🧪 Registration is now open for our 2026 Meeting! 🧑‍💻 REGISTER HERE. đź”
All times listed are in USA Eastern Time.
Jump to Day 1 -- Jump to Day 2 -- Jump to Day 3
Amy S Van Epps (Director of Sciences and Engineering Services Harvard University)
Lillian Amaral (Reference, Collections, and Instruction Librarian for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University)
Rebecca Parmer (Head of Biodiversity and Natural History Libraries, Harvard University) Tina Helt (Chemistry Librarian, Harvard University)
Ehsan Moghadam (Data Services Librarian for the Sciences, Harvard University)
During the summer 2026, we had an opportunity to work with a current undergraduate from another institution for a 6-week internship, designed to learn what it means to be an academic STEM librarian. The undergraduate home institution has a program that pays for the learning opportunity, if the student finds one that works for their interests. The division manager for science and engineering libraries was contacted about the possibility of working with them for the summer.
This lightning talk will present the structure used for the internship, a quick look at the areas of librarianship included, and any insights we learned through the process.
The manager worked with a group of STEM librarians to help shape the experience to provide a breadth of opportunities and explore many different aspects of the work, including reference and instruction, the differences in science disciplines, collection development, data services, evidence synthesis, and analyzing current job opportunities.
Since the student is still an undergraduate, we could not make any assumptions that might be made with a library school student on what they had already learned. As a result, the 6-weeks were designed as a combination of learning, readings, and discussions along with a collection of small projects that both helped the library and provided contextual learning.
The intern was offered 10 different small projects to select from, with the idea that they could complete at most 6 of them. The projects spanned the areas of learning during the internship, and were all crafted to have some form of deliverable or tangible outcome at the conclusion, so the intern has a small portfolio of work to take with them at the end of the summer.
Managing the internship with a group shared the work of regular check-ins and managing projects with the intern, while also accommodating existing plans for conferences, vacations, and other reasons people would be out of the office during the summer. It also offered the intern the ability to work with a number of different people with different management and organization skills and different roles within the organization.
At the end of 6 weeks, there was a small presentation session where the intern was able to talk about the different projects, show the deliverables, and talk about what was learned with each activity.
Ellen Cline (Engineering and Physical Science Librarian, Elon University)
While mathematics/statistics departments are often included in a STEM librarian’s list of liaison responsibilities, instruction opportunities with this area can seem hard to come by. In fall 2025, the author taught a library session for a first-year statistics course. The class covered familiar ground: basic data literacy, places to search, and included time for guided individual work. What went well, what went poorly, and what fell somewhere in between? Is the M in STEM librarian overlooked in discussions of library instruction strategy? This lightning talk includes highlights from the class itself, strategies for relationship building with math/stats departments, and lessons learned in the process.
Tricia Martone (Science Librarian, Lehigh University)
In 2023, I developed an "Introduction to Overleaf (LaTeX)" code-along workshop. Based on The Carpentries' instructional methodology, I have since offered this workshop every academic term across two different institutions and in virtual and in-person formats. Participant feedback has been consistently positive, highlighting the workshop's success in making LaTeX approachable to beginners, while constructive feedback has guided iterative improvements and led to the development of a second workshop in the series. In this lightning talk, I will share my lessons learned from designing and teaching these code-alongs, including effective session structuring, limiting content covered, managing pacing, and practical strategies to prevent learners from falling behind.
Justin Fuhr (Science Liaison Librarian, University of Manitoba)
As a liaison covering engineering, mathematics, physics, and astronomy, I used to think every in-class instruction session needs to be an award winning, discipline-specific presentation. But after years of in-class teaching, I've changed the way I prepare these presentations: the skills I am teaching are far more universal across disciplines compared to the content I teach.
Liaisons default to teaching students the tools of the subjects we support, such as Compendex or SciFinder. However most undergraduates don't need a specialist tool; they need transferable information literacy skills: how to evaluate a source, how to know when they've searched enough, or how to tell a review article from a primary research study. Discipline-specific database instruction is often solving problems students don't have.
Concepts like differentiating source types and search strategy development don't change much whether the topic is construction material fatigue or exoplanet observation. Once I separated my pedagogical goals from discipline-specific examples, I stopped rebuilding the presentation structure for every class and focused on answering a narrower question: what does this class look like on top of the pedagogical foundation I already have? I think of this through the lens of the Job Demands-Resources model: reusing instructional sessions is a resource liaison librarians can use, contrasted against the ever-expanding demands of liaison portfolios
In this lightning talk, I'll walk through engineering and physics examples that demonstrate how I reuse and structure in-class library instruction, an approach which can be applied to all STEM disciplines. This lightning talk is aimed at STEM liaisons who cover multiple subjects and want a practical way to think about library instruction design, shifting how to look at sessions you have already developed.
Solomon Joseph Ameen (Research & Learning Librarian, University of California, Merced)
I’ve worked in the same relatively small university library for over 20 years, holding a variety of positions and have served as a librarian for the last decade. I’m the only librarian on our small team that is STEM focused, among a number of other responsibilities. In my time here I’ve had a lot of success, there were also two ILS migrations, a pandemic, necessary staffing changes and the loss of a parent and friends. There are some things that we all have to deal with, but everyone also has their own set of problems, triggers and responses. I know how difficult it can be to get back to a good place after feeling like you are underwater.
I will share my experiences, the ups and downs; specifically as they relate to burnout, changes in management and job responsibilities and how I’ve begun to change my perspective and mental headspace in chaotic and uncertain times. There are a lot of things that we can’t really talk about at work. It can be hard to share and it’s easy to feel isolated. My goal is to let people know they aren't alone and to share what I've learned along the way. Including what I have learned and some of the things that have helped me stay positive and motivated.
Angela Whitehurst (Engineering & Technology Librarian, East Carolina University)
Librarians at East Carolina University are being asked to provide workshops which address gaps in research skills or emerging competencies that cannot be taught during one-shot instruction sessions due to time constraints. These workshops will be provided in addition to regularly scheduled information literacy sessions. With limited time for planning, it is difficult to determine which topics are valuable and will attract the most attendees, especially in the disciplines of engineering and technology. How can librarians identify relevant workshop topics, evaluate demand, and determine the best outreach strategies to attract and maintain participants for recurring workshops? What advice would you provide librarians investigating the provision of workshops particularly in the disciplines of engineering, technology, computer science or related fields?
Alex Wieker (Plant Sciences Librarian, University of Minnesota)
Hannah Cabullo (Engineering Librarian, University of Minnesota)
In this short presentation, we will overview how literature discovery using common generative AI chatbots compares to a standard database search, for topics in two STEM disciplines–plant sciences and engineering. We explore the chatbots to which we have institutional access, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini Deep Research. We explore the overall process of discovering relevant literature via chatbot, in particular whether the specific functionalities typical to literature databases are possible (e.g. RIS file export). We also compare outputs from the chatbots and typical database searches to compare overlap of coverage. We will discuss our process of developing and using prompts for various personas (e.g. undergraduate student, graduate student, faculty member), and wrangling the chatbots to do what we want. The motivation behind this exploration is to have more specific information at hand when communicating with researchers about the pros and cons of different methods for discovering literature.
Katie Youmans (Sciences Teaching and Learning Librarian, University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
Generative AI has become one of the most emotionally charged topics in higher education. Students bring anxiety, guilt, and confusion about when and how to use it appropriately. Faculty bring fear about academic integrity, skepticism about their discipline's future, and sometimes quiet panic about the destabilization of their own expertise. Colleagues bring disagreement about what libraries should even teach. As STEM librarians, we increasingly find ourselves at the center of these conversations; technical fluency with AI tools is only part of what the moment requires.
Before entering academic librarianship, I spent several years working in mental health services, public libraries, and customer-facing roles. Those positions taught me how to sit with someone's anxiety without rushing to fix it, how to de-escalate a defensive reaction, and how to build enough trust to have a hard conversation that could actually produce results. I didn't expect those skills to become central to my work as a STEM librarian. But nearly every meaningful AI-related conversation I have — be it with a student overwhelmed by conflicting information about AI tools, a faculty member rethinking long-standing approaches to teaching and assessment, or a colleague navigating uncertainty about how the library can contribute meaningfully— starts as an emotional conversation before it becomes a technical one.
This presentation argues that emotional intelligence is an essential form of expertise in effective AI literacy instruction. Combining my study and experience in the fields of mental health and library science, and drawing upon real moments from consultations, instruction sessions, and campus conversations about AI, I'll explore how emotional intelligence shows up as functional expertise with examples like:
As librarians take on a growing role in campus AI literacy efforts, the skill set required extends well beyond understanding the tools themselves. Attendees will leave with a sharper framework for recognizing the emotional terrain underneath AI conversations on their own campuses, and a genuine question to carry home: are we — and our institutions — investing in the human skills this moment actually demands, or only in the technical ones?
Jeff Lang (Founder & CEO, FigureTwo)
Starting with the wide availability of frontier AI models, accessibility conversations in scholarly communication have converged toward a single fix: add alt-text and call it done. Machine generated alt-text can be a significant improvement, but leaves so much rich information out of reach while STEM researchers, students, and the public are left grappling with figures and data that could benefit from a wholistic approach to accessibility.
Drawing on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the compliance pressure created by ADA Title II and the European Accessibility Act (EAA), this session will walk through the accessibility gaps that alt-text alone can't close, and why closing them improves usability for nearly everyone in the room, not just those who identify as disabled. Accessibility is the foundation of a truly open scientific record.
The talk will also draw a direct parallel to the FAIR data movement. FAIR succeeded because campuses built infrastructure — library services, repositories, mentorship — around making data machine-accessible. Accessibility for human readers could benefit from this approach. I'll make the case that STEM librarians are uniquely positioned to close that gap, since many already sit at the intersection of data services, instruction, and publishing support.
Zoë Mooneyhan (Research and Instruction Librarian, New Jersey Institute of Technology)
Kennedy Jones (Architecture, Art & Design Librarian, New Jersey Institute of Technology)
The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) is an R1 STEM institution serving around 13,000 students across five primarily STEM-focused colleges. To support institutional goals of student success and cross-disciplinary collaboration, the NJIT Library launched "Hack the Library", a semester-long, proof-of-concept competition. Adapted from NYU's Dibner Library model, our version was tailored to fit a leaner budget and broader student community. This first iteration successfully engaged thirteen student teams in the initial proposal phase, with seven developing in-depth written proposals, and four advancing to the final pitch presentation delivered at a live Final Showcase.
Grounded in experiential learning, the competition paired student teams with library mentors and hosted workshops delivered by campus stakeholders to solve a real-world campus challenge. This year students' proposals centered on the theme of improving wayfinding in the library, with groups suggesting apps, kiosks, and website integrations. This presentation will detail our journey of scaling and adapting this program. We will share our framework, budgetary breakdowns, and outreach strategies so that attendees can replicate or scale down this model at their own institutions. While we ran the program for the entire university community, this competition would also do well as a targeted program for students in a single college or discipline.
Crucially, we will discuss the "teachable failures" from our pilot year, including logistical hurdles and the expected, and unexpected, ways in which the rise of generative AI impacted student submissions. While students were allowed to use AI, with some guardrails, they had to explicitly disclose what tools were used and to what extent. We are anticipating the need to adjust the current deliverables with AI in mind to make them more "AI-resistant" and encourage deep critical thinking regardless of AI use.
Attendees will leave this session with resources to launch their own library innovation competitions. To ensure an active virtual environment, the session will incorporate live polling to gauge audience institutional constraints and will conclude with a dedicated Q&A focused on troubleshooting participant-specific ideas for local adaptation.
Elizabeth Dawson (Assistant Professor of Library Science & Science Librarian, University of Alaska, Fairbanks)
Systematic reviews are among the most methodologically complex research projects undertaken by graduate students, yet many students engage with library support only after key decisions have already been made. At the same time, science librarians are increasingly expected to support evidence synthesis projects despite varying levels of formal training, limited capacity, and growing demand for assistance. This presentation describes the development of a thirteen-module instructional series designed to provide STEM graduate students with structured, foundational guidance throughout the systematic review process.
Created by a new science librarian, the project emerged from the need to provide meaningful support while simultaneously building local expertise and sustainable service capacity. Rather than relying solely on one-on-one consultations, the instructional sequence offers students point-of-need guidance on core components of the systematic review process, including question development, search strategy design, database selection, documentation practices, screening, and reporting standards. The modules were intentionally designed to be embedded within courses, shared asynchronously, or used independently by students, allowing faculty to integrate research support without adding to their instructional workload.
This presentation will examine the rationale, design process, and implementation of the instructional series, highlighting how existing librarian expertise in information literacy, research instruction, and learning design can be leveraged to support graduate-level evidence synthesis projects. Particular attention will be given to the challenges of developing systematic review services in contexts where librarian expertise is still emerging and where demand exceeds available consultation capacity.
Attendees will gain practical strategies for creating scalable systematic review support, developing instructional resources that can evolve alongside librarian expertise, and building stronger partnerships with STEM faculty through embedded and asynchronous learning opportunities. The presentation will also explore how instructional design can serve as a pathway for expanding librarian confidence, increasing service reach, and supporting graduate student success in research-intensive environments.
By the end of the session, participants will be able to:
Lindsay Bahureksa (Research & Evidence Synthesis Librarian, Cornell University)
Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analysis first emerged out of the medical fields. Researchers, including librarians and clinicians, have worked to optimize these methodologies over the past few decades. In more recent years, however, these methodologies have been adopted in the non-medical sciences to perform large-scale evidence synthesis. Understandably, this hasn't been a perfect transition: even medical librarians who have worked extensively on evidence syntheses can find themselves off-balance when working on reviews in STEM and other non-medical fields. Medical evidence syntheses are highly tied to quantitative data types, and questions of efficacy and safety. In comparison, STEM evidence syntheses may seek not only quantitative data but qualitative research of social or natural phenomena, theoretical models, and technology usage. This talk is focused on highlighting some of the major differences between medical and non-medical evidence synthesis through this lens. It briefly touches upon how this difference, based in the very evidence that research teams are trying to synthesize, reverberates throughout the evidence synthesis process. The presentation will end with reflections on how STEM librarians – and the skills and knowledge they already have – can play an important role in making sure that evidence synthesis projects in STEM are high quality.
Shalini Ramachandran (Reference & Instruction Librarian for STEM, Loyola Marymount University)
Like many liaisons, I've been experimenting with AI tools to make instruction outreach more strategic — in my case, using AI to help build curriculum maps of Chemistry & Biochemistry and Mathematics courses at my institution, identifying which courses represent the highest-value opportunities for library instruction.
The maps themselves turned out to be useful. But the more interesting story is what went wrong along the way, and what it revealed.
Over the course of the project, the AI made four distinct kinds of errors. It invented a course prefix that doesn't exist in our catalog. It fabricated an entire course title that isn't taught anywhere in the department. It confidently claimed we subscribe to a chemistry database we don't actually license. And, most unsettling, it correctly pulled a "writing flag" designation from our own institution's website — information that was accurate when published but has since been retired, with the website not yet updated to reflect the change. That fourth error is the one I keep coming back to: the AI didn't hallucinate anything there. It told the truth about a source that was, itself, no longer true. Catching it required knowing something no public-facing page currently says.
Together, these four moments map onto three different failure modes: outright fabrication, misattribution of a real resource, and reliance on a stale-but-legitimate source, each catchable only because of a different kind of institutional knowledge: catalog structure, curriculum familiarity, vendor relationships, and knowing what changed on the ground before it changed on paper.
This talk uses that error log as the entry point for a broader conversation about what AI-assisted work reveals about our own expertise. These weren't just glitches to route around, they're a demonstration of knowledge that can't be handed off. That's the actual argument for why the human liaison stays firmly in the loop, not as a safety check bolted onto the process, but as the process itself.
I'll walk through the curriculum mapping project briefly — what it produced and how I'm using it for targeted faculty outreach in departments that have historically underused library instruction — but the center of the talk is the error log: what went wrong, how I caught each one, and what it means for AI-assisted liaison work generally. I'll close with a harder question I'm still sitting with: as AI changes what students and faculty can accomplish independently, what kind of library instruction remains genuinely defensible and how might curriculum mapping help liaisons identify that ground?
This talk is aimed at STEM liaisons and instruction librarians experimenting with AI tools in their own workflow. Attendees will leave with a concrete framework for categorizing and catching AI errors in their own institutional work—and permission to treat their tools' mistakes as data, not just errors to correct.
Shaune Pyle (Online Learning and OER Librarian, Community College of Baltimore County)
What started as a straightforward two-session library instruction model for BIOL 100, source types and database searching, then annotated bibliography writing, didn't stay that way for long.
As the course instructor and I worked together on the poster project, we noticed students turning to AI tools to shortcut the very skills the sessions were designed to teach: generating source summaries and even full annotations without ever reading the actual research. Instead of adding a separate AI policy talk, we rebuilt the existing sessions to show students, with concrete examples, exactly where AI tools fail this assignment: misrepresenting findings, inventing details, and falling short of what a real annotated bibliography requires.
This lightning talk shares that evolution: what the original model looked like, what prompted the shift, and what the sessions look like now that AI pitfalls are woven into source evaluation instruction. It closes with where the collaboration is headed next: scaffolding the assignment so students directly compare AI-generated results against what they find in library databases, turning that comparison into the teaching tool itself. Attendees will leave with a real example of embedded instruction adapting to student behavior in real time, and an early look at an assignment-integrated approach to AI-vs-database comparison they can bring back to their own courses.
Hannah Lee (Discovery & Systems Librarian, California State University, Dominguez Hills)
Sarah Tribelhorn (Sciences and Sustainability Librarian, San Diego State University)
Writing a paper and clicking that submit button is daunting! What happens to your manuscript? What's happening behind the scenes? What are the conversations that's happening while you wait for emails from the editor? This lightning talk takes you through a short journey with behind-the-scenes peek with the journal Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (ISTL) guided by Co-Editor-in-Chiefs Hannah Lee and Sarah Tribelhorn.
Anna Mayersohn (Sciences Librarian, University at Buffalo)
Open science (OS) is a comprehensive, transformative approach to the creation and dissemination of knowledge that prioritizes access, transparency, and cooperation, rather than exclusivity and individualism. It is a broad, multifaceted concept that spans the entire research life cycle, encompassing open access, open data, open education, and more. One way in which academic librarians promote awareness of OS concepts, practices, and resources is through the creation of LibGuides and other online research guides. This lightning talk will provide an overview of my efforts to analyze the contents of OS research guides by applying the OS taxonomy created by Silveira et al. (2023)—a task that turned out to be far more complicated than I anticipated when I began my research. I will outline the challenges I encountered in carrying out my analysis of the research guides and discuss how my approach to gathering data evolved in response to these challenges.
Silveira, L. da, Sena, P. M. B., Ribeiro, N. C., Cortés, J. P., Melero, R., Fachin, J., Mora-Campos, A., Santillán-Aldana, J., Piraquive-Piraquive, D. F., Silva, F. C. C. da, Uribe-Tirado, A., Araújo, R. F., & Enciso-Betancourt, A. M. (2023). Taxonomia da Ciência Aberta: revisada e ampliada. Encontros Bibli, 28, e91712. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e91712
Lilly Linden (Research and Learning Librarian - STEM, Dartmouth College)
Research Guides are often the task that falls to the bottom of the to-do list. They can be labor intensive and arduous to keep up to date. What if we could make that task easier by using Claude as a gap analysis tool? Using the Dartmouth College STEM Research Guides as a case study, we put this to the test. In this short lightning talk, we will discuss the prompts we used, how we determined what suggestions to implement, and if we plan to continue to use Claude in the future.
Erik Ziedses des Plantes (Research & Scholarly Engagement Librarian/Engineering and Physical Sciences Liaison, University of Dayton)
For years, the author of this talk did everything they could to keep their dual existences as a librarian and DIY punk musician separate, fearing judgement from others or damage to their professional reputation. However, as their career in libraries progressed into STEM librarianship, they began to detect a surprising amount of skill and philosophical overlap between these two sides of their identity. In this talk, the author will speak on the various ways their 20-plus years' experience in the world of independent music prepared them for and invigorated their newer journey as a STEM librarian. Whether equating the process of booking tours with establishing connections with liaison-area faculty, the principles of promoting an album to those of effective scientific communication, or teaching in general as another form of stage performance, the author found that the more they drew on and cited their past, the more effective and confident of a librarian they became. The talk will also touch on how the author implements principles of community and inclusion from their music years into their work with Engineering and Geosciences students, as well as their evolving belief in the creative urge STEM students and musicians share. This content is applicable to new or mid-career librarians experiencing anxiety about their professional identity, those hoping to implement more personal approaches to their practice, or those interested in an alternative interpretation of our shared work.
Amy S Van Epps (Director of Sciences and Engineering Services, Harvard University)
Ehsan Moghadam (Data Services Librarian for the Sciences, Harvard University)
Scenario/Problem: Unlike our medical/health sciences colleagues, it is not common to have dedicated evidence synthesis librarians in support of STEM or other non-medical and health sciences disciplines.
As a result, when a school is finding a need to offer a service, it can be offered as a service based on the observed needs, dedication, and existing training of a few librarians within an organization. A service that is dependent upon one or two individuals is not robust and is subject to fluctuation in availability due to other job demands on those people, particularly in light of reorganizations and/or multiple retirements.
With that background, our problem is how to best grow the staff supporting an evidence synthesis service beyond the initial founding members, acknowledging that no one has this as their primary job responsibility.
We invite attendees to share their experiences, ideas, and lessons learned around questions such as:
STEMLibCo Planning Committee
Bring your own problems and potential solutions. This will be an open session for all STEMLibCo participants to share STEM Librarian problems and brainstorm solutions as a group.
This year STEM Librarians Collaborative received the 2026 PAM Division Award. The PAM Division Award recognizes a significant contribution to the literature in physics, astronomy, and/or mathematics that benefits libraries, enhances the ability of librarians to provide service, and improves the exchange of information. We would like to recognize and thank the following individuals for their leadership in launching the first STEMLibCo in 2021 Kayleigh Bohemier, Sharice Collins, Leslie Eager, Samuel Hansen, Jenny Hart, Nastasha Johnson, Laura Palumbo, Donna Thompson, and Alyssa Young.
Victoria Ho (Science Liaison Librarian, University of Toronto Mississauga Campus)
Mai Lu (Program Head, Public Services and Outreach, University of Toronto Mississauga Campus)
Maria Ruiz (FLC and Liaison Librarian, University of Toronto Mississauga Campus)
How can library research skills help students survive a zombie apocalypse? Librarians at the University of Toronto Mississauga posed this question to first-year STEM students in Fall 2025. Students enrolled in the LAUNCH program, a first-year transition to university program, completed progressively more challenging "missions" to build the skills and find resources to help develop a cure/antidote for the zombies. This program introduced important library and research skills through themed activities such as how to find safe spaces to do research (library study rooms), how to find relevant research on the virus (searching skills, evaluating resources), and how to find experts (liaison librarians) to aid in the quest, and more.
The session was designed with two goals in mind: first was to introduce students to essential library resources and research skills, and second was to position the library as a welcoming space for students to build a sense of belonging on campus. Taking a gamified approach helped blend these two goals to create an engaging learning experience. The zombie theme worked well for STEM students as solving a biochemical crisis involved employing important research skills relevant to science, technology, engineering, and math students. During the activities/missions, students were encouraged to collaborate with their peers to solve the missions, have conversations, and build relationships with each other.
This presentation will outline how this program was developed, including the learning outcomes, lessons learned, and will provide a lesson plan that other institutions can use and adapt for different disciplines, age groups, and library settings. It will also describe how Microsoft Copilot was used as a brainstorming tool to develop the library session. Attendees will leave with ideas and strategies for using storytelling, collaboration, gamification, and AI tools for instructional design to make information literacy sessions more engaging, fun, and accessible for students.
Kelly Jones (STEM Librarian, University of Georgia)
Holly McMasters (STEM Librarian, University of Georgia)
With an increase in neurodiverse populations across all areas of academia, the limitations of traditional instructional design are highlighting the need for new approaches to learning. Additionally, the literature shows that STEM spaces in universities are struggling to embrace inclusivity at the same rate as other academic disciplines. In this presentation we will showcase a variety of active learning strategies and activities to engage neurodiverse students during science-based information literacy instruction sessions that will promote critical participation whether taught in-person or online. We will provide a toolkit of ideas for STEM librarians to borrow and adapt for their own instruction sessions and workshops in order to design more inclusive lessons. Incorporating TILT framework principles and Universal Design for Learning guidelines, we will outline best practices and demonstrate how to effectively incorporate them into instructional design in order to foster a more supportive learning environment for all students. Our activities, with examples from a variety of scientific disciplines, will emphasize critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and creative problem solving while accommodating multiple learning styles. We will emphasize skills such as crafting a strong research question, strategizing your search for optimal results, spotting predatory scientific journals, and evaluating information from a variety of sources including STEM databases and AI models. Participants will come away from the presentation with access to a toolkit of STEM-focused active learning activities and resources, ideas for designing their own inclusive instructional materials, and a greater understanding of how to support neurodivergent students in their information literacy journey. Together we can all build a more inclusive STEM environment and empower our students no matter how they engage with the material.
Melinda M. Livas (STEM Librarian, University of California, Davis)
Strong partnerships are at the heart of meaningful library outreach. This session highlights how a strategic collaboration between a UC Davis STEM Librarian and two College of Engineering Summer Bridge programs—LEADR (Leadership in Engineering Advancement, Diversity & Retention) and AvenueE—created an engaging, scalable welcome experience for more than 140 incoming engineering students. Recognizing that students are more likely to use library services when they know both the librarian and the resources available to them, this initiative was designed to introduce students to Shields Library before the academic year began. Working closely with LEADR/AvenueE program coordinators, I transformed a traditional library tour into an interactive orientation that combined peer-led engagement with targeted instruction about engineering resources.
To accommodate a large cohort, I developed a collaborative model that trains 12 peer mentors (six LEADR and six AvenueE mentors) to lead simultaneous library tours while I facilitate two library instruction sessions focused on engineering resources, research tools, and library services. Students rotate between guided tours and hands-on presentations, allowing every participant to experience both components in a well-organized two-hour program. This approach not only maximized staffing and space but also empowered peer mentors to play an active role in student success.
The results have been a highly successful orientation that increased student engagement, strengthened relationships between the Library and the College of Engineering, and provided students with a welcoming introduction to the research support available throughout their academic journey.
Building on this success, I broadened the collaboration by partnering with Archives and Special Collections to introduce students to unique engineering collections and the history of UC Davis.
Attendees will leave with practical strategies for planning large-scale library orientations, leveraging campus partnerships, training peer leaders, and designing engaging experiences that foster early student connection and long-term library engagement.
Whether you support STEM students or collaborate with other campus programs, this session will provide a replicable framework for creating high-impact partnerships that advance student success.
Laura Wilson (Science Librarian, College of the Holy Cross)
STEM librarianship can extend beyond partnerships with science departments. For the past year, my library has connected scientific knowledge with campus life, local history, sustainability, and community engagement.
In partnership with Archives and Special Collections, the First Year Experience Librarian, and the Office of Sustainability, my colleagues and I developed "Seeds of Knowledge," a local ecology programming suite centered on citizen science, interdisciplinary collaboration, and place-based learning. We created a student based group of "Squirrel Scouts," who participated in two citizen science projects based on campus squirrels. We coordinated biology faculty to speak at the local public library about historical and present issues facing the local watershed. We hosted presentations about local flora, as well as interesting and comical historical campus newspaper articles that focused on campus animal sightings (local fauna). Additionally, we brought in a local wildlife rehabilitator, who discussed rodenticide impacts on her community, and how they impacted her ambassador barn owl, Bella, who joined her talk in the library.
This presentation will explore partnership-building, low-barrier programming, and ways libraries can connect STEM with community concerns. Future Seeds of Knowledge events for the 2027 academic year will focus on Indigenous Ecological Knowledge, including collaborations with Indigenous scientists and artists. Attendees to this lightning talk will leave with ideas for place-based outreach and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Erin Thomas (Science & Engineering Librarian, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Jessica Newman (Science & Engineering Librarian, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Lisa Abler (Science & Engineering Librarian, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Following a recent user needs assessment project, a group of science librarians embarked on a bold new quest: to better understand the STEM graduate student journey at our institution so we could ensure library services meet the needs of this elusive group of patrons. In this lightning talk, we'll describe our goals and process, share the customizable project toolkit we developed, and briefly discuss some of the challenges and opportunities that have arisen from the project.
Emily Cukier (Science Librarian, Washington State University)
Last Fall I led an in-class discussion with first year Chemistry graduate students about generative AI use in research. Current University policies give only cursory guidance about classroom use and restricted data types, and do not mention ways generative AI use could be unreliable and/or unethical in graduate research. I wanted to teach about the ethical and pragmatic pitfalls, but not through lecture; the topics are far too large to cover in an hour, and any concrete suggestions I could make could quickly become obsolete.
Instead, I chose to facilitate a discussion to co-create community standards for generative AI usage within the students' graduate cohort. I started by developing a shared understanding of basic definitions, university policies, and potential uses, drawbacks, and ethical concerns. I then posed directed questions to elicit the students' experiences and thoughts about uses they consider "ok" or "not ok" and why, and offered a benefit-harm framing to help them think through current and future use cases.
My goal was to get the students to recognize their own agency, individually and collectively, in deciding what responsible AI use would look like in their graduate program - and to realize that they can do this type of reflection and standard-building throughout their careers.
In this presentation, I'd like to share my approach and talk about what went well and what could have improved it, and open the floor to others who may have tried other methods to get students reflecting on and setting their own standards for generative AI use.
Willow Dressel (Head of Science and Engineering Public Services and Collections, Princeton University)
Kelee Pacion (Head of Science and Engineering Research and Teaching, Princeton University)
Corina Bardoff (Manager of Commons Events and Programming, Princeton University)
The physical spaces of academic STEM libraries often face the existential challenge of relevance if the services and collections held within are not seen as necessary by the communities they support. The organizational structure and intense demands of the STEM curricula encourage students to focus more narrowly on the expectations of their departments and do not always free up time and mental capacity for students to engage within the broader academic community. As a result, many students remain unaware of the services, expertise, and collaborative spaces found through academic STEM libraries. Exploring programming and service development approaches beyond academia can help reimagine patron engagement.
Public libraries are valued as third places for their beginner-friendly programming and spaces to meet and gather. At the same time, public libraries often operate with tight budgets and limited staffing. Rather than inhibiting innovation, these constraints have encouraged the development of scalable, sustainable programming models that are transferable to academic libraries. Considering academic STEM library services and programming through the lens of the public library helps re-center community building and cultivates patron engagement with limited resources. Encouraging STEM departments to view academic libraries as shared spaces can help foster student belonging.
This presentation will examine common practices in public libraries that translate well to academic STEM Libraries, drawing on examples implemented in the presenters' libraries. The "Material of the Month" program was developed to promote engagement with the Engineering Library's Materials Sample Collection by inviting patrons to vote for their favorite materials. The selected material was highlighted with additional information to grow a deeper understanding of its development and potential uses. This so-called "passive programming" will be expanded in the coming year to a "Guess the STEM Thing" display selected by librarians to develop scientific and engineering literacy. To promote active collaborative use of newly renovated spaces after the pandemic, the Science and Engineering Libraries implemented a reservation system. Similar to a meeting or community room in a public library, this model has brought the library spaces back into the research lifecycle through departmental and student led programming such as exhibitions, poster sessions, club activities and recurring themed study groups.
Many adults would not voluntarily attend a program on information literacy at a public library, but are interested in learning if it benefits them in a domain they care about: finding gardening information, finding a job, connecting with others. One presenter will discuss her experience moving from public libraries to developing programming in an academic library, including workshops on how to get research published, inviting ways to connect to the library and librarians through drop-in craft programs, and adding brief info literacy presentations during co-curricular events.
Participants will be encouraged to share their own experience with inviting non-traditional programming into their academic spaces. Through this collaborative discussion, participants will develop a crowdsourced document of programming ideas and best practices that can be adapted and implemented at their own institutions.
Megan Carlton (Sciences Librarian, University of South Carolina)
What happens when a science librarian leaves academia for industry and discovers that librarianship looks completely different, but is also the same?
After several years as an academic STEM librarian, I made an unexpected move into corporate librarianship, joining the information services team at a global chemical company. Like many academic librarians, I had assumptions about what corporate librarians did and concerns about what I might be leaving behind. I imagined trading instruction sessions and faculty partnerships for database searching and literature requests. I was wrong.
This is a story about identity and discovering that the heart of librarianship extends far beyond any one type of institution. While the environment, pace, and measures of success were very different, I found that the core skills of STEM librarianship go beyond organizational boundaries.
Returning to academic librarianship gave me a new appreciation for the work we do every day while also challenging me to rethink how we can prepare students for their likely futures in corporate America. My experience in industry reshaped how I think about demonstrating value, anticipating researchers' needs, and aligning library services with the goals of the organizations we serve.
Through personal stories, I'll offer attendees a glimpse into a part of our profession that many academic librarians have only wondered about. Whether you've considered a career outside academia or simply wondered what STEM librarianship looks like beyond the university, I hope you'll leave with a renewed appreciation for the versatility of our profession and the many ways librarians create impact across the scientific enterprise.
Share your take aways and favorite moments!