group of participants, but we happen to have a conversation, Richard, Kim and I happened to have a conversation the other day that said, what if we could get people to retake the 125 questions and we could compare people who did the continuation program to people who didn't? So we're thinking about it, but we don't have a specific plan to do that. Okay, great, great. There's always plans percolating, right? Like I was thinking. Another question is how much is the course, if there's a cost, and is the retreat conducted in person or online? It sounds like you've had to change the venue, but there's a question also about course costs. Yeah, and I'll ask, Richard maybe to pop on for part of this. So we funded the whole suite of mindful field compassion efforts, including the evaluation. So we didn't have a per person cost for the training in that way, but community-based courts. So the mindful field compassion course is typically offered as an eight-week course in the community, and people sign up for that all around the world. And I think, is it like 500 per person, is 650 per person in that way? So institutions might have a different way of doing that. Our retreat was in person because we had that before we went home. I know that many courses are now being offered entirely online since the pandemic, although it was typical to have all of the courses happen in person. So Richard, do you know about the typical cost in a community-based setting for person for the course? I think that's about right, 500 to 650, though the amount of scholarship and need-based support varies widely. I know that you can access the mindful self-compassion program online through a number of centers, including ours. And there's a pretty generous scholarship program, and I hope that would be true, I think, across centers as well. Okay, great. So we're at time to start the next presentation. We do have two great questions sitting here waiting for you. So I would invite the panelists to look those over and hopefully we can come back to them at the end of the full session. Okay, so yes, we're right on time. Thank you, Rachel Kim and Rachel. So now we'll turn it over to Emily Daley, who's going to play a recording of her presentation being Black at Duke, partnering with Black students to learn about their campus experiences. The co-presenters with Emily is Joyce Chapman, assessment analyst and consultant at Duke University Libraries. And of course, Emily, head of assessment and user experience at Duke University Libraries. So Emily, you can take it away. Thank you, Megan. I'm going to share my screen and I'm playing a video of our presentation because Joyce is not able to join us today. And then I'll do Q&A after. So without further ado, I'll go ahead and play. Good afternoon, I'm Emily Daley, head of assessment and user experience at Duke University Libraries and I'm pleased to be presenting with my colleague, Joyce Chapman, assessment analyst and consultant. Joyce and I are going to share information about the in-depth mixed method study of Black undergraduate and graduate students that our department led last fall. During this recording, please post your questions or observations in the chat and I'll answer them in a live Q&A at the end of our session. First, I want to mention the bitly of our full report. We won't be able to go over all aspects of the study or findings today. So I encourage you to look at the full report if you'd like more information. Now let's talk about how this study came about. In 2016, we noticed differences in the responses from particular user groups to survey questions. We were limited by what we could learn from the survey data, but we could see that something was going on and we wanted to know more about how these particular user groups experienced the library. So we developed a series of in-depth user studies beginning with first-generation college students, then moving to Black students and then to international students, a study we have just begun planning. For each of these populations, we reviewed the literature, talked to campus stakeholders, developed research questions and then mapped out our methodology. An important aspect of these studies is that we don't limit our research questions to the library. In order to develop a complete and accurate rendering of our students' experiences on campus, we must understand the greater context for their library experience. Ideally, of course, the library comes up naturally during our discussion groups, but we always have a library-specific question or two in our script just in case it doesn't come up on its own. In order to answer our research questions, we used three methods and sources of data. The Duke Library's Biennial Student Survey, discussion groups, and the Photo Voice methodology, which I'll talk more about in just a moment. We led a total of five discussion groups with 32 undergraduate and graduate students during the fall 2019 semester. We also analyzed Black and non-Black students' responses to our Biennial Student Satisfaction Survey, which we developed in-house and conducted in January and February of this year. Photo Voice is a community-based participatory research method where participants take photos in response to prompts. We then spend our time in the follow-up session viewing participants' photos and discussing their responses to the prompts. Here are a few of the prompts that we gave to Photo Voice participants. Participants took pictures and captions, shared those in advance of the discussions, and then those became the basis for our sessions. You'll see here that our prompts asked students to think about both their campus experiences and their library experiences. Some of the images students submitted were directly related to their experience as Black students at Duke, like this image of the program of the 2019 Black convocation on the right side of the screen. Other images, like the one on the left, were not specific to Black students, like this photo of furniture and a student space on campus. Our non-Photo Voice discussion groups included similar questions to those we used as the ones that we used in our Photo Voice. Again, we included a mix of library-specific questions and questions about students' experiences on campus. You'll find all the Photo Voice prompts and our full discussion group script in the appendix of our report. We gave a lot of thought to who would moderate the five Photo Voice and discussion groups. Duke Library staff trained in moderating qualitative discussion groups are all white. Additionally, it detracts from an unbiased discussion to have library staff in the room. We knew students' conversations would not be as rich or candid if moderators or note-takers were white people or library staff, so we explored ways around this. At the recommendation of a faculty member at a nearby institution, we hired two Black graduate students to moderate the discussion groups and we asked our AUX graduate student assistant who was herself a person of color to take notes. Recruiting Black graduate students to moderate was extremely successful. In fact, one of our graduate student moderators became so interested in this study that she offered to be involved even after the discussion sessions ended. We were able to hire Pamela Zabala to analyze the Photo Voice and discussion group transcripts. Pamela developed a report of findings that is linked here and in our full report. The research team then conducted its own analysis of the findings and used Pamela's report to supplement our work. For the team's analysis, we used a method called affinity mapping where we closely read and tagged interesting quotes and identified themes in the transcripts. Many of these overarching themes appear as sections in our report. We also developed recommendations for improvement based on our affinity mapping and on Pamela's analysis. Let's talk briefly about recruitment. We worked with Duke's Institutional Research Office to recruit participants. We also posted information about our study to several student group listservs and because we hope to talk with both U.S. students and international Black students, we worked with Duke's International Student Support Office to recruit participants. And yes, we provided incentives. $10 gift cards for discussion group participants and $20 or $35 gift cards for Photo Voice participants. We also provided snacks and gave each participant a handwritten note thanking them for their time. We were also able to pay our two graduate student moderators at the same hourly rate that we pay the graduate student assistant in our department. And with that, I will hand things over to Joyce to discuss findings. Okay, I'm going to whiz through some high-level findings and we hope you will go and read our full report to learn more. Our participants praised a lot of services, programs, and spaces at Duke University that contribute to a welcoming environment. But at the same time, participants agreed that Duke provides a less inclusive space for Black students than it does for White students. Duke is a predominantly White institution in a historically White space and Duke's past continues to shape the culture of our campus. Black students contend with campus culture, curricula, and physical spaces that still largely reflect and center White experiences, history, and values. Participants reported systemic bias and instructor's behavior and the scholarship assigned and discussed in class. They experienced microaggressions in almost every area of life at Duke and these instances of bias reinforce the idea that their belonging at Duke is qualified. Overall, participants had a positive view of the libraries. Black students largely view the libraries as inclusive spaces in the sense that they meet their diverse learning needs. When asked whether they feel safe, welcome, and supported at the libraries, students listed numerous services and resources that they value. They reported some negative interactions with library staff and peers in the libraries. They also perceived aspects of library spaces to be unwelcoming, specifically because they center White history. They recommended improvements, especially for our physical spaces and shared valuable insights that can help library staff understand what it means to be Black at Duke and ways that the libraries can make our spaces more welcoming. Students reported a general feeling that both Duke and Duke libraries will not actively hostile or racist or complicit in their silence. Participants are not convinced that Duke cares about racist incidents and believe that Duke and Duke libraries will not take meaningful action if they complain about or report instances of prejudice or microaggression. So let's dive deeper into some of the issues and I'll loosely follow the structure of our report. Beginning with what does it mean to be Black at Duke? As indicated by this quote, the validity of Black students' presence at Duke is constantly challenged. Many discussed how demoralizing it is when White people make the frequent assumption that they were admitted to Duke as part of an athletic program or tell them that they were accepted as part of a racial quota instead of on the same academic merits as other students. At the same time, Black students are often unable to fade into a crowd and are forced to be perennially conscious of their race identity in a way that White students at Duke are not. Despite the time that has passed and the number of students of color who have been admitted, Duke remains a historically White space and this history continues to permeate and shape the culture of the campus. The students in our study were very aware of this history and as exemplified by this quote, feel that they are surrounded by White peers who are often ignorant of an oblivious to American racial dynamics and realities of racism. Undergraduate participants perceive that Duke's curriculum does not prioritize ensuring that all students will be exposed to diverse points of view and talked about how interdisciplinary courses tend to be racially segregated. Participants believe that if campus spaces in the libraries want to make minorities feel welcome, they need more visible signs or statements about inclusion and diversity, particularly because the default in Duke's spaces is overwhelmingly visible representations of White people and Western art and architecture. Comments from survey respondents echoed those themes, asking the libraries to post more visuals about being a discrimination-free zone in support for various views. In the university survey, the 2020 libraries survey asked students whether they feel safe from discrimination, harassment, and emotional and physical harm at Duke libraries as well as at Duke University in general. There were stark differences by race among the 2,600 students who responded. Black students do not feel as safe as White students either on campus or in the libraries. Only 34% of Black students strongly agree that they feel safe at Duke University versus 71% of White students. A quarter of all Black students do not feel safe to some extent, versus only 7% of White students at Duke University. More Black and White students feel safe in the libraries than on campus in general, but fewer Black students strongly agree with that statement than White students for the libraries as well. Students gave many examples of systemic injustice perpetuated through the curriculum. Academics at Duke are often a space where Black students do not see themselves highly represented or valued. From the arts and sciences to statistics and economics, our participants reported systemic bias in a variety of areas, ranging from instructor's behavior to the scholarship assigned in class. In the words of one student reflected back on their experience at Duke, we were absent in the scholarship and when it was there, it was highly problematized. In addition to many instances of racial biases and scholarship assigned, participants discussed the behavior of faculty and instructors as it contributes to systemic injustice in the classroom. Several students provided examples such as the one in this quote. This example reflects on the damage done by professors who will be attitudes of Duke's international student population towards African Americans. Faculty are both mentors and authority figures who represent the face of Duke to their students. Their silence can speak as loudly as their words and shaping students' perceptions of the extent to which Duke, as well as academic fields more broadly, value them. Next we'll talk about physical spaces. They communicate priorities, expectations and cultural values both implicitly and explicitly. They do this via architecture, materials in the spaces such as books, art, signs and decorations and social groupings within a space. Students across discussion groups listed example after example of spaces at Duke, including many of our libraries, where art and architecture cause physical spaces to feel exclusionary. The photo voice submission you see here is a room in our main library with many portraits of white men that stare down from the walls. In this quote, a student reflects a general feeling among participants that if Duke wanted to do something about this it could but it chooses not to, which speaks just as loudly as the presence of the art and portraits in the first place. Another aspect of library spaces that students discussed was the visibility of collections in public spaces, specifically a lack of balance in the cultural relevance of materials and areas that students must constantly walk by in order to reach bathrooms or library services or that are located in study areas. Quite a few of our discussion groups touched on a related topic which is the lack of a library or a room or study area within our libraries dedicated to black studies. Dedicating a library space to black scholarship in culture was a primary recommendation from students coming out of this study. We found that affinity spaces are critical and signal what Duke values. Additionally, person-to-person interactions can be critical contributors to whether black students at Duke feel welcome and supportive. Participants discussed many positive interactions on campus and in the libraries with library service desk staff, librarians assisting with research, friendly security guards, housekeeping staff, academic program office staff, and more. Students listed many spaces on campus that make them feel welcome and valued at Duke, but one space that is particularly welcoming and supportive is the Mary Lou Williams Center for Black Culture. You can see several photo-voice submissions for that update. Library security guards stand out as a group that can help students feel safe and supportive with just a friendly word or wave, though we found the security guards can also make black students feel unwelcome. Several students made comments such as the one you see here. Participants discussed many positive interactions with library staff, exemplified by the comment here. Participants value friendliness and good customer service as well as subject expertise. Discussions highlighted the fact that there is a delicate balance between our roles as teachers and as service providers. While many library staff are trained to teach research skills, students often approach the service desk expecting staff to help them complete their task as quickly and efficiently as possible. Efforts to teach them how to complete this action by themselves when they have not asked for instruction instead of just assisting them can be interpreted as patronizing or as a rebuke for having bothered the staff or as poor customer service. And that brings us to recommendations. For these in depth user studies implementing recommendations for improvement is equally important if not more important than in conducting the study and reporting what we learn. The research team developed recommendations that fall into four general categories spaces, services, library staff and marketing opportunities. Here are a few examples of the recommendations that we feel will have a particularly high impact on Black students at Duke. Here are a few more recommendations from our report to give you a sense of the variety of suggestions. I'll move through these quickly in the interest of time but they are all listed in the full report. So what have we done since we completed this study? We shared the report first with library staff as campus partners in April. After George Floyd's death we were motivated to post our report to Duke's institutional repository and promote the study through national listservs and to share it again with campus partners. Those posts generated a lot of interest and led to numerous discussions with Duke library staff and campus stakeholders. Finally, we formed an implementation team of six library staff to move forward the 40 recommendations that came out of this report and the follow-up discussions. In closing, we are holding ourselves accountable to do this important work and we have assured our colleagues that we will keep them well informed of the changes and improvements we're able to make as a result of what we learned through this study. We owe that to ourselves, our colleagues, and especially to the 32 Black undergraduate and graduate student participants and Black student survey respondents who entrusted us with their stories about what it means to be Black at a highly selective, predominantly white institution in the South. And with that, we'll go ahead and stop the recording and take any questions or comments you might have about the study. Thank you. All right. That was a great, great talk. So much room for thought there. I want to, we're about a minute away from our start time for the next session. So I want to get to this question, which I think you can expand on from what was said in the talk. The question is, what work has Duke libraries done within their staff composition and training to try to create a better culture based on the feedback given by students? That's a really good question. So as I said, there were 40 recommendations that came out of this work. One of our number one recommendations is to diversify our staff. We are a predominantly white staff, which is not unusual for libraries, but certainly something we need to work on. We have done a lot of work since June, especially to survey our staff about how they feel, how supported they feel in terms of racial equity. We're in the process of developing a report from that we'll share with all staff. And I imagine that will lead to lots and lots of discussions because we know in order to help even educate and train our staff in these areas, we need to know how they feel about working in a predominantly white institution, a predominantly white library. So that's actually where we're starting is to get a baseline for how our staff feel. And then we will work from there to help staff who feel unsupported. And we know there certainly are staff who feel unsupported to feel more supported and then also to train our librarians and library staff to make sure that we can support each other as an institution and then also our students. So there's a lot more I could say there. I hope that's a little bit helpful. Yeah, sorry to put the schedule is a blessing to have. So we stay on track. It's also like painful because we want to spend more time on these on these conversations. All right. Thank you, Emily so much. That was fantastic. So our next presentation is titled the diversity stalemate and analysis of how collection development policies and academic libraries address diversity and equities in children's books. And it's presented by Andrea Jamison assistant professor of school librarianship at Illinois State University. Andrea, you're up. Hey, I always forget to unmute. So thank you very much. I want to just reiterate that I want to say thank you to all of the panelists who have been engaged in this very important work. I also want to state that this paper that I presented to you LAC was came out of a diversity research project that I did while working as a student at Dominican University. And so I think it's appropriate to talk about the my research findings because the research findings that emerge from the study became the crux of the discussions that were presented in the paper for LAC. So I want to present my contact information. So if anyone wants to talk to me more or further about the presentation or about my findings, I can be reached at the email address that's presented on the screen. As well, you can also find me on Twitter. I'm at H.I. Townsend. Okay, so I was very interested in this study because there's been a lot of conversation about the need for more diversity in children's literature in terms of representation and in terms of more authenticity. And there's also been lots of conversation that has recently emerged within the literature with regard to the need for libraries to create more inclusion on library shelves. And so these conversations date back to the early 1900s beginning with the work of W.E.B. Du Bois who founded the Browning's magazine as a way to create more representation for African-Americans who were not that visible in children's literature and then the representation of African-Americans that were visible were reflected the time. And then later other diversity advocates or pioneers as you will if you will begin to talk about the need for more representation specifically in libraries and in the work that was being disseminated during that time in the early 1900s. You have Charlemagne Rollins, Pirabelle Prey, Augusta Baker and Sterling Brown. The literature kind of gains a lot of momentum in the 1960s during a time of racial integration or a time that was being espoused as racial integration when Nancy Larrick an educator conducted a study over the course of three to four years and then she published her findings in the Saturday Review. And her findings were titled The All-White World of Children's Literature of Children's Books. And in her study she surveyed over 5,000 children's books over the course of a few years and she came to the conclusion that of the books that she looked at only approximately 6.8% of the books had representation of African American youth. And she made a statement that I thought was very powerful. She stated that in America over 6 million children are learning to read and write in schools, using books that either scarcely mentions them or omits them entirely. And again, I want to emphasize that this was happening during the time that the Civil Rights Movement was taking place and it was a time where our country was going through this process of trying to become more equitable for all groups, particularly African Americans. And so her work was later followed by lots of discussions. There was an article by Walter D. Myers in the center in the New York Times. He did an open ed article where he wrote and he asked the question where are the people of color in children's books? And then we know that the Cooperative Children's Book Council continues to provide us with statistics that kind of give us a glimpse into the world of children's literature. And if we look at the work that was presented by Nancy Larrick in 1960, whereas you had 6.8% of the representations of African Americans were present in the children's books that she surveyed. And if we look at the most recent statistics at the Cooperative Children's Book Council for the year 2019 where they looked at about three to four thousand books, the representation for African Americans had only increased by four percent, I think the data points to the fact that I'll include this in the full paper. 11% of the books that the CCBC surveyed had representation of African Americans. And I encourage you to look over the data because it really gives us a glimpse into what is happening in the world of children's books. So LIS scholarship really highlights a need for creating inclusive library spaces. And I won't talk about all of these points, but I really feel that I felt that this study was really germane to libraries because the conversation extends beyond just the idea of there needing to be more representation in publishing of people of color. So just more representation of books in and of itself that feature people of color, but that libraries it begs the question what are libraries doing to promote these books and to make sure that our patrons or our friends or those that we service have access to the books that represent various cultures and various people. And so some of the literature points for a need for libraries to create inclusive spaces and there's been tons of conversations about this. And even when I conduct conversations about this, I feel as if we are at a point and this is kind of the impetus for this study as well that we have to go beyond just having conversations about diversity to where we actually develop tools and strategic practices that move the conversation from just dialogue into action. And so this study really looked at the literature, looked at the conversation, the conversation that has been in scholarly discourse to LIS in the publishing arena and even the conversation that has been taken place online via the We Need Diverse Books Movement as well as the Olin Voices Movement as well. So the purpose of my study was to look at whether or not academic libraries, whether or not their policies had manifest messages of diversity within them. And I also looked at the policies to see if the messages exist in the policies but also to analyze whether or not what was the degree of congruence between academic policies that were looked at within the study and ALA's Bill of Rights. And the reason why I looked at ALA's Bill of Rights is because, and I think this was mentioned in an earlier presentation, libraries articulate this idea that diversity is a core value for us and it's at the heart of what it is that we're doing but there's been a little criticism within the library arena because there are not many studies that actually analyze our practices. And so this study was trying to fill a gap in the need for more diverse, for more studies that look at our practices and what we're actually doing as librarians to move this conversation about diversity forward into action. And so I won't go into detail on the appropriateness of policy analysis but one of the things I do want to highlight is that policy informs practice so I think it's very appropriate to look at policies to see what we're doing because oftentimes diversity and equities kind of hide in our policies and they're systemic so we have to kind of uncover what we're doing especially in terms of policies and in terms of practice to make sure that we're not perpetuating diversity and equities. So for the research study I performed a mixed method study using an embedded research design and what I did was I created an evaluative measure that was kind of a checklist that I created after coding the interpretations for the library Bill of Rights specifically the interpretations that address diversity in library collections. And from that coding I developed the checklist and I used that checklist to look for manifest messages of diversity within library policies and I also distributed or disseminated a survey just to provide to gain additional context about the policies themselves and so I originally included there were 19 academic universities that were included in this study however I was only able to gain information on 13 policies I was only able to obtain 13 policies Six of the libraries that were included in the study did not make their policies available online to the public and so I talked about that in my study as well but I looked at I conducted three different types of analysis I did a policy analysis where I actually just looked at the policies themselves and then I looked at each of the individual units that were present on the checklist itself that I used to measure or to determine whether or not certain terminology emerged within the policies that were representative of diverse language and then I also did a class analysis of the policies in the survey and so here's what I found I was able to look at diversity in terms of whether or not policies had the presence of diverse terminology whether certain terms showed up within those policies and then I also looked at the frequency the number of times certain phrases or certain words were present or were repeated within the policies and for the interest of time I just want to go ahead and move on to what I found I found that five different types of policies emerged and the five different types of policies emerged as a result of of my looking very closely at some of the data that kinds of emerged when I saw that there was a discrepancy between the policies that had a high presence of diverse terminology and the percent of increase in frequency over the number of units that were present and so I classified these as policies as being high presence low frequency low presence high frequency high presence high frequency policies low presence and no change policies and then policies that had a low presence of diversity terminology and the amount of units that were present or the amount of terminology diverse terminology present was equal or a hundred percent of the total number of units that were present and so this brought up an interesting discussion for me and that one of the things that I know it was that policies lacked specificity and embeddedness and this is a really big issue in terms of how we are approaching or looking at diversity and so the lack of specificity was noted when there were certain terms that did appear within policies for example the policies I looked at range from one page to 150 pages so for some of the policies I would note that the terms diverse would show up in the policies for example there was a policy that says we focus on women diversity and leadership and because there was not a lot there were other units that were present the word diversity was kind of ambiguous and so I looked at other policies were terms like you know we have a diverse collection and so the question became what does diverse mean in that context if there were not other words or terms present then the word diverse or diversity could not be could not be given a clear meaning and then there were also policies where there was just lack of embeddedness where words were not just repeated throughout the policy which answer which leads to the question of about the significance or the importance of how diversity was presented in the policies and oftentimes some of those diversity statements were I found that diversity was kind of clustered within statements and those statements were siloed within policies and then lastly there was the lack of transparency because different libraries did not make their policies available and so there were three research questions that were in my study that I did address through this in the research and I hope you have the time to actually look at the study before the LAC paper I do talk about this in order to really bring up some issues questions about are we doing enough to address diversity and policies and if we aren't naming groups if we're not being specific how do we mobilize our diversity efforts and then if that language is not embedded in policies are librarians receiving a clear message about whether the importance of collecting diverse materials and that libraries aren't willing to make their policies known and this deals with that issue of transparency if librarians aren't making if we're not willing to make known what we're doing how can we sort of scrutinize our practice and our professional practice so that we can be able to grow and so that we can further this discourse beyond just the conversation and more into something that is practical that we can use to actually can create more diversity so sorry for rushing through that I know time is of an element and I do want to pause for some questions thank you Andrea this is fascinating so I've got I've got some questions coming in in different ways one of them is the first one is asking for a quick reminder of what Ivor stands for the interpretations of the Bill of Rights and again I specifically looked at the ALA interpretations that specifically address diversity and collection development okay great and so I've got another question for you which is and you touched on this on the last slide but I want you to give more time to it if you can about what your recommendations are about addressing diversity in these policies I saw obviously frequency is did you want to expand on that at all I think folks would love to hear that yes and thank you for that question because it's really so important so I think that as libraries when we are developing policymakers when we are developing these policies one of the things that we definitely have to do is that we have to increase the presence of diverse terminology within our policies and we have to make sure that we're not just having these standalone diversity statement and then we have these policies that are 20, 30, 100 pages long and there's just that one diversity statement and that statement it's kind of silo within that policy because it kind of asks the question how important is diversity within that policy and then I also think it's important that we name communities it's not enough just to say that we are committed to diversity we have to start talking about who's included in those policies because if you do have those types of statements that's out there broadly to our communities and then you have patrons that come into our libraries that are representative of different experiences in different cultures and they don't really have a clear idea of whether or not they are represented on the library shelves and so because diversity is such a broad catch-all phrase we have to start chipping away and really bring to the forefront some of those groups that have been historically marginalized because of the inequities that have persisted for so long I have a colleague who calls those sort of vague references happy statements right like diversity happy statements but they don't actually enact action right so that leads us to some of the questions that have been posted while we were talking which is asking about where your report has been if it's been made available or if the library assessment conference paper is the first place to look I think in part because they want to see your checklist so that they can review and improve their policies Yeah so the actual study itself is made available through Dominican University through their website and I am going to I am expanding the study so I do hope to publish a book about it but a lot of the conversation that I do present in the LAC paper is emerged from the research itself Excellent okay and I've got one more which we have I think we should have time for before 150 or next start so here's the question did you receive any resistance from institutions or libraries that didn't want to share their policies did any mention that they were considering ways to revise their policies independent of your work I wonder if your request might have prompted libraries to revise their policies so I did when I did reach out to policies because I wanted to make sure that I did not leave out any of the policies that were met the criteria for inclusion in the study but there were some libraries that stated we know we need help in this area but they did not share their policies and so I think if that's a really good discussion because if we know that we need help in this area one of the ways that we can begin to get that help and to make those changes is that we are more transparent and that we do share what we're doing even if what we're doing might not be best practices but that's how we get to those best practices is by sharing and by becoming a community of learners as well as practitioners that's right if we're not sharing we can't learn from each other and push ourselves to a better place thank you Andrea that was a fascinating presentation thank you so much thank you our next presentation is entitled tools for determining equitable representation of women in LIS publications presented by Amalia Monroe-Gulick librarian at the University of Kansas Libraries and Marla Schluter digital library digital initiatives coordinator at the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas so Amalia and Marla it's your turn my name is Amalia Monroe-Gulick and I'm presenting today with Marla Schluter our study tools for determining equitable representation of women in LIS publications a 2017 article gender in the journals publication patterns in political science inspired this current study it noted the under-representation of women authors in 10 taught political science journals compared to the number of women in the field of political science we wanted to know if there was a similar gap in publication in academic librarianship a profession dominated by women as there was in a profession dominated by men these are the three main tools we use for this project EBSCO host integration toolkit and OpenRefine enabled us to obtain data from EBSCO's API once it was in OpenRefine we were able to easily reorganize and clean it and R made it possible to predict author genders and collect and analyze statistics our first step was to determine the top journals in the field of academic librarianship and get citation data together these journals cover major subfields of academic librarianship and are fairly prominent while we could have obtained this information through our library discovery tool or publisher websites getting all the articles for every issue for every year for 15 years for 10 journals manually would have been laborious so we knew we had to find a way to automate getting the data the precedent study gave us some ideas on how to do the project but we made some changes both web scraping and using an API are different ways to automatically collect citation metadata the articles we were interested in we use EBSCO host integration toolkit because through EBSCO we have access to all of the journals we are focused on this is a tool that helps users make requests to the API the info page provides access to lists of the shorthand ways to refer to things like ISSN or publication dates so a properly formatted request can be made the search page is where requests are made the parameters of the request are plugged in and it can be used to pull up the records in question but really the URL it forms is what we were interested in once it's clear how the fields from the search page are formatted for the URL the URLs can be tweaked for all of the records and be used independent of this tool we use the URLs to make API requests from open refine so the data would appear in an environment where it could be easily cleaned and reformatted for the next steps in our process this is a view of open refine after we obtain the data some cleanup was inevitable our automated method meant the data was structured in XML instead of being in a table again this is why we used a cleanup tool capable of parsing our XML fields into their own columns eventually even article rows with many authors had a separate column for each one once the project was edited to our satisfaction we used the extract button to collect the JSON script for all of the cleanup commands used on this project the script was unsaved and applied to our projects for other journals so they were cleaned quickly and exactly the same manner we then paired down the data set to remove non-scholarly work such as editorials reviews correction notices letters to the editor speeches and table of contents to focus our study on abstracts articles biographies case studies proceedings and reports while getting the article data manually would have been too time consuming the same was true for obtaining author genders since each article had anywhere from one to 20 authors so the process of deriving or predicting gender had to be automated as well this was done in the precedent article by analyzing author first names to predict gender this method predicts gender by comparing the first names in one data set to another authoritative data set of first names and associated genders this is a commonly used method for determining gender but it treats gender as binary posing the question what about non-binary individuals in academic libraries the only source of information we could obtain on non-binary gendered individuals working in academic libraries was from an unpublished acrl survey done in 2018 it showed individuals who identify with a non-binary gender made up 1% of the overall pool of respondents and those who preferred not to respond regarding gender made up 2% because our study is focused on the number of women in the field a majority figure we decided not to alter our method for the reported 3% value this is one of the limitations of the study one of the driving forces when considering the question of equity is not looking to see if there is an equal number of authors rather it is looking to see if there is equal representation when considering the proportion of genders within the profession to proportion of genders of authors represented in the literature while this cannot be a perfect one-to-one comparison it can be one measure of equity in academic librarianship arial statistics are often used because they are produced annually and provide detailed demographic information however we would argue that they are not necessarily representative of the profession because they are only research libraries and as you will see compared with both acrl and ala there is a potential for overrepresentation of men this is a view of our studio in order to predict gender for the authors we use the gender package in r which has several data sets or methods available we use the ssa method which contains united states social security administration data from those born between 1880 and 2012 for each person recorded by the social security administration there is a birth year a first name and sex so for each first name and birth year or range of possible birth years we pick the ssa data set will return a gender based on the sex most often associated with that name as well as columns that tell the percentage or proportion of individuals with that name who were associated with the particular sex so the idea is to first build a data set that has all of the author first names from our full data set in one single column along with a range of birth years and then compare our data set to the ssa data set after running the package using the ssa method several columns have been added to our data frame gender which is the predicted gender proportion male and proportion female genders with a proportion of less than 70% or names that were not identified from the ssa data set were looked up by hand from online bios through authors affiliated institutions which often included preferred pronouns I'll be talking about results in three parts the overall results next I'll show the results of authorship and journals finally I'll show the results of one journal compared with other studies of journals and gender over time we analyzed the results in three ways the total sample the sample with at least one author affiliated with the US institution and the sample with authors only affiliated with US institutions we broke out the sample because the goal of the study was to compare gender composition of authorship with the gender composition of the profession however it was challenging to find international statistics to reflect the total sample first the total sample has a lower rate of overall women authors at 56% which further decreases with looking at solo authorship of 54% but increases with multiple authors with a woman as primary author at 58% this is compared with sample articles with institutions with at least one author from a US affiliated institution this shows an overall rate of 61% in the same sample 62% of women as primary authors and solo authors at 58% the last sample at US only overall women make up 62% of authors at 63% of primary authors however there is a 10% decrease from looking at solo authorship in this sample at 52% there's another way of looking at the overall results with the average of women in the profession added in what is interesting about looking at the data this way is that solo author publications no matter the sample are lower than the overall sample of authorship however what the results also show is that US affiliation of authors does have an impact on the percent of women authorship whether it be all authors or at least one author affiliated this can be due to a number of factors we have not isolated but could include depending on geography the non-US affiliated authors are coming from LAS programs rather than libraries which could have a more even distribution of men and women if they are all similar to US institutions it could also be due to the journals we have selected which are more US based which would also skew results no matter the breakdown or sample there is no authorship combination that comes close to the average of women in the profession which is 74 percent overall we can see over the past 16 years four of the journals have met ARL's gender proportions of 63 percent however none of the 10 journals in our study have come within 13 percent of ACRL's 77 percent reporting or the average of 74 percent we wanted to see if there was a difference within the time frame of the study since it was a large amount of time this chart shows the results broken out into five year time chunks to show changes over time of gender representation five of the 10 journals had continual increases over 15 years four had initial increases then decreased and one decreased over the time span this journal library high tech never reached 50 percent representation of women authors in our study when we look at it in smaller time spans there are more indications of improvement than just the overall results might indicate in fact library quarterly shows a significant increase in the last five years and reaches 70 percent however none of the 10 reached the threshold of 74 percent we do get an increase of four to five journals that meet ARL's threshold of proportionality within the last five years but overall if the goal is equity there may still be some work to do finally we wanted to show an example of one journal over time with the incorporation of older studies though they use different methodologies for determining gender it can show a pattern over the course of 30 years of increasing representation of women authors by 20 percent from our work CRL is one of the highest representations though if we go by the profession not entirely representative however we see a stall after 2014 after a big push in the 90s in the beginning 2000s this is a trend we saw with four of the journals in our study initial increases and then decrease there is more to be learned from the large sample we have we are in the process of coding the articles by subject to determine the publishing trends such as our women publishing on certain topics within certain journals more than others we hope this will help get to some of the wise the precedent article we discussed also had a series of sub discipline articles by several authors if anyone is interested we are also wondering if what has been reported about the impact of COVID-19 on faculty productivity and gender will impact LIS research thank you for your time and we welcome your questions wonderful thank you we have one question for you and then we're going to keep going on to stick to schedule and the question is could you tell us which software was used to analyze your data hi I can answer that can you hear me okay yes we used our in our studio to analyze our data wonderful thank you and I would encourage those of you who want to ask additional questions to continue to submit them so that we can try to come back to them at the end so thank you very much okay next up lost track of my agenda here we go our next presentation Laura thank you is supporting student success pal granty the will be titled walking the PII tightrope creating a privacy policy safety net by Kirsten kinsley assessment librarian at florida state university libraries and susanna miller associate dean of administration for the florida state university library so kirsten and susanna you're up thank you very much for having us and it's it is really great to reconnect even if it is online with everybody we wanted to preface our talk susanna and i with the statement that you know what we discuss here about walking the PII tightrope kind of represents our experience and opinion and about the tension between gathering student data about our and about our users and student privacy and doesn't necessarily represent you know the point of view of the entire library at fsu so before we get into the actual presentation um uh hi i'm susanna miller we wanted to tell you a little bit about florida state university if you're not familiar with us we were founded in 1851 we're the oldest continuous site for higher ed and the state of florida we have a karnagy commission classification of doctoral university's highest research activity we have approximately forty seven forty one thousand seven hundred students with an operating budget of one point nine billion dollars our libraries include eight libraries on the tallahassee campus and several libraries off site including in sarasota panama city florida and we also have study centers in florids london valencia and the country of panama our holdings include one point seven million print volumes one point nine million ebooks four hundred and thirty four databases and two hundred and twenty five thousand e-journals as we go through the presentation we're going to start obviously with our introduction which we're doing now we'll talk with you a little bit about our learning outcomes we want to tell you our story and sort of the time frame in how we started on talking about this topic in our libraries and where we are today our approach the tightrope walking which alludes to the title for our presentation it's been very tricky and we've had to learn how to walk that tightrope very well our findings from our work thus far and then some practical implications for you so you can hear what we've learned through this whole process so our outcomes what we hope you walk away from this presentation is a to learn about what to do or not to do when preparing your organization to create a privacy policy and also to understand the tension of which you may already understand the tension already in your institution but to understand the tension of balancing student privacy and confidentiality with the necessity of gathering and analyzing PII linked data to run an organization so again why do we care about privacy our ALA library Bill of Rights article seven if you read that you see the values and ethics embedded in the intellectual freedom equity diversity and inclusion privacy and confidentiality and of course all this is supported we hope by our state and federal law so on the other side of this Karla Wilinda here balancing the values and ethics of her profession we have on the other side of it you know the need to gather and analyze PII data in conjunction with other library data to make daily decisions and to use it to you know align with our institutional strategies and goals so you can read at your leisure about later about our of the code of federal regulations definition of personally identifiable information but we wanted to make sure we had that in here in case you wanted to point yourself there but we have here a list of library data that we collect some of which it's PII tied data and you'll notice here like the second bullet point I added that you know some of the data is is not necessarily our own information that we connect with PII information to make decisions our building occupancy data is owned by our FSU police department but we use that information to make decisions and Susanna is going to go over that in a second but all the the idea is taken from here I just wanted to point out there's a new publication called Data Privacy Best Practices Toolkit for Libraries and it's put out by the Pacific Library partnership and LDH consulting services and I we strongly recommend you take a look at that but that list comes from there so Susanna give us a practical example absolutely so and this is a very relevant example for the times that we're living in right now with the pandemic a lot of us are looking at our occupancy data in our libraries how many people are coming in you know when they're coming in what when are our highest use periods how can we make sure that we're in compliance with CDC guidelines with our users as they're using our facilities and so having real time occupancy data right now is is critical for us it helps us and our dean make the case for when we are open and how we open you know how we set up our facilities so that they're safe and it helps us to determine how and when to use our spaces so what what should our hours be should our study rooms be open what about group study rooms and things of this nature this information has come in very handy for our dean as she negotiates all these things with the higher up administration as well as the the different entities or powers that be in the state of Florida yeah so just to give you a nutshell overview of our story really the conversation had been going on of course a lot of literature and research had had been coming out about learning analytics and privacy student privacy but in the spring of 2019 there was a FSU libraries blog where two librarians kind of talked about their own perspectives of the why and how libraries should use student data and then I was asked to join the FSU library data governance task force as a representative and from the library so that began then and then starting in the summer of 2019 we really Suzanne and I kicked off a number of series of speakers because we wanted to to make sure we integrated all of the ideas are or the procedures and policies surrounding student privacy protections with FERPA IRB and ethics and privacy conversations and talks and also outside external presentations that we invited people to participate in so that the whole organization could be on the same page about what are all the different things that we need to be thinking about in terms of student data and privacy and that continued into the fall where we had a professional development day with Megan Oakleaf which really was an excellent presentation talked about library integration into learning analytics for institutional learning analytics and we also brought in some of our IT people to talk about data protections as well and then it culminated in a crowdsourcing writing of a privacy policy document so let me go to the next slide here whoops so in the winter and spring the policy had been written it was kind of cobbled together because there were different points of view it was almost like there were more than one there was definitely some conflicts even within the document you could see and so it didn't really go anywhere and so in the meantime once the pandemic really got rolling and we had to shift gears everyone had to shift gears a privacy special interest group formed to kind of address some of these new technologies especially the online proctoring and so that group formed to kind of advocate and educate and so in the summer of 2020 we had an associate dean who came to the privacy special interest group and suggested that we rewrite the policy as a principles document so that we would be writing about our values and our ethics and as a statement as a framework which would guide our our more our procedures so and also would be an outward facing document for our users so that they would know what our values are clearly and so now we're rewriting that document into a principles document so our approach in kind of in total was you know to consult our professional principles broadly speaking also including you know fair information practice principles providing training um included you know those and not just including library related privacy concerns but overall student privacy throughout the university and then crowd sourced you know to try to get buy-in and consensus to write a document now Susanna will talk to you about how we tried to stay aligned with our institution so yeah this is one of those um sort of balancing act issues and making sure that we are in alignment with our institution and consulting the strategic plan of the institution in particular and keeping the libraries involved and connected to that strategic plan so um you know a lot of the things in the institutions strategic plan include things concerning student success obviously as an institution of higher education and things like learning analytics are used in the institution so how do we balance that with our internal libraries values our internal sort of feelings and desires about privacy while also making sure that we stay connected to the institution as a whole and showing that the libraries do help students succeed so there's a need for us to show our impact and the fact that we are impacting student success as well as our need to show justification for things like space and things like budget as we continue so as we continued on this journey we we started engaging different folks throughout and the findings really were that as we've sort of described here there wasn't a consensus or a real buy-in by the entire library's organization on how to move forward and in fact there were some things that we felt like maybe we got ahead of ourselves on and that's why you're seeing this dilapidated house here in this photo you know we needed to get our own house in order in order to continue on this journey so one of the conversations we had was with our e-resources librarian his name is Scott Schmuckers excellent and he was talking about you know making sure that we get our house in order first especially as we look at our contracts with vendors you know what the the privacy clauses are in those contracts you know and making sure that we're addressing those and the tension there again with you know working with these different vendors and making sure that we're able to offer the information that these vendors provide so that we are meeting faculty needs or meeting student needs we're looking at things like interlibrary loan rights and things of that nature so he was very helpful in our discussions with him especially because of his work with vendors on this particular issue due to benefits of signing these contracts outweigh some of the things that we may have to give up on privacy for example so in looking at the practical implications and value of this whole process for us you know we did have to sort of back up as Kirsten described we have decided to sort of back up and start right with writing our principles and so that's what we would say is definitely an implication and something that you'd want to think about before starting these conversations if you're planning on going forward with a privacy policy or a privacy statement in your organization engaging the entire organization as much as possible sharing these principles library-wide you know an empowering staff to work on them in their own areas so the idea there is that we develop the principles and then allow the staff to apply those principles in their areas on things like circulation data for example and balancing you know those principles with our organizational structures and needs and looking at different data sets you know one at a time so applying the principles not in a blanket fashion but to each data set as we go forward so we wanted to thank you all for again inviting us to share our experience with you and I guess it's time for questions it is so I get to appear again so we've got a couple questions and I hope somewhere will come in the a very concrete question is a book title referred to I think you are on slide seven so since you have your slides maybe you can just back that up and see if we can discover what book title you were referring to that's why I think it was seven yeah so yeah it's data privacy best practices toolkit for libraries and I think let me see I will make sure that there's a there's a link there's probably a link at the end to the document let me just go real fast I'm gonna hurt your eyes to this one references so it should be here it's this first one here but I yeah there's a link right there excellent thank you another question is I'm going to read this one pivoting from policy in the institutional sense to a framework of practices for library work number one were there discrepancies between library practices and campus policy and two did you find similarities with other campus groups in your approach to PII data concerns? So the first question is were there discrepancies between library practices and campus policy? Suzanne did you want to take the first one and I can take the second? Sure no I don't think we've discovered any differences there as of yet I think our biggest concern was going forward you know if there might be as we look at different entities and how we can connect to that strategic plan if there are how do we handle those types of differences and also there is a sort of component to this on how we store our data and protect our data and who we allow to see it and so yeah those were some of the tensions that we experienced I think as far as the answering the second question and yeah there's definitely with the data governance task force there's definitely allies there that like there's an assessment person in our student affairs office and who is very interested in our experiences with writing a policy we're one of the few actually that I know of were the only ones talking about writing a policy on campus that I know of other than the overarching policy that the university goes from but so there their allies we've had conversations about the concerns that we have the struggles and there is there is a little bit of the difference I think there's a tension because there's there's people who may not trust the administration really to have the best students best interests at heart but my experience has been that campus administration is is they want the best for students and everyone that I've talked to was you know interested in trying to find that balance between protecting student data but still there is a little a level of distrust because you know our values run deep on this issue in libraries which is a good thing it is it is here's another question about student involvement so I'm curious if you involve students in the privacy conversations or the development of the principles I would love that to happen so I'm hoping that in the privacy sig once we get the principles document kind of finalized that we can invite students either even student workers or just students who use the libraries into the conversation that would be ideal and I think everyone would be interested in hearing their voice in developing these yeah and one of the things that we envision doing as it pertains to turnstile data for example is that Kirsten has been very interested in doing a study by notifying like by posting you know what do we do with your turnstile data at the entrance of the libraries and and you know allowing students to go in and look at that and then comment back to us on you know if they have concerns or questions about how we handle those data so yeah there's a plan there's a plan for that to happen as we move forward I really feel like I've grown a lot from this process and the whole thing of student private or student transparent you know being transparent with the students about the data we collect I feel like that's so that's an easy win for us to get you move forward with this and also to involve with the students in the conversation so I'm those are two definite learning points for me without the throughout this process really that's fantastic so you know transparency in education right so thank you Kirsten and Susanna for that presentation so we have about 10 minutes for additional questions and I've been saving some questions that we haven't answered yet and so I've got a queue for that but if others have sort of general questions you can add that and we'll get to as many as we can so one of the questions that I wanted to return to is Scott still with us this one's for you Scott if you're still here you're here yes excellent okay great I was like oh I didn't check to make sure so we ask everybody to open their video if possible yeah it would be wonderful like get all our presenters thank you so this one I think is directed was directed at your presentation but others might want to chime in and that's you know that's fun so the question is in what spaces do we see the continued discussion of values happening how much of this is in local institutions and how much is national organizations oh I can't hear you you look unmuted but I can come back to you if you want let's figure that out and I'll come back to you to keep keep things moving okay this one the next one I was keeping is for started out directed at Amalia and Marla and I'm scrolling to that okay so this question was about your process and whether we're thinking about gender across published articles versus submitted so the the question as it was written is do you need to wouldn't you need to know percentage of articles submitted versus percentage of articles published in order to think about the gender cap so it's sort of an add-on to your study do you either do you want to discuss that I guess we were just thinking measuring just published articles I guess because well that's the available data first and then so I mean I think it is an interesting question trying to figure out submitted articles trying to get that I think is it different study and yeah so trying to contact the journals themselves so yeah I think that's a kind of a different question that's how I would answer that yeah maybe it's the next question right yeah and also I think contacting the editors and finding out like their opinions on why there might be that gap so yeah I think it is a lot but we could we could add to what you all have done already with that thank you so there was a question also for Rachel and Kim that I wanted to make sure we covered okay so here's here's the question I'll read it did your staff discussion include meaningful ways that we might model self-compassion and befriending the inner critic for users so high self-expectation burnout behaviors and other narrow margins for success are often learned within the educational environment what might compassionate services and opportunities to connect with staff look like I think that actually meant yeah users yeah great and Rachel shared some thoughts on the clip that's before she had to leave so we talked about how staff could use skills when interacting with users so I don't know if that's exactly modeling but if there was a difficult interaction at a desk or a conversation with a faculty member sort of any sort of user interaction that those skills could be very helpful during the course of those interactions Martha Whitehead our vice president has also talked very broadly about the role of compassion in our work so that she's really sort of normalized that as a way of being for staff taking care of themselves but also with our users so recognizing what our users are experiencing and really having that be very front and center in terms of how we think about taking care of ourselves and taking care of our users so there's some visibility in that way although that wasn't quite in the context of the course and I think there are a lot of opportunities then for how we create spaces and how we model that and become the kind of place where those kinds of practices are available to students as well the other piece that we had that was a hint in that direction is that we had intended to open our second program the one that was on zoom and open to everyone to all of our student workers because we're the largest employer of students on campus as an organization and because we knew that it would with zoom we could open it up but it was going to be a little tricky like what would did that mean in terms of inclusion and belonging to have students with staff mixed together so that was as a student employee but it was a way to build community and connect to students it didn't work out from a timing logistics and none of our students were working any longer but we had this hope that we would be able to connect to students in that way so I think there's more to do yeah that sounds great that's great to have the future plans okay Laura this question was for you where's yeah okay there we go all right so this question starts thank you for investigating this population's experience the library barriers barriers that surface here most likely affect a lot more than Pell eligible students I'm interested in the participant group you mentioned do you have a group of students stand ready to contribute to studies focus groups etc how was that organized or what incentives are involved yes first I'll talk about that first comment there that we do consider sort of studying the Pell grant it's student experience within the universal design theory so you know improving our services and workshops for Pell students also benefits all of our students and so we do see that within the guides of universal design there and that second question can you repeat that part again yeah that was about the participant group do you have a group of students that stand ready for studies and focus groups is that how is it organized or incentivized yes we do so the UX strategist at the University of Arizona Libraries Rebecca Blake a Senate I have developed something we called a participant pool which inspired by other university libraries that have that so this is a pool of students who do stand at the ready to participate in sort of lightweight UX or assessment studies and it is a worse word right now we're doing an audit of what does the diversity of that pool look like but we do have undergraduates graduate students across a variety of disciplines and we do not have them there tagged as tell eligible or not that could be a sort of an ethical consideration there so we do have them at the ready and that's who we've surveyed a little bit from that pool thank you so much it's got let's try again can you hear me now am I coming through yes okay so in what spaces do we see the continued discussion of values happening how much of this is in local institutions and how much is national organizations I think that's a great question from what I've seen a lot of it is at the local level so there are assessment teams or assessment departments that are developing their own local value statements to help guide their own practices so when they do encounter a situation that that is a moment of pause and ethical reflection they can turn to their own value set that they that they know is relevant for them and their context and so I think that's really powerful way to do this you know the ALA core values is a really high profile point of reference but you can even get started just just with yourself you can identify what values are important for you and what values do you want to bring into the world through your assessment practice and then just yeah I feel like you were in week two of my academic library of course when we do so very good all right so thank you all I want to thank our presenter and of course you our audience PowerPoint slides session recordings and papers will be made available on the conference website our next session will be held on Wednesday November 18th on the topic of assessment programs and organizational issues and with that we conclude have a good day everyone