CEPC July 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes

July Minutes CEPC conference call, 15 July 2014

Attending: Nancy Freeman, Paul Lasewicz, Tiffany Schureman, Sharon Silengo, Bill Landis, Pam Hackbart-Dean, Marc Brodsky

Meeting was called to order by Nancy shortly after 10:30AM (CDT)

First order of business was to welcome Pam Hackbart-Dean, our new SAA council liaison. She will replace Bill Landis, who is rotating out of the position. Pam is Director of the Special Collections Research Center at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Pam said that she will be in attendance at the CEPC meeting at the Annual SAA meeting in Washington next month.

Bill asked if there were any new comments or any questions regarding the committee’s revised charge. He also noted that the committee webpages had been updated to reflect the changes.

Announcements:

Nancy has been asked to stay on for another year as co-chair of the committee and has accepted. Robert Ritter has become the new 2nd co-chair and will become the next chair.

The committee has gotten off the standard pattern of accepting two new members every year (with two others rolling off). René in the SAA office will help us get back on track. Our new member for this year will be Cybil Powers from the Ralph Lauren Library at Ralph Lauren Corporation.

Our committee meeting is scheduled to take place Tuesday, August 12th, at the annual meeting from 1PM to 5PM, though it may not run that long.

Paul’s term is set to end this year and will conclude with this meeting.

Committee Forum at Annual meeting:

The CEPC forum at the annual meeting will be on Thursday, August 14th from 12:00 noon to 1:15PM. The call for case studies, which will have been posted online prior to the meeting, will be discussed. On the agenda:

* an introduction to the revised Code of Ethics
* a discussion of the ways in which we envision the various potential contexts for submitted case studies
* questions regarding all aspects of the process surrounding the submission of the case studies

Bill mentioned that the forums last year were not well attended, that we should plan for 10 to 15 people attending, and that the simpler the plan of the forum, the better. He also said that one of the forums last year broke up into small groups, each with a leader from the committee offering the forum. In response to a question about handouts, he suggested, perhaps, a one-page handout that would offer basic information, link to further information at the webpage, and various parts of the Code that may pertain to potential case studies.

He also suggested that whatever we come up with for the meeting should be designed to be repurposed, for example, when we, inevitably, need to recruit case study authors.

Other ideas about the forum included the suggestion that we all be prepared to talk about the call and our vision/expectations regarding the case studies. These are points we can go over in our meeting on the 12th. Paul suggested that we put together a list of talking points for the forum, and he agreed to provide a draft of those points. Other members who would like to add to the list may want to send ideas to Paul.

We discussed the probability that folks attending the forum may want to toss out ideas to get our opinions. We agreed that while we may want to do this in a general way, we shouldn’t get in the position of speaking to much to specifics, but, rather, encourage the submission of ideas! In other words, the forum would not be the place to debate the acceptability of any proposed idea.

Bill suggested that we emphasize that we’re looking for case studies that illustrate all points of the Code. If folks ask about criteria for selection of articles, we can certainly say that coverage of a range of topics is what we are seeking.

The point was also made that having keywords that related directly to the language of the Code would be useful and valuable, especially when pointing towards less obvious parts of the Code.

In terms of publicizing the forum, Nancy will speak with René. Bill reminded us that posts to the SAA Leader listserv has lately been an effective way of getting information out to the greater membership via group lists.

Draft Case Study

Nancy had provided us with a draft of a case study she and Robert wrote. The topic was online exhibits and criteria for a balanced selection of materials, and the case involved a situation in which the appropriateness of that balance had been questioned by a segment of the viewership. Discussion first focused on the Summary. Marc asked whether it was too general, that is, whether this part of the study, coming near the beginning of the article, shouldn’t function more as an abstract or teaser to let folks know, more specifically, the issues and situation that will be discussed and to encourage them to read on. Paul asked whether a representative of the committee might best write this part of the study. The actual name of this part of the study, “Summary,” was discussed and there seemed to be a consensus that “Overview” might be better. Also, the point was made that perhaps the Summary or Overview should more directly point to the parts of the Code the article will seek to explore. Nancy said that she would revisit the current Summary and send out a revision to the members of the committee.

Nancy asked for other comments and/or corrections/typos to the first case study, and that they be sent to her.

The question of a second example, thus helping to describe a range of acceptable submissions, might also be useful. Whereas this first example was very thorough, especially in its inclusion of a lit review, notes, etc., a second example might illustrate another style, perhaps with a lighter touch, that would also be acceptable. Nancy also volunteered to produce this second example. The point is that we want folks to know that there is a continuum of acceptable models.

In speaking about the case studies generally, it was noted that these could provide a great opportunity for newer colleagues to publish. Bill also mentioned that we should think about established folks in the field who we might want to approach to ask if they might produce a piece for the series to help get the ball rolling and to offer additional examples to potential writers.

Bill said that the discussion had been good. Also pointed out that these articles would be good as teaching pieces.

We spoke about issuing the call by 1 August and concluded that we were on target. Next would be to contact Chris (Prom) and Teresa (Brinati) of the Publications Board to get feedback on our examples and to let them know of our status. Someone also acknowledged that all accepted pieces would go through a copyediting process.

A question was raised whether we should distribute the case study examples when we put out the call. Bill’s suggestion that we put out the call, then add the examples online as illustrations met with the committee’s approval.

In terms of website publicity, we do want to direct folks to the website and, after seeing the Call for Case Studies, the examples provided. Sharon said that she was still able to do publicity surrounding the Call.

To conclude, Nancy said that she would distribute an agenda for our meeting on the 12th of August. Paul said that he would work up a set of talking points.

The meeting adjourned at, approximately, 11:30.

Submitted 18 July 2014

Marc Brodsky