ACRL College & Research Libraries News

Association of College & Research Libraries

RESEARCH FORUM: A new C&RL News column

By Sharon Rogers ACRL Vice-President/President-Elect

The Research Forum originating in this issue of C&RL News will be an occasional feature of ACRL’s professional communication for the next year or so. Its inception arises from several discussions and speculations about the role played in scholarly communication of the contributed papers at national conferences, the quality and variety of methodologies and viewpoints selected by authors of contributed papers, and, therefore, the quality and variety of scholarly communication in academic librarianship.

In the Research Forum, ACRL members will be asked to describe the conceptualization and development of their research projects, to explain the sources of research ideas, to suggest ways of locating methodological and financial support on local campuses and within ALA. We also want to describe model programs that libraries have developed to assist librarians in conducting research.

The stimulus for some of the current discussion of research in academic librarianship was the ACRL National Conference Wrap-Up Session presentation of a comparison of the first, second and third national conferences within a common conceptual framework. The conceptual framework for categorizing the production of scholarly inquiry wasdevelopedby Robert J. Silverman¹. The Silverman model, briefly, is based upon the interaction of previous works by Mitroff and Kilmann² and Berlyne³ in which a classification of the researchers and their orientations is merged with a schema that is represented in creative products. The overall framework and definitions for each cell appear above, along with some examples of papers from ACRL national conferences.

Scientist (analytic science/semantic): The writer as “scientist” attempts to draw relationships between or among a number of variables. The research is usually original. “ARL Academic Library Leaders of the 1980’s: Men and Women of the Executive Suite” by Betty Jo Irvine reviews the variable of sex as it pertains to the positions held in the ARL.

Methodologist (analytic science/syntactical): The author as a “methodologist” develops an analytical model to discuss problems in the field. The emphasis is on original model construction.

Reviewer (analytic science/culture): The author as “reviewer” establishes the value of the literature and discusses its level of development.

Founder (analytic science/expressive): The author as “founder” of a specific school of thought expands upon the value of the theory or model and extends it into new settings.

Informer (conceptual theory/semantic): The author as “informer” transfers a theory from one field to another, changing its focus, if necessary, to fit into the field of librarianship. “Marketing Academic Library Services” by Patricia Senn Breivik discusses the application of marketing techniques borrowed from business to the concerns of libraries.

Definer (conceptual theory/syntactical): The author as “definer” reviews an established pattern for thinking about an area using various organizing devices. An exploration, more than an advancement of a position, is presented.

Boundary Agent (conceptual theory/cultural): The author as “boundary agent” treats existing bodies of knowledge and focuses on their utility for explaining or understanding phenomena in librarianship. “A Critical Nexus: Academic Library Values and Technology” by Thomas T. Surprenant explores the future of libraries.

Creator (conceptual theory/expressive): The author as “creator” develops a theory, often grounded in his/her own experience.

Advocate (conceptual humanism/semantic): The author as “advocate” presents information about an important and, usually, new topic. He/she may also provide some direction that the reader should follow. “How Much Research Would a Research Librarian Do If a Research Librarian Could Do Research” by Daniel Traister champions the cause of providing the necessary rewards to librarians to encourage their involvement in research.

Analyst (conceptual humanism/syntactical): The author as “analyst” discusses issues in their complexity, usually involving some primary research such as a survey instrument and including a discussion of the literature and the background of the problem. “Computer Data Base Use at the Reference Desk” by Gertrude E. Foreman and Celia S. Ellingson is an example of this type.

Consultant (conceptual humanism/cultural): The author as “consultant” provides ideas for intervention to improve the effectiveness of a system. Usually examples of application are included. “Network Design Principles for a National Periodical System” by Robert W. Burns, Jr. describes the major design principles and rationale for a national periodicals system.

Advisor (conceptual humanism/expressive): The author as “advisor” shares ways in which he/she has learned to deal with a problem. Emphasis is on the personal experience.

Biographer (particular humanism/semantic): The author as “biographer” describes a system, often presenting “snapshots” at some or all stages of its development. “Applying Technology at the Evergreen State College Library, 1970-1980” by Pat Matheny-White, Sarah Pedersen and George Rickerson describes the system in use at one particular college.

Artist (particular humanism/syntactical): The author as “artist” writes in an insightful manner to highlight a system and provide an understanding of patterns of activity that may not be very readily visible. The author asks questions in order to discover order in a system.

Anthropologist (particular humanism/cultural): The author as “anthropologist” examines how humans and organizations interact in relationship to an issue. The treatment is one of contextual relationships. “Librarian and Client: Who’s in Charge?” by Robert J. Merikangas examines the relationship in terms of power between the librarian and the library-user.

Diarist (particular humanism/expressive): The author as “diarist” attempts to probe a system deeply, often in a very personal manner.

The distribution of predominant author perspectives in 1978 and 1981 is compared below:

1978

Biographer 12

Advocate 11

Analyst 11

Consultant 9

Informer 7

Anthropologist 7

Advisor 5

Other 2

1981

Biographer 7

Analyst 6

Advocate 5

Consultant 4

Scientist 3

Informer 3

Other 2

Change appears to begin in the 1984 distribution:

1984 (accepted)

Analyst 10

Consultant 7

Biographer 6

Advocate 5

Advisor 5

Diarist 3

Other 8

1984 (rejected)

Analyst 27

Creator 16

Advocate 12

Scientist 11

Biographer 11

Advisor 10

Anthropologist 10

Other 29

The listing of the perspectives used indicates that librarians are experimenting with the entire spectrum of methodologies and viewpoints. Through the Research Forum and other initiatives, we hope to support these trial efforts and stimulate additional work that can be shared with professional colleagues in Baltimore in 1986.

The research for “A Matrix Model of Organization”

By Joanne R. Euster Library Director San Francisco State University

and Peter Haikalis Assistant Director for Readers Services San Francisco State University

Our paper, “A Matrix Model of Organization for a University Library Public Services Division” (contributed paper, ACRL Third National Conference, 1984) represents a type of applied research which has significant potential for librarians. While it does not pretend to include rigorous research methodology or mathematical analysis, such applied research does have two distinguishing characteristics: first, it is solidly based on experience, and secondly, the presentation of that experience is designed for generalization to other situations.

In this paper we combined three elements: a theoretical base drawn from the literature of matrix organization and management, the application of that theory to an organizational experiment in our own library, and the description of that experiment as a case study illustrating how theory can be adapted to a practical situation.

Because of the applied nature of the project, there was no need for special funding to do data gathering or analysis. What was needed, however, was psychic support. This came in two forms: one was the necessary organizational commitment to permit the experiment to go forward and to accept the risks inherent in organizational change. The second was a more heuristic kind of support which was built into the project. Because the concept was not applied in a vacuum but instead developed in response to expressed needs and opportunities which were available in the environment at that time, it was possible to experiment without creating the trauma of radical change.

Organization of the research presentation posed a number of interesting problems. In particular, we felt that it was necessary in order to have an understandable and interesting presentation to describe organizational structures and processes graphically. We were fortunate in being able to draw upon the expertise of the library’s graphics assistant in this process of transforming a complex abstract idea into a single diagram. With her help, we discarded several trial diagrams before arriving at the final figures which appear in the published proceedings and which were utilized to make overhead transparancies for the oral presentation. A second aspect of organizing the paper involved determining—since this was to be presented as an illustrative case study rather than an example of “how we do it well in our library”—what level of detail unique to our situation was necessary to give life to the description of the study and what was simply extraneous anecdotal material. Not least among our considerations in the organization of the presentation was looking for an opportunity to report our study in an appropriate forum, in this case as an ACRL contributed paper.

What would we do differently if we were to repeat the experience? It would have strengthened our report and added to the general applicability of the study had we designed an objective evaluation process before the organizational experiment began. Because this was not done, we were primarily limited to subjective evaluations, which were heavily weighted to staff satisfaction factors. However, the project was initiated to apply theory to the solution of a practical problem rather than as an exercise in pure research. Therefore, it was best suited to presentation as a report of application of theory in a quasi-experimental setting.

The research for “A Survey of Library Acquisitions’ Fiscal Problems”

By Roger L. Presley Interim Head of Acquisitions Georgia State University

Getting the idea

The most difficult part of writing a research paper is getting started. This includes getting the idea. About two years ago, in order to promote research and creative activities among our library faculty, Dr. Ralph Russell, our university librarian, held a research “brainstorming” session. At the session we talked about the research projects in which we were currently engaged, and also suggested topics in which we were or might be interested. Our Collection Development Department had already been talking with me about doing a research project together. Lyn Thaxton, our social sciences bibliographer, suggested that we write a paper on the budgetary problems libraries have faced over the last few years and what various libraries have done to help with the problem. We were interested in this topic for two reasons: 1) since pressure was mounting at our library for librarians to produce more publications and research, we felt this was a feasible project; and, 2) as we had experienced a basically no-increase budget for the last three years and had been unable to order any new serial titles without cancellations, we were interested to see if other libraries were having the same problems. Lyn and I, along with William Meneely, our science bibliographer, and John Yelverton, the chief bibliographer, got together to develop and plan the project.

Organizing the idea

In the spring of 1983, Lyn Thaxton sent ACRL a letter of intent to submit a paper for presentation at its Third National Conference and briefly described the research project. We were now committed to finishing what we had started. Personally, I recommend co-authoring a paper with colleagues, especially if you are a novice at doing research. You can utilize your colleagues’ professional experience and creativity, and you can divide up the workload for the project. This is especially helpful if you are doing a survey where there is a lot of paper work and calculation of statistics. John Yelverton was assigned the task of identifying the libraries we would survey. William Meneely was assigned to do literature searches on the topic, and laid out the charts for our statistics. Lyn Thaxton was to receive the surveys and do the initial statistical tallies on the data received. I was to develop the questionnaire, draft the writing of the paper, and present it at the conference if it was accepted.

Support for the idea

Fortunately, our library administration is quite supportive of research projects and creative activities. The library faculty are granted one day each academic quarter to work on research. This was utilized, especially by me, in drafting the paper. Also, clerical help for typing was made available by the library administration office. This was very beneficial when it came time to submit our “camera ready copy” of the paper. In addition to clerical help, the university librarian also permitted us to charge some of our research expenses to the library’s operating budget. Postage was paid for us. Since we mailed out 100 questionnaires, this was helpful. After our paper was accepted by ACRL for presentation, we decided to use color slides for the graphics on the statistics. The photoprocessing of the slides was also paid for from the library budget.

The most valuable support we received for this project was from the library itself. In total, our library faculty had four papers accepted for presentation at this conference, involving 11 of our library faculty and one faculty member from outside the library. Our library’s Committee on Personnel Development was very excited at the acceptance of the four papers and organized a pre-conference presentation of them for our faculty and staff. Area librarians and library school students were also invited. The conditions of presenting a paper at the conference were closely simulated. We had special microphones, audio-visuals, a moderator, and each presentation was timed to be kept at 20 minutes. The pre-conference was well attended, and provided two main benefits. It informed our local library community of the research being done by our library faculty. It also was an excellent practice session with feedback for our four presenters at the conference. Even though we were entering the last quarter of our fiscal year and funds were tight, Dr. Russell, our university librarian, found the money to send 11 of our authors and co-authors to Seattle for the Conference.

Looking back

Looking back, this project was a lot of work: hours and hours of reading, calculating, writing and re-writing, not to mention the anxiety of presenting the paper itself. However, it was an excellent conference and definitely a professional growth experience. In thinking about what we would do differently now that it is all over, I would have recommended that we start the project about three months sooner. Everything always takes longer than you think it is going to. I also would have liked to have learned more about developing a questionnaire. It was obvious from some of the replies that not everyone fully understood all of the questions. Even though the survey itself was rewritten several times and we thought it was succinct, not all the libraries receiving it interpreted all the questions as we thought they would. Also, since we had such a good return of the surveys, I now wished we had asked more questions and could have used more data. The whole experience was very rewarding for all involved. It guess it’s time now to be thinking about Baltimore and the Fourth National Conference.

The research for “Values and ACRL”

By William G. Jones Assistant Librarian for Collection Development University of Illinois at Chicago

and Barbara J. Ford Documents Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago

We had been discussing for some time how new librarians are socialized to the values of their profession and to the institutions in which they work, and how these values are transmitted. We were interested in this topic because of our concern for the practical needs of supervisors responsible for the socialization of new professionals and from our observations and participation in professional organizations. We had read widely in the topic and had already decided to conduct a systematic analysis when the ACRL call for papers was received. Our most significant problem was to identify a database which we could analyze in the time available. We were presented with a number of choices and decided to use the annual reports of ACRL presidents because of their easy access and likely representativeness of commonly-held professional values.

In dividing responsibilities for the investigation, one of us concentrated on the literature review while the other conducted the content analysis. Both of us derived lists of significant topics and trends from the annual reports. Carla Stoffle’s categorization of concerns and topics had just appeared in her president’s annual report, and it provided us with a framework against which to compare earlier reports. We added to the categories identified by her where appropriate, with one of us carrying out the detailed analysis. We formatted the results in a number of ways before selecting one that was both informative and visually pleasing.

We were supportive of each other when interest and enthusiasm flagged, and received it in ample measure from our colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The library faculty periodically schedules brown bag lunches where faculty present and discuss research ideas and work underway. Several colleagues gave us excellent feedback and assisted us in focusing and clarifying our work and analysis. Financial support to attend the ACRL conference was provided by the university librarian. Before attending the conference we had the opportunity to present the paper to our library faculty colleagues who critiqued its content and the style of presentation.

If beginning the same project again, we would begin data collection earlier and complete preliminary analyses sooner in order to have more time to consider the implications of the analysis and to consider related trends and alternative methods of analysis. We would also consult more extensively with our colleagues in topically-related disciplines.

Guide to the organization of clearinghouses published by ACRL

The Bibliographic Instruction Clearinghouse: A Practical Guidehas been compiled by the ACRL Bibliographic Instruction Section’s Clearinghouse Committee. This Committee, which seeks to facilitate cooperation and exchange among national, regional, and state bibliographic instruction groups, prepared this guide in order to encourage the formation of additional clearinghouses. It will serve bibliographic instruction librarians well and will also serve librarians who want to set up other types of clearinghouses. The 77-page guide contains chapters on clearinghouse organization and affiliation, clearinghouse depository collections, surveys and directories of bibliographic instruction programs, planning a bibliographic instruction workshop, publishing a clearinghouse newsletter, and marketing the bibliographic instruction clearinghouse. Contributors to the Guide are Claudette S. Hagle, Kathleen Coleman, Barbara J. Wittkopf, Donald Kenney, and Carolyn Kirkendall.

The Bibliographic Instruction Clearinghouse: A Practical Guideis available prepaid from ACRL, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2795 at $9 for ACRL members and $12 for non-members. Its ISBN is 0-8389-6775-2.

Notes

1. Robert J. Silverman, “Journal Manuscripts in Higher Education: A Framework,” Review of Higher Education 5, no.4 (1982): 181-96.
2. X Mitroff and R. Kilmann, Methodological Approaches to Social Science (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978).
3. D. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971); and D. Berlyne, ed., Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation (New York: John Wiley, 1974).