« The Recycling Center | Main | Open University's free online courses »
April 29, 2008
Free and Open Source Subject Guide software, and a call for subject guide collaboration
Stephen Francoeur linked recently to an article in Code4Lib which reviews open source software options for creating subject guides on your website: "Free and Open Source Options for Creating Database-Driven Subject Guides" by Edward M. Corrado and Kathryn A. Frederick. These would be open source alternatives to for-pay services like LibGuides.
The title of Stephen's post intrigued me though: "Open Source Subject Guides." I started thinking about all of the time and effort that librarians put in to creating subject guides, all locally, all duplicating much of the work our colleagues around the country (and world) have already done. And I got to thinking about the the Librarians' Internet Index, and how that gathers librarian website recommendations in one place so that each individual library doesn't have to do it independently.
And I thought: why can't we have a similar site for subject guides, for subject-specific pathfinders? The recommended websites (with the exception of local websites), catalog searches, articles, blogs, RSS feeds, video and audio content, and books will be the same for most libraries by type (admittedly, academic & public libraries will have different audiences, and different items selected as a result). The only real things that would be different would be our databases and any local-specific materials (like a special collection, rare books, etc.). Does anyone else see value in trying to combine our efforts to create subject guides, or are all of our users really that different from each other that we need to create these individually? We are all a lot more alike than different, and in times of tough budgets I'd like to think we could help each other here...or perhaps even have a grant-funded project to tackle this issue.
April 29, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5521b8ea18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Free and Open Source Subject Guide software, and a call for subject guide collaboration:
Comments
I’m a user and fan of LibGuides, which has been a great solution for us here at Boston College, but I mostly want to comment on the idea of shared subject guides.
I’ve been reading several articles lately about subject guides (research guides, pathfinders, etc.) and a couple of things relevant to this discussion jump out at me, mostly from William Hemmig’s “Online pathfinders: toward an experience-centered model.” (Reference Services Review, 2005, 33.1, 66-87.)
The idea of shared guides has been around almost as long as the guides themselves. In fact, back in the 70s MIT, which coined the name Pathfinders (with a capital P) made a deal with Addison-Wesley to distribute their guides to other libraries for a dollar apiece, with photocopying rights. The project fizzled out with limited sales in part because of the difficulty of matching generic guides to local collections.
There may be significant differences now that online sources make up much of the content of guides, but Hemmig, in arguing for a “experience-centered” rather than “system-centered” model, lays out reasons shared guides won’t always make sense. I don’t want to quote the whole section here, but he talks about differences not just in collections but in how the same major is taught at particular schools, in the level of classroom BI offered, and other differences.
“All of these variables will determine design. Without knowledge and consideration of the specific user profile and of the specific resources of each library, it is not possible to forecast what any given research guide designed using this model will look like. Attempting to do so would only mean ignoring the user community and reverting to the system-centered tradition.”
That doesn’t mean it can never work, but there are other factors than available sources to take into consideration.
Another theme, touched on by Hemmig and gone into in more detail by others, is an emphasis on course-specific guides as more valuable than broad discipline-centered guides. There are certainly very similar courses across different institutions, but in general the more specific the focus of the guide the more difficult it will be to share it.
At the same time, I think collaboratively developed resource lists/guides for different subjects can be valuable as selection tools even when an institution wants/needs to develop its own guide. The EBSS Electronic Resources in Communication Studies committee that I’m on has several, and I’m sure there are others. (Maybe there’s a list of them somewhere?)
- Ken
Oh, we are in the process of adding the Wharton FAQ knowledgebase which, as I understand it, is customizable with local information.
Posted by: Ken Liss | May 1, 2008
As someone who does cooperative chat reference for academic libraries, I find myself using lots of subject guides from libraries all around the country. If I'm helping someone from San Diego State University with a marketing research question, I'll take a peak at their libraries subject guides to see if there's one for marketing or business. Although the web links are helpful, what really matters to me are the databases they have and, less frequently, the relevant printed reference books.
I think there is indeed a good argument for creating sharable subject guides, but I would suggest that they should include databases, even though not all users are going to be able to access them (or even most of them). At least the guide would tell that such a resource exists and then could offer an ask-a-librarian lookup service that would try to direct the patron to their home libraries ask-a-librarian service (WorldCat.org kinda does this when you look a local holdings records).
Another interesting project that hasn't been that widely discussed in articles about subject guide software is the Business FAQ project started at the Lippincott Library, which serves the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. The libraries partnering with Penn use a common FAQ knowledgebase that quickly points users to relevant business resources. Read more about it at this 2006 page from the BRASS section of RUSA.
Posted by: Stephen Francoeur | May 1, 2008
I'm with Ingrid: let's combine our efforts on the general stuff so we all have more time to devote to resources for very specific questions. Long, general lists tend to be a little intimidating and hard to use for patrons who have a specific question on a topic they're unfamiliar with.
Posted by: Chris | May 1, 2008
I agree wholeheartedly, Sarah. I've been working at and working with libraries for the past 14 years so I am well aware of the trials and tribulations regarding the shrinking budgets.
Open-source solutions certainly have their place and are a good fit for some libraries. We (Springshare) even offered to share code and help with one of the open source efforts so we are not opposed to open source. At this point, however, LibGuides feature set and functionality goes well beyond anything that open source solutions offer so comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. I will also personally guarantee that any one of our 180+ libraries feel that ROI on their LibGuides purchase is huge :)
My main point was to say that there is space for both types of solutions, depending on what libraries want from this type of package. If any library wants to take advantage of the resource sharing and other LibGuides-only features, we won't turn away anybody - budget issues or not.
Keep up the great work with your blog!
Best,
-Slaven
Posted by: Slaven Zivkovic | April30, 2008
No one said open source = free. However, since the software out of the box is free, if library staff have someone comfortable with the technology they can get systems like this up and running with very little effort, time, or resources. From those I've talked to using open source subject guide options, they are very happy and said the ROI was huge. I understand the benefit of connecting multiple libraries; in fact, that was part of my post. Libraries with shrinking budgets (most of us, this year) may find open source to be a better option as they have people-time, just not dollars to spend on "stuff" (which is a reversal of most years).
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | April30, 2008
I wholeheartedly agree! We are about to overhaul our subject guides and the first thing I did is look at what other academic libraries are doing. Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of overlap. If we could save time combining our efforts on the major subject areas, we'd have more time to dedicate to developing more specific guides that really cater to our local audiences.
Posted by: Ingrid | April30, 2008
I think there's great value in doing this. The cynical part of my soul though says the main motivation for many subject lists comes not from our patrons or students but for the fact many places count them as publications/service. If they ignore contributions to more collaborative subject guides, there isn't going to be much change.
I'd also wager that similar information can be found in places like Amazon, Wikipedia, and Library Thing. Most of these aren't collaborative, but you can start to see trends by looking at these lists.
Posted by: Jon Gorman | April30, 2008
Hello Sarah,
While LibGuides is indeed a paid service (we do have to get paid somehow for the time and effort we spend developing these neat and useful tools which make librarians' jobs easier, and we do not support the product with ads), the whole idea of LibGuides is based on collaboration and sharing of content among librarians - both at individual institutions as well as across institutions. Every one of our 180+ libraries (the number is growing every week) is able to share and reuse content from any other LibGuides institution. We already have 42,000 subject pages created by librarians. Anybody who has access to LibGuides can share and reuse any of the content (with the permission of the original owner, of course).
Don't let the idea that "open source" means "free" confuse you - there are costs associated with developing, installing, and maintaining open source solutions on a local level, just like there are costs (very reasonable, if you look at our pricing) to outsourcing all that to LibGuides, for example. Besides, as many of our libraries will attest, we have never turned away any library because of the lack of funding. We're the good guys - come and check us out and join the fun :)
Best,
-Slaven Zivkovic
Springshare - web 2.0 for library 2.0
Posted by: Slaven Zivkovic | April30, 2008
