ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Humanities Programs for Libraries: An ACRL/NEH Workshop

Paula Elliot Humanities Reference Librarian Kansas State University

April on the shores of Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, was its own season, ’mid winter and spring, and a low gray sky wrapped the Yahara Center in a comfortable isolation. The setting was entirely conducive to the activity of the ACRL/NEH workshop on humanities programming, where librarians and humanists gathered to learn from the experts, and from each other, the ways in which the National Endowment for the Humanities makes funds available for library programs. Twenty-five institutions were represented (in most cases) by an academic librarian and a faculty humanist. They met with experienced consultants and NEH representatives for two days of discussion and practice, which focused on the writing of grant proposals to enhance and promote libraries’ humanities holdings.

The workshop was the last of a series of four made possible by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The first two were held in late 1981 and early 1982, in Massachusetts and California, respectively (the latter was reported on by George Eberhart in CirRL News, May 1982, pp. 169-72). Following their successful completion, ACRL resubmitted its proposal for two additional workshops, which were funded by a grant for $62,423, and were held this year in New Orleans and Madison.

The gracious and informal setting of the Yahara Center established the friendly atmosphere for the conference. Librarians and their humanist teammates were barely distinguishable one from another. It was initially entertaining to try to guess which of a pair was the librarian, but it soon became refreshingly evident that such a distinction was unimportant. A collaborative spirit, sometimes missed on our own campuses, was greatly evident. Participants introduced themselves to the group by relating what special interest had brought each team to the workshop. Concerns ranged from public policy to regional history, women’s studies to musical comedy. Many came to the workshop with programs in mind, and were eager for information on implementation. All were committed to the promotion of the humanities; all recognized the vital worth of public programming.

The workshop director was Peggy O’Donnell, Chicago library consultant, who coupled her own experience at grant writing with organizational and teaching skills to produce a combination of lectures, panel discussions, and role-playing. Opening the first session with the assurance that “Money is available,” she went on to describe the work of the NEH as a funding agency for programs aimed at the out-of-school adult public. Grant applications have diminished due to inflated rumors of budget cutbacks. ACRL staff on hand were Sandy Whiteley, program officer, and Barbara Macikas, continuing education officer. Their advance planning and on-the-spot coordinating efforts moved events along smoothly.

Huel Perkins, assistant vice-chancellor for academic affairs, Louisiana State University, delivered a rousing address vindicating the preservation and the promotion of the humanities in American life. He reminded his audience that, unlike the sciences, the study of the humanities is “not so much an increase in knowledge as an increase in insight,” and that both are essential to the survival of democracy. A grant-writing veteran, he further contributed his perceptions of the process, along with Jessie Smith and Gregory Stevens. Smith, as director of the Fisk University Library, Nashville, successfully implemented the NEH-funded program, “Themes in the Black American Experience,” which provided three years of cultural events to the Nashville and Fisk University communities. Stevens, as director of the Capital District Humanities Program, administers NEH funds in a variety of educational offerings, in the Albany, New York, region.

In the absence of program officer Tom Phelps, Abbie Cutter represented the Endowment. Cutter, whose NEH specialty is the museum program, presented an overview of NEH grant opportunities for libraries. She then spoke specifically about the criteria for a stong proposal, emphasizing clarity at every juncture. She noted that it is important to define explicitly a program theme, target audience, resource people, and use of library resources. All panelists reiterated this admonition. From the Wisconsin Humanities Council, executive director Pat Anderson provided a view of humanities programming at the state level. Her contribution placed state activities in the larger context of the NEH, and provided some ideas for smaller-scale programs which librarians might develop with state funds.

After absorbing many suggestions and caveats from the panelists, participants were ready to go to work themselves. Each participant was assigned to a small group which represented a planning committee. A staff member assisted, and a recorderreporter was chosen. When presented with a written description of a certain academic library situation (e.g., large urban, community college, small rural), each group’s collective imagination blossomed.

It was the task of the group to devise a librarybased program highlighting certain special collections which were outlined in the description. Though the written descriptions were moderately detailed, participants, warming to the task, relished the opportunity to embroider each situation to suit their fancies. Some witty exchanges occurred. What also occurred, as the session progressed, was a deepening seriousness, and a genuine response to the panelists’ suggestions. In the group with the philospher present, the incisive question constantly arose: “Does this idea, this proposed program, this theme, have real humanistic value?” The refrain was crucial. (A by-product of the group sessions was a taste of the committee experience with its attendant accords and difficulties.) Halfway through the planning process, the groups reported to one another and to the “NEH”—as played by the panel of experts—for feedback and suggestions.

At this point not one proposal was considered fundable, although all were promising. Hearing about one another’s process gave fuel to the second group session, where revisions and refinements were made. Upon a second reporting, the hypothetical situations had become richly embellished, and great care had been taken to justify the humanities content of every program. Lectures interspersing the group sessions included one on the utilization of faculty humanist consultants in the planning stages, and another on budgeting the proposal. After a third group session, in response to the improvements, the panel expressed the possibility of funding each group’s project. For a majority of participants, this simulation technique provided an excellent opportunity to discover the planning process, and to reinforce information heard earlier from the panel.

Another amenity of the workshop was the evening time spent in conversation, over ample refreshments, in the homey Yahara lounge. Workshop staff were available to discuss individual programming concerns. Also in these moments, participants could exchange ideas and compare notes, coming away from the workshop richer not only for the intended contents, but also for that

The April workshop was the last ACRL/NEH event on humanities programming for academic libraries. Related programs are envisioned for the future, but these are still in the proposal stage. The previous workshops all emphasized the accessibility of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and encouraged librarians to utilize existing public funds in order to bring their public the humanistic experience. ■ ■