By Shelley Quezada, Consultant to the Underserved at the MBLC
The town of Chilmark on Martha’s Vineyard was once known for its larger than average population of traditionally Deaf residents. Decades ago, in the Squibnocket area of Chilmark perhaps as many as a quarter of the population was Deaf. On this part of the island, almost one out of every 25 people was Deaf compared with the national average of one in 5728. Today members of Deaf community may choose to communicate through American Sign Language (ASL) but in past decades a Chilmark a variant known as Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language (MVSL) was practiced by both Deaf and hearing members of the community alike.
The Chilmark Free Public Library maintains a fascinating record of this unique community in their historical archives. As it turns out, The American School for the Deaf (ASD) founded in Hartford CT in 1817 included many students from Martha’s Vineyard who used MVSL as their primary form of communication.
Chronicled in Nora Ellen Groce’s scholarly but accessible book Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language, up to a few decades ago Chilmark was something akin to a Deaf utopia where both Deaf and hearing members of the community freely used sign language as a primary communication vehicle. People moving into Chilmark from the outside often ended up learning MVSL in order to fit in and indeed there was high acceptance of this communication tool. Most important in examining this fascinating story is the truth that being Deaf was never considered a handicap.
The Chilmark library’s archives note they are, “lucky to have documents of their evocative memories, and to enjoy their stories of how children signed behind a schoolteacher’s back; adults signed to one another during church sermons; farmers signed to their children across a wide field; and how fishermen signed to each other from their boats.”
However, over a seventy-year span, members of the Deaf community began to attend off-island schools, got married and settled in other places so that eventually many of these Vineyard natives either left or passed away. This absorbing piece of cultural history can be further explored through newspaper and magazine articles, a recent YouTube video and the archives of the Chilmark Free Public Library’s historical archives.
Groce, Nora Ellen .Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Harvard University Press, 1995.
Vineyard Poole-Nash, Joan (April 3, 2014). Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language (MSVL) of the past (Public lecture/YouTube video). Fall River, Massachusetts: Bristol Community College. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_euOAP8asw
Shopping for Statewide Databases : Chasing the Best Value for the Commonwealth
By Paul Kissman, MBLC Library Information Systems Specialist
We’ve just completed a procurement process for the next set of statewide databases, a fifteen month long odyssey. There were moments that put me in mind of those old shopping-themed TV game shows. Some days we were contestants on Supermarket Sweep, as we frenetically raced the clock to put as much quality content in the cart as possible before the bell rang. At other times, we were competing on The Price is Right, guessing at that ineffable figure, the actual dollar value of a database.
But it was no game, and there were no big prize winners at the end. With a 30% reduction in funding we knew right from the start that the results of our efforts were going to be bittersweet. We are proud of what we accomplished, and Massachusetts libraries will continue to have a strong core set of databases. But we also know that we have lost access to some very important products; our shared resources are that much smaller.
Where Do We Stand and How Did We Get Here?
Beginning July 1, Massachusetts libraries will have the same three vendors and a set of database products that looks an awful lot like what we have today — just diminished.
Some of you may wonder, “Why all the sound and fury then? Why the big process?” Are we complacent, taking the path of least resistance? Maybe we lack the courage to try something new or maybe we have a hidden bias in favor of the incumbent vendors and familiar products.
Though we heard from many libraries and invited input along the way, including a month-long open trial and vendor demonstrations to representative stakeholders, our decision-making process may look like a black box to many of you. Without going into the gory details, here is what the procurement looked like from the inside.
Peeking Under the Hood
Who exactly sets the stage and makes the final procurement decisions? MBLC and MLS, with a sprinkling of Library for the Commonwealth. These three organizations have worked hard to complement each other’s offerings. With shrinking budgets and other critical priorities we can’t afford not to. Though I’d like to think we would anyway.
MBLC appointed an advisory committee of ten very smart and knowledgeable librarians from academic, school and public libraries to help guide us through this process. They were content specialists — the ones doing bibliographic instruction, working with teachers, students and the general public every day. Their contributions were incredibly valuable. They each represented their own library types’ interests but showed great sensitivity to how different products would be valued by users of all types of libraries. Not an easy thing to do. They analyzed product titles to gauge full-text content, overlap, uniqueness and value. I came out of the process with tremendous respect for their skills and experience, and I am grateful that they were there every step of the way. Thanks guys!
We first began to experiment with databases for all regional members twenty years ago. Gale/Cengage, then Information Access Company, was our first provider with some general periodical content. Since that time we have run five procurements and have contemplated many approaches. We’ve considered targeted solutions for different library types: school-centric products for schools, more specialized databases for our academics and special libraries, local newspaper products only available to parts of the state. We’ve tried creating a market basket, where preferential pricing was offered for libraries or groups wishing to supplement what the state could offer. Five years ago, we managed to expand the subject areas and types of resources, asking for genealogy and language learning products, both general and specialized encyclopedias. Though the genealogy and language products didn’t pan out, we were able to add a general encyclopedia for the first time.
We have to find products that appeal to all types of libraries. The scope of the our procurement is determined by usage statistics and surveys. Usage statistics are necessarily limited to current product offerings. However, when establishing the procurement scope, we only use these statistics to draw inferences about subject coverage, not about particular titles from particular vendors. The only exception to this rule is The Boston Globe, a specific title. A large library survey in the spring of 2016 gave us broader insight into library preferences.
Why Do We Always Seem to End Up with the Same Vendors?
The answer is fairly straightforward. They have consistently provided the best value for the Commonwealth. It doesn’t mean that this will always be the case.
In the past we’ve disqualified vendors because they could not demonstrate the capability to roll out services statewide, work with our statewide login process (geolocation for users in Massachusetts) or set up 1,600+ library accounts. They couldn’t provide interoperability with library discovery systems and knowledgebases, provide granular usage statistics and related management tools. Not this time. All six vendors were sufficiently qualified.
We try really hard to be objective and open to new solutions. I know that I get enthused about new products, new platforms, new vendors. I also like to see the progress that familiar companies have made with their user interfaces. From one procurement cycle to the next, the three big periodical vendors, EBSCO, ProQuest and Gale seem to leapfrog past each other in user interface design and usability . This time around all three main platforms were really solid, with contemporary interfaces providing excellent user experience. That hasn’t always been the case.
From the library community we hear competing interests. Some academics have urged us to license EBSCO so they can repurpose their limited budgets. Public libraries and schools may not want us to change vendors because then they would have to extensively retool and retrain patrons.
There is no alchemical mixture of intangibles at work here. As with any rigorous procurement, we use weighted score sheets to evaluate the various components of each proposal. Content (which is weighted most heavily), organizational qualifications, technical qualifications, ability to license to all our users, all are evaluated and quantified. Cost is the last factor we look at.
What’s on Offer
It is important to remember, we can only evaluate what the vendors propose. Sometimes librarians will ask why we didn’t license a particular product. Often the answer is, “It wasn’t proposed”. Sometimes products are simply out of scope. Sometimes proposed packages don’t provide enough valuable content to schools, or academics, or even to public libraries.
Sometimes there is not a good business case from the vendor perspective. We can’t afford to replace the large base of existing academic contracts for products like Academic Search Premier from EBSCO. EBSCO has indicated that a statewide offering this comprehensive would be way beyond our means and so they don’t propose it. Thus, academic libraries see they will need to keep their EBSCO contracts, but they also find tremendous value in Gale Academic OneFile as a complement to their own locally-licensed content.
The Globe is the Globe. We reached out directly to both the Boston Globe and New York Times, but they declined to bid. For the Globe, ProQuest was the only game in town.
Encyclopedias – World Book and Britannica were both highly esteemed products. Britannica appealed more to public and academic libraries, as World Book seemed more targeted to K-9. At the end of the day, Britannica had the broadest appeal, and was the product that we could afford.
So here we are, entering a new fiscal year with old friends. We ended up here for good reasons. Maybe next time around things will turn out differently.
This blog post was written by former MBLC Director Dianne Carty. Dianne retired on June 2, 2017.
Recently it was suggested to me that I write a good-bye blog post. Any number of clichés immediately popped into my brain, such that I could not write anything without cringing at my own words.
There is never a good time to transition out of a job as critical as Director of the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. I know that until the last minute of the last hour on my last day, there will be some communication or some issue that needs attention. It will be difficult to let it go, to let it be.
As I look at my time at the Board of Library Commissioners, it is not just the past few years that are foremost in my reminiscence, but the many years I spent digging into and shaping the State Aid program, advancing the collection of data for libraries to use and working with some incredibly wise, creative and committed people at the MBLC and throughout the library community. These last four years have been exceedingly full of activity and opportunity. Of particular note are the Strategic Planning process and the review of the State Aid to Public Libraries program. Both of these endeavors are near completion and promise to result in a more collaborative approach to programs and services for the library community of Massachusetts. I was extremely fortunate to be in my current position when the MBLC reached the 125 year milestone two years ago and to be part of the celebration. In recent years existing partnerships were strengthened and new connections formed, including the Social Law Library, the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth, the Department of Children and Families, the Kennedy Library, and the Massachusetts Coalition for Serious Illness Care. The MBLC opened another Public Library Construction grant round and received 33 applications that are near the end of the review and selection process. It has been a speedy four years and I am so very proud to have been part of the MBLC during this time.
We at the MBLC are about libraries, but ultimately we are about unfettered access to information by all residents of the Commonwealth. I am proud to have served at the Board of Library Commissioners in several capacities. Let me underscore the verb to serve—for that is what government work is—it is service to people and service that ensures access to information remains open and free for all people.
Libraries are the instruments of democracy; we in the library community have much work ahead of us. And with this work we also have the opportunity to create and to lead a way through the present into the future. The completion of the Board of Library Commissioners’ Strategic Planning document will be the start of the realization of a new way forward.
It is difficult for me to put words to paper or verbalize my emotions. My years at the MBLC have meant continual growth for me and gaining a deeper understanding of the complex, living organism that is Massachusetts and its library community. It is now time for another to enjoy and experience the fulfillment and gratification that comes from being at the MBLC and working with all levels of government and the library community.