|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 8 Meeting "Policies at Other Institutions Subgroup" 2:30-4:00 p.m., SCC Conference Room Members attending: David Broome, Scott Despain, Lisa Grable, Peggy Hoon, Ernest Knowles, Carolyn Miller, Everette Prosise, Michael Rappa, Rebeca Rufty, Ross Whetten. Staff Attending: Annis Barbee Agenda: To distribute materials on copyright ownership policies at other institutions and articles on copyright ownership for members to read, study, and digest. To also discuss possible approaches to the study of existing policies and current arguments in order to reach a synthesis of ideas toward fulfilling the Task Force charge. Chair Whetten called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. Whetten announced that the full Task Force will meet again in November, and each member of the subgroup can present a synopsis of key ideas from his/her reading. Then the Task Force as a whole will, from that and from reports on pending legislation elaborated upon by the other subgroup, begin to formulate recommendations to the University Library Committee regarding university copyright ownership policy. Rufty introduced the newest member of the Task Force filling the graduate representative position. She is Lisa Grable, a graduate student recommended to Rufty by Dr. Margaret F. King, Associate Dean of the Graduate School. King recommended Grable due to the latter's extensive involvement in electronic publishing on campus. Grable noted that she is affiliated with two very large University Web projects. The first is Meridian, an interdepartmental, scholarly on-line journal about middle schools and computer technology. The other project is Science Junction, chosen by General Adminstration to be the main science Web site for the state of North Carolina, delivering science information for kids, parents, and teachers. Whetten announced that Luke Zettlemoyer, an undergraduate student affiliated with "IntelliMedia", had expressed interest in serving on the Task Force. He was unable to attend this meeting due to class conflicts. Whetten introduced Michael A. Rappa of the College of Management, newly appointed to the Task Force since the first meeting. Rappa stated that he has spent considerable time studying how faculty around the country use Web sites in their teaching. Additionally, Rappa described his past work in Washington D.C. as a member of a Presidential Advisory Committee examining communications issues and concerns surrounding the next generation on the Internet. Hoon explained that her criteria for selecting the policies for the Task Force Web site and for group review encompassed universities that had obviously spent substantial time reviewing the issue of copyright ownership and had not simply adopted a standard approach. However, she invited comment and other additions to the list from anyone regarding additional policies from other universities. Miller suggested that the subgroup focus on two primary areas: 1. Ownership of Research--between publishers and researchers 2. Ownership of Teaching Materials--between faculty and universities. Whetten responded that both of these issues are under consideration but suggested that so far there is no argument between faculty members and their universities. Several task force members did not agree with this, citing existing discussions and the issue of a new chancellor who may bring this argument to the fore. Whetten commented that works created outside of teaching might be a category the Task Force should address, if only to confirm existing policy. Whetten noted that perhaps the main focus of this group might be multimedia productions specifically aimed at student audiences for the purpose of teaching. Whetten recognized that the UNC draft document on copyright was not included in the policies to be read perhaps because it did not contain many specific recommendations. He briefly summarized that document, stating that a small group of attorneys deliberated last spring and drafted material now available on the Web. Whetten suggested that the URL for that paper should be given to the Task Force members. Whetten also noted that David Broome had access to all the material that David Drooz, Assistant University Counsel, had on policies at other institutions, so he might be able to give some input there if asked. The group discussed the logistics of working through e-mail to address the policies and articles they are reading. Whetten offered to draft a policy outline based upon the very thorough University of California System Policy document to which each member can respond in suggesting modifications based upon his/her own policy study. Whetten suggested that this work be done either through e-mail or through the Academic Affairs NetForum offered by Frank Abrams at the last Task Force meeting. This forum is now linked to the COTF Web page, and even though copyright is not currently a topic on that site, the group can begin such a discussion thread because the site is an open forum. Despain asked for the best method envisioned for responding to what is posted on the NetForum: issue by issue or in a total synopsis. Grable summarized that perhaps one large topic area could be initiated, and then smaller topic areas could be developed within that. The group agreed that each member would need to be made familiar with the general ideas of all of the policies so that the task force could reach synthesis in one document. The group also agreed that one month was sufficient time to work through material and make suggestions. Whetten stated that he would consult with Danehower on the pending legislation subgroup's work in planning for the next meeting of the full Task Force. Rufty announced that since the last meeting, she had looked at policies of the Graduate School, and Whetten agreed that this should be included in Rufty's study. Whetten also noted that anything Prosise might find in extension activities would be of help. Whetten summarized two goals for this study: "What belongs in a policy statement?", and "How will it be addressed?" Rappa suggested that if some members read the group of policies, synthesis could be more easily achieved. Perhaps identifying "formulas" within groups of policies would be more practical and constructive. Splitting up the policies may undercut the desire for synthesis. Rappa further contended that once policy "formulas" had been identified, the finer points of difference could be the focus. Hoon agreed that Rappa's evaluation regarding "formulas" was accurate but that the first nine policies on the Task Force Web site were printed for distribution because they did not firmly adhere to a formula. Whetten highlighted the Texas, Kansas, and California System documents as examples. Whetten agreed that Rappa's proposal would be useful but did not abandon the plan of using the NetForum as well in discussing the issue and trying to reach a synthesis. The open discussion would also help to educate the group on each of the policies. Grable added that eventually the group would want to have a visual for their work--a flow chart of some sort as a decision tree. Rufty noted that in her work in the Graduate School, considering peer institutions is important. She provided for the group a computer generated list of peer institutions. Miller suggested that the University Planning Web site contains a more current list of peer institutions for the University as a whole, and the group concurred that this list will be necessary to consult in the course of their work. Whetten concurred that the list will need to be consulted if only to say that our peers are not active in this topic right now. Rappa added that a systematic approach is necessary and that science and technological universities will need to be targeted for analysis due to the similar types of material they produce. The group agreed that science and technological universities would share a similar approach to copyright ownership concerns. Whetten suggested that the group look at CalTech's discussion between scholarly publishers and figures from academia. He noted that this is a good example of how the impending discussion is likely to be polarized. Whetten summarized that the group's task is to be able, as faculty, to articulate a goal so that the University can approach the issue with a single purpose in mind. The publishing industry, he noted, has already shown its unified approach. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Submitted by Annis Barbee |
||||||
|
Return to Ad hoc and Task Forces Return to COTF home page |
Comments may be sent to academic@ncsu.edu
Last Updated:3/23/99