Filtering by
- All Subjects: Academic libraries -- Collection development
- All Subjects: Bias
- All Subjects: Capital Punishment
Survey instrument used in Survey of Academic Library Streaming Video Revisited, 2015
PDA involves the inclusion of bibliographic records to the catalog for titles the library does not own and permits the patron an opportunity to initiate a purchase. Beyond the practical implications of managing costs and liberating staff time, the PDA model provides patrons easier and quicker access to the widest range of information possible. The service model of populating a collection to protect against the possibility of patrons requiring access is increasingly unsustainable. Although not without its challenges, allowing the patron to provide a collaborative role with librarians in developing a collection serves to manage costs and streamlines the process of creating a collection which best addresses the needs of a constituency.
The essay seeks to effectively identify and compare strategies used by libraries throughout the United States. Beyond analyzing the structure of author funds, the essay explores the value of such programs in promoting OA values of not only free to read, but free to publish. Asking the question, are libraries best suited to expend resources by paying publishing fees and does it achieve its purpose of promoting OA journals? Overall, the essay outlines the role of OA in expanding the potential for libraries to develop its role in scholarly publishing; particularly by promoting researchers’ publications in OA journals using author funds.
In spring 2013, the presenters developed a survey on academic library streaming video and distributed it broadly through various discussion and mailing lists.
This is the first large-scale and most comprehensive effort to date to collect data on streaming video funding, licensing, acquisition, and hosting in academic libraries. Its results will provide benchmark data for future explorations of this rapidly expanding approach to video in academic libraries.
Streaming video is becoming a common occurrence on many campuses today. Its fast growth is due in part to the steady growth of online classes and programs. Technology has also played a role in this growth as alternatives for ingesting and accessing content have expanded. Multiple options are now available including in-house approaches, cloud storage, and third party vendors.
This survey collected data on how academic institutions address the day-to-day operations related to streaming video as well as perceived directions for future action.
Survey questions addressed selection and acquisition of video in both hard copy and streaming formats, funding for acquisitions, current and planned hosting interfaces, cataloging and access, and current practice and policy on digitization of hard copy titles for streaming. This session reviews the instrument used, and provides a preliminary look at some of the key data collected.
Streaming video has been an option for academic libraries for nearly a decade. What is the state of streaming video in academic libraries today? How are these libraries acquiring streaming videos? Who makes acquisition decisions? How much staff time does supporting streaming video require?
Prompted by the involvement of psychologists in torturous interrogations at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the American Psychological Association (APA) revised its Ethics Code Standard 1.02 to prohibit psychologists from engaging in activities that would “justify or defend violating human rights.” The revision to Standard 1.02 followed APA policy statements condemning torture and prohibiting psychologists’ involvement in such activities that constitute a violation of human rights (APA, 2010). Cogent questions have subsequently been raised about the involvement of psychologists in other activities that could arguably lead to human rights violations, even if the activity in question is legal. While this language was designed to be expansive in defining psychologists’ ethical responsibilities, it remains difficult to determine whether and how Standard 1.02 might apply to a particular situation.
In the present analysis, we focus on the question of whether psychologists should be involved in death penalty cases. We assert that the APA should not take an ethical stand against psychologists’ participation in death penalty cases. Our position is not intended necessarily to reflect approval or disapproval of the death penalty although we recognize that there are serious flaws in the American legal system with regard to capital punishment. Our perspective is that psychologists have an important role in the administration of due process in capital cases. We oppose a bright-line rule prohibiting psychologists’ involvement in death penalty cases for several reasons. We begin by considering whether the death penalty per se constitutes a human rights violation, move on to describe the basic functioning of the legal system, analyze how the involvement of psychologists actually affects the capital trial process, and end with providing practical advice for psychologists’ provision of ethical services in capital trials.
We integrate multiple domains of psychological science to identify, better understand, and manage the effects of subtle but powerful biases in forensic mental health assessment. This topic is ripe for discussion, as research evidence that challenges our objectivity and credibility garners increased attention both within and outside of psychology. We begin by defining bias and provide rich examples from the judgment and decision making literature as they might apply to forensic assessment tasks. The cognitive biases we review can help us explain common problems in interpretation and judgment that confront forensic examiners. This leads us to ask (and attempt to answer) how we might use what we know about bias in forensic clinicians’ judgment to reduce its negative effects.