1. PhD on Track – designing learning for PhD students By Gunhild Austrheim and Eystein Gullbekk

3. National Qualification Framework (examples) Knowledge: - is in the forefront of knowledge within his/her academic field and masters the field´s philosophy of science and/or artistic issues and methods General competence: - can communicate research and development work through recognized Norwegian and international channels (The Ministry of Education and Research, 2009)

4. A doctoral programme has booked a librarian! Research support What kind of support do they need? Which challenges do our librarians face?

5. Presentation in two parts 1212 Introducing PhD on Track User involvement

6. 1 PhD on Track

9. Information Management for Knowledge Creation (2010 – 2013) 1.A study on PhD students’ information behavior and their perceived needs 2.Developing and testing online modules Project partners: The university libraries in Oslo, Bergen and Ålborg and the libraries at The Norwegian School of Economics and Bergen University College Partly funded by the National Library of Norway Gullbekk, E., Rullestad, T., & Torras i Calvo, M.-C. (ed.) (2012). PhD candidates and the research process: The library's contribution. (Vol. 8). Oslo: Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo.

10. Evaluating Research Mapping Research Publishing Research Literature Review Reference Chasing Motivation Choosing where to publish How to get published Publishing Open AccessAuthorship Copyright Reference Management

11. Principles in content development Illustrate challenges Demonstrate possible procedures Explain and clarify principles and perspectives Provoke decision making and reflection

12. Developing digital resources 1.Design and technical development (contract, Centre for New Media) 2.Developing and editing content (project group) 3.User testing and quality assurance (project group) The project: second phase

13. 2 User involvement - adjusting PhD on Track

14. User involvement Getting to know the target audience Characteristics of PhD students are often determined by: – Discipline – Research projects – Prior educational experiences – Familiarity with our topics

15. User testing methodology Focus group interviews with phd students and supervisors (2011) Testing with wireframes (2012) Usability testing (2012/2013) Personas and expert evaluation (2012/2013)

16. Testing… We tested: – Navigation – how to find… – Content – important with feedback Students involved in testing were selected as to give variation on: – Disciplines – Stage of PhD – Age and gender

18. Feedback from user involvement Navigation works – logic and meaningful Understood as a course Positive to content and the need for the site Well-liked design Relevance – useful, one-stop, topics Feedback from librarians indicated this would be useful in connection with PhD courses

21. Necessary adjustments Front page – Present the web site Language – Avoid library jargon Concise text on introductory pages More depth on content More examples More discipline specific content

22. Illustrate challenges

24. Demonstrate possible procedures

26. Explain and clarify principles and perspectives

28. Provoke decision making and reflection

31. Gains from user involvement Awareness of issues and challenges – we could make changes Adjustments vis-à-vis the vendor Helped us focus on the user needs – and not library needs Confirming the right choices Focus on target audience – new PhD students Focus on strategies – not recipies

32. Looking forward Further development – Editors – Dialogue with similar projects/products – Considerations on additional topics – Follow-up user testing – Marketing and implementation Continuing feedback - ASK US button

33. Thank you for your attention!