Covid-19 ändrade förutsättningarna för biblioteket och dess användare. Linköpings Universitetsbibliotek (LiUB) ställde med kort framförhållning om sin verksamhet till distansläge, vilket innebar att erbjuda service, information och stöd så digitalt som möjligt. Öppettiderna reducerades kraftigt, förutsättningarna för att låna och komma åt fysiskt material ändrades, handledning och undervisning ställdes om till digitala lösningar. 

Tidigt diskuterades att vi ska tillvara det som är bra ur distansläget, lära oss och att framtiden blir en ny typ av normalläge. I en verksamhet med användarcentrerade metoder/ User experience (UX) som en central inriktning var det självklart att involvera användarna i utvärdering, utveckling och dra lärdomar.

Introduction. Digitisation of information and methods has brought new possibilities and challenges into all aspects of society and a direction of continued advances is readily apparent in strategic initiatives all the way from European and national funding to directives at individual academic institutions in Sweden. Resources that used to be available only in physical archives are becoming more freely accessible on the internet, far beyond the walls of the library, and in formats that can be read and interpreted by apps and algorithms.

Nine years ago, digital humanities (DH) was described as “the next big thing” and the concept has later been compared to an allegory of the future of the humanities (Liu, 2012). Today library employees encounter the term in their interactions with education and research alike. The process of understanding and framing the challenges and possibilities that DH has brought into the library has been a topic in parallel initiatives at Linköping University Library and at Uppsala University Library.

Questions. The purpose of this paper is to draw on the experience of academic libraries to frame the challenges and possibilities of supporting DH in a Nordic context. The paper aims to answer to the following questions from a Nordic academic library perspective:

• How do we understand to the notion of DH in the library?
• How do we (re)organise to support researchers and students in DH?

Background. Burdick (2012) writes that DH has encouraged new ways of conducting research in the humanities and that a possible effect is that traditional boundaries start to blur as collaborations between disciplines form. And the exploding wealth of computers, mobile devices and new communication channels enables global knowledge creation and sharing (Nyberg et al, 2012). As a consequence, the intersection of digital methods, technology and humanities can expand and enhance humanities research with increased accessibility both within and beyond the academic context (Burdick, 2012). Drucker et.al. (2013) and Raffaghelli et.al. (2013) describes DH as a mix of humanities and digital technology. Svensson (2010) define a Centre for Digital Humanities as the place or event where new knowledge is created in the humanities, with digital methods, media and technology. The idea of a place for DH has since been realised in Swedish universities e.g. in Umeå (Humlab) and Lund (Humanities Lab), and the idea of a DH lab is a recognised idea of how DH can be executed.

Within the library context, the characteristics of the sources and data formats that researchers in the humanities are working with are changing and it is possible to study significantly larger collections of pictures and texts than before (Liu, 2012). The fact that DH is a complex notion and that the conditions are quickly changing with new technology means that libraries have to develop readiness to meet the needs of today as well as those of tomorrow (Sula, 2013).

Svensson (2010) describes the library as a form of laboratory for humanities research and that knowledge in building collections, information science and IT make libraries a natural and important infrastructure for DH. Zhang et al (2015) studied how information experts can contribute in DH projects and underline the importance of expertise in storage and access, publishing, search, training and innovation. Green (2014) conducted case studies involving five libraries in the USA and show that a close collaboration with the library is necessary to optimise the research process. Wong (2016) stresses the strength in gathering experts and specialists from different fields as a part of bringing DH to its full potential.

Approach. This paper stems from the experience of practitioners who have been involved in efforts to organise support for DH at two academic libraries in Sweden. The discussion and conclusions are supported by the results of

• conducting lightly structured interviews, semi-structured observations and document analysis at libraries in the Sweden, Denmark, and the USA
• surveying how libraries in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland describe their work related to DH
• designing and evaluating DH-related activities for students and researchers at Uppsala University Library

The results are interpreted with a life-cycle perspective on research and education and focus on organisation, actors, activities, services, tools and spaces.

Findings. We confirm that Sula’s (2013) description of DH as a complex notion is valid in the Nordic academic library context as the results show that different people attribute the term with different meanings. There were libraries labelling themselves as not actively supporting DH, while at the same time describing activities that could just as well indicate that they are indeed active. We suggest that it may be useful for libraries to focus on emerging needs in relation to digital sources and methods, interdisciplinary research support, and new media for scholarly communications.

The result also showed that the surveyed Nordic academic libraries were at an early stage of organising work to support DH and predominantly positioned their activities as collaborations with researchers or participation in networks. Contrasting with the results from academic libraries where DH practices are already well established, we suggest that Nordic libraries can organise to support DH by

• Positioning staff/services close to active research and education with elements of DH
• Framing DH activities in the context of today’s goals and responsibilities
• Engaging staff with technical skills, subject expertise and a learning mindset (Lewis et al, 2015) in DH projects, labs and events
• Creating digital and physical spaces to support DH tools and practices
• Adopting and sharing practices and expertise with other libraries and academic infrastructures

Diskussion om vad digital humaniora (DH) betyder för biblioteken. Hur påverkar det den kompetens och infrastruktur som behövs för att stödja forskning och utbildning inom DH. Vad det kan få för konsekvenser för hur man organiserar arbetet.

LiUB consists of five libraries located at four campuses in three cities: Linkoping, Norrkoping and Stockholm. Four of them, located in Linkoping and Norrkoping, were involved in the process. During the years, there has been extensively book transports between different libraries. Sought after books were sent to the requested library, and then sent back to the owning library when returned. In December 2010 Linkoping University Library (LiUB) started to test Floating Collections as a new way of working with the collections. The test was coordinated with the implementation and change to Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and every time a new bought book appeared or when a book was transformed into the DDC-collection the floating collection grew. Floating Collections means that a book doesn‘t belong to a certain library. It is shelved where it is returned and therefore it will stay where it is in most demand.

The placement of books will be user-driven and the sharing of books leads to reduced handling and therefore less wear and tear on items, and also a more economic acquisition method. The reduced handling is connected to reduced number of books in transport when the former routine of sending books back to an owning library is removed. In this case study we have looked at the complete implementation process; from the first discussion, the test-start, the evaluation of the method which includes a staff survey, and finally the Boards decision that Floating Collection will be a permanent way to work with the collections at LiUB. The methodological approach mimics YinΒ‘s (2009) case study model. We also compared LiUB‘s implementation with other libraries experiences in implementing Floating Collection, and to Library 2.0 (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007), as the user needs will decide where the books are shelved. Further, the study is connected to factors that affects the realignment in changing processes and resembles Kotter (1996) and Nutefall‘s and Chadwell‘s (2012) factors for successful realignment.

The study revealed that staff concerns and other experiences relating to Floating Collection at LiUB are similar to other libraries. A main issue for staff on the negative side is weeding routines, but on the positive side you will find advantages like more user-driven collection, a reduced number of books in transport and a reduced number of purchased items. Some of the negative effects that is expressed in the survey is probably depending on the transformation into DDC and not due to Floating Collection. An example is that the possibility to browse is lost, which is more likely due to DDC, since DDC categorize the topics in a very different way than the former classification system (SAB).

This paper explores participant perceptions of the impact of a Peer Observation of Teaching scheme offered to teaching librarians at Linköping University library.Information literacy sessions or support are offered to almost all students in all courses at Linköping University. Instructional duties have become a common expectation for librarians working in academic libraries. As a teaching librarian you normally divide your time between reference services, collection development and information literacy instruction. But without little formal training in the teaching role you can become very insecure. It’s not uncommon that you feel left alone especially in the support of continuing professional development. Therefore it’s necessary for academic librarians to talk and reflect about their teaching. Peer observation through critical friends is one way to demonstrate that we are reflecting on the quality of our teaching, learning and assessment practices. The relationship between critical friends is one that encourages and cultivates constructive critique. But it’s important that the main conditions exists, besides the obvious trust and commitment, namely to have knowledge of the context of the teaching environment. The librarians at Linköping University teach the “same” students and face the same challenges.In preparation for the introduction of a peer observation of teaching scheme, a seminar was offered to staff. Our hope was that the librarians involved could see that this initiative could lead to professional development that improves both teaching practices and hopefully also student performance. Many senior librarians are themselves, experienced, effective teachers and therefore, they were likely to be competent observers of various aspects of the teaching conducted at the library. The librarian requesting observation met the observing librarian to discuss the objectives of the observation. A limited number of focused objectives was chosen that could address specific items on which the librarian desired feedback. The observing librarian attended the library session and took notes on the session with the objectives in mind.We assessed the effort by using two types of data collection tools, a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The latter were used to add depth and quality of the data collected in the questionnaire. Information was collected from all participants. The questionnaire consisted of closed questions to gain relevant factual data. A pilot questionnaire was answered and assessed by two critical friends ensuring that the questions were clear and valid. The preliminary results indicated that most of the participants were satisfied with the possibility to be able to self-reflect on how this process positively can impact their teaching skills. The peer observation process seemed to provide both the observee and the observer with the opportunity to mutually enhance the quality of their teaching practice. It also provided an opportunity to disseminate good practice amongst colleagues by sharing thoughts on teaching practice and supporting each other’s development of teaching skills.This process was not about getting everyone to teach in the same way, it was about helping individuals to reflect on and evaluate their own approach to teaching. It was expected that both parties in the observation would benefit from the discussions arising.