ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

CONFERENCE CIRCUIT: ACRL at the Midwinter Meeting: Actions of the ACRL Board of Directors

During the 1998 ALA Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans, the ACRL Board of Directors took the following actions:

ACRL governance

Confirmed the following conferencecall votes:

To approve minutes from AnnualConference, San Francisco, June 28 and July 1, 1997.

To Adopt revised ACRL Bylaws (December 10, 1997). A second vote to adopt the revised bylaws will be taken before the 1998 ACRL spring ballot is mailed.

To approve 1998-99 ACRL priorities.

To approve 1998-99 performanceindicators.

To approve minutes from Boardconference call December 10, 1997.

Upon recommendation of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee approved: Bylaws revision for AFAS consisting of changes in wording for Article VI, Section 3A.

Bylaws revision for EBSS changing thetitle of its newsletter editor to Chair of Publications Committee and adding the listserv moderator and Web page moderator to Article IV, Section (3g).

Bylaws revisions for IS to change Article VIII Committees, Section 4 Appointments, and Article X Vacancies.

Extended Campus Library ServicesSection name change to Distance Learning Section. Change will appear on ACRL ballot for the 1998 ALA election for the ECLSS membership to ratify.

ACRL committees

Created an ACRL Web Task Force witha charge to recommend to the Board policy and procedures for the ACRL Web page.

Approved the Executive Committee’scomments and recommendations to the Racial and Ethnic Diversity Committee report “Diversity Initiatives within ACRL: Recommendations and a Plan of Action,” commended the committee for doing an outstanding job of preparing the report and asked that the Board’s response be forwarded to the Racial and Ethnic Diversity Committee along with a paragraph that explains the history and origin of the report.

Approved a statement drafted by the Institutional Priorities and Faculty Reward Task Force that defined the kinds of scholarship for which academic librarians should be rewarded in promotion and tenure reviews and recommended that the Board work with the task force before the ACRL/AAHE forum in March to fine-tune word choices so that the statement speaks directly to the non-librarian academic community clarifying the academic quality of the scholarly contribution librarians make.

Legislation

Approved a legislative agenda for ACRLupon recommendation of the Government Relations Committee.

Adopted a resolution from the Copyright Committee supporting the Ashcroft and Boucher/Campbell bills, “Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Act” (S. 1146) and “Digital Era Copyright Enhancement Act” (H.R. 3048) encouraging ACRL to make a public expression of support for the legislation and to call to action all ACRL members encouraging them to contact their local congressional representatives and asking them to cosponsor the legislation (see above).

Professional development

Approved proposal for RBMS 40th Preconference, June 21-24, 1999, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Approved proposal for an ACRL RegionalLeadership Institute to be held in 1999-

Approved proposal from Leadership Development Committee for an Interactive Leadership Workshop to be offered at the ALA Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.

Approved proposal from GovernmentRelations Committee to present a program covering NGI and Internet 2 issues at the ALA Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.

Requested that the Racial and Ethnic Diversity Committee develop a proposal to offer at least ten scholarships for ALA Annual Conference registration to minority librarians who are ACRL members, have been in the profession less than five years, and have not attended an ALA Annual Conference.

Approved ten non-member scholarships at $210 each to enable academic librarians from developing countries to attend the ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., June 25-July 2, 1998, upon the recommendation of the International Relations Committee.

Financial actions

Upon recommendation of the Budgetand Finance Committee, approved the following changes to the FY 1998 budget: Reduced allocation for the higher education legislation/policy initiative by a sum of $35,000.

Established budget for InstructionSection 1998 Preconference “Learning to Teach,” with revenues of $10,728 and expenses of $10,438.

Increased by $22,383 the FY 98 aliocation for Planning the National Information Literacy Institute.

Revised budget for FY 98 LeadershipInstitute, revenues $30,975 and expenses $30,108.

Increased the Sections budget by$698 to accommodate a request from the Extended Campus Library Services Section to print and distribute the Uniform Statistical Data Form to campuses with distance education programs.

Amended the ACRL C&RL News and Choicemagazine budgets to include expenditure increases resulting from the increased Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) rate, C&RL News, $12,189, and Choice, $50,083.

Commended ACRL staff for a very successful financial year for 1996-97.

Standards and guidelines

Commended the Extended Campus Library Services Section for doing an outstanding job to revise the guidelines and requested that the section explore the problem of institutions that deliver distance learning programs without making adequate provisions for library services to students enrolled in these programs and inform the Board at the 1999 Midwinter Meeting on their plan for studying the problem and recommend whether there are steps that ACRL can take to address it.

Approved revised Guidelines for Extended Academic Library Services upon recommendation of the Standards and Accreditation Committee.

Librarians value service most

ACRL President Lee Hisle’s Midwinter dis- cussion forum “Enduring Values for the

New Millennium” began with attendees se- lecting service as the most important value to academic librarians. At the discussion fo- rum, attended by approximately 80 people, Hisle outlined why he selected values as his ACRL presidential theme.

Next Stan Campbell (Centre College) de- scribed several recent situations in which large university systems made decisions based on economic and technological fac- tors. These developments, including outsourcing entire computing and informa- tion technology units on campus, have the potential to compromise values held impor- tant within higher education.

Katherine Branch (Anne Arundel Com- munity College) briefly covered trends within academic libraries, including in- creased web access and censorship attempts, that bring up questions about values. The majority of the forum was de- voted to small group discussion of the following two questions: (1) what is the most important value to you as an academic librarian? and (2)

What can we do as individuals and institutions, and what can ACRL do, to champion these values?

At the beginning of the program, attendees were asked to indicate the three most important values to them as academic librarians, using a check- list of 11 values. Of the 55 usable responses, service to clientele was selected by 49 percent as the most important value. Intellectual freedom was ranked first by 20 percent of the respondents and diversity of opinion first by 7 percent of the total. The values of professional neutrality, confidentiality, and cultural diversity were ranked consistently low or were not selected. Although the poll was small, unscientific and informal, the results open the door for further discussion and debate about the relative importance of specific values.

The discussion phase

The discussion phase of the forum allowed attendees to explore the theme of values in more depth. The points below are only a few of the fascinating responses that attendees had to the question of the importance of values:

• Truth, justice, and integrity are values, but perhaps the themes under discussion (service to clientele, intellectual freedom, etc.) are value-laden concepts.

• Libraries serve as cultural institutions, to preserve the records of humankind.

• New technologies cannot interpret information as well as librarians.

• The library has a role in the life of the mind.

• How should librarians handle situations when personal and organizational values conflict?

• Should each library develop a set of shared values?

• Are academic librarians giving up one of our unique roles, that of preservers of the cultural record, by focusing on access not ownership?

• Are libraries losing part of the value of the physical record by digitizing it?

• Do academic librarians have an obligation to provide information and service for our non-immediate clientele?

Participants stated that creating ACRL workshops on clarifying and supporting values, disseminating news about activities from our campuses that highlight values, moderating an online conference on values, incorporating values statements into the ACRL strategic plan, and personal mentoring of new librarians would be useful methods to champion values.

Next steps

The 1998 ACRL President’s Program Committee intends to follow up on a suggestion from the forum that the format and step-by- step guidelines on replicating the values discussion forum be posted on the ACRL Web page.

Additionally, C&RL News will feature columns addressing values questions throughout the spring 1998.—Katherine Branch, director, Anne Arundel Community College Library, kabranch@mail.aacc.cc.me.us

Strengthening librarian teaching/learning partnerships

More than 50 librarians discussed “Looking Ahead: Strengthening Librarian Partnerships in Campus Teaching and Learning Initiatives” at the Midwinter Meet- ing of the ACRL Alliances for New Direc- tions in Teaching and Learning Discussion Group (Alliances).

As libraries and librarians begin to explore the educational potential of the Internet regarding the ways we organize and deliver instructional services, a number of higher education associations such as the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), Educom, and the CAUSE LIB/ IT Partnerships Constituency Group are already working on issues surrounding the integration of information technology into campus teaching and learning initiatives. The Alliances Discussion Group was established to provide a venue for librarians to exchange ideas and get involved with non-library organizations.

Why is this important to librarians?

For one, these organizations are creating and implementing policies on a national level (i.e., the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative and the Digital Library Initiative) that will very likely be affecting our futures. Some topics currently under discussion are merging libraries and IT departments and having libraries report to Chief Information Officers who do not have the MLS.

A second topic is preparing academic and research librarians to play increasingly significant roles in higher education and to inform these groups of the value and role of the library in the teaching/learning and the scholarly process, continues to be a high priority and strategic goal for ACRL. However, third, and perhaps most importantly— librarians need to become involved so that their thinking is part of the future of information management.

A brief overview of CNI, Educom, and AAHE, with emphasis on the specific goals of the various organizations, opportunities for professional development and involvement, upcoming conferences/programs, and publications of interest to librarians was also provided. (To learn more about these meetings, forums, and publications, we strongly urge you to visit the Web sites; see sidebar for URLs).

The group also discussed the report on the 1997 National Conference on Higher Education, Learning, Technology and the Way We Work prepared by Marilyn Myers, head of the Collection Development and Bibliographic Services at Arizona State University. AAHE sponsors conferences and workshops that deal with practical tools for increasing teaching/learning effectiveness in specific settings. Current topics that would be of interest to librarians include: 1) The AAHE Assessment Forum, which is looking at “outcomes assessment” in all aspects of higher education; and 2) developing new models of information delivery based on collaborative learning and faculty/librarian partnerships, to mention a few.

Katie Margolis, director of Academic Information Resources and Training at Cornell University, reported on the CAUSE LIB/IT meeting that occurred Dec. 2-5, 1997, in Orlando, and encouraged participants to attend the December 8-11, 1998, meeting that will be held in Seattle. CAUSE is an organization of college and university professionals, which unites academic librarians and computing professionals into one organization. The big news this year is that CAUSE and Educom have merged to form THETA (The Higher Education Technology Association) [Ed. note: See C&RL News‚ September 1997].

Margolis acknowledged that many of us are challenged by the growth of IT organizations on our campuses and may be fearful of the long-term prospects for libraries. “The format of information is changing, ownership is less important than access, budgets are shrinking, and the rate of change often seems to overtake our ability to learn new processes. We need to look our fears squarely in the face and take an active role in planning the inevitable metamorphosis of our profession—organizations such as THETA, Educom, etc., will enable us to do that. We can’t wait to be asked to the dance. We need to stand up and shimmy!”

The virtual library

A second purpose for the Alliances Discussion Group is to provide a forum for librarians who are working on integrating IT into campus teaching and learning projects to report on their experiences—their successes, obstacles encountered, lessons learned, and challenges ahead for the “Virtual University” and the “Virtual Library.”

Schelle Simcox, library instruction coordinator at California State University at Monterey Bay, described the plans, programs, and progress there, a campus that opened its doors in 1995 and is designed entirely around the educational potential of the Internet. The library was designed with a heavily wired infrastructure, which allowed librarians to emphasize electronic resources and lifelong learning skills. After explaining the basic conditions underlying the original organization, Simcox described how time, experience, and their particular environment created new paradigms for both the organization, as well as instruction. For example, they are now looking more closely at creating an extensive distance education program with a more structured, progressive skills program, as well as Web-based instruction and future library-based credit classes. Another interesting development is the possibility of the library separating from the IT unit and becoming part of Academic Affairs, as the next step in their evolution. Simcox attributes this to the fact that all their librarians are teaching faculty, providing instructional services in centers outside the library, as well as possessing a wide variety of technological expertise. They participate in many campus planning committees, making faculty/librarian partnerships a reality at this campus.

If you are interested in building alliances with higher education organizations, join us at the ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. Future topics will be published in C&RL News. But don’t wait until then—accept the “challenge” and start making connections today!—Mari Miller is chair of the ACRL Alliances for New Directions in Teaching and Learning Discussion Group and reference/instruction librarian and general science selector for the University of California, Berkeley Library; e-mail: mmiller®library. berkeley.edu.

ULS activities at Midwinter

A message from the ULS chair

The University Libraries Section (ULS) has been hard at work creating the draft vision and set of strategic directions that we present here for your comment. Needless to say, it is an exciting time to be chair of ACRL’s largest section. We have active and dedicated leaders and members working on ULS who are already moving this vision forward through committee work and programming for our membership. Two successful and well-attended discussion meetings hosted by the Current Topics Planning Committee and the Librarians in Higher Education/Campus Administration Discussion Group at the recent Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans exemplify our efforts to bring timely and relevant issues and ideas to university librarians. We are also reaching out to collaborate with other groups. We are cosponsoring our Annual Conference program with the Science and Technology Section. Also, our past-chair, Don Frank, spearheaded efforts to propose a change in the structure of ACRL Activities Section Council to include the type of library sections, thereby improving our opportunities for interaction and coordination with all ACRL sections.

We invite your comments on this draft document which we hope to finalize at the Annual Conference this summer. We are continually looking for new ways to communicate to our membership and welcome your suggestions.—Lori Goetch, ULS chair and associate director of libraries for public services at the University of Maryland, e-mail: lgoetsch@utk.edu

Desktop delivery of library resources

The ULS Current Topics Discussion Group and the LITA Internet Resources Interest Group cosponsored a discussion in New Orleans on “Push and Pull on the World Wide Web: A New Paradigm for Desktop Delivery of Library Resources.” Push technology, also called Webcasting, is a process by which content providers send information to the computer desktop. This information can be viewed immediately by the user. Ideally, the technology is event-driven rather than update-driven. Push has been developed to meet the growing demand for modular and customizable information. It is designed to eliminate the need for users to research for information and to obviate the need for the user to do anything overtly to get information.

Push technology not new

Amira Aaron, Electronic Services product manager of Blackwell’s Information Services, led the discussion with an overview of the different definitions of Push technology, the major developers of Push, and some possible applications for library services. Aaron began the talk by challenging its title. Push technology is not a “new paradigm,” she claims.

Librarians have been pushing information to users for a long time. However, the technology is new and offers expanded possibilities for library services. Major Push developers, such as BackWeb, AirMedia, and Marimba’s Castanet are using the technology for such things (in addition to the ubiquitous sports and stocks updates) as virtual software updates, customer service updates, and gathering information about clients.

Participants broke into small groups for the final segment of the discussion to consider the issues and implications of Push technology for their own libraries. Some were apprehensive about the possible invasion of patron privacy while others worried that Push can all too easily become Shove. However, most participants found positive library applications for Push, such as new title alerts, overdue and availability notices from circulation systems, and publisher dispatch data.

Librarians wear many new hats

This winter, the ULS Librarians in Higher Education Discussion Group continued dialogue, which began at the Annual Conference in San Francisco, considering the diversity of new roles librarians have on the university campus. Tom Fry, associate director for Public Services at the University of Denver, moderated the session, observing that librarians are “breaking out of the box” in increasing numbers and taking on administrative responsibilities completely outside the library structure.

Elaine Didier, associate dean of the Graduate School at the University of Michigan, shared her experiences of life “outside the box.” In addition to associate dean, she has served the University of Michigan campus as adjunct associate professor in the School of Management and interim director for Academic Outreach. Didier suggested several strategies for preparing oneself for expanded administrative positions. Recognize and explore the breadth and diversity of your institution, study its “corporate culture,” and volunteer in the community. These activities help to establish a network inside and outside the library that will lead to a perception that you are not “just” a librarian. Didier noted that “participation begets influence” and one thing will lead to another. As her activities and experiences diversified, she was perceived by the administration as a viable candidate for the associate dean position.

Learning a new language

The first challenge many of these positions bring is the need to immediately master a new and unfamiliar “language” and set of values. Sarah Watstein, assistant director for Academic User Services at Virginia Commonwealth University, discovered this to be true during her two-year tenure as interim director of University Computer Services. While savvy about applications, she was not technically savvy and, even worse, she was “Dilbert-illiterate.” Nevertheless, she was tapped for the responsibility of coordinating computer services because of her history of consensus-building activities, her ability to balance issues with sensitivity, and her drive to garner respect on campus for user services. Despite the steep learning curve, Watstein found that she had much to offer in this unfamiliar terrain, as libraries and computing centers are both fundamentally service and support organizations operating in rapidly evolving environments.

Like the other speakers, Bill Welburn, assistant dean of the Graduate College at the University of Iowa, was offered his position without prior campaigning on his part. Again, this is due in part to his involvement in campus activities and his position as adjunct professor in the library school. Although he admits there is a potential for drift and isolation in positions outside the library, Welburn believes we must seize these opportunities as they offer unique challenges that can only be beneficial in the long run.

All agreed that the risks associated with this type of venture are real. There may be no immediate colleagues or mentors and no safety net if administrative priorities change. But the participants also agreed that the rewards, such as increased autonomy and responsibility, the opportunity to develop new skills, and the chance to become a “citizen of the university,” make the risks worth taking.

Performance measures

Moderator Betsy Wilson led the well-attended ULS Public Services Heads of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group. Mary Jackson and Shirley Baker first briefed the group on the ILL/DD Performance Measures Study. The study has succeeded in identifying “best practice” libraries: those libraries whose interlibrary loan practices have experienced a high rate of success in timeliness, accuracy, and patron satisfaction. The study also raised several questions. Why, for example, does the average turnaround time for ILL remain close to the same rate achieved ten years ago?

Workshops to examine what libraries can do to improve their ILL practices will be held after the final report is published this winter. Wilson then acquainted the group with developments regarding the proposed National Information Literacy Institute. This immersion program, funded in part by ACRL, will focus on the practical and theoretical issues of teaching information literacy. Other topics under discussion included performance measures, assessment initiatives, and a review of the types of Web support currently offered in academic libraries. Assessment initiatives will again be under consideration at the ALA Annual meeting in Washington D.C.—Anne Garrison, reference librarian, Georgia Tech Library; e-mail: anne.garrison®ibid.library.gatech.