In the Company of My Peers: Implementation of RDA in Canada

Describes the progress made toward implementing <i>Resource Description and Access</i> (RDA) in libraries across Canada, as of Fall 2013. Differences in the training experiences in the English-speaking cataloging communities and French-speaking cataloging communities are discussed. Preliminary results of a survey of implementation in English-Canadian libraries are included as well as a summary of the support provided for French-Canadian libraries. Data analysis includes an examination of the rate of adoption in Canada by region and by sector. Challenges in RDA training delivery in a Canadian context are identified, as well as opportunities for improvement and expansion of RDA training in the future.

In the Company of My Peers: Implementation of RDA in Canada

Describes the progress made toward implementing <i>Resource Description and Access</i> (RDA) in libraries across Canada, as of Fall 2013. Differences in the training experiences in the English-speaking cataloging communities and French-speaking cataloging communities are discussed. Preliminary results of a survey of implementation in English-Canadian libraries are included as well as a summary of the support provided for French-Canadian libraries. Data analysis includes an examination of the rate of adoption in Canada by region and by sector. Challenges in RDA training delivery in a Canadian context are identified, as well as opportunities for improvement and expansion of RDA training in the future.

Changing channels: an exploration of disruptive technologies and the challenges they pose to English-Canadian television product

"The audience wants to be able to watch a program when they want - in fact most every technological innovation adopted by the television industry has had some aspect in its design to fulfil that desire. I'm interested in how technologies facilitate audiences in finding a way to watch what they want to, when they want to. I'm also interested in (and to be frank, somewhat anxious since I work in television) what new pitfalls and possibilities the latest technologies pose for the future of television production and distribution in Canada. As we'll lean later, there are technological changes afoot that could sideswipe the effort of generations of Canadian broadcast policymakers and topple the Canadian television industry in their wake. Ours is a fragile television broadcasting system, crippled by a deeply divided policy framework based on two opposing philosophies -- one that puts an emphasis on television's role as a public service and another that emphasizes its commercial purposes and profitability. I will evaluate whether that policy framework is equipped to safeguard Canada's precarious television industry against what some say is an inevitable tidal wave of American domination heading our way. But first I want to investigate whether American domination of our TV sets is such a horror. If television doesn't really matter when it comes to our cultural and national sovereignty, I might as well stop writing right now. But as we'll learn, it does matter. While there is much debate over how television plays a role in our functioning as a sovereign society there is a general consensus that something is happening when we watch TV. It is to the problem of what that something is that I turn to first."--Pages 1-2.

Changing channels: an exploration of disruptive technologies and the challenges they pose to English-Canadian television product

"The audience wants to be able to watch a program when they want - in fact most every technological innovation adopted by the television industry has had some aspect in its design to fulfil that desire. I'm interested in how technologies facilitate audiences in finding a way to watch what they want to, when they want to. I'm also interested in (and to be frank, somewhat anxious since I work in television) what new pitfalls and possibilities the latest technologies pose for the future of television production and distribution in Canada. As we'll lean later, there are technological changes afoot that could sideswipe the effort of generations of Canadian broadcast policymakers and topple the Canadian television industry in their wake. Ours is a fragile television broadcasting system, crippled by a deeply divided policy framework based on two opposing philosophies -- one that puts an emphasis on television's role as a public service and another that emphasizes its commercial purposes and profitability. I will evaluate whether that policy framework is equipped to safeguard Canada's precarious television industry against what some say is an inevitable tidal wave of American domination heading our way. But first I want to investigate whether American domination of our TV sets is such a horror. If television doesn't really matter when it comes to our cultural and national sovereignty, I might as well stop writing right now. But as we'll learn, it does matter. While there is much debate over how television plays a role in our functioning as a sovereign society there is a general consensus that something is happening when we watch TV. It is to the problem of what that something is that I turn to first."--Pages 1-2.

Managing the Mosaic: diversity of voices and deliberative policy making in English Canadian media

This study investigates viewpoints on policy for diversity in media subsequent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC),s 2007-5 diversity of voices proceedings and subsequent CRTC 2008-4 regulatory changes. The policy proceedings were designed to aggregate and act upon the many policy preferences and conceptions of media diversity within Canada's complex media mosaic. Research reported here uses Q methodology, complemented with conventional survey questions and open-ended qualitative questions, to identify and interpret the plurality of subjective viewpoints surrounding the diversity debate and the CRTC's deliberative policymaking processes. Research identified four principal viewpoints regarding policy for media diversity, based on concerns about minority representation, industry consolidation, Canadian cultural expression, and a comprehensive marketplace of ideas. It also considers various stakeholder viewpoints on the CRTC's 2007-5 deliberative proceedings, and the extent to which the Commission's deliberative processes meet the four deliberative democratic pillars of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.

Managing the Mosaic: diversity of voices and deliberative policy making in English Canadian media

This study investigates viewpoints on policy for diversity in media subsequent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC),s 2007-5 diversity of voices proceedings and subsequent CRTC 2008-4 regulatory changes. The policy proceedings were designed to aggregate and act upon the many policy preferences and conceptions of media diversity within Canada's complex media mosaic. Research reported here uses Q methodology, complemented with conventional survey questions and open-ended qualitative questions, to identify and interpret the plurality of subjective viewpoints surrounding the diversity debate and the CRTC's deliberative policymaking processes. Research identified four principal viewpoints regarding policy for media diversity, based on concerns about minority representation, industry consolidation, Canadian cultural expression, and a comprehensive marketplace of ideas. It also considers various stakeholder viewpoints on the CRTC's 2007-5 deliberative proceedings, and the extent to which the Commission's deliberative processes meet the four deliberative democratic pillars of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.

Managing the mosaic: diversity of voices and deliberative policy making in English Canadian media

This study investigates viewpoints on policy for diversity in media subsequent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)’s 2007-5 diversity of voices proceedings and subsequent CRTC 2008-4 regulatory changes. The policy proceedings were designed to aggregate and act upon the many policy preferences and conceptions of media diversity within Canada’s complex media mosaic. Research reported here uses Q methodology, complemented with conventional survey questions and open-ended qualitative questions, to identify and interpret the plurality of subjective viewpoints surrounding the diversity debate and the CRTC’s deliberative policymaking processes. Research identified four principal viewpoints regarding policy for media diversity, based on concerns about minority representation, industry consolidation, Canadian cultural expression, and a comprehensive marketplace of ideas. It also considers various stakeholder viewpoints on the CRTC’s 2007-5 deliberative proceedings, and the extent to which the Commission’s deliberative processes meet the four deliberative democratic pillars of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.

Managing the mosaic: diversity of voices and deliberative policy making in English Canadian media

This study investigates viewpoints on policy for diversity in media subsequent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)’s 2007-5 diversity of voices proceedings and subsequent CRTC 2008-4 regulatory changes. The policy proceedings were designed to aggregate and act upon the many policy preferences and conceptions of media diversity within Canada’s complex media mosaic. Research reported here uses Q methodology, complemented with conventional survey questions and open-ended qualitative questions, to identify and interpret the plurality of subjective viewpoints surrounding the diversity debate and the CRTC’s deliberative policymaking processes. Research identified four principal viewpoints regarding policy for media diversity, based on concerns about minority representation, industry consolidation, Canadian cultural expression, and a comprehensive marketplace of ideas. It also considers various stakeholder viewpoints on the CRTC’s 2007-5 deliberative proceedings, and the extent to which the Commission’s deliberative processes meet the four deliberative democratic pillars of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.