Updating the MISO Survey
March 29, 2009
This past Thursday and Friday the MISO Survey team met to work on revisions to the survey instrument. This is something the survey team does every two years to keep the survey up to date. Since we value the ability to provide longitudinal analysis, we’re conservative about adding or removing things from the survey.
The MISO Survey is “a Web-based quantitative survey designed to measure how students, faculty, and staff use and evaluate the services and resources of colleges and universities with merged library and computing units”. We’ve had some non-merged institutions participate along the way, since the survey is a useful measure of how these often complimentary services are received.
With so many services and resources to measure, the MISO Survey takes a while to answer. Some questions are optional, but the core questions on use, importance, and satisfaction. The average time to complete the survey is 18 minutes, and that’s been a problem for some institutions.
In response to concerns about time to complete the survey, we’re going to give institutions more options on which sections or even specific questions are included in the survey. For example, while the questions about frequency of use are interesting, we’ve found over the last few years that there’s more interest on how important faculty, staff, and students consider our resources and services, and how satisfied they are. So the section on use will be optional going forward: available to institutions who would like to know this information, but not required of all institutions. We’re confident that enough institutions will continue to ask these questions that the validity of the responses across institutions will persist.
We’ve also made some changes that correct duplication in the survey. There is a section in the survey that asks whether you use a particular technology, such as course management system, blogs, etc. Several of the items in this list duplicate questions in the frequency of use section of the survey. Since institutions can look at frequency of use to determine overall use, we can remove items from our “use of tools” section like the course management system, making fewer options for each respondent to use.
One challenge we haven’t yet figured out is how to ask questions about support for faculty research. At all of our institutions, faculty across the disciplines have a variety of computing needs at both the desktop and server levels. Few of our organizations have a research computing unit, and so we respond to each new research opportunity with an ad hoc group comprised of the people with the expertise to support the required technology. The challenge is to find a way to ask questions about this support that aren’t interpreted in as many ways as there are respondents. Do we focus on the word “research”? “Grants”? Something else?
The survey has one question that asks “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with support for your specialized computing needs?”. But I’m not sure “specialized” is the right word either.
I’m going to take the next week or so to try and come up with wording for questions that get at support for research/grant/specialized computing. In the meantime, we will be preparing an updated version of the survey so it can be tested at each of the five sponsoring institutions. We’ll be testing the revised questions with faculty, students, and staff over the summer so that the new survey is ready to go when the next survey cycle begins in the fall.
Kenji Yoshino – Covering
March 26, 2009
Kenji Yoshino, author of the book Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights, came to campus last week. Yoshino is a professor at the NYU School of Law. He’s currently writing a book on Shakesepare and the law, which I plan to read.
Covering is part cultural argument, part memoir. In it he tells the story of his struggles with identity as a gay man, and as the son of Japanese immigrants. Yoshino describes covering as the third and last phase in the integration of any person (or group) with a stigma.
The first phase is conversion. An example would be how a gay man or woman would try not to be that way. It could also be a person of color who tries to be white. The second phase is passing, where conversion is no longer sought, but aspects of personality are hidden from others. The third phase, covering, takes place after a person has “come out,” but that they still conceal aspects of their identity to conform to the perceived mainstream.
In his talks on campus, Yoshino took pains to point out that while his story was a positive one, he acknowledges that there are significant chances for pain as others consider coming out or challenging the “mainstream” status quo. At the PETE lunch, he acknowledged that as a lawyer, he is fairly thick-skinned when he encounters pressure to hide his identity.
Others in the room said that they were not so thick-skinned, and a conversation ensued about the difficulty personally and academically when issues of orientation, race, or gender are picked on by students. Yoshino said that he discloses his orientation in his constitutional law or civil rights courses, but not in the literature courses he teaches, since orientation is not a topic in those courses. In explaining his orientation he identifies himself as a person coming from a particular point of view but he also emphasizes that he welcomes a vigorous debate.
Two of the big difference between Yoshino’s classes and those at a small liberal arts institution are the age of students (his are 23, undergrads closer to 18) and grading is anonymous in his (and most) law schools, but not in most liberal arts classes.
Yoshino’s solution to covering demands is cultural, not legal. He prefers a conversation focused on universal human rights rather than civil rights for a growing (and unmanageable) number of groups seeking protections. When a company or peer makes a covering demand, there should be room for a conversation about the reasons for that demand. If the reasons are rational, the demand to cover should be accepted. But reasons shouldn’t be accepted based only on organizational or “mainstream” cultural authority.
University of Virginia to Close Computer Labs
March 24, 2009
Chris Faigle sent along an article from our local NBC station that UVA plans to close most of its public computing labs by the summer of 2011. It’s a fiscal decision in a rough economy, with a stated rationale that with 99% of students bringing their own laptops to school, there isn’t a need for public computers.
This reasoning seems contrary to the pervasive use of public machines I see here at Richmond. It also runs contrary to data from the MISO Survey, a quantitative measure of faculty, student use and satisfaction with higher education IT and Library resources and services (disclaimer: I am a member of the MISO Survey team).
This past year was the first year that institutions took the survey for a second time, giving us our first longitudinal look at students, faculty, and staff. Within a 3-year period, students reported a 9% increase in laptop ownership (from 84.4% to 93.6%). In that same period, use of public computing labs on campus rose at a statistically significant rate (Time 1 mean 3.59 on a 1-4 scale, n=2617, STD 1.25; Time 2 mean 3.66, n=1949, STD=1.21).
It would be interesting to research the reason for an increase in public computing at the same time as a rise in laptop ownership. Is it specialty software? The social aspects of public labs? Insufficient power support for laptops on campuses?
I agree with the cost concerns around public computing. At Richmond, we’re concluding a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure proof-of-concept project, with the hope that we will be able to make software available to students on their own computers (similar to NCSU’s VCL) or at least via a thin client solution. There will always be a need for fat clients in some spaces, but these alternatives will make our environment easier to manage and our resources more ubiquitous. But UVA’s move seems unsupported by the data, and I will be curious to see what the long-term impact is for their students.
U. of Michigan Press Reorganizes as a Unit of the Library
March 23, 2009
The Chronicle has an article this week on the University of Michigan Press becoming a part of the Library. Scholarly publishing continues to change quickly in this economy.
“It removes the bottom line on a book-by-book basis,” he said. “Basically we will be judged for staying within a budget,” just as academic departments are. “In a sense, it will allow us to do more things that are consistent with university objectives, as opposed to commercial objectives.”
It’s an interesting fiscal move, and I wonder how it will bode for UMP in the long run. I also wonder whether most Library’s commitment to open access will mean yet another shift down the road for this and other university presses. I am encouraged by the Durham Statement, which our own Law Library hopes to pursue. If enough presses move under the Library, and if Law schools are able to convert to open publication systems, we will have gone a long way towards opening up the academy.
Postscript: It’s interesting to come across an article just a couple of hours after my original post, but the University of Michigan Library is hosting events on open access. While there’s no connection between these events and UMP folding into the organization of the Library, I wonder if the two subjects will be discussed someday.
Rights Clash on YouTube, and Videos Disappear
March 23, 2009
This morning’s New York Times has an article on copyright and YouTube. Warner Music and YouTube have an agreement that has YouTube pulling down content from their servers even when it seems the posted videos are within Fair Use guidelines.
“The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an exerpt and the effect the use might have on the commerical value of the actual work.”
The deal between Warner and Google seems to be that any content merits a take-down if it has any identifiable copyrighted material in it, whether it’s a sign language teacher using a bit of Foreigner in the background or a family video that has some music playing in the background. The argument seems to be that while YouTube users are noncommercial, Google is profiting from site traffic, and the media companies arguing that all content is thus commercial.
At Richmond, we’re researching copyright and fair use with a goal to more liberally interpret fair use so that the video work our students do – which often includes snippets from commercial music – can see the light of day. I’m encouraged by the report from The Center for Social Media, which argues that transfomative uses, like the ones our students have for copyrighted material, are legal.
What today’s article in the Times tells me is that while transformative uses may be legal, we’ll need to host the content ourselves rather than host it on a for-profit service like YouTube. While it’s disappointing to lose the opportunities that YouTube offers in terms of letting more people see our student’s work, I still find hope that we will someday soon have a policy that allows student scholarship to be seen beyond the classroom.
World Builder
March 9, 2009
World Builder from Bruce Branit on Vimeo.
Someday Second Life or its successor might be like this.
Thanks to NMC Virtual Worlds for calling attention to this video.
