Library-Authored Web Content and the Need for Content Strategy

McDonald, Courtney Greene; Burkhardt, Heidi

doi:10.6017/ital.v38i3.11015

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The history and broader influence of libraries' messaging is also central to understanding why outreach and education about OA has been complex and scattered, leaving ample room for "patchy endorsements" of the status quo. McDonald and Burkhardt (2019) note that "content is, and has always been, central to the mission of the libraries" (8). However, they go on to observe that as libraries' website content began to proliferate throughout the 1990s and 2000s along with the rise of content management systems (CMS), the creation and organization of online content was often decentralized and without clear authority.…”

Section: Language and Open Access Messagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access

Collister

Cantrell

2021

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that linguistic features common in discourse around Open Access Publishing are socially constructed in ways that lend themselves to implicit bias against the Open Access (OA) movement. These biases materialize through common linguistic practices such as de-centering OA and highlighting the uncertainty of OA Publishing, resulting in "patchy endorsements" of the status quo of Subscription Publishing. Following previous research that demonstrates how educational content on OA can lead to cognitive load and biases that reinforce the status quo in scholarly publishing, we analyze publicly available, online content from our own institutions with an eye towards how these biases manifest specifically in the practice of librarianship. Using examples from this analysis, we suggest strategies and intentional language that can be used by librarians and other OA advocates to counteract bias and shift towards a construction of OA Publishing as the status quo. While many strategies and difficult negotiations are needed to functionally establish OA as the default in scholarly publishing, language choice is a device through which advocates at any level can advance towards an open-centered culture.

show abstract

Section: Language and Open Access Messagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access

Collister

Cantrell

2021

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is similar to Logan and Spence's findings. A previous article by McDonald & Burkhardt (2019) explored the relevance of cohesive content strategy given the proliferation of LibGuide content at large institutions. This review used a tool from the Center for Evidence-Based Management (n.d.) to evaluate the survey's design quality.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Libraries Report Minimal Standardization and Oversight of LibGuide Content

Schroeder¹

2021

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Review of: Logan, J., & Spence, M. (2021). Content strategy in LibGuides: An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1), Article 102282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102282 Abstract Objective – To determine what strategies academic libraries use to govern creation and maintenance of their LibGuides. Design – Online survey questionnaire. Setting – A selection of academic libraries that use Springshare’s LibGuide system, mainly in the United States and Canada. Subjects – Academic libraries with administrator level access to LibGuides at 120 large and small, private and public schools. Methods – Researchers made their online questionnaire available on a Springshare lounge and recruited participants through electronic mailing lists. Respondents were self-selected participants. The survey consisted of 35 questions, including several about their institution’s size and type, the number of LibGuides available through their library, and how their guides are created and reviewed. There was space available for comments. The survey stated that the researchers’ goal is to complete an “environmental scan of content strategies” in LibGuides at academic institutions. Main Results – Of the 120 responding institutions, 88% are located in either the United States or Canada and 53% reported that they do have content guidelines for LibGuide authors. Content guidelines might include parameters for topics, target audiences, or purpose. Parameters for structural elements, including page design, content reuse policies, naming conventions, and navigation, were most commonly represented at those institutions that reported having guidelines. Seventy-seven percent of respondents reported that their LibGuides do not go through a formal review process prior to publication. Regarding LibGuide maintenance, 58% reported that LibGuides are reviewed as needed, while 27% indicated a more systematic approach. In most cases, the LibGuide reviewer is the author, though sometimes a LibGuide administrator may take on a review role. The most common considerations for LibGuide review are currency, accuracy, usage, and consistency. Of the responding institutions, 74% reported that they do not conduct any user testing of their guides. Two of the biggest barriers to introducing and maintaining LibGuide guidelines identified in the survey were lack of time and a sense of librarian ownership over content and workflow. The strong culture of academic freedom may make some librarians resistant to following institutional guidelines. Survey respondents noted that, where content guidelines are present, they tend to address “low hanging fruit” issues, such as page design and naming conventions, rather than more complex issues around tone and messaging. Conclusion – Content creators tend to have many competing priorities, so a workflow and guideline system might help librarians spend less time on their guides. Despite a large amount of research on LibGuide best practices regarding content strategy, few institutions seem to be taking systematic steps to implement them. Further research examining the experiences of LibGuide authors and administrators and on the effectiveness of content strategy practices is necessary.

show abstract

“…Courtney McDonald and Heidi Burkhardt described content strategy as "activities related to creating, updating, and managing content that is intentional, useful, usable, wellstructured, easily found, and easily understood, all while supporting an organization's strategic goals." 12 As JMU Libraries re-engages with sidelined initiatives like content policies for both our subject guides main we hope to see our organization make what McDonald and Burkhardt describe as a necessary "cultural shift toward a more collective, collaborative model of web content management and governance" that benefits our users. 13…”

Section: Where We Ran Into Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations Without Results: What We Learned About Our Organization Through Subject Guide Usability Studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Library-Authored Web Content and the Need for Content Strategy

Cited by 13 publications

References 18 publications

From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access

From “Patchy Endorsements” to Intentional Advocacy: Deconstructing Bias in the Language of Open Access

Academic Libraries Report Minimal Standardization and Oversight of LibGuide Content

Recommendations Without Results: What We Learned About Our Organization Through Subject Guide Usability Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About