- Email: [email protected]
The Evolution of Academic Libraries: The Networked Environment
The Evolution of Academic Libraries: The Networked Environment by Alan Bailin and Ann Grafstein Available online 15 July 2005
This article argues that developing technologies have resulted in rapid and fundamental changes in the way libraries conduct business. It is argued that, in light of these changes, academic librarians need to reconfigure the way their time and resources are allocated in order to assist users in making the most effective use of networked environments.
ibraries are undergoing substantial and rapid changes. Within a quarter of a century, libraries have moved from card catalogs to OPACS, from printed indexes to CD-ROMs, and from CD-ROMs to Web-based databases that can be searched remotely. These changes have resulted in a shift in focus from library as place to library as a set of functions and services.1 It may seem as if the increase in services that libraries offer and the added convenience available to patrons should make the process of locating library materials easier and more transparent. Nevertheless, this increasingly automated environment has been accompanied by a considerable rise in interest in library instruction.2 This increased interest in instruction is manifested by the growing concern in libraries and accrediting agencies with information literacy,3 suggesting that the process of connecting users with library resources is anything but transparent. This article argues that the changes that have been affecting libraries necessitate in turn changes in the way the library is conceptualized, particularly in the way libraries go about providing assistance to users. This article outlines the nature of such a reconception.
L
BASIC COMPONENTS
OF A LIBRARY
The basic structure of libraries remains unchanged. The library system, in the view developed here, consists of three basic functional components: ! A collection; ! Means of access to the collection; and ! Assistance in accessing and using the collection. However, the conception of what a library’s collection consists of, as well as the ways in which that collection is accessed, has changed dramatically in recent years. It will be argued below that these changes imply the need to conceptualize assistance differently. In order to make this argument, it is necessary to examine what will be meant here by collection and means of access and how these functions have changed. Alan Bailin, Baruch College, CUNY, New York, NY 10010, USA [email protected]; Ann Grafstein, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549-1000, USA [email protected].
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31, Number 4, pages 317–323
Collection The term collection will be understood to mean materials to which a library user has access though means provided by the library. In the ‘‘traditional’’ library, of course, the collection refers primarily to printed material. Even the ‘‘traditional’’
July 2005 317
library, however, has incorporated new media as they have emerged—everything from sound recordings to videos and computer software. Still, the availability of digital information that is not physically housed in the library has further extended the concept of collection. The existence of networks makes the distinction between objects that are housed within the building and those that are accessed remotely increasingly less important. The distinction between what is and is not part of a collection in a traditional sense — what is or is not owned and housed within the library — is therefore becoming less and less functional. From the user’s point of view, it makes no difference whether a digitized article is housed on a server within the library or is only available remotely through a network, be it the Internet or an Intranet. In fact, studies have shown that users have difficulty distinguishing between a library’s Web-based subscription products and material they can access through the free Internet.4 Given these changes in the ways in which people access information, it is useful to reconceptualize our understanding of collection. We propose that in this new environment, a useful definition of collection is one that includes anything that can be accessed only through the gatekeeping functions that are instituted and controlled within the library. Gatekeeping, as it is used here, refers to procedures that libraries establish to control access to their collection. These include rules specifying the conditions under which library materials circulate, restrictions on the use of digital materials, as well as rules and regulations for using public access computers.
‘‘...useful definition of collection is one that includes anything that can be accessed only through the gatekeeping functions that are instituted and controlled within the library.’’ This view expands considerably the traditional understanding of collection, which excludes material that is not owned by the library. Our understanding of collection would then include everything from material available through the online subscription databases to material that users access via a Google search on a public access computer. Does this trivialize the conception of collection? We argue that it does not. Rather, this new conception frees us from being forced to make what might otherwise be ad hoc distinctions between what is in the collection and what is not. The Internet, of course, would seem to be the limiting case. What point is there in considering part of the collection anything that is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection? While it is true that items accessible through the Internet do not constitute a distinguishing part of any library’s collection, we do not, even within a traditional conception of collection, rule out items that are ubiquitous and easily available elsewhere, like the King James Bible, that is available in many houses and in every hotel room. Similarly, ephemera that librarians collect and place in vertical files (newspaper clippings, pamphlets, promotional or informational items about events that are of purely local interest, etc.) may also be considered central components of a given library’s collection, although they are available to anyone.
318 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
In fact, the gateway conception allows us to maintain a uniform notion of collection that holds both in networked and non-networked environments alike. In traditional libraries, the collection is housed in the library building(s). Since in a traditional library, gateway procedures specifically apply to just these materials, a collection defined in physical terms is essentially equivalent to a collection defined in terms of gateways. So, the concept of gateway can allow us to treat in a uniform way both the traditional library and the networked library of today. Means of Access Means of access refers to the systems through which the user materially gets hold of materials from the collection: an open stacks system in which the user can take out material him or herself, a closed stacks system in which the user needs to request a book by means of a call number, an interlibrary loan process, Web-based access to electronic material, etc. Indeed, the way a collection is organized, including the classification system, is also part of the means through which the collection is accessed. The networked environment has considerably expanded the means of access available to users. In a traditional library, a patron wanting periodical literature had to physically go to the library’s shelves to locate the needed volume. In a networked environment, however, this material can often be downloaded to a remote computer. Indeed, this has increasingly become a standard means of accessing periodical literature. Libraries have responded to patron demand for remote access to the full text of periodical literature by allocating a growing proportion of their budget to periodical databases. Library catalogs have also become to some degree a direct means of access in addition to their traditional role as finding aids. Electronic books as well as government documents and other Web sites are being cataloged and can be accessed directly from the OPAC. Similarly, it is not always necessary anymore for college or university students to come to the library to access their reserve readings. Much of this material is now being put on electronic reserve and students can download it from any Internet accessible computer. Assistance Finally, let us consider the issue of assistance. Assistance refers to all of the many ways that libraries help their patrons to gain access to and use the collection—from the catalogs which function as finding aids all the way to information literacy workshops and advanced classes in research. Our use of the term assistance is deliberately inclusive. It includes everything that libraries provide to help in the process of accessing and using items in a collection. Using this inclusive conception, we can bring together the many and varied means by which we help library users and identify patterns that we might otherwise miss. We need to keep in mind that for the library user it is generally not all that important, for example, whether the necessary information to identify items comes from an OPAC or signage or a librarian. What is important is that the service functions as a guide to needed items. Nor is it important to a library user whether assistance in assessing the value of an item comes from a reference librarian, an information literacy workshop, or a credit course in a college or university. With this perspective in mind, the rest of this article will develop the claim that the
changes we have identified in both collection and the means of access necessitate changes in the way we provide assistance. Many libraries are changing the way they provide assistance, but these changes are still both haphazard and incomplete. We will use this holistic conception of assistance to develop a model of what libraries need to provide patrons within this new networked environment.
A NEW MODEL
OF ASSISTANCE
To begin with, let us look briefly at the various forms of assistance libraries have been providing. When librarians think of assistance, what immediately comes to mind is generally reference. Reference, as it is normally conceived, refers to an interaction between a librarian and a patron at an information desk, on the telephone, through e-mail, or via chat. This conception of reference is based on a model in which the interaction must involve a patron requesting information from a librarian. This is actually a highly restricted view of reference, and indeed various attempts at defining reference over time have included other types of assistance than simply a patron requesting information from a librarian. The types of assistance that have, at various times, been considered part of reference include instruction, bibliographies, and pathfinders.5 Reference and Information-Seeking in the Networked Environment We argue that the new networked environment has rendered obsolete any view of reference that restricts it to a one-to-one interaction between a librarian and a patron. This conception is obsolete for a number of reasons. First, the networked environment has allowed libraries to make many of its resources available to patrons who are not physically present within the library building. The way to use these resources, however, is not self-evident, and the ability of patrons to access them from their home computers in no way lessens their need for assistance; in fact, arguably, their need for assistance is even greater. Any reference librarian who has fielded questions from patrons trying unsuccessfully to access either the catalog or a periodical database from outside the library understands that there is a world of difference between making content available through different means of access and making it accessible. Making content usable requires some form of assistance in accessing it.
‘‘We argue that the new networked environment has rendered obsolete any view of reference that restricts it to a one-to-one interaction between a librarian and a patron.’’ For one thing, the interfaces of the databases themselves are many and varied, which indicates that the means of access to these resources is less than transparent. A database such as JSTOR allows only keyword searching, apart from the ability to search title or author indexes, while other databases such as PsycINFO offer the option of using controlled vocabularies. In LexisNexis the user must select from among several different source areas before being able to execute a search. The most efficient way to search Factiva is to use its internally created
subject directories to narrow the search. The issue is not the idiosyncrasies of specific databases. The point is that a patron attempting to do research is confronted with a multiplicity of procedures that can confuse even an experienced researcher. The problem for patrons is not only a matter of interface. The networked environment poses new challenges for the user even in using the collection. With many libraries taking advantage of favorable consortium pricing, even the smallest library can offer a daunting number of databases. Given the number of available databases and Web resources, how can a patron know which resources to go to in order to locate particular kinds of information? For example, students doing research in a new discipline will often default to a database they have used before and are familiar with, regardless of whether or not it is appropriate for the discipline they are researching. The problem is compounded by the fact that for many patrons, the default resource is the World Wide Web. Given the large number of possible information sources, patrons — and this means, not only undergraduates, but also graduate students and faculty — are confronted with issues of preliminary selection of materials, which could not even be conceived of before the networked environment. Libraries have attempted to meet patrons’ needs for assistance by expanding ways of providing one-on-one reference via telephone, chat, or e-mail. While expanding reference in this way is certainly necessary, it is not sufficient. Results of LibQUAL+k research indicate that patrons want to be able to access library resources independently.6 Usage statistics for chat reference strongly suggest that these services are not meeting patrons’ needs for independent access to the resources.7 Given the increasing use of remote services, the number of patrons using these virtual reference services is simply too small for these to be considered to effectively meet users’ needs for assistance in the networked environment. In fact, reference librarians have noted that in-house users sometimes prefer to request help via chat reference than to walk to the reference desk, suggesting that virtual reference may meet even less of the need of remote users than the numbers indicate. What then is to be done? Even if we could expand in general our virtual reference services to include significantly increased hours, Web cams, and audio, it is not at all clear that this would go a long way toward meeting patrons’ needs. Given patrons’ preference for independent access to the collection, virtual reference is never likely to adequately meet patrons’ needs for assistance. Aside from the assistance we provide at the reference desk, how else do we assist patrons? At a most basic level — and a tour of many libraries indicates that this is not trivial — we attempt to provide clear signage to help them find their way around the library. We also create pathfinders as guides to the organization of the core literature — print resources, electronic databases, and Web sites — of particular disciplines. We offer instruction on topics ranging from the fundamentals of how to use a library, to the principles of basic research, to the more advanced research skills required in particular disciplines. How do these types of assistance translate into the new networked environment? Currently, we simply put many of our printed materials— pathfinders, handouts, information sheets — onto our Web sites. Is this satisfactory? We would argue that it is not, because it is not part of an integrated approach to providing assistance. The kinds of material we have developed to assist users are based on a traditional model of the way people do research. We give a wink and a nod to the new networked
July 2005 319
environment by trying to ‘‘retro-fit’’ the information we developed in print format by making it available online. In retro-fitting our materials, by following essentially the same strategies online as we have used off line, we implicitly assume that information-seeking behavior in an electronic networked environment is identical to traditional information seeking and can be assisted in the same ways. However, we have no basis for making this assumption. The indications are that when people are having difficulty using electronic resources, they do not go to the electronic equivalent of a reference desk—e-mail or chat reference. In a retrospective article considering the growth and use of virtual reference, Steve Coffman and Linda Arret note that patrons’ usage of virtual reference is far from impressive. They cite a survey on virtual reference use by conducted by Joe Janes. Janes asked libraries offering virtual reference to report the number of virtual reference questions they received during three specific days in November. According to Janes, the median service in his survey answered only sixteen questions during the course of that three-day period; the median number of questions answered per day was only six.8 Coffman and Arret also discuss virtual reference in several additional libraries, and conclude that, even at the busiest virtual reference desks, ‘‘chat remains very much a niche service.’’9 On the other hand, the shift to the networked environment has been dramatic. In discussing the data collected as part of a study on academic and research libraries commissioned by the Digital Library Federation (DLF) and Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), Amy Friedlander notes that although the library and its resources are highly valued in higher education, 41.5 percent of users (undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty) report that they work and study away from campus more than they used to; for graduate students, the figure is 57 percent.10 Even under the most optimistic views and projections for the growth of virtual reference11 —and efforts should certainly be made to enhance and improve this type of service —there is no indication that it will be adequate to meet the challenges posed by changes of the magnitude described by the DLF/CLIR study. The problem is that we have isolated reference, where reference is understood as a librarian answering patrons’ queries from an information desk, from all the other forms of assistance that we offer. The work we do in instruction and in developing other types of assistance tends to be considered a value-added extra. We had been able to treat the development of assistance materials as somewhat peripheral because it was based on a paradigm in which the user came to the library reference desk if s/he was having difficulty. To be sure, academic libraries have expanded the basic reference paradigm. For one thing, we have increasingly used transactions at the reference desk as opportunities for instruction,12 thus blurring the distinction between reference and instruction. We have also taken advantage of the new networked environment to expand the reach of the reference desk by means of e-mail and chat reference. Nevertheless, all of the ways in which we have extended our reference service continue to be based on the model of a patron interacting with a librarian. However, this model fails to reflect the fact that information seeking in a networked environment differs in significant ways from traditional information-seeking behavior in a library building. Before proceeding, let us look at some of the differences between
320 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
traditional information seeking and information seeking in a networked environment. Within a traditional information-seeking framework, when a patron enters a library building, s/he can go to the catalog or an index to locate specific materials. As part of that process, the patron may also stop at the reference desk for assistance. The reference desk is one of the basic components in the process of retrieving materials. For example, someone enters the library, goes to the catalog, stops at the reference desk, and having gotten assistance, goes to the shelf to retrieve the item. Or, perhaps, the reference desk is the first stop. Or it may be a step that can be skipped if a patron is sure about the material one seeks and its location in the building. The point here is that reference assistance is an organic part of the traditional process. In contrast, consider online information seeking within a networked environment. As all of us are well aware, accessing materials within a networked environment often involves using an OPAC, subscription databases, the World Wide Web, or a combination of these. The items that are accessed may also be considerably different from those traditionally available. Instead of using print journals or newspapers, articles are accessed electronically. While users sometimes continue to copy down call numbers of books they will later retrieve from the library, more and more frequently they access e-books directly through the OPAC. In fact, in some cases, they can even access journal articles through the OPAC. In addition, reference materials are almost completely available online, eliminating the need for the user to come to the library to consult them. Many of these are available through subscription databases, but some dictionaries and encyclopedias are available for free, albeit often not the complete version that can be accessed only by paying customers. In the perception of many users, the library as a place is disappearing from the information-seeking process. The reference desk is thus no longer an organic part of the process. Does this mean the process is transparent and that users no longer need assistance? We would suggest that there is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, as we mentioned above, the very fact that being provided with the tools to work independently appears to be so important to college library users indicates that they very much feel the need for assistance. In addition, anyone who has ever worked at a reference desk and has tried to walk patrons through the process of selecting appropriate online resources and using them correctly knows that users are very much in need of assistance. We would question whether the virtual reference desk is really the most effective way to respond to this need online. The fact that virtual reference use has not increased as rapidly as might have been predicted given the radical shift to online resources indicates that other forms of assistance are needed.
‘‘We would question whether the virtual reference desk is really the most effective way to respond to this need online.’’ Toward an Integrated Approach to Assistance Libraries expend a considerable amount of time and effort so that people are not required to come to the library in order to
use their resources. But aside from the virtual reference that many libraries offer, people are left on their own to figure out which resources to use and how to use them. We can go a long way toward filling this gap by offering other kinds of online assistance. The key is not simply to migrate the tools we have created for a non-networked library into the online library experience but rather to examine the way electronic resources are used and to see how assistance can become an organic part of that experience. Let us look, for example, at the OPAC. As difficult as it may be for some to use the catalog, in its classic form it provides assistance in identifying and locating appropriate items in the collection. In a traditional OPAC or card catalog, you do not gain access to items in a collection through the catalog. What the catalog does is to inform the user about what items are available (the ‘‘hit list’’ in an OPAC) and give directional information that points the user to the location of the item (for example, the call number). None of this is to suggest that finding tools such as OPACs cannot have multiple functions. So, for example, as we noted above, many OPACs provide links directly to e-books, government documents, Web sites, and even digital forms of journal articles. However, this capability in no way detracts from its function as a finding tool—in other words, a form of assistance. Consider, however, how little value-added information we have put into OPACS to guide users who are consulting it in the isolation of their homes or dormitory rooms. We provide information such as the author, the book title, publisher, date of publication, call number, subject headings, etc., but we provide no additional assistance to guide users —especially students — in how to use this information. How can a user be expected to know what a subject heading means, how they can find additional materials on the same subject, or how a subject search differs from a keyword search? Having attended perhaps a bibliographic instruction class as part of an English 1 course in no way guarantees that they will not need further assistance. It is not sufficient to simply insert all the information we think users might need into a help file and expect that they will consult it when they run into difficulty. The help we provide must be context sensitive —at the point of need — if we are to make it an organic part of the process. If we want to make our hyperlinked subject headings useful, for example, we must make assistance on this topic available at the point where patrons are in fact looking at subject headings. Similarly, let us consider call numbers. Patrons often do not know where in the library to locate books with particular call numbers. Instead of simply offering charts of where the different call number ranges can be found in the library, it would be more useful to provide a link directly from the call number that appears in the record to the exact location of that call number in the library. This is not an unrealistic task. It would involve a set of conditional rules mapping call numbers to locations and would not be very difficult to implement. Let us now turn to databases. Unlike OPACS, subscription databases are owned by private vendors and not housed on library servers. This imposes limits on the freedom libraries have to modify interfaces. Nevertheless, there is considerable room for libraries to offer assistance to patrons using databases. Consider, for example, the role of linking software such as SFX, which can help to create a unified environment for searching. This type of service, however, could be an even
more useful device if we find ways of assisting patrons in how to take advantage of the power these links offer. How many students are aware that the bibliography of a relevant article can be one of the most useful tools for finding other relevant sources and that the bibliographical entries in online articles are sometimes hyperlinks that take the user directly to the article in either the same or another database? We certainly have the ability to prompt students to think about these links while they are reading the articles, thus calling attention to a very powerful research tool. Similarly, in our face-to-face library instruction classes, we teach students about the importance of using database thesauri rather than relying on keyword searching. Information about thesauri is also contained in database help files. However, people’s tendency is simply to do a keyword search because it is easier, even if the search is less than completely successful. If we were to provide point of need assistance at the juncture where a user might find a thesaurus search useful, we would be providing users with the help they need when they need it, without requiring them to locate the help file and rummage through it in order to find needed answers. The issue is not only providing assistance with using the means of accessing the collection, but also making users aware of the kinds of items that are in the collection—be they print materials or online digital objects such as digital versions of articles in databases, e-journals available on the Web, or e-books that are ‘‘owned’’ by the library. They need not even be text-based materials, but digitized art work, primary sources or scientific illustrations. How could we supply such point of need assistance? Consider a device that keeps track of the kind of materials a user is searching for and identifies certain subject areas, and then points the user to other materials of the same sort. Science fiction? Not at all. Software such as blinkx (www.blinkx.com/overview_us.php), which automatically points users to related Web sites, can provide such services now. All we need to do is to develop ways of integrating such devices within the search process. As we noted above, not only the access to the collection, but the collection itself can take a radically different form in a networked environment. A library’s collection can be considered not only what it owns, but also what it can provide access to, including the prodigious amounts of material available in databases and all of the vast wealth of material available on the World Wide Web. This new kind of collection offers librarians new challenges. How can we best assist library users in sifting through the vast amounts of material to find the best items? The issue of assessment of material is far more pressing in a collection in a networked environment because in this environment the library cannot exert the same kind of quality control that it can when it owns its collection and that collection is housed within the library building. Information literacy instruction has been our way of responding. We visit classes, hold workshops, and even provide credit courses. However, as valuable as this is, it is not sufficient. When patrons are doing research in a networked environment, it is no longer realistic to have them come to the library, arm them with the information they need in the form of library instruction, and then send them away, confident that they can undertake their tasks effectively. What we need to do is to find ways of integrating this assistance with the ways in which people are accessing the library via the network. Again,
July 2005 321
this need not involve inordinately sophisticated technology. One simple move we could easily make is to integrate into the OPAC links to authors’ biographies as a means of providing relevant supplemental information which might assist users in assessing the authority of a work. For example, if a student working on the value of daycare in early childhood education finds a work critical of daycare written by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a link to biographical information might alert the student to the fact that Dr. Schlessinger’s PhD is in physiology, not psychology or education.
professional responsibilities accordingly—especially the way we provide assistance. This reconceived assistance could allow users to function not only more independently, but also far more effectively in browsing and searching our collections— wherever they are in the process of seeking information and wherever they are located. In this way we can enable independent discovery learning,14 making the networked environment something more than just another technological innovation.
NOTES
‘‘...we need to recognize that a greater proportion of librarians’ time must be allocated toward developing network service rather than doing face-to-face reference.’’
CONCLUSION The few suggestions we have made above just scratch the surface of the possible and doable. With more time and effort, we can do far more to build network environments in which assistance and the instruction that often accompanies it are integral components. Accomplishing this goal, however, will require not just the will and the imagination, but a reorganization of the workload of academic librarians. If we sincerely want to adjust what we offer to the needs of the new environment, then we need to start allocating time in more appropriate ways. Instead of looking at the network itself as something only handled by systems and Web librarians, we need to recognize that a greater proportion of librarians’ time must be allocated toward developing network service rather than doing face-to-face reference. What this entails is reconceptualizing what it means to be a public service academic librarian. It has become standardly accepted that public service librarians divide their time among collection development, reference, and instruction. We are not suggesting this change. What we are suggesting is that we need to re-think what is involved in these responsibilities, and that we allocate our professional time accordingly. More specifically, we need to allocate more time to network-based assistance, which involves both point-of-need reference and instruction, and correspondingly less time to sitting at the reference desk. Developing such a reconception will require creative ‘‘outside-the-box’’ thinking on the part of library professionals and administration. Although there has been discussion of the need for librarians to develop technological skills and move into technological areas, there has been no serious discussion of how to reallocate the responsibilities of public service librarians in order to meet the challenges of the new networked environment, nor any serious discussion of how these challenges can be met in ways which do not simply mimic traditional library services.13 Perhaps it is time to begin. We have not argued for a different paradigm for librarians or library services. The basic components — collection, access, and assistance— remain unchanged. Rather, we have argued that what we need to do is understand how the paradigm applies in a networked environment, and to reconfigure our
322 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
AND
REFERENCES
1. Alan Bailin & Ann Grafstein, From Place to Function: Academic Libraries in 2012. Online (2003). Available: http://alpha.fdu.edu/ ~marcum/bailin_grafstein.doc (Accessed November 16, 2004). 2. Michael Lorenzen, ‘‘Brief History of Library Instruction in the United States.’’ Illinois Libraries 83, no. 2 (2001): 8 – 18. 3. Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002). Available: http://www.msache.org/ msache/content/pdf _ files/characteristicsbook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 4. See Shawn V. Lombardo & Cynthia E. Miree, ‘‘Caught in the Web: The Impact of Library Instruction on Business Students’ Perceptions and Use of Print and Online Resources,’’ College & Research Libraries 64 (2003): 6–22; James Rettig, ‘‘Old Borders, New Borders, Bridges, and New Relationships: Transforming Academic Reference Service,’’ College & Research Libraries News 63 (2002): 790–793; and Peggy Seiden, Kris Szymborski & Barbara Norelli, ‘‘Undergraduate Students in the Digital Library: Information Seeking Behavior in an Heterogeneous Environment’’ Online (1997). Paper presented at the 1997 ACRL National Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. Available: http://www. ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/ nashville1997pap/seidenszymborski.htm (Accessed November 16, 2004). 5. Lanell Rabner and Suzanne Lorimer, Definitions of Reference Service: A Chronological Bibliography. Online (2002). Prepared for the RUSA Evaluation of Reference and User Services Committee. Available: http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaourassoc/ rusasections/mouss/moussection/mousscomm/evaluationofref/ refdefbibrev.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 6. Colleen Cook, Fred Heath & Bruce Thompson,‘‘dZones of ToleranceT in Perceptions of Library Service Quality: A LibQUAL+k Study.’’ portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3.1 (2003):113–123. Available: ProjectMuse http://muse.jhu.edu. ezproxy.hofstra.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_ the_academy/ v003/3.1cook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004); and Colleen Cook, Fred Heath, Bruce Thompson & Duane Webster, ‘‘LibQUAL+(TM): Preliminary Results from 2002. Performance Measurement and Metrics 4 (2003): 38–47. Available: http:// www.libqual.org/documents/admin/p38-47_Cook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 7. Steve Coffman & Linda Arret, ‘‘To Chat Or Not to Chat—Taking Another Look at Virtual Reference, Part 1.’’ Searcher 12.7 (July/ August 2004). Available: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/ jul04/arret_coffman.shtml (Accessed February 9, 2005). 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Amy Friedlander, Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment: Introduction to a Data Set Assembled by the Digital Library Federation and Outsell, Inc. (Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2002). Available: http://www.clir. org/pubs/reports/pub110/contents.html (Accessed February 9, 2005).
11. See, for example Brenda Bailey-Hainer, ‘‘Virtual Reference: Alive & Well.’’ Library Journal 130 (January 2005): 46. 12. Sandy Campbell and Debbie Fyfe, ‘‘Teaching at the Computer: Best Practices for One-on-One Instruction in Reference.’’ Feliciter 48 (2002): 26 – 8. 13. See, for example, Daryl C. Youngman, ‘‘Re-shaping Library Service Programming: New Strategies for the New Millennium.’’ IAUTL Proceedings (New Series) vol. 12, 2002. Available: http://www.iatul.org/conference/proceedings/vol12/
papers/Youngman.pdf (Accessed February 11, 2005); and Sohair W. Elbaz and Christopher Stewart. ‘‘We Are All the Webmasters: New Models for Building a Library Web site.’’ IAUTL Proceedings (New Series) vol. 12, 2002. Available: http:// www.iatul.org/conference/proceedings/vol12/papers/elbazfull.pdf (Accessed February 11, 2005). 14. James W. Marcum, ‘‘From Information Center to Discovery System: Next Step for Libraries?’’ Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (2001): 197 – 206.
July 2005 323
This article argues that developing technologies have resulted in rapid and fundamental changes in the way libraries conduct business. It is argued that, in light of these changes, academic librarians need to reconfigure the way their time and resources are allocated in order to assist users in making the most effective use of networked environments.
ibraries are undergoing substantial and rapid changes. Within a quarter of a century, libraries have moved from card catalogs to OPACS, from printed indexes to CD-ROMs, and from CD-ROMs to Web-based databases that can be searched remotely. These changes have resulted in a shift in focus from library as place to library as a set of functions and services.1 It may seem as if the increase in services that libraries offer and the added convenience available to patrons should make the process of locating library materials easier and more transparent. Nevertheless, this increasingly automated environment has been accompanied by a considerable rise in interest in library instruction.2 This increased interest in instruction is manifested by the growing concern in libraries and accrediting agencies with information literacy,3 suggesting that the process of connecting users with library resources is anything but transparent. This article argues that the changes that have been affecting libraries necessitate in turn changes in the way the library is conceptualized, particularly in the way libraries go about providing assistance to users. This article outlines the nature of such a reconception.
L
BASIC COMPONENTS
OF A LIBRARY
The basic structure of libraries remains unchanged. The library system, in the view developed here, consists of three basic functional components: ! A collection; ! Means of access to the collection; and ! Assistance in accessing and using the collection. However, the conception of what a library’s collection consists of, as well as the ways in which that collection is accessed, has changed dramatically in recent years. It will be argued below that these changes imply the need to conceptualize assistance differently. In order to make this argument, it is necessary to examine what will be meant here by collection and means of access and how these functions have changed. Alan Bailin, Baruch College, CUNY, New York, NY 10010, USA [email protected]; Ann Grafstein, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549-1000, USA [email protected].
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31, Number 4, pages 317–323
Collection The term collection will be understood to mean materials to which a library user has access though means provided by the library. In the ‘‘traditional’’ library, of course, the collection refers primarily to printed material. Even the ‘‘traditional’’
July 2005 317
library, however, has incorporated new media as they have emerged—everything from sound recordings to videos and computer software. Still, the availability of digital information that is not physically housed in the library has further extended the concept of collection. The existence of networks makes the distinction between objects that are housed within the building and those that are accessed remotely increasingly less important. The distinction between what is and is not part of a collection in a traditional sense — what is or is not owned and housed within the library — is therefore becoming less and less functional. From the user’s point of view, it makes no difference whether a digitized article is housed on a server within the library or is only available remotely through a network, be it the Internet or an Intranet. In fact, studies have shown that users have difficulty distinguishing between a library’s Web-based subscription products and material they can access through the free Internet.4 Given these changes in the ways in which people access information, it is useful to reconceptualize our understanding of collection. We propose that in this new environment, a useful definition of collection is one that includes anything that can be accessed only through the gatekeeping functions that are instituted and controlled within the library. Gatekeeping, as it is used here, refers to procedures that libraries establish to control access to their collection. These include rules specifying the conditions under which library materials circulate, restrictions on the use of digital materials, as well as rules and regulations for using public access computers.
‘‘...useful definition of collection is one that includes anything that can be accessed only through the gatekeeping functions that are instituted and controlled within the library.’’ This view expands considerably the traditional understanding of collection, which excludes material that is not owned by the library. Our understanding of collection would then include everything from material available through the online subscription databases to material that users access via a Google search on a public access computer. Does this trivialize the conception of collection? We argue that it does not. Rather, this new conception frees us from being forced to make what might otherwise be ad hoc distinctions between what is in the collection and what is not. The Internet, of course, would seem to be the limiting case. What point is there in considering part of the collection anything that is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection? While it is true that items accessible through the Internet do not constitute a distinguishing part of any library’s collection, we do not, even within a traditional conception of collection, rule out items that are ubiquitous and easily available elsewhere, like the King James Bible, that is available in many houses and in every hotel room. Similarly, ephemera that librarians collect and place in vertical files (newspaper clippings, pamphlets, promotional or informational items about events that are of purely local interest, etc.) may also be considered central components of a given library’s collection, although they are available to anyone.
318 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
In fact, the gateway conception allows us to maintain a uniform notion of collection that holds both in networked and non-networked environments alike. In traditional libraries, the collection is housed in the library building(s). Since in a traditional library, gateway procedures specifically apply to just these materials, a collection defined in physical terms is essentially equivalent to a collection defined in terms of gateways. So, the concept of gateway can allow us to treat in a uniform way both the traditional library and the networked library of today. Means of Access Means of access refers to the systems through which the user materially gets hold of materials from the collection: an open stacks system in which the user can take out material him or herself, a closed stacks system in which the user needs to request a book by means of a call number, an interlibrary loan process, Web-based access to electronic material, etc. Indeed, the way a collection is organized, including the classification system, is also part of the means through which the collection is accessed. The networked environment has considerably expanded the means of access available to users. In a traditional library, a patron wanting periodical literature had to physically go to the library’s shelves to locate the needed volume. In a networked environment, however, this material can often be downloaded to a remote computer. Indeed, this has increasingly become a standard means of accessing periodical literature. Libraries have responded to patron demand for remote access to the full text of periodical literature by allocating a growing proportion of their budget to periodical databases. Library catalogs have also become to some degree a direct means of access in addition to their traditional role as finding aids. Electronic books as well as government documents and other Web sites are being cataloged and can be accessed directly from the OPAC. Similarly, it is not always necessary anymore for college or university students to come to the library to access their reserve readings. Much of this material is now being put on electronic reserve and students can download it from any Internet accessible computer. Assistance Finally, let us consider the issue of assistance. Assistance refers to all of the many ways that libraries help their patrons to gain access to and use the collection—from the catalogs which function as finding aids all the way to information literacy workshops and advanced classes in research. Our use of the term assistance is deliberately inclusive. It includes everything that libraries provide to help in the process of accessing and using items in a collection. Using this inclusive conception, we can bring together the many and varied means by which we help library users and identify patterns that we might otherwise miss. We need to keep in mind that for the library user it is generally not all that important, for example, whether the necessary information to identify items comes from an OPAC or signage or a librarian. What is important is that the service functions as a guide to needed items. Nor is it important to a library user whether assistance in assessing the value of an item comes from a reference librarian, an information literacy workshop, or a credit course in a college or university. With this perspective in mind, the rest of this article will develop the claim that the
changes we have identified in both collection and the means of access necessitate changes in the way we provide assistance. Many libraries are changing the way they provide assistance, but these changes are still both haphazard and incomplete. We will use this holistic conception of assistance to develop a model of what libraries need to provide patrons within this new networked environment.
A NEW MODEL
OF ASSISTANCE
To begin with, let us look briefly at the various forms of assistance libraries have been providing. When librarians think of assistance, what immediately comes to mind is generally reference. Reference, as it is normally conceived, refers to an interaction between a librarian and a patron at an information desk, on the telephone, through e-mail, or via chat. This conception of reference is based on a model in which the interaction must involve a patron requesting information from a librarian. This is actually a highly restricted view of reference, and indeed various attempts at defining reference over time have included other types of assistance than simply a patron requesting information from a librarian. The types of assistance that have, at various times, been considered part of reference include instruction, bibliographies, and pathfinders.5 Reference and Information-Seeking in the Networked Environment We argue that the new networked environment has rendered obsolete any view of reference that restricts it to a one-to-one interaction between a librarian and a patron. This conception is obsolete for a number of reasons. First, the networked environment has allowed libraries to make many of its resources available to patrons who are not physically present within the library building. The way to use these resources, however, is not self-evident, and the ability of patrons to access them from their home computers in no way lessens their need for assistance; in fact, arguably, their need for assistance is even greater. Any reference librarian who has fielded questions from patrons trying unsuccessfully to access either the catalog or a periodical database from outside the library understands that there is a world of difference between making content available through different means of access and making it accessible. Making content usable requires some form of assistance in accessing it.
‘‘We argue that the new networked environment has rendered obsolete any view of reference that restricts it to a one-to-one interaction between a librarian and a patron.’’ For one thing, the interfaces of the databases themselves are many and varied, which indicates that the means of access to these resources is less than transparent. A database such as JSTOR allows only keyword searching, apart from the ability to search title or author indexes, while other databases such as PsycINFO offer the option of using controlled vocabularies. In LexisNexis the user must select from among several different source areas before being able to execute a search. The most efficient way to search Factiva is to use its internally created
subject directories to narrow the search. The issue is not the idiosyncrasies of specific databases. The point is that a patron attempting to do research is confronted with a multiplicity of procedures that can confuse even an experienced researcher. The problem for patrons is not only a matter of interface. The networked environment poses new challenges for the user even in using the collection. With many libraries taking advantage of favorable consortium pricing, even the smallest library can offer a daunting number of databases. Given the number of available databases and Web resources, how can a patron know which resources to go to in order to locate particular kinds of information? For example, students doing research in a new discipline will often default to a database they have used before and are familiar with, regardless of whether or not it is appropriate for the discipline they are researching. The problem is compounded by the fact that for many patrons, the default resource is the World Wide Web. Given the large number of possible information sources, patrons — and this means, not only undergraduates, but also graduate students and faculty — are confronted with issues of preliminary selection of materials, which could not even be conceived of before the networked environment. Libraries have attempted to meet patrons’ needs for assistance by expanding ways of providing one-on-one reference via telephone, chat, or e-mail. While expanding reference in this way is certainly necessary, it is not sufficient. Results of LibQUAL+k research indicate that patrons want to be able to access library resources independently.6 Usage statistics for chat reference strongly suggest that these services are not meeting patrons’ needs for independent access to the resources.7 Given the increasing use of remote services, the number of patrons using these virtual reference services is simply too small for these to be considered to effectively meet users’ needs for assistance in the networked environment. In fact, reference librarians have noted that in-house users sometimes prefer to request help via chat reference than to walk to the reference desk, suggesting that virtual reference may meet even less of the need of remote users than the numbers indicate. What then is to be done? Even if we could expand in general our virtual reference services to include significantly increased hours, Web cams, and audio, it is not at all clear that this would go a long way toward meeting patrons’ needs. Given patrons’ preference for independent access to the collection, virtual reference is never likely to adequately meet patrons’ needs for assistance. Aside from the assistance we provide at the reference desk, how else do we assist patrons? At a most basic level — and a tour of many libraries indicates that this is not trivial — we attempt to provide clear signage to help them find their way around the library. We also create pathfinders as guides to the organization of the core literature — print resources, electronic databases, and Web sites — of particular disciplines. We offer instruction on topics ranging from the fundamentals of how to use a library, to the principles of basic research, to the more advanced research skills required in particular disciplines. How do these types of assistance translate into the new networked environment? Currently, we simply put many of our printed materials— pathfinders, handouts, information sheets — onto our Web sites. Is this satisfactory? We would argue that it is not, because it is not part of an integrated approach to providing assistance. The kinds of material we have developed to assist users are based on a traditional model of the way people do research. We give a wink and a nod to the new networked
July 2005 319
environment by trying to ‘‘retro-fit’’ the information we developed in print format by making it available online. In retro-fitting our materials, by following essentially the same strategies online as we have used off line, we implicitly assume that information-seeking behavior in an electronic networked environment is identical to traditional information seeking and can be assisted in the same ways. However, we have no basis for making this assumption. The indications are that when people are having difficulty using electronic resources, they do not go to the electronic equivalent of a reference desk—e-mail or chat reference. In a retrospective article considering the growth and use of virtual reference, Steve Coffman and Linda Arret note that patrons’ usage of virtual reference is far from impressive. They cite a survey on virtual reference use by conducted by Joe Janes. Janes asked libraries offering virtual reference to report the number of virtual reference questions they received during three specific days in November. According to Janes, the median service in his survey answered only sixteen questions during the course of that three-day period; the median number of questions answered per day was only six.8 Coffman and Arret also discuss virtual reference in several additional libraries, and conclude that, even at the busiest virtual reference desks, ‘‘chat remains very much a niche service.’’9 On the other hand, the shift to the networked environment has been dramatic. In discussing the data collected as part of a study on academic and research libraries commissioned by the Digital Library Federation (DLF) and Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), Amy Friedlander notes that although the library and its resources are highly valued in higher education, 41.5 percent of users (undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty) report that they work and study away from campus more than they used to; for graduate students, the figure is 57 percent.10 Even under the most optimistic views and projections for the growth of virtual reference11 —and efforts should certainly be made to enhance and improve this type of service —there is no indication that it will be adequate to meet the challenges posed by changes of the magnitude described by the DLF/CLIR study. The problem is that we have isolated reference, where reference is understood as a librarian answering patrons’ queries from an information desk, from all the other forms of assistance that we offer. The work we do in instruction and in developing other types of assistance tends to be considered a value-added extra. We had been able to treat the development of assistance materials as somewhat peripheral because it was based on a paradigm in which the user came to the library reference desk if s/he was having difficulty. To be sure, academic libraries have expanded the basic reference paradigm. For one thing, we have increasingly used transactions at the reference desk as opportunities for instruction,12 thus blurring the distinction between reference and instruction. We have also taken advantage of the new networked environment to expand the reach of the reference desk by means of e-mail and chat reference. Nevertheless, all of the ways in which we have extended our reference service continue to be based on the model of a patron interacting with a librarian. However, this model fails to reflect the fact that information seeking in a networked environment differs in significant ways from traditional information-seeking behavior in a library building. Before proceeding, let us look at some of the differences between
320 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
traditional information seeking and information seeking in a networked environment. Within a traditional information-seeking framework, when a patron enters a library building, s/he can go to the catalog or an index to locate specific materials. As part of that process, the patron may also stop at the reference desk for assistance. The reference desk is one of the basic components in the process of retrieving materials. For example, someone enters the library, goes to the catalog, stops at the reference desk, and having gotten assistance, goes to the shelf to retrieve the item. Or, perhaps, the reference desk is the first stop. Or it may be a step that can be skipped if a patron is sure about the material one seeks and its location in the building. The point here is that reference assistance is an organic part of the traditional process. In contrast, consider online information seeking within a networked environment. As all of us are well aware, accessing materials within a networked environment often involves using an OPAC, subscription databases, the World Wide Web, or a combination of these. The items that are accessed may also be considerably different from those traditionally available. Instead of using print journals or newspapers, articles are accessed electronically. While users sometimes continue to copy down call numbers of books they will later retrieve from the library, more and more frequently they access e-books directly through the OPAC. In fact, in some cases, they can even access journal articles through the OPAC. In addition, reference materials are almost completely available online, eliminating the need for the user to come to the library to consult them. Many of these are available through subscription databases, but some dictionaries and encyclopedias are available for free, albeit often not the complete version that can be accessed only by paying customers. In the perception of many users, the library as a place is disappearing from the information-seeking process. The reference desk is thus no longer an organic part of the process. Does this mean the process is transparent and that users no longer need assistance? We would suggest that there is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, as we mentioned above, the very fact that being provided with the tools to work independently appears to be so important to college library users indicates that they very much feel the need for assistance. In addition, anyone who has ever worked at a reference desk and has tried to walk patrons through the process of selecting appropriate online resources and using them correctly knows that users are very much in need of assistance. We would question whether the virtual reference desk is really the most effective way to respond to this need online. The fact that virtual reference use has not increased as rapidly as might have been predicted given the radical shift to online resources indicates that other forms of assistance are needed.
‘‘We would question whether the virtual reference desk is really the most effective way to respond to this need online.’’ Toward an Integrated Approach to Assistance Libraries expend a considerable amount of time and effort so that people are not required to come to the library in order to
use their resources. But aside from the virtual reference that many libraries offer, people are left on their own to figure out which resources to use and how to use them. We can go a long way toward filling this gap by offering other kinds of online assistance. The key is not simply to migrate the tools we have created for a non-networked library into the online library experience but rather to examine the way electronic resources are used and to see how assistance can become an organic part of that experience. Let us look, for example, at the OPAC. As difficult as it may be for some to use the catalog, in its classic form it provides assistance in identifying and locating appropriate items in the collection. In a traditional OPAC or card catalog, you do not gain access to items in a collection through the catalog. What the catalog does is to inform the user about what items are available (the ‘‘hit list’’ in an OPAC) and give directional information that points the user to the location of the item (for example, the call number). None of this is to suggest that finding tools such as OPACs cannot have multiple functions. So, for example, as we noted above, many OPACs provide links directly to e-books, government documents, Web sites, and even digital forms of journal articles. However, this capability in no way detracts from its function as a finding tool—in other words, a form of assistance. Consider, however, how little value-added information we have put into OPACS to guide users who are consulting it in the isolation of their homes or dormitory rooms. We provide information such as the author, the book title, publisher, date of publication, call number, subject headings, etc., but we provide no additional assistance to guide users —especially students — in how to use this information. How can a user be expected to know what a subject heading means, how they can find additional materials on the same subject, or how a subject search differs from a keyword search? Having attended perhaps a bibliographic instruction class as part of an English 1 course in no way guarantees that they will not need further assistance. It is not sufficient to simply insert all the information we think users might need into a help file and expect that they will consult it when they run into difficulty. The help we provide must be context sensitive —at the point of need — if we are to make it an organic part of the process. If we want to make our hyperlinked subject headings useful, for example, we must make assistance on this topic available at the point where patrons are in fact looking at subject headings. Similarly, let us consider call numbers. Patrons often do not know where in the library to locate books with particular call numbers. Instead of simply offering charts of where the different call number ranges can be found in the library, it would be more useful to provide a link directly from the call number that appears in the record to the exact location of that call number in the library. This is not an unrealistic task. It would involve a set of conditional rules mapping call numbers to locations and would not be very difficult to implement. Let us now turn to databases. Unlike OPACS, subscription databases are owned by private vendors and not housed on library servers. This imposes limits on the freedom libraries have to modify interfaces. Nevertheless, there is considerable room for libraries to offer assistance to patrons using databases. Consider, for example, the role of linking software such as SFX, which can help to create a unified environment for searching. This type of service, however, could be an even
more useful device if we find ways of assisting patrons in how to take advantage of the power these links offer. How many students are aware that the bibliography of a relevant article can be one of the most useful tools for finding other relevant sources and that the bibliographical entries in online articles are sometimes hyperlinks that take the user directly to the article in either the same or another database? We certainly have the ability to prompt students to think about these links while they are reading the articles, thus calling attention to a very powerful research tool. Similarly, in our face-to-face library instruction classes, we teach students about the importance of using database thesauri rather than relying on keyword searching. Information about thesauri is also contained in database help files. However, people’s tendency is simply to do a keyword search because it is easier, even if the search is less than completely successful. If we were to provide point of need assistance at the juncture where a user might find a thesaurus search useful, we would be providing users with the help they need when they need it, without requiring them to locate the help file and rummage through it in order to find needed answers. The issue is not only providing assistance with using the means of accessing the collection, but also making users aware of the kinds of items that are in the collection—be they print materials or online digital objects such as digital versions of articles in databases, e-journals available on the Web, or e-books that are ‘‘owned’’ by the library. They need not even be text-based materials, but digitized art work, primary sources or scientific illustrations. How could we supply such point of need assistance? Consider a device that keeps track of the kind of materials a user is searching for and identifies certain subject areas, and then points the user to other materials of the same sort. Science fiction? Not at all. Software such as blinkx (www.blinkx.com/overview_us.php), which automatically points users to related Web sites, can provide such services now. All we need to do is to develop ways of integrating such devices within the search process. As we noted above, not only the access to the collection, but the collection itself can take a radically different form in a networked environment. A library’s collection can be considered not only what it owns, but also what it can provide access to, including the prodigious amounts of material available in databases and all of the vast wealth of material available on the World Wide Web. This new kind of collection offers librarians new challenges. How can we best assist library users in sifting through the vast amounts of material to find the best items? The issue of assessment of material is far more pressing in a collection in a networked environment because in this environment the library cannot exert the same kind of quality control that it can when it owns its collection and that collection is housed within the library building. Information literacy instruction has been our way of responding. We visit classes, hold workshops, and even provide credit courses. However, as valuable as this is, it is not sufficient. When patrons are doing research in a networked environment, it is no longer realistic to have them come to the library, arm them with the information they need in the form of library instruction, and then send them away, confident that they can undertake their tasks effectively. What we need to do is to find ways of integrating this assistance with the ways in which people are accessing the library via the network. Again,
July 2005 321
this need not involve inordinately sophisticated technology. One simple move we could easily make is to integrate into the OPAC links to authors’ biographies as a means of providing relevant supplemental information which might assist users in assessing the authority of a work. For example, if a student working on the value of daycare in early childhood education finds a work critical of daycare written by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a link to biographical information might alert the student to the fact that Dr. Schlessinger’s PhD is in physiology, not psychology or education.
professional responsibilities accordingly—especially the way we provide assistance. This reconceived assistance could allow users to function not only more independently, but also far more effectively in browsing and searching our collections— wherever they are in the process of seeking information and wherever they are located. In this way we can enable independent discovery learning,14 making the networked environment something more than just another technological innovation.
NOTES
‘‘...we need to recognize that a greater proportion of librarians’ time must be allocated toward developing network service rather than doing face-to-face reference.’’
CONCLUSION The few suggestions we have made above just scratch the surface of the possible and doable. With more time and effort, we can do far more to build network environments in which assistance and the instruction that often accompanies it are integral components. Accomplishing this goal, however, will require not just the will and the imagination, but a reorganization of the workload of academic librarians. If we sincerely want to adjust what we offer to the needs of the new environment, then we need to start allocating time in more appropriate ways. Instead of looking at the network itself as something only handled by systems and Web librarians, we need to recognize that a greater proportion of librarians’ time must be allocated toward developing network service rather than doing face-to-face reference. What this entails is reconceptualizing what it means to be a public service academic librarian. It has become standardly accepted that public service librarians divide their time among collection development, reference, and instruction. We are not suggesting this change. What we are suggesting is that we need to re-think what is involved in these responsibilities, and that we allocate our professional time accordingly. More specifically, we need to allocate more time to network-based assistance, which involves both point-of-need reference and instruction, and correspondingly less time to sitting at the reference desk. Developing such a reconception will require creative ‘‘outside-the-box’’ thinking on the part of library professionals and administration. Although there has been discussion of the need for librarians to develop technological skills and move into technological areas, there has been no serious discussion of how to reallocate the responsibilities of public service librarians in order to meet the challenges of the new networked environment, nor any serious discussion of how these challenges can be met in ways which do not simply mimic traditional library services.13 Perhaps it is time to begin. We have not argued for a different paradigm for librarians or library services. The basic components — collection, access, and assistance— remain unchanged. Rather, we have argued that what we need to do is understand how the paradigm applies in a networked environment, and to reconfigure our
322 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
AND
REFERENCES
1. Alan Bailin & Ann Grafstein, From Place to Function: Academic Libraries in 2012. Online (2003). Available: http://alpha.fdu.edu/ ~marcum/bailin_grafstein.doc (Accessed November 16, 2004). 2. Michael Lorenzen, ‘‘Brief History of Library Instruction in the United States.’’ Illinois Libraries 83, no. 2 (2001): 8 – 18. 3. Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002). Available: http://www.msache.org/ msache/content/pdf _ files/characteristicsbook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 4. See Shawn V. Lombardo & Cynthia E. Miree, ‘‘Caught in the Web: The Impact of Library Instruction on Business Students’ Perceptions and Use of Print and Online Resources,’’ College & Research Libraries 64 (2003): 6–22; James Rettig, ‘‘Old Borders, New Borders, Bridges, and New Relationships: Transforming Academic Reference Service,’’ College & Research Libraries News 63 (2002): 790–793; and Peggy Seiden, Kris Szymborski & Barbara Norelli, ‘‘Undergraduate Students in the Digital Library: Information Seeking Behavior in an Heterogeneous Environment’’ Online (1997). Paper presented at the 1997 ACRL National Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. Available: http://www. ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/ nashville1997pap/seidenszymborski.htm (Accessed November 16, 2004). 5. Lanell Rabner and Suzanne Lorimer, Definitions of Reference Service: A Chronological Bibliography. Online (2002). Prepared for the RUSA Evaluation of Reference and User Services Committee. Available: http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaourassoc/ rusasections/mouss/moussection/mousscomm/evaluationofref/ refdefbibrev.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 6. Colleen Cook, Fred Heath & Bruce Thompson,‘‘dZones of ToleranceT in Perceptions of Library Service Quality: A LibQUAL+k Study.’’ portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3.1 (2003):113–123. Available: ProjectMuse http://muse.jhu.edu. ezproxy.hofstra.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_ the_academy/ v003/3.1cook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004); and Colleen Cook, Fred Heath, Bruce Thompson & Duane Webster, ‘‘LibQUAL+(TM): Preliminary Results from 2002. Performance Measurement and Metrics 4 (2003): 38–47. Available: http:// www.libqual.org/documents/admin/p38-47_Cook.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2004). 7. Steve Coffman & Linda Arret, ‘‘To Chat Or Not to Chat—Taking Another Look at Virtual Reference, Part 1.’’ Searcher 12.7 (July/ August 2004). Available: http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/ jul04/arret_coffman.shtml (Accessed February 9, 2005). 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Amy Friedlander, Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment: Introduction to a Data Set Assembled by the Digital Library Federation and Outsell, Inc. (Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2002). Available: http://www.clir. org/pubs/reports/pub110/contents.html (Accessed February 9, 2005).
11. See, for example Brenda Bailey-Hainer, ‘‘Virtual Reference: Alive & Well.’’ Library Journal 130 (January 2005): 46. 12. Sandy Campbell and Debbie Fyfe, ‘‘Teaching at the Computer: Best Practices for One-on-One Instruction in Reference.’’ Feliciter 48 (2002): 26 – 8. 13. See, for example, Daryl C. Youngman, ‘‘Re-shaping Library Service Programming: New Strategies for the New Millennium.’’ IAUTL Proceedings (New Series) vol. 12, 2002. Available: http://www.iatul.org/conference/proceedings/vol12/
papers/Youngman.pdf (Accessed February 11, 2005); and Sohair W. Elbaz and Christopher Stewart. ‘‘We Are All the Webmasters: New Models for Building a Library Web site.’’ IAUTL Proceedings (New Series) vol. 12, 2002. Available: http:// www.iatul.org/conference/proceedings/vol12/papers/elbazfull.pdf (Accessed February 11, 2005). 14. James W. Marcum, ‘‘From Information Center to Discovery System: Next Step for Libraries?’’ Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (2001): 197 – 206.
July 2005 323