Staff, students and friends of the Library are invited to contribute to the Library’s response to Refining Our Strategy.
If you have something to say that relates to Knowledge Transfer please leave a comment below.
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- Rosemary O'Shea on Open for comment – Knowledge Transfer
- Sally on Open for comment – Knowledge Transfer
- Commerce Undergraduate Student News » Commerce graduates: library cadetships now available on Law and business graduates: library cadetships now available
- Sally on 23 things and an avatar
- Nicki Mock on 23 things and an avatar
Archives
Tags
academic board accessibility approval process architecture consultation consultation process copyright e-research evidence feedback forums grants information management innovation learning library library systems literacy lms medieval help desk michael geist open access open source professional development progress project plan research scholarly communication scholarly literacy scope social media statistics strategy supersearch survey teaching tech support usability user experience vala video visualisation web2.0 wesch youtube
2 Comments
A small group of library staff met this morning to consider the library response to the Knowledge Transfer questions asked in Refining our Strategy.
Their feedback will be incorporated into a draft response which will be available for comment in early July.
The discussion of Knowledge Transfer in the Refining Our Strategy document focuses on engagement with the wider community and how this may be improved and facilitated. However as part of the overall debate, Knowledge Transfer/Exchange could also be considered as an internal activity worthy of a stronger focus. For example, how can we foster more inter-disciplinary research and collaboration within the University; how can we encourage greater sharing of knowledge across faculties; what mechanisms already support this and how can they be improved; what role might the Library play in helping to bring together and disseminate knowledge within the University? Such ‘internal knowledge transfer’ obviously already occurs in many ways, and is exemplified in the breadth subjects in the Melbourne Model. But perhaps more can be done to encourage greater sharing and collaboration. The concept of ‘virtual institutes’ to help coordinate activities across the campus is discussed in chapter 5 on Research, but how can we identify and encourage these emerging synergies in their earliest stages?