proACTive

Number 229: September 2002

Research priorities and research libraries | New thinking in journal publishing? | Georgina Dale, member liaison officer

Research priorities and research libraries
Professor Malcolm Gillies, deputy vice-chancellor (Education) at the Australian National University spoke to URLs members on the topic of research priorities and research libraries on Wednesday, 25 September in the McDonald room, Menzies Library, ANU. He is excellently qualified to speak on the topic, given his membership of relevant committees and extensive academic and administrative background.

Professor Gillies is a member of the 12-person expert advisory committee, to advise the federal government on the selection of national research priorities, chaired by Jim Peacock, president of the Australian Academy of Science; this body follows on from the National Research Priorities Consultative Panel, chaired by the chief scientist. he is also a member of the DEST Information Infrastructure Committee, chaired by John Shipp. Professor Gillies emphasised that he was not speaking on behalf of ANU on these issues: he is responsible neither for research (the responsibility of Professor John Hearn) nor for information infrastructure (the responsibility of Professor Robin Stanton).

The main themes of his talk were:

National research priorities (internet site: http://www.dest.gov.au/priorities)
Institutional research strengths
Research training and student program trends
Information infrastructure
Research libraries
How do we know what to provide for in our Research Libraries?
Malcolm asked many provocative questions:
Research Libraries: How to prioritise acquisitions/access?
For institutional research strengths? How reliable or long-term are they?
For national research priorities? But are they meaningful?
For areas of institutional research student concentration? Are they congruent with the above?
For emerging areas of the future, as reflected in undergraduate or school enrolments?
Are they congruent with the above?
And how will research information be treated by our institutions?
As a source of competitive advantage?
As something to be swapped?
As something to be shared?
As part of a distributed national collection?

Helen Roberts

New thinking in journal publishing?
Nancy Lane, formerly head of Library and Information Studies at the University of Canberra and well known to very many Canberra librarians, has been director of communications at Pacific Resources for Education and Learning since June 2001. PREL is an independent, non-profit corporation providing educational research and training opportunities for Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.

In her latest news bulletin to friends, Nancy writes:

'Last week I was invited to the launch of a new journal, Ka Ho'oilina (The Legacy), which is the start of a massive project to publish a range of the quarter-million pages of extant Hawaiian language materials. The launch was held in a marquee, strung with fairy lights, on the Iolani Palace grounds. The ceremony started with Hawaiian chants, followed by several speeches in Hawaiian (translated in the program) that acknowledged the dozens of people involved in the project. A song had been composed for the occasion, which we all sang in closing. All of us were given lei, followed by a reception with more impromptu singing and hula. It was an incredibly warm, happy, magical occasion.

'The journal itself is very interesting, printed in four columns across a two-page spread. The first column is the original Hawaiian, the second the contemporary Hawaiian, the third the English translation, and the fourth notes on the previous three columns. The first issue included agricultural lore, the 1839 Hawaiian constitution (among the oldest in the world), a student anatomy textbook, excerpts from an 1834 newspaper, and the 1851 legislation that established the Honolulu Fire Department. I spent quite a bit of time talking to the editor, who said it had been a nightmare, with all the language experts completely dedicated to the project, but often disagreeing with each other!'

Georgina Dale, member liaison officer
Georgina Dale, the recently appointed member liaison officer at ALIA National Office was guest speaker at the ACTive ALIA Group meeting on Wednesday 11 September 2002 in the NLA Conference Room.

Georgina stressed that she wants to generate personal contact with members, groups and office-bearers. She does not get much e-mail nor many phone calls from them, and wishes to increase communication. Contact details: ph 02 6215 8229, fx 02 6282 2249, georgina.dale@alia.org.au.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address).

After initial discussion of the new structure of ALIA and comments on how it was operating, the meeting took the form of an informal, wide-ranging and good-humoured discussion, with numerous questions and comments. Georgina said the new conference model means that groups can say what they want and do it their way. What is different in the new model is that National Office will endorse only one conference with a trade exhibition per annum (excluding the Online and On Disc Conference). Georgina said that Bea Brickhill, the new membership and marketing manager, will work with groups to help put sponsorships in place.

Georgina commented that most groups found that combined activities seem to be successful. Those present thought that the decline in membership and attendance is due to the social trend of fewer library workers, working longer hours, and experiencing burn-out. Georgina described the current ALIA strategy of trying to attract members while they are in the 'schools'. Sponsorship and using leaders in organisations to encourage membership were also discussed. Georgina has found that breakfasts were also very popular meeting times.

Succession planning for office-bearers was discussed. Reference was made to the former structure, in which the usual form of succession planning was for individuals to move through the positions of Vice-President to president, then past president. Georgina responded that if you wish to structure a group so that it has these three positions, you may do so. The minimum requirement is a convenor, secretary and treasurer (as set out in the Guide for office-bearers), but a group may have additional office-bearers if it wishes. Similarly, groups may choose whether or when to have an annual general meeting, and whether to work on a calendar or financial year. National Office has stopped being prescriptive, and it is up to each group to organise itself. In the past it was difficult for some groups to provide five office-bearers and to have an AGM. The new arrangements acknowledge this.

On behalf of the group, Helen Roberts thanked Georgina for her contribution and understanding, and for her efforts in breaking down any barriers to communication between groups and National Office.

Helen Roberts

A a