Post on 13-Dec-2015
The Evolving Role of the Official Representatives of the Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research
Rui Wang, Social Science Librarian/OR
Central Michigan University
June 2008
Why has the OR been part of ICPSR for decades?
How has the OR role evolved?
What are the challenges and opportunities for librarians to fulfill the OR role and potentially to revitalize the system?
ICPSR1962-2008, over 50,000 datasets, 657 members, OR has been evolved: Faculty Librarians
OR historyOR history
Punch card and magnetic tapeAlternative mediaWeb
Era of punch card and magnetic Era of punch card and magnetic tapetape
Memorandum of Organization – the founding fathers’ document (First Annual Report (1962-1963)
“Each unit will designate one of its faculty members as the official representative to sit on a Committee of Representatives and take action on behalf of the participating unit”
The OR liaison role with three functions
ICPR brochure [1970?]
Era of punch card and magnetic Era of punch card and magnetic tapetape
Era of punch card and magnetic tape:Founding fathers’ culture – the OR legacy
The political power of governance and the disciplinary identity of political science of the OR group remained strong at that time. The 1975 OR survey concludes that: “the departmental affiliation of Official Representatives is overwhelming that of the Political Science department.” (ICPSR Bulletin, August 1976, p. 1).
““Alternative media” eraAlternative media” era
FTPCDROMDiskette
““Alternative media” eraAlternative media” era
A sharp increase of data librarians/professionals in the OR group:from 2.8% in 1975 to 12% in 1988
“Alternative media” era – the division of labor and alienation.
Data services traditionally provided by faculty ORs who were also data users was changed to data librarians/professionals who did not use data for their own research. When the disciplinary identity of the OR group started fading, the ownership and attachment to data were gone. The excitement and enthusiasm became less intense, compared to the heyday during the founding fathers period.
WebWeb
WebWeb
Web: challenges and Web: challenges and opportunitiesopportunitiesDon’t use ICPSR data
for research/teaching
A learning curve on technical skills and ICPSR organization
Only having financial responsibility – low motivation to play ORs’ role
Need a support network
More adapting to the service role
More visible and approachable
Devote time to learning and promoting ICPSR
Natural born promoters
A complementary strength of assisting users
ConclusionConclusion Founding fathers’ culture: ultimate political power –
Summit Meetings
Junior faculty ORs culture: a strong academic disciplinary identity – a combination of a data user and service provider
Data librarian/professional culture – the hub between data and researchers
OR meetings
Librarian culture – service role
ICPSR conference
The ORs’ apathy has appeared to The ORs’ apathy has appeared to increase.increase.
The 1975 OR survey reveals that “Regularized means of coordination and communication across departments appears to be the exception rather than the norm at most institutions. Cross campus communications remain predominantly in the hands of the Official Representative on an ad hoc basis.”
Only 1/6 of ORs attended the 2007 OR Biannual meeting
The 2008 OR survey indicates that most ORs (73%) spend 0% to 10% work time serving their institutions as OR.
Founding fathers’ Summit Meetings
OR meetings
ICPSR conference
ORs: low participation and “ad hoc” practice resulted ORs: low participation and “ad hoc” practice resulted from low usagefrom low usage
ICPSR should reform the “big show” of the OR meetings into an ICPSR conference to manifest the entire community of social sciences. All sectors would gather in the ICPSR convocation. Research work would be presented and recognized, disciplinary/interdisciplinary leaders would emerge, communication and collaborations between and within would be forged, scientific inquiries would be nurtured, and intellectual excitement would be generated. The “intellectual endeavor” and “collective enterprise” are the driving forces behind the evolution of the ORs’ role.
Philosophy and theory: an enterprise of social sciences, scholarly communication and publishing
Conference is still a major avenue of scholarly communication and publishing. Conference goers need validate their research and get feedback from their peers, junior faculty and grad students seek mentors and leaders, informal communication is still the most important and frequent communication among scientists in which research inquires, ideas, and collaborations are fostered
Practice and application: possibilities- a show case of ICPSR: recognition of research work, speeches of keynote speakers, proceedings etc.
- conference goers are highly motivated because of their tenure and promotion requirements, and most likely their presentations and workshops are funded by their own institutions
- the unique identity of ICPSR conference - interdisciplinary of social sciences research which would be different from IASSIST. The ICPSR conference would more emphasize scholars' research and seed interdisciplinary leaders of quantitative social sciences research, bringing about teaching community and OR support community. ICPSR is a "strong and narrow" research domain. As long as the ICPSR conference attracts researchers, potential disciplinary/interdisciplinary leaders, teaching community, OR community, the conference should be able to generate enough discussions and enthusiasm for
attention. The conference is the convergent point for all.
An enterprise of social sciences
Research Education/training Teaching
Membership dues members
When celebrating ICPSR’s 25th anniversary in 1987, Ivor Crewe, Professor and Chair of the Department of government at the University of Essex, characterized ICPSR as an “intellectual endeavor and a collective enterprise.”(1989, p. 161)