ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

CONFERENCE CIRCUIT: Racing toward tomorrow, Part 2: More reports from ACRL’s 9th National Conference

Michael Rosenzweig

This is the second half of the report from the ACRL National Conference in Detroit. Part one appeared in the June issue. C&RL News thanks the many volunteers who provided reports on the sessions.

Reclaiming what we own

Michael Rosenzweig, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, gave a plenary address entitled “Reclaiming What We Own: Expanding Competition in Scholarly Publishing.” This thought-provoking address traced the speaker’s own evolution from editor of a scholarly journal to publisher, editor, and mailroom staff of Evolutionary Ecology Research (EER). This bold publishing enterprise, entered into collaboratively with the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), is novel for the fact that it is intended to compete directly with the journal that Rosenzweig had formerly edited.

Rosenzweig outlined the selective pressures that led to his transformation. Relentless subscription price increases, serious questions regarding the ownership of intellectual property, and restricted or uncertain access to scientific information have forced a reexamination of the scholarly publishing process from all parties involved, particularly faculty, libraries, and universities. He noted the irony, if not inherent contradiction, in universities paying their faculty to teach and conduct research, thereby contributing to the body of scientific knowledge, which then becomes the property of publishers. These publishers turn around and sell the intellectual content, at a huge profit, back the institutions from which it originates.

With the publication of EER and the support of SPARC, Rosenzweig suggests a new, more rational model of scholarly publishing: one where academics and their institutions actively engage in the creation of journals that expand competition and provide clearer boundaries defining ownership of and access to scientific knowledge.

He called upon libraries and librarians to support efforts like these using our expertise in the selection, acquisition, and maintenance of research collections. Finally, he thanked us for our support over the generations.—James W. Beattie, NYU School of Medicine

We meet, greet, and excel in library design!

Representing over 120 years.of experience in libraries, panelists presented the challenges of developing a library building program in the era of constant change in “Collaboration in Designing Libraries to Meet the Changing Priorities of Academic Institutions in the 21st Century.” The two core concepts of any library building program are the “library as place” and technology.

Gary B. Thompson (Siena College) spoke to the objectives of a learning college. Librarians must be proactive to provide facilities, opportunities, and services to facilitate research.

Librarians must recognize that their contributions will be assessed by the resources that they make available, and the facilities and services offered. Librarians, architects, and consultants must communicate and work together to create a coherent facility.

Jay Lucker (Simmons College), a proponent of the “if you build it, they will come” phenomenon, offered 12 issues that he has culled from years of library service and consulting. One issue that minds repeating is “Create new partnerships on campus.” By inviting other departments (academic computing, media services, etc.) into the building, we not only share the space, but can also integrate functionalities.

From the architect’s perspective, Wendell E. Wickerham (Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott) spoke of the need to understand your library’s vision. “The design of the library should be generated from the inside out as well as the outside in.” He proposed “six essentials” to give to your architect. The foremost being “Time enough to become immersed into the program components and their meaning.”

Having experienced all stages of the building process, Tina Fu (Eastern Connecticut State University) spoke from the library director’s perspective. She recounted the need for honest communication and participation among all parties involved. The “value system” that worked at ECSU included “personalized service, flexibility, expandability, aesthetics, and functionality.”

It seems that we are trying to hit a moving target, yet we have an intuitive sense and a deadly aim.—Kris Jacobi, Eastern Connecticut State University

Teaching librarians and information literacy: A new initiative

The terms information literacy and bibliographic instruction came close to taking on a synonymous meaning as ACRL’s Advisory Board discussed the Institute for Information Literacy (IIL) Program. Bibliographic instruction covers academic research, while information literacy encompasses lifelong learning.

Chair Cerise Oberman, who first proposed the idea for an institute at the LOEX Conference two years ago, explained the genesis, mission, and goals of IIL, while other panelists described IIL’s program initiatives.

Program initiatives will provide teaching librarians opportunities for training and developing strategies. Teaching librarians will also develop and implement literacy programs for their institutions.

This summer’s Immersion Program, described by lead faculty member Mary Jane Petrowski, will be comprised of two tracks. The first track (designed for new librarians or librarians new to teaching) will cover foundation, leadership, learning theory, praxis (the connection between theory and practice), assessment, and program management. The second (for more experienced teachers) will utilize a case study approach. Of the 250 applications, 90 were accepted for this first IIL to be held at SUNY/Plattsburgh.

Further initiatives will include a Best Practices outcomes assessment, which uses a broadbased consulting process to help IIL identify the strengths and weaknesses of programs (as described by Thomas Kirk) and a coordinated effort for creating dialogue among academic, school, and public librarians about how they are meeting the needs of their users in their communities (discussed by Julie Todaro).

It is anticipated that because of overwhelming interest, further Immersion Programs will be planned and more librarians brought into the campaign to expand information literacy efforts.—Eric W. Johnson, Southeastern Louisiana University, and Ola Carter Riley, Louisiana State University

Diversifying the student body

Much like the distribution of wealth in the United States, the enrollment of minority students in U.S. library schools is heavily concentrated in a small number of institutions. A recent ALISE study revealed that approximately 80% of all African American, Native American, and Alaskan Native students in library schools are enrolled in only 11 or 12 (about 20%) of the institutions.

Conference attendees get a first-hand look at new products.

Sheila A. Delacroix (University of Tennessee) leads a group discussion.

After presenting these sobering statistics in “Recruiting More Minorities to the Library Profession: Responding to the Need for Diversity,” Ron Edwards (Bowling Green State University) delivered a severe critique of U.S. library schools’ efforts to recruit minority students to the profession.

He outlined four reasons why, in his opinion, minority representation remains low, despite decades of committee activity and frequent expressions of concern from leaders in the profession. Those reasons include:

• too much reliance on international students (who pay full tuition) as a means of diversifying the student body;

• complacency about recruiting in general, due to the steady flow of white, female applicants;

• less concern with racism than with other issues viewed as intrinsic to librarianship, such as intellectual freedom;

• perceived competition from high-prestige fields such as law, medicine, business, and engineering.

Mentoring and financial aid, Edwards said, are the tactics library schools should focus on to aid minority recruitment.

At least one member of the audience reacted angrily to Edwards’s assertions, stating that suggestions on how to improve recruitment would be much more valuable to library school administrators than portraying them as complacent and ineffective. Several others shared strategies that they had found useful, which included seeking grants to support minority scholarships, asking practicing librarians in the community to advise on recruitment, and recruiting among the undergraduates working at their institution’s university library.— Ruth Ann Jones, Michigan State University

How do they help?

In “The Development Teaching Portfolio for Librarians,” Dicksy Howe-Noyes (Southwest State University) discussed her research on the use of teaching portfolios and her work with a group of instruction librarians in developing their own portfolios during afterwork sessions over a period of several months.

Ann Lally and Ninfa Trejo (University of Arizona) added their experiences as members of this working group, reflecting on what they learned and how it helped their teaching. Long a tool for evaluation and professional growth for teachers, portfolios have common parameters of purpose, format, individuality, and group process. They generally include a curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching philosophy and responsibilities, documents pertaining to teaching, reflection on teaching, and a table of contents.

It takes time, reflective thought, and action to make a teaching portfolio. There is a vulnerability, a learning of new skills, and a tremendous opportunity for self-growth in this development. For all of the instruction librarians involved in the development of a teaching portfolio, it was an extremely positive experience that helped them grow professionally, enhanced their teaching, and fostered a culture of teaching among them.—Nancy Schater McAuliffe, Old Dominion University help libraries “Tune-up for Optimum Reference Performance” since 1983.

Michael Havener (University of Rhode Island) and Carolyn Radcliff (Kent State University) provided an overview of the use of this program, examples of its use in central and branch libraries, and led program attendees in an exercise evaluating data provided by the WOREP.

The WOREP asks both librarians and library users to evaluate individual reference encounters. The survey data on patron and staff perceptions of library services can be used for benchmarking a library’s performance against its own performance in previous years, or against the average or top-scoring library of its size and type.

Radcliff suggested that libraries ask “What does that top-scoring library do that’s different from us?” when interpreting their WOREP results. The Kent State Library significantly improved its scores for patron satisfaction between 1991 and 1993 after making changes in service based on the WOREP data.

As Havener said in responding to questions, “No one measure is going to answer all of the questions we have about service.” But this program provided evidence of the usefulness of evaluating service through the WOREP.—Sara Memmott, University of Michigan-Dearborn

”United we stand—divided we fail? Integrated service points at MIT”

MIT Libraries’ circulation staff and librarians shared the pros and cons of their experiences with a pilot project for an Integrated Service Point (ISP), consisting of circulation, information, and reference services in a central location.

The ISP is easily accessible to library customers, provides “one-stop shopping,” and there is less confusion about whether a library customer is talking with a student, staff person, or a librarian. On the flip slide, customers were confused with the change in service structure and library space needed to be redesigned to accommodate the ISP.

The creation of this service point came about as a result of a redefinition process of public services at MIT. The central goal of the redefinition process was to organize to provide outstanding customer services and to define service priorities. Michael Finigan, circulation supervisor, and Virginia Steel, associate director for Public Services, said they were trying to “put ourselves in the customers’ shoes” when they designed the ISP.

The session was entertaining, interactive, and informative. Audience members were asked to participate in the discussion and complete a preand post-session survey on whether they were in favor of an ISP. They responded to questions such as, Who uses the term customer to refer to your library users? and Why do you use that term?

Further information about the ISP and the results of audience survey can be found at: http://libraries.mit.edu/barker/dhelman/ UnitedWeStand.html.—Cheryl Middleton, Oregon State University

Redesigning instructional services

In “Getting it Right: Outcome-oriented Redesign of a Service Program in a Team-based Management Environment,” Catherine Palmer (University of California, Irvine) and Shirley Leung (Hong Kong Baptist University) described the redesign of the UCI program, which incorporated subject specialists into instructional services teams, where their subject strengths could be used especially to provide instruction to upper-level, graduate students, and faculty. This changed the focus from ad hoc instruction to course-integrated instruction, where librarians worked with faculty to design library assignments and meet with classes.

This redesign was the result of a campus-wide program of problem-based learning, which generated grassroots activity to assess the structural problems of similar services (with different personnel resources) being provided at different libraries across the campus.

A concomitant redesign of the instructional services administrative structure resulted in a “Fast Track Instruction Team,” which could readily assess instruction needs and establish priorities for instruction. The two-year pilot program (1996-98) generated new enthusiasm among librarians and provided campus-wide visibility for instructional services.—Karen Morgan, University of Michigan-Dearborn

”Partnering for outreach: Developing programs for K-12 schools”

Lisa Yesson (University of California, Berkeley) discussed the California Heritage Project, a collaboration of the library and the San Francisco and Oakland Unified School Districts. The objective of the project was to expose students and families in disadvantaged urban communities to primary source materials from the Bancroft Library’s California Heritage Collection, an and Oakland Unified School Districts. The objective of the project was to expose students and families in disadvantaged urban communities to primary source materials from the Bancroft Library’s California Heritage Collection, an online archive documenting California’s history and culture. One of the components of the project was field trips, with the families serving as chaperones.

Exhibits give attendees the opportunity to update their knowledge of products and services.

As a result of the project, many students opened savings accounts to attend college, and additional funding was obtained for the next phase of the project. Technology is still a challenge in K-12 schools, said Yesson. Things to consider in a project such as this, she said, include the download time for images, the availability of teachers, the need for teacher compensation for their efforts (like credit to professional development or release time), and the need for “top down” and grassroots commitment. She also said project management time is also critical and universities need to work on their listening skills to effectively partner with K-12.

Janet Nichols (Wayne State University) discussed partnering with area public schools and suggested that the “2 Rs” in such a project are recruitment and retention. Initial staffing for their partnering project came from the library budget, although $20,000 was later received from a local foundation grant and a development officer is now working on additional funding. As a result of the grant, teachers were paid for their professional time.

According to Nichols, perceptions from the K-12 schools are important, and there is much to be learned by participants on both sides. Administrative support is critical, release time or curriculum pay is necessary, and teams should consist of an administrator, a teacher, a library media specialist, and a university librarian.

David Ferriero (Duke University) echoed Nichols by saying that the role of the university is not to tell K-12 schools what to do, but to tailor a program responsive to their needs.

In the case of Duke University, a middle school was targeted. Teachers needed to learn how to use technology; therefore, 30 university librarians served as technology mentors. By pairing a university librarian with a teacher, within the middle-school setting, teachers were able to proceed at their own pace, in a nonthreatening environment, and the credibility of the university library was raised.—Ramona Niffenegger, Louisiana State University

Science librarians and the Web: Promoting student literacy

“The Web as a Teaching Tool to Develop Information Literacy” was sponsored by ACRL’s Science and Technology Section.

Alison Scott Ricker (Oberlin College), a chemistry librarian, collaborates with two professors to teach introductory chemistry classes. Her goal was to inform students of how to search and evaluate Web resources.

Ricker outlined her preparation strategy for an inside look at how students are learning new information literacy concepts. Ricker engaged the audience with funny stories and real examples of how to get started at your library.

Julia Ann Kelly (University of Minnesota) a health science librarian, works with medical and nursing students to evaluate Web resources on evidence-based medicine. Kelly approached this topic using a broad overview of what health science librarians have done to engage their students on this new innovative topic.

Hugh Blackmer (Washington & Lee University), a science librarian, showed how he slowly developed a partnership with a science interactive Web-page product.—Elaina Norlin, University of Arizona

”An integrated approach to supporting distance education”

Webster University librarians have bridged the distance in service for over 5,700 students at 65 sites worldwide. They have successfully partnered technology with traditional library service through an intensive restructuring and redistribution of staff duties and the development of “Passports,” a Web-based module of access, service, and instruction.

Library Director Laura Rein emphasized that technology alone is not sufficient, it must be effectively integrated with traditional services.

“Passports” provides students and faculty with access to online full-text databases, instructional tutorials, connections to other international libraries, and basic “how to’s” of searching the Internet.

In adapting library support services to meet the needs of the remote user reference librarian, Ellen Eliceiri stressed the importance of traditional reference basics: instructional videos, onsite visits, handouts, and one-on-one service.

According to all the librarians, the crux of integrating traditional with technological services is careful evaluation of needs (of both students and faculty), setting goals, and creating a Request for Proposal (RFP) to clearly define what is needed from a vendor and the product.

One of the most interesting aspects of the presentation was the non-library representation. The director of Webster University discussed his successful experiences using “Passports” to orient his students and market the university to prospective students. He touted “Passports” as an “exemplar of services available to students.”—Elizabeth Orgeron, Southeastern Louisiana University

Getting published—advice from the experts

In “The Future of Library Research,” editors from four library journals discussed the present state of library research, gave advice for upcoming researchers, and made recommendations for the submission of successfully accepted manuscripts.

Negative trends noted in current research include overusing surveys as instrumentation source; the prevalence of quantitative, not qualitative, research; using low-end and inappropriate statistics; not building studies on previous research; excluding literature from other disciplines; and using the Web as an unedited vehicle for the dissemination of current research.

The time is ripe for good library research observed Donald Riggs editor of College & Research Libraries, “Research in library science is like knocking down an open door.” The editors provided the following guiding principles: the research should contain universality of problem, be readily replicable, and use appropriate measurement method; and, the research problem should be clearly and concisely stated at the outset.

Advice regarding the submission of research manuscripts was also noted: research topic should match the journal purpose; topic should contribute to areas of both theory and practice; manuscript should be grammatically and mechanically correct, including complete citations and concise writing style; and style compliance and electronic correspondence enable quicker response time from the editor.

The editors estimated the average turnaround time between submitted manuscript and response decision is four-to-six weeks, with notification possibly being even 18 months. And they reminded the audience of the inevitable: Every manuscript accepted for publication goes through at least one revision!

Select sources mentioned by participants include:

• Ronald R. Powell. Basic Research Methods for Librarians (Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1997).

• Michael Seadle. “Research as Conversation: Observation, Theory, and the Library Profession” http://www.lib.msu.edu/ seadle/ACRL_talk.html.

• Peter Hernon. “Research in Library and Information Science: Reflections on the Journal Literature (Editorial)” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25 (July 1999).

• Richard D. Johnson. Writing the Journal Article and Getting It Published. (Association of College and Research Libraries, 1985).—Jana Reeg-Steidinger, University of Wisconsin, Stout

”True stories of library funding: Horror stories and happiness”

Funding scenarios were demonstrated, with a generous amount of hilarity, by panel participants in a live “Sally Jesse” show, set in the year 2009Participants were Peter (a.k.a. Paul) Pauper, We Need Help University Library (Eric Childress, OCLC); Heda Havenot, We Make It Happen College Library (Mary Jane Scherdin, Edgewood College); Brenda Bimbo, We Have No Imagination Library (Sue Stroyan, Illinois Wesleyan University); and Dr. Winnifred Wealthy, We’ve Got it Made University Library (Jennifer Morris, William Smith College).

Each librarian represented an extreme, poking gently at the sometimes ridiculous outcomes of poor planning and funding that is mismatched with needs. Opening statements were followed by questions from Sally Jesse and audience participants, and Dr. Sigmund Dewey, funding strategy expert, responded with the help of audience volunteers.

Volunteers were asked to play Twister (showing that “in order to have a very successful financial future, you must demonstrate a high level of agility”); jump rope (“It’s a dogeat-dog competitive environment; only those who can jump three or more times are going to make it”); play musical chairs (“You’ve got to be in the right place at the right time—too much strategic planning, not enough strategic thinking!”); and “telephone” (to illustrate the need to communicate clearly, because you never know how it will “come out at the other end!”).

Dr. Dewey (James Neal, Johns Hopkins University Libraries) closed the session on a more serious note, with additional strategies for ensuring financial security. He stressed the need for coherent restructuring plans, creating new marketing opportunities, and imposing a level of fiscal discipline that integrates library and institutional planning. Innovation requires a new approach to economics, recognizing that we are in a competitive environment. The strategic, collaborative, and entrepreneurial responses are the ones we should adopt for future financial success. “Sally Jesse” was played by Liz Bishoff of The Bishoff Group.—Alison Ricker, Oberlin College

Surviving the research paper: Students speak

How do students in college and university classes cope with research paper assignments?

In “Students vs. The Research Paper,” Barbara Valentine (Linfield College) investigated this question through focus groups and interviews with 59 students and 9 faculty from small colleges and large universities. Her research was conducted in 1993, followed by a second study in 1998.

Valentine found students pressed for time, worried about grades, and concerned with figuring out what the professor wanted in the research paper. Familiar topics were often chosen by students for their research. When help was needed, students turned not to professors or librarians, but to friends and classmates. Valentine compared students’ information gathering to a trip to the store, where students found materials not through a search strategy, but largely by happenstance.

To assist students with their research, Valentine concluded that librarians need to connect with students on their own terms, through their peers, and in a setting outside the library. Improving collaboration with faculty is also key to understanding the research paper assignment. Since most students had no idea what databases they had used, and registered high levels of frustration with using the library, Valentine also concluded that library systems need to be simplified. By understanding the research paper from the student’s experience, librarians can learn how to best connect with students and develop programs to meet their needs.—Vanette M. Schwartz, Illinois State University

E-Reserves for breakfast

Shane Nackerud gave a lively presentation of his paper, “Implementing E-Reserves: Homegrown vs. Turnkey,” comparing his experiences setting up a homegrown electronic reserve system (Free Reserves) at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (SIUC), with launching a turnkey system (ERes) at the University of Minnesota.

While electronic reserve reduces the demand for service at busy reserve counters, establishing an e-reserve service is neither cheap nor easy. Creating individual HTML pages for each class and each reading assignment is too labor intensive, so an automated system is usually required.

Creating an in-house system gives the library total flexibility for customizing, but requires support from experienced programmers.

Buying a turnkey system requires an investment of time and money and special requests, such as removing or reducing the prominence of the system’s logo, may well receive a response “on the lines of No,” Shane said.

An additional option now available is “Free Reserves.” This in-house system developed at SIUC, may now be downloaded free of charge. Written in Perl, it is customizable by individual libraries. Improvements must be sent back to SIUC so they can be shared by others using the Free Reserves system. As Shane said, “Take it, change it, eat it for breakfast.”

For more information visit the Web site at http://www.lib.umn.edu/san/freereserves/.— John Tombarge, Washington &Lee University

Getting down to ”brass tacks” at ACRL

Session moderator Dane Ward and his colleagues from Wayne State University (WSU) presented an interesting and informative review of their efforts to incorporate the “Big 6” model of information literacy instruction into the undergraduate curriculum in their session, “The Brass Tacks of Information Literacy.”

The panel described a familiar problem: How do we define “information literacy” in a way meaningful to librarians and classroom faculty? and How do we promote the incorporation of information literacy skills across the undergraduate curriculum?

By the end of the session, attendees had been introduced to the instructional model chosen by WSU, had completed an engaging smallgroup exercise that asked them to brainstorm common activities in reference and instruction that might be “mapped” to the “Big 6” skills, and had shared exemplary practices with the entire session.

Session attendees left the presentation with an overview of the “Big 6” model of instruction, some good ideas about how their everyday activities might relate to the instructional model, and several helpful handouts—including a sample research assignment from an undergraduate seminar that demonstrated how “Big 6” skills and information literacy concerns were being successfully implemented in the academic curriculum at WSU.—Scott Walter, University of Missouri-Kansas City ■