Open Collections

UBC Library and Archives

Combining research and outreach to explore current examples of digital scholarly communication: presentation.. Hahn, Karla 2009-03-31

Item Metadata

Download

Media
2689-Combining Research and Outreach presentation.ppt [ 2.51MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 2689-1.0058454.json
JSON-LD: 2689-1.0058454-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 2689-1.0058454-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 2689-1.0058454-rdf.json
Turtle: 2689-1.0058454-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 2689-1.0058454-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 2689-1.0058454-source.json
Full Text
2689-1.0058454-fulltext.txt
Citation
2689-1.0058454.ris

Full Text

Presenter:Karla Hahn, Association of Research LibrariesCombining Research and Outreach to Explore Current Examples of Digital Scholarly CommunicationWhy a study of new model works?Membership:123 Research LibrariesUnited States and Canada2007 ARL members reported spending on: Library materials: $9.6 million median ($1.2  billion total) Serials:  $6.6 million median ($820 million total) Electronic resources: $4.7 million median ($536 million total). *About ARLhttp://www.arl.org/sc/models/   model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtmlThe study:ARL Designed and funded studyOrganized field study and data collectionIthakaField study support Targeted interviews with resource developersReport by Nancy Maron and Kirby SmithFor more information: http://www.arl.org/sc/models/model-pubs/pubstudy/index.shtmlStudy GoalsIdentify range of examples of new model works,High level overview of the emerging landscape, Encourage librarians and faculty members to share information and perspectives about the current array of new model works,Support librarians in building relationships and developing outreach programs that advance new kinds of scholarly works.2008 Study TimelineFebruary		FundingMarch		Recruitment & Training MaterialsApril			Launch of Data CollectionJune 15		Close of Data CollectionNovember 10	Report ReleasedRole of the Field Team: Data GatheringContact and conversation with facultyGathered names of possible resources from the faculty who use themResponsible for vetting the resources recommended by faculty, according to criteria outlined by ARLResponsible for entering the names and information about the resources into a central web-based databaseField Study PhaseKey issues:Framing “new model publications”Launching conversationsEngaging volunteersParticipationLibrarians>300 individuals46 institutionsUS and CanadaLiberal arts colleges to research institutionsFaculty8.2 approached per librarian1.75 interviewed per librarianInstitutional participation3 Partner/Pilot testing institutions14 additional institutionsThe experience of talking with facultyHow participants identified their conversation partnerSomeone I knew from prior work together69.6%Someone I wanted to begin a working relationship with21.4%Someone I knew was interested in new communication technologies37.5%Someone I knew was involved in producing traditional publications- e.g., an editor or editorial board member.25.0%Someone I knew was involved in producing new kinds of publications- e.g., e-journals, e-books25.0%Someone who owed me a favor because I had helped her/him in the past.16.1%Someone who is an opinion leader in the department16.1%Recommended to me by someone else10.7%A designated faculty liaison to the library or had some other formal assignment to work with the library.5.4%“It wasn't until we had a fairly unstructured conversation that many faculty remembered sites they use. Initially several said they didn't use newer modes of scholarly communication, when in fact they did.”Study participantWhat was most valuable?“Having a formal structured reason to begin a conversation that encompassed some of these issues. I have been wanting to do this for almost a year, but this study gave me the impetus to actually make meetings and get them done in a short period of time.” “The conversation as a whole helped me to gain a better understanding of [how] this faculty member does research and how he expects his students to do research.”“Learning specific ways this faculty member keeps current in her field.”	 “Faculty discussing the way they work, moving from literature to lab to data analysis to publishing and discussion, but not always in that order.”	 “Learning about both faculty members' positive views on electronic publications as ways to share scholarly and professional research/ideas/news. Although I had previous conversations with both faculty members, my discussions with them about new model publications made me see them as advocates for scholarly communication practices such as open access publishing.”Relationship building AgreeStrengthened my relationship with the faculty member67%Has made it more likely that I will contact the faculty member in the future62%Has made it more likely the faculty member will contact me in the future60%Gave me a deeper understanding of how communication practices are changing in a discipline43%Gave me ideas for new ways I can work with her/his department41%Challenged my assumptions30%Challenged the faculty member's assumptions22%The new models faculty identifiedWhy focus on “original” and “scholarly” resources?ARL wanted to learn more about those resources that were likely to be: New in their applications of the capabilities of a digital environmentTuned to needs of scholars and researchersAimed primarily at advancing the dissemination of new research and scholarshipLimitations of using this qualitative approachNeither census nor statistically representative sample.Difficult to control conditions under which questions were posed to faculty. Some data (for example, on sustainability methods used) is difficult to obtain and verify by direct observation, without further detailed questioning of project leaders.What the approach provided:Mechanism for identifying a reasonably large number of examples from a wide range of disciplines and fieldsAbility to focus on resources that have been “adopted” by some scholarly communityExamples of digital resources faculty consider innovativeHypotheses about trends regarding the types of digital resources used in different disciplinesBy the numbers	355 entries for resources240 cited resources we identified as both original and scholarly206 unique scholarly original resourcesAnalysis based onAssessment of resource entries in databaseDirect observation of sites named by facultyIn-depth interviews with project leaders from 11 sample casesTypes of Digital Scholarly Resources (n=206)E-only journalsMost frequently reported content typeReported evenly across humanities, social sciences and STM fieldsMost are Open AccessSome examples of innovation, though some features are slow to gain wide adoptionAtmospheric Chemistry and PhysicsJoVE: Journal of Visualized ExperimentsReviewsInnovate in terms of speed to releaseBenefit from lack of space restrictionRapid and frequent publication encourages users to visit the sites frequently or adopt notification functions Bryn Mawr Classical ReviewPreprint and working paper serversProvide quick access to new workLargest servers are the oldest ones and dominant in their fields: arXiv and SSRN, both cited by multiple faculty membersFaculty cited frequent usage of these sitesSignificance of disciplinary culture in influencing strong growth of these resourcesPhilSci ArchiveEncyclopedias, Dictionaries and Annotated ContentBroad-ranging projects, often mixing primary documents and scholarly annotationSome reference works benefit from a more decentralized creation of contentStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Data-based resources41 resources named, mostly in STM fieldsFaculty cited similar overall usage strategy: “intensely while working on a project, rarely otherwise”Many are grant-supported, some entirely soSome large dynamic projects based on user-contributed dataeBirdBlogs15 blogs were cited by faculty, and blogs appeared as an element in 29 other resources as wellAppeared across all disciplinary groupsFaculty mainly reported daily or weekly usageNot just for chat, but real scholarly discussionMost blogs in this sample did not seem to use any revenue generating model, since hosting costs tend to be lowPEA SoupDiscussion lists21 resources named were discussion listsThree-quarters of these were traditional listservsFourteen are in the humanitiesUsers cited them for allowing them to “keep in touch with everyone, all the time”Not at all a cutting-edge technology, but still very popular H-France ForumProfessional and academic hubs34 resources in the collection were classified as hubsLarger sites, with many content and communication features, where faculty cited the benefit of the site as being a “one-stop shop.” Often supported by academic societies or professional associationsAlzheimer Research ForumPatterns and TrendsDiscipline trendsPresence in nearly all categories, from journals, to data to referenceMultimedia expandsExamples of all content types showed up across a wide range of disciplines, though some trends emergedInnovation in new and “old”Evidence of ongoing experimentation with revenue models for many projects, while others rely almost entirely on volunteer labor and contributions in kindExperimentation with revenue modelsOlder projects show significant innovation; creating legitimacy and building audience takes timeStrong influence of tradition Significance of disciplinary normsPeer review still extremely importantEstablishing trust and credibility through reputation and quality is vitalEvidence of some reluctance of faculty to adopt some innovative featuresSustainabilityMany are grant supportedOr very inexpensive (blogs, disc lists) in terms of direct costsEven big players with grants for many years are interested in other means of reliable supportToday’s environmentLibrarians and faculty are interested in sharing their understandings of new mechanisms for reporting scholarship and research and engaging in scholarly discourse.There are many kinds of works out there and in “wide use”. No discipline has gotten a lock on innovation.Much remains to be learned from and about new models.Karla Hahn   karla@arl.orghttp://www.arl.org* *Left column based on registration of librariansRight column based on survey of librarian participants*UBC was one of our pilot testing institutions*The entre to conversation.  Faculty are busy people and just finding a good reason to be in a position to express interest and learn about faculty perspectives was valuable. For some librarians it’s just not easy starting a conversation, especially one that gets beyond superficialities.*Identifying specific opportunities.Of course there’s nothing like a conversation about a general topic to turn up unexpected specific opportunities. People found partners, advocates, and projects they could draw on.*ARL sought to examine only those works which were both original instances of publication and consisted of scholarly content (content either created by or explicitly for scholars).I think this pattern is pretty much what you’d expect with several hundred field librarians who have been encouraged to err on the side of entering something that doesn’t meet the study criteria and have been encouraged to enter duplicates of resources.Classified by either predominant content type (e-journal, blog, etc..) Experimenting with public peer reviewHas not had negative impact: journal enjoys high ISI rankingYet, very little actual public comment takes placeA journal of “video articles”A for-profit effort, independently supportedThe first video journal to be accepted by National Library of MedicinePublishes a “review a day, every day”Pushes content to subscribers via email listLow admin costs in general, aside from postage to mail books to reviewers Followed example of arXivServes a well-defined niche: philosophy of scienceGoal is not to grow beyond the niche, but to serve it well, and not become too focused just on philosophy of physicsOnline reference work for philosophy~1,000 entriesEncyclopedia articles are volunteered by academicsContinuously updatedOperates from an endowmentCommunity data projectAmateur-supplied data creates large database for researchersProcesses of user training and engaging users to participateLarge scale makes sponsorship possiblePhilosophy and EthicsFounders describe the need to aggregate researchers in this niche field from around the US and the worldSpeed of exchanges allows its members to work through ideas in days, a process that used to take months or yearsFounded in 1991Goal was to mimic the “types of conversations that occurred around the coffee machine”Restricted access, list moderation, list archiving lend sense of credibility Includes original articles and news updates, as well as job notices and announcementsUser generated content includes a “hypothesis factory” where people can post ideas and comment on others. Combi ni ng Resear ch and Out r each t o Expl or e Cur r ent Exampl es of Di gi t al Schol ar l y Communi cat i on  Pr esent er : Kar l a Hahn, Associ at i on of Resear ch Li br ar i es  Why a st udy of new model wor ks?  About ARL Member s hi p:  123 Res ear c h Li br ar i es  Uni t ed St at es and Canada  2007 ARL member s r epor t ed s pendi ng on:  Li br ar y mat er i al s : $9. 6 mi l l i on medi an ( $1. 2 bi l l i on t ot al )  Ser i al s : $6. 6 mi l l i on medi an ( $820 mi l l i on t ot al )  El ec t r oni c r es our c es : $4. 7 mi l l i on medi an ( $536 mi l l i on t ot al ) . 3  s/ model pubs / pubs t udy / i ndex . s ht ml  The st udy: ARL Des i gned and f unded st udy Or gani z ed f i el d st udy and dat a  c ol l ec t i on I t hak a Fi el d s t udy suppor t Tar get ed i nt er vi ews wi t h r esour ce  dev el oper s Repor t by Nancy Mar on and Ki r by Smi t h For  mor e i nf or mat i on: ht t p: / / www. ar l . or g/ s c / model s / model pubs / pubs t udy / i ndex . s ht ml  St udy Goal s I dent i f y r ange of  ex ampl es of new  model wor k s , Hi gh l ev el ov er v i ew of t he emer gi ng l ands c ape, Enc our age l i br ar i ans and f ac ul t y member s t o s har e i nf or mat i on and per s pec t i v es about t he c ur r ent ar r ay of new model wor k s , Suppor t l i br ar i ans i n bui l di ng r el at i ons hi ps and dev el opi ng out r eac h pr ogr ams t hat adv anc e new k i nds of s c hol ar l y wor k s .  2008 St udy Ti mel i ne Febr uar y Mar c h Mat er i al s Apr i l Col l ec t i on J une 15 Nov ember 10  Fundi ng Rec r ui t ment & Tr ai ni ng Launc h of Dat a Cl os e of Dat a Col l ec t i on Repor t Rel eas ed  Rol e of t he Fi el d Team: Dat a Gat her i ng Cont ac t  and c onv er s at i on wi t h  f ac ul t y Gat her ed names of pos s i bl e r es our c es f r om t he f ac ul t y who us e t hem Res pons i bl e f or v et t i ng t he r es our c es r ec ommended by f ac ul t y , ac c or di ng t o c r i t er i a out l i ned by ARL Res pons i bl e f or ent er i ng t he names and i nf or mat i on about t he r es our c es i nt o a c ent r al web- bas ed dat abas e  Fi el d St udy Phase Key i s s ues : Fr ami ng “ new model publ i c at i ons ” Launc hi ng c onv er s at i ons Engagi ng v ol unt eer s  Par t i ci pat i on Li br ar i ans >300 i ndi v i dual s 46 i ns t i t ut i ons US and Canada Li ber al ar t s c ol l eges t o r es ear c h i ns t i t ut i ons  Fac ul t y 8. 2 appr oac hed per l i br ar i an 1. 75 i nt er v i ewed per l i br ar i an  I nst i t ut i onal par t i ci pat i on 3 Par t ner / Pi l ot 14 addi t i onal  t es t i ng i ns t i t ut i ons  i ns t i t ut i ons  The ex per i enc e of t al k i ng wi t h f ac ul t y  How par t i c i pant s i dent i f i ed t hei r c onv er s at i on par t ner Someone I k new f r om pr i or wor k t oget her Someone I want ed t o begi n a wor ki ng r el at i onshi p wi t h Someone I k new was i nt er est ed i n new communi cat i on t ec hnol ogi es Someone I k new was i nvol ved i n pr oduci ng t r adi t i onal publ i c at i ons- e. g. , an edi t or or edi t or i al boar d member . Someone I k new was i nvol ved i n pr oduci ng new ki nds of publ i c at i ons - e. g. , e- j our nal s, e- books Someone who owed me a f avor because I had hel ped her / hi m i n t he pas t . Someone who i s an opi ni on l eader i n t he depar t ment Rec ommended t o me by someone el se A des i gnat ed f ac ul t y l i ai son t o t he l i br ar y or had s ome ot her f or mal as s i gnment t o wor k wi t h t he l i br ar y .  69. 6% 21. 4% 37. 5% 25. 0%  25. 0% 16. 1% 16. 1% 10. 7% 5. 4%  “ I t was n' t unt i l we had a f ai r l y uns t r uc t ur ed c onv er s at i on t hat many f ac ul t y r emember ed s i t es t hey us e. I ni t i al l y s ev er al s ai d t hey di dn' t us e newer modes of s c hol ar l y c ommuni c at i on, when i n f ac t t hey di d. ” St udy par t i c i pant  What was most val uabl e?  “ Havi ng a f or mal  st r uct ur ed r eas on t o begi n a conver sat i on t hat encompassed s ome of t hese i ssues. I have been want i ng t o do t hi s f or al most a year , but t hi s s t udy gav e me t he i mpet us t o act ual l y make meet i ngs and get t hem done i n a shor t per i od of t i me. ”  “ The conver sat i on as a whol e hel ped me t o gai n a bet t er under st andi ng of [ how] t hi s f acul t y member does r esear ch and how he ex pect s hi s st udent s t o do r esear c h. ”  “ Lear ni ng speci f i c ways t hi s f ac ul t y member k eeps cur r ent i n her f i el d. ”  “ Facul t y di scussi ng t he way t hey wor k , movi ng f r om l i t er at ur e t o l ab t o dat a anal ysi s t o publ i shi ng and di scus s i on, but not al ways i n t hat or der . ”   “ Lear ni ng about  bot h f ac ul t y member s ' posi t i ve vi ews on el ec t r oni c publ i c at i ons as ways t o shar e s c hol ar l y and pr of es s i onal r esear ch/ i deas / news . Al t hough I had pr ev i ous conver sat i ons wi t h bot h f ac ul t y member s , my di scussi ons wi t h t hem about new model publ i cat i ons made me s ee t hem as adv oc at es f or schol ar l y c ommuni c at i on pr ac t i c es s uc h as open access publ i s hi ng. ”  Rel at i onshi p bui l di ng Agr ee St r engt hened my r el at i ons hi p wi t h t he f acul t y member Has made i t mor e l i k el y t hat I wi l l cont act t he f ac ul t y member i n t he f ut ur e Has made i t mor e l i k el y t he f ac ul t y member wi l l cont ac t me i n t he f ut ur e Gave me a deeper under s t andi ng of how communi cat i on pr ac t i c es ar e c hangi ng i n a di sci pl i ne Gave me i deas f or new way s I c an wor k wi t h her / hi s depar t ment Chal l enged my as s umpt i ons Chal l enged t he f ac ul t y member ' s assumpt i ons  67% 62% 60% 43%  41% 30% 22%  The new model s f ac ul t y i dent i f i ed  Why f oc us on “ or i gi nal ” and “ s c hol ar l y ” r es our c es ? ARL want ed t o l ear n mor e about  t hos e r es our c es t hat wer e l i k el y t o be:  New i n t hei r  appl i cat i ons of t he c apabi l i t i es of a di gi t al envi r onment  Tuned t o needs of schol ar s and r es ear c her s  Ai med pr i mar i l y at advanci ng t he di s s emi nat i on of new r esear ch and s c hol ar s hi p  Li mi t at i ons of us i ng t hi s qual i t at i v e appr oac h Nei t her  c ens us nor s t at i s t i c al l y r epr es ent at i v e s ampl e. Di f f i c ul t t o c ont r ol c ondi t i ons under whi c h ques t i ons wer e pos ed t o f ac ul t y . Some dat a ( f or ex ampl e, on s us t ai nabi l i t y met hods us ed) i s di f f i c ul t t o obt ai n and v er i f y by di r ec t obs er v at i on, wi t hout f ur t her det ai l ed ques t i oni ng of pr oj ec t l eader s .  What t he appr oach pr ovi ded: Mec hani s m f or  i dent i f y i ng a r eas onabl y l ar ge number of ex ampl es f r om a wi de r ange of di s c i pl i nes and f i el ds Abi l i t y t o f oc us on r es our c es t hat hav e been “ adopt ed” by s ome s c hol ar l y c ommuni t y Ex ampl es of di gi t al r es our c es f ac ul t y c ons i der i nnov at i v e Hy pot hes es about t r ends r egar di ng t he t y pes of di gi t al r es our c es us ed i n di f f er ent di s c i pl i nes  By t he number s 355 ent r i es f or  r es our ces  240 c i t ed r es our c es we  i dent i f i ed as bot h or i gi nal and s c hol ar l y 206  uni que s c hol ar l y or i gi nal r es our c es  Anal ysi s based on As s es s ment  of r es our c e ent r i es i n  dat abas e Di r ec t obs er v at i on of s i t es named by f ac ul t y I n- dept h i nt er v i ews wi t h pr oj ec t l eader s f r om 11 s ampl e c as es  xt Placeholder 12  Types of Di gi t al Schol ar l y Resour ces ( n=206)  E- onl y j our nal s  Most  f r equent l y r epor t ed cont ent t ype  Repor t ed evenl y acr oss humani t i es, soci al sci ences and STM f i el ds  Most ar e Open Access  Some exampl es of i nnovat i on, t hough some f eat ur es ar e sl ow t o gai n wi de adopt i on  At mos pher i c Chemi s t r y and Phy s i c s  JoVE: Jour nal of Vi sual i z ed Exper i ment s  Revi ews I nnov at e i n t er ms of  s peed t o  r el eas e Benef i t f r om l ac k of s pac e r es t r i c t i on Rapi d and f r equent publ i c at i on enc our ages us er s t o v i s i t t he s i t es f r equent l y or adopt not i f i c at i on f unc t i ons  Br yn Mawr Cl assi cal Revi ew  Pr epr i nt and wor ki ng paper ser ver s Pr ov i de qui c k ac c es s t o new wor k Lar ges t s er v er s ar e t he ol des t ones  and domi nant i n t hei r f i el ds : and SSRN, bot h c i t ed by mul t i f ac ul t y member s Fac ul t y c i t ed f r equent us age t hes e s i t es Si gni f i c anc e of di s c i pl i nar y i n i nf l uenc i ng s t r ong gr owt h t hes e r es our c es  ar Xi v pl e of c ul t ur e of  Phi l Sci Ar chi ve  Enc y c l opedi as , Di c t i onar i es and Annot at ed Cont ent Br oad- r angi ng pr oj ec t s ,  of t en mi x i ng pr i mar y doc ument s and s c hol ar l y annot at i on Some r ef er enc e wor k s benef i t f r om a mor e dec ent r al i z ed c r eat i on of c ont ent  St anf or d Enc y c l opedi a of Phi l os ophy  Dat a- based r esour ces 41 r es our c es named,  mos t l y i n STM  f i el ds Fac ul t y c i t ed s i mi l ar ov er al l us age s t r at egy : “ i nt ens el y whi l e wor k i ng on a pr oj ec t , r ar el y ot her wi s e” Many ar e gr ant - s uppor t ed, s ome ent i r el y s o Some l ar ge dy nami c pr oj ec t s bas ed on us er - c ont r i but ed dat a  eBi r d  Bl ogs 15 bl ogs wer e c i t ed by f ac ul t y ,  and bl ogs appear ed as an el ement i n 29 ot her r es our c es as wel l Appear ed ac r os s al l di s c i pl i nar y gr oups Fac ul t y mai nl y r epor t ed dai l y or week l y us age Not j us t f or c hat , but r eal s c hol ar l y di s c us s i on Mos t bl ogs i n t hi s s ampl e di d not s eem t o us e any r ev enue gener at i ng  PEA Soup  Di scussi on l i st s 21 r es our c es named wer e di s c us s i on  l i st s Thr ee- quar t er s of t hes e wer e t r adi t i onal l i s t s er v s Four t een ar e i n t he humani t i es Us er s c i t ed t hem f or al l owi ng t hem t o “ k eep i n t ouc h wi t h ev er y one, al l t he t i me” Not at al l a c ut t i ng- edge t ec hnol ogy , but s t i l l v er y popul ar  H- Fr ance For um  Pr of essi onal and academi c hubs 34 r es our c es i n t he c ol l ec t i on wer e  c l as s i f i ed as hubs Lar ger s i t es , wi t h many c ont ent and c ommuni c at i on f eat ur es , wher e f ac ul t y c i t ed t he benef i t of t he s i t e as bei ng a “ one- s t op s hop. ” Of t en s uppor t ed by ac ademi c s oc i et i es or pr of es s i onal as s oc i at i ons  Al z hei mer Resear ch For um  Pat t er ns and Tr ends  Di sci pl i ne t r ends Ex ampl es of al l c ont ent t y pes s howed up ac r os s a wi de r ange of di s c i pl i nes , t hough s ome t r ends emer ged  Mul t i medi a expands Pr es enc e i n near l y al l c at egor i es , f r om j our nal s , t o dat a t o r ef er enc e  I nnovat i on i n new and “ ol d” Ol der pr oj ec t s s how s i gni f i c ant i nnov at i on; c r eat i ng l egi t i mac y and bui l di ng audi enc e t ak es t i me  Exper i ment at i on wi t h r evenue model s Ev i denc e of ongoi ng ex per i ment at i on wi t h r ev enue model s f or many pr oj ec t s , whi l e ot her s r el y al mos t ent i r el y on v ol unt eer l abor and c ont r i but i ons i n k i nd  St r ong i nf l uence of t r adi t i on Si gni f i c anc e of di s c i pl i nar y nor ms Peer r ev i ew s t i l l ex t r emel y i mpor t ant Es t abl i s hi ng t r us t and c r edi bi l i t y t hr ough r eput at i on and qual i t y i s v i t al Ev i denc e of s ome r el uc t anc e of f ac ul t y t o adopt s ome i nnov at i v e f eat ur es  Sust ai nabi l i t y Many ar e gr ant s uppor t ed Or v er y i nex pens i v e ( bl ogs , di s c l i s t s ) i n t er ms of di r ec t c os t s Ev en bi g pl ay er s wi t h gr ant s f or many y ear s ar e i nt er es t ed i n ot her means of r el i abl e s uppor t  Today’ s envi r onment Li br ar i ans and f ac ul t y ar e  i nt er es t ed i n s har i ng t hei r under s t andi ngs of new mec hani s ms f or r epor t i ng s c hol ar s hi p and r es ear c h and engagi ng i n s c hol ar l y di s c our s e. Ther e ar e many k i nds of wor k s out t her e and i n “ wi de us e” . No di s c i pl i ne has got t en a l oc k on i nnov at i on. Muc h r emai ns t o be l ear ned f r om and about new model s .  Kar l a Hahn kar l a@ar l . or g ht t p: / / www. ar l . or g  48  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.2689.1-0058454/manifest

Comment

Related Items