Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Many librarians have been asked to take on additional responsibilities during these tight economic times. In this column, Maureen Perry writes about what she learned from her year as a hybrid librarian, splitting her time between reference and special collections. She found this assignment enjoyable, and her essay reminds us of the value of job exchanges and other job enrichment opportunities.—Editor

Many reference librarians find themselves taking on duties outside of their respective skill sets. What follows is the story of my academic year in special collections. I hope that the insights I have gained there will inspire others to make the most of the learning opportunities that these assignments can present. Though the term archive has a specific meaning, I shall use the terms archive/archival and special collections interchangeably for the sake of brevity.

An Unexpected Opportunity

The University of Southern Maine’s (USM) Lewiston-Auburn College houses an extensive collection of items related to local and regional Franco-American life.¹ When it lost a coordinator, I was asked to help maintain the Franco-American Collection (FAC) until a new coordinator could be hired. Though not an archivist by training, I do serve on the collection’s board of directors and as liaison to the college’s arts and humanities division, which includes French North American studies. The college’s dean saw the collection’s potential as a community resource.

I spent the 2009–10 academic year in two worlds: special collections and regular reference. Although I had no formalized training in the area, I was able to put together my own training plan. From the head of special collections at our Portland campus I learned about the appropriate forms; other local special collections librarians showed me some preservation basics.² The curator of the college’s Atrium Art Gallery helped me design and mount window displays.³

Special Collections Reference

The most rewarding part of the experience was working with the patrons. Though I still worked with patrons daily in my regular post, I found that reference work in the FAC differed from my regular work in two major ways, which only served to help further develop my reference skills.

Firstly, archival reference questions can be time intensive.⁴ As O’Donnell points out, seemingly basic factual questions can often involve deep contextual research. This concept can apply to regular reference questions but applies especially well to archival questions.⁵ As a Franco-American and a Lewiston native, I often found myself drawing upon my background, as well as turning to local experts (including my own mother), in helping patrons with their research.

One patron was researching local parochial schools, and since my mother had attended parochial school and later served as business manager for one of the parishes, I drew upon that expertise.⁶ Now in my regular reference consultations I more frequently mention the value of using subject experts as information sources.

Secondly, special collections differ from regular collections in their arrangement of materials. Generally the materials in a special collection are not shelved according to a call number order.⁷ The FAC’s items are arranged first by geographic region (with a particular emphasis on Lewiston) and then by general subject. Biographical materials have their own section and are filed alphabetically by biographee. A finding aid describes what is located where. While this point may seem obvious, the quality of the finding aid did impact the reference service I was able to provide, especially since patrons often came to see particular items.

Back in my regular role I now have more appreciation for good cataloging and description. When I send notifications about new books in my liaison areas, I pay closer attention in case I catch a discrepancy in the catalog record. I recommend items to my patrons, and our catalogers enable us to find these items. When I create subject guides, I am now more mindful of what wording would best help my patrons find what they need.

I have gained a special appreciation for the role of outreach. The better you know your collection, the better you can promote it. Promoting the collection attracts donors— whose gifts impact the collection’s inventory. Likewise, knowing my regular collection helps me better evaluate potential donations, weeds, and purchases. In addition, I can recommend FAC items when they fit a general reference question.

Cross-Training Truths

My cross-training experiences reflect corresponding truths of cross-training in general. Cross-training is an investment in time, and DeZelar-Tiedman mentions the learning curve involved in most cross-training.⁸ My learning curve involved the aforementioned preservation basics, archival record-keeping, etc. as well as making time for the in-depth contextual research my reference questions entailed.

Cross-training is also a study in interrelationships. It allows the trainee to better understand the interdependence of different library functions.⁹ This idea reflects my experience in special collections, from finding items to using them to promoting them.

Tips for Reference Librarians

Cross-training scenarios can differ considerably. Here are some tips that can apply to most scenarios:

Ask for Help

A cross-training experience can be a learning experience, but you can—and should—ask for help when needed. As I mentioned above, I had a great deal of help in areas where I had less experience or talent.

Spot the Connections

Since cross-training highlights the interrelatedness of library functions, make use of the concrete opportunities these connections present. For example, I was helping a patron with a question on Franco-American cooking. I found a cookbook that later filled a gap in a window display I was designing. These serendipitous moments do take place: don’t dismiss the ways in which one duty can inform another.

Seek Learning Moments

I realize that many cross-training assignments are not as pleasant as mine has been. Even I sometimes felt torn between the two worlds. However, most job experiences can be learning experiences. Keep your eyes and ears open for insights that you can bring back to your regular duties. Doing so may help you make the best of your situation.

Document, Document, Document

From the beginning of my assignment I kept a log of my release time activities. This made my supervisor and the dean aware of the many things that needed doing. It also helped during my performance evaluation. Even now it helps me inform the new coordinator of priorities I have identified. For most people, good documentation can help with performance appraisals and with finding the learning opportunities as mentioned above.

The documentation can take forms other than text. For example, I have maintained the link to an online mini-exhibit I created.¹⁰ This link can serve as a record of my learning and as an outreach tool.

What Happens Next

The College has hired a new coordinator for the FAC. I still serve on the FAC’s board of directors. Now the opinions I offer at board meetings are better informed by experience. By incorporating its primary sources into my instruction, I can still promote the FAC. Now I am working on ways to include FAC holdings in courses outside of French North American studies.

My supervisor followed Margaret Myers’s definition of staffing: “all methods of matching skills available with the tasks to be performed.”¹¹ I had the good fortune of still working within my comfort zone (the reference duties) and within an interest area (Franco-American studies). All the same, the assignment filled a temporary need for the college and made me a better reference librarian as well.

Many institutions face lean staffing situations in these tough budgetary times. If sharing my story can help others in their added duties, then my experience has been doubly worthwhile.¹²

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The Pennsylvania State University, 309 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: dxz2@psu.edu.

Maureen Perry is Reference and Instructional Services Librarian, University of Southern Maine Lewiston-Auburn College, Lewiston, Maine.

References and Notes

1. Franco-American Collection, University of Southern Maine, University of Southern Maine’s Franco-American Collection/Collection Franco-Américaine (accessed Oct. 15, 2010).
2. I thank Susie Bock, Head of Special Collections, University of Southern Maine Libraries. I also thank the staff of the Edmund S. Muskie Archives, Bates College (Lewiston, Maine).
3. Additionally I thank Robyn Holman, Curator of the Atrium Art Gallery, USM Lewiston-Auburn College.
4. Frances O’Donnell, “Reference Service in an Academic Archives,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (2000): 113.
5. Ibid.
6. Very special thanks go to my mother, Pauline Perry, for her constant support.
7. Elizabeth Yakel, “Information Literacy for Primary Sources: Creating a New Paradigm for Archival Researcher Education,” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2004): 61–62.
8. Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, “A Perfect Fit: Tailoring Library Positions to Match Individual Skills,” Journal of Library Administration 29, no. 2 (1999): 34.
9. Marilyn Myers, “Blurring the Lines: Mingling Technical and Public Services Responsibilities: Report of the ALCTS Role of the Professional in Academic Technical Services Discussion Group Meeting. American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, Washington, D.C., February 1997,” Technical Services Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1998): 69.
10. Maureen Perry, Festival History in Flyers (accessed Oct. 15, 2010).
11. Margaret Myers, “Staffing Patterns,” in Personnel Administration in Libraries, eds. Sheila Creth and Fredick Duda (New York: Neal-Schuman, 1989), 40–63.
12. I thank Barb Mann, Assistant Director and Public Services/Instruction/Information Literacy Librarian at the University of Maryland University College, for her editorial assistance.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
A new cataloging code, Resource Description and Access (RDA) was published in June 2010 and has been undergoing tests at select libraries. RDA is a departure from its predecessor, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second edition (AACR2), in that it was designed for the online environment, is more principles-based, and better accommodates formats other than print. Liz Miller has been following the development of RDA for a few years and has presented on the topic twice at the New Mexico Library Association Conference. I was delighted when she approached me about writing an article on RDA, one geared to the noncataloger. In this column, reference librarians will learn why RDA was developed, what differences they will see, and how RDA contributes to a new world of library information.—Editor

A librarian is cataloging a DVD. She consults a cataloging code, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second edition (AACR2), to make decisions about the pieces of information she will include in the catalog record. AACR2 also instructs her on such points as from where on the resource she should take information (for example, should she get the title information for the DVD from the title screen or from the disc label?), when and how to abbreviate words, and how to choose and construct access points.

To assign subject terms, she consults a controlled vocabulary, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. She consults yet another standard, the Library of Congress Classification, to assign a class number to collocate the DVD with other resources on the same topic.

In all of these processes she uses a standard digital format, Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), to encode the various pieces of information she has selected to include in the record. Correct MARC coding ensures the record will search and display properly in an electronic catalog. The record then becomes part of her library’s Integrated Library System (ILS), Millennium. The ILS software determines how the information in the record will be searched, retrieved, and displayed in the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), where it will be seen by users of the catalog, including patrons and reference librarians. You may begin to see why some have compared cataloging to solving a puzzle.

One piece of the puzzle is about to change. A new cataloging code, Resource Description and Access (RDA), has been developed to take the place of AACR2. The development of RDA is big news for catalogers, of course, but it has implications for reference librarians, too. This article is intended to give reference librarians an introduction to RDA. Readers will learn why RDA was developed, the principles upon which RDA is based, the differences between AACR2 records and RDA records, and why RDA is so important to catalogers yet also controversial.

Why Are Cataloging Codes Important?

In the past, each library would create its own catalog cards. This changed in the early 1900s when the Library of Congress began selling card sets (author, title, and subject) to other libraries. Every card set that a library purchased meant one less that had to be created locally, from scratch. This was an early instance of shared cataloging.¹

When MARC was developed in the 1960s, catalogers started creating records in electronic form. MARC made record sharing much easier because the information in the records could be exchanged between computers.² When a cataloger creates an electronic record from scratch and contributes it to a bibliographic utility such as OCLC, a cataloger from any other OCLC member library can download that record instead of creating its own original catalog record.³

One crucial factor that made it possible for libraries to share records with each other was the wide adoption of AACR2. A uniform cataloging code meant that every cataloger using it was creating records in the same way. It meant that a catalog record created in Poughkeepsie could be used by a library in Tacoma.⁴

Brief History of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Cataloging Codes

To appreciate the importance of RDA, it is helpful to know something about the cataloging codes that preceded it. The first American and British cataloging rules were published in the nineteenth century. These included Sir Anthony Panizzi’s ninety-one rules for compilation of the British Museum’s printed catalog (1841) and Charles Ammi Cutter’s Rules for a Dictionary Catalog (1876). An early international code was developed by the American Library Association and the Library Association (Britain) in 1908. Revisions of this work were published in 1941 and 1949. The 1949 revision was a collection of cases, many of them very specialized. Because they were not based on an organizing theory, they were not helpful when catalogers had to deal with new situations, and as a result they were largely ignored outside North America.⁵ In the 1950s, Seymour Lubetzky of the Library of Congress analyzed the 1949 revision and recommended that further editions be based on guiding principles rather than consist of a number of cases.⁶

In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles was held in Paris, where a statement of twelve principles, known as the Paris Principles, was agreed upon. The first Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) were published in 1967, in two substantially different versions, one for the United States and another for the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations.

The two divergent versions of AACR were quickly seen as problematic from the standpoint of standardization, so AACR2 was published in 1978. Even though it was called AACR2, it was actually a new code, organized differently from AACR. It was called AACR2, however, because some thought that catalogers wouldn’t accept a completely new code just eleven years after AACR. This time, the United States and English/Commonwealth versions were essentially the same.⁷

Why Was A New Cataloging Code Developed?

When AACR2 was published in 1978, most library catalogs consisted of cabinets of drawers filled with cards.⁸ Most works collected by libraries were printed texts.⁹ By the early 1990s most libraries had converted their cards to electronic records.¹⁰ In the years since then, materials have become available in many more formats, including CD-ROMs and DVDs.¹¹ Both monographs and serials have moved increasingly to publication in electronic form.¹² Catalogers have had to deal with these changes as best they could, struggling to apply a cataloging code that has become increasingly out-of-date.¹³

The wider world has seen tremendous changes in technology and communications since 1978. Personal computers have become increasingly powerful and affordable, and the web has revolutionized the way people find information and communicate with each other. As web use became common, the expectations of library users changed. Users became accustomed to retrieving large sets of results from simple keyword searches and eventually viewed library catalogs as difficult to use.¹⁴

One reason that cataloging leaders felt the need to develop a new cataloging code is that AACR2 is seen as inadequate for the myriad types of resources that came into being after AACR2 was adopted. Although AACR2 was revised to accommodate the description of other media, it remains a print-oriented standard, and rules for describing other media are a kind of afterthought attached to the rules for describing printed books.¹⁵

AACR2 has chapters for different categories of materials (e.g., sound recordings, cartographic materials, motion pictures, and video recordings). As new technology has made different formats available, some of them falling into more than one of AACR2’s categories, a logical flaw has been exposed in the way materials are categorized in AACR2. Some categories are based on content (cartographic materials, graphic materials, three-dimensional artifacts), while others are based on carrier, that is, the physical medium in which data are stored (sound recordings, motion pictures, video recordings, computer files, and microforms).¹⁶

An example of a resource that falls into more than one of AACR2’s categories is a map that is issued electronically. Should a cataloger follow AACR2’s chapter on cartographic materials or the chapter on electronic resources?¹⁷

Another shortcoming of AACR2 is its strong Anglo-American bias. As more and more libraries around the world share records with each other, it is increasingly important to have a cataloging code that will be accepted beyond the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.¹⁸

Continuing the effort to make cataloging codes more principles-based and internationally accepted, in 1990 the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) chartered a committee to study the way that bibliographic records function in relation to the needs of users. After several interim drafts, the committee produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in 1997.¹⁹

FRBR is usually described as a new conceptual model of the bibliographic universe.²⁰ It is helpful to remember that most of the concepts expressed in FRBR have been implicit in cataloging and authority work for decades, so they are not unfamiliar. However, in FRBR they are more explicitly defined and placed within a principle-based theoretical framework.²¹

FRBR defines four user tasks: find resources that meet the user’s stated search criteria; identify that a resource is the one that the user is looking for and distinguish between different resources with similar traits; select a resource that meets the user’s needs; and obtain access to the resource.²²

Besides being based on the above user tasks, FRBR is based on the entity-relationship model, a concept from the field of database design. This model consists of different entities and the relationships between them.²³ The model is more complex than the relational database model currently used in most library catalogs.

In the entity-relationship model, an entity can be thought of as a “thing.” There are different types of entities. Each entity is defined and has attributes that are also defined. In addition, each type of relationship between entities is defined and has defined attributes. This level of detail allows bibliographic data to be parsed out in very small pieces. The fact that each attribute is precisely defined means that users are able to identify and select resources with much more precision.²⁴

As an example, take a copy of the 1851 Harper edition of Moby Dick that was once owned by Abraham Lincoln. In FRBR terms, the particular edition of Moby Dick is a type of entity called “manifestation,” and the copy once owned by Abraham Lincoln is a type of entity called “item.” “Item” is defined as “a single exemplar of a manifestation.” Attributes of an item include “item identifier” (in most cases this would be a barcode number) and “provenance of the item,” which is defined as “previous ownership or custodianship of the item.” In the case of this book we would record that it was owned by Abraham Lincoln. Another attribute is “marks and inscriptions.” If Abraham Lincoln wrote any notes in the margin, this would be recorded as an attribute of the item, too. “Abraham Lincoln” is also a kind of FRBR entity: a person. Included in the attributes of “person” are name of person and dates of person (usually birth and death dates). Among the relationships between “item” and “person” are “owned by.” In the case of our copy of Moby Dick¸ we would record the relationship “owned by” between this item and the person “Abraham Lincoln.”²⁵

In a world of bibliographic information organized according to the FRBR principles, a researcher looking into Abraham Lincoln’s impressions of Herman Melville’s works could search a database for books by Melville that were once owned by Abraham Lincoln and had notes in the margins. The careful recording of books’ attributes (marks and inscriptions) and their relationships (owned by) to other FRBR entities (the person “Abraham Lincoln”) makes it possible to pinpoint works by Melville once owned by Abraham Lincoln with notations in the margins.

In a world without FRBR, this work would be very painstaking. A researcher would have to hope that the libraries that hold books once owned by Abraham Lincoln have recorded that information somewhere in the bibliographic record (probably in a note) and have also noted the presence of margin notes.

FRBR presents an opportunity to better collocate closely-related resources. For example, the book Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was published in England by Bloomsbury in 1997. The same book was published in the United States by Scholastic as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. It has been translated into many languages and has been published in different editions. FRBR would bring all these different versions together by creating an overarching entity called “work.”²⁶ The “work” Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone serves as an umbrella for the numerous translations, editions, and so on. This is helpful to users who would want to know that the English and United States versions are the same work, who seek to differentiate between editions, and want to discern between other Harry Potter books.

Library catalog data became searchable in more sophisticated ways when catalogs were automated and made available online. Yet as far as library data has come, it is still not very compatible with the web, the information environment with which most library users are familiar.²⁷

The problem with library data are that it is not as robust as other data to which users have become accustomed. An example of very robust data are the information that powers Google Maps, a service that allows a user to zoom in to almost any location on earth, find pictures of that location, switch to a view that simulates the experience of driving down a street, and much more. The data behind Google Maps is parsed out and linked, making it possible for computers to manipulate the data behind the scenes.²⁸

By contrast, most catalog records consist of text strings, not data that can be manipulated by computers in the manner of Google Maps. In addition, as useful as MARC has been to libraries, it is unlike any record format used by other data communities. As a result library data doesn’t work well with other data. This puts library data at a disadvantage when it comes to being discovered on the web.²⁹

In 2001, Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),³⁰ articulated a vision of the future web called the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web would consist of data that is structured and linked in such a way that a computer can understand the meaning of the data, which would permit a computer to manipulate and synthesize the data in much more rich and complex ways than are possible on the web of today. The Semantic Web would rely on the development of a linked data structure that defines “things” and the relationships between things. The Semantic Web is currently being developed.³¹

Development of RDA

The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR2 began meeting in 2004 to draft a major revision to AACR2, to be known as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, third edition (AACR3). Based on comments from a constituency review of an early draft, the committee decided that a completely different approach was needed. The work being drafted was renamed Resource Description and Access (RDA), and the committee was renamed the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. The committee incorporated the FRBR principles into RDA. It also chose a scenario that assumes that RDA will be using the entity-relationship database adopted by FRBR.³² This database structure requires that information is parsed and defined in more detail and anticipates that RDA will work well with the Semantic Web.³³

Draft chapters of RDA were released between 2005 and 2007, and in 2008 a full draft was released. The text was revised based on public comments and a final draft was delivered to the publishers in June 2009. RDA was published in June 2010.³⁴

What Will RDA Mean to Users and Reference Librarians?

Many benefits of RDA will not be seen until other standards and systems are developed. Changes to the current record formatting standard (MARC) or the development of a completely new formatting standard may be required to fully bring out the various RDA entities and relationships. New ILSs will need to be developed to display the relationships between different FRBR entities in RDA records. Finally, the Semantic Web needs to be developed to exploit the interoperability of RDA with systems outside of libraries.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Frontline reference librarians purvey their skills in a variety of reference service models. These range from the traditional to the tiered to the information commons (IC) to the learning commons (LC). Libraries might use one pure form of any model, a hybrid model, or a model in the process of transformation. A few libraries with space and funding have fully adopted the latest model, the LC. An examination of transformations to the LC indicates that frontline reference librarians can to some extent effect changes in their professional environments.

Historical Context of the Role of the Reference Librariann

From the beginning of librarianship, the role of the reference librarian has been defined by the patrons’ need for human mediation.¹ Reference librarians apply critical-thinking skills, emotional intelligence, teaching ability, and question analysis to connect the user with appropriate resources. While some libraries developed variations (such as tiered models), the traditional model, involving face-to-face interaction between a patron and a librarian who answered every type of question from one or more multipurpose service points, prevailed throughout the “paper era.”

By necessity, reference librarians were shackled to the library and the print collection. Public-access computers and remote access to data sets (i.e., Dialog) quickly sowed the seeds for a revolution in reference routines. Dialog search techniques were only the beginning. Soon, cyberspace was born. Staying abreast of new technology and upgrading computer skills became an integral part of reference librarians’ duties. In the new medium’s infancy, the reference librarian’s role evolved to include nurturing and developing this new electronic “baby.” The concomitant teaching role expanded to instruction in the use of multiple material formats, the online public access catalogs (OPACs), and the Internet. As the need to assist patrons with technical issues grew, the single access point for all types of assistance sometimes frustrated librarians and failed their patron.

Libraries sometimes experimented with new types of tiered models that addressed the need for technical help. At one level, a general-information desk might be staffed by student assistants, graduate assistants, or staff. Another desk, staffed by specially trained librarians and paraprofessionals, might provide technical assistance. Specialists might be designated for word-processing, spreadsheet, SSPS, Blackboard, RefWorks, and other software assistance. Subject-specialist librarians might provide in-depth research assistance, often by appointment. Instruction sometimes became closely tied to reference services. Other libraries maintained a traditional service.

With the number of remote library users rapidly growing, the need for new reference venues is clear. Reference services have implemented e-mail, chat, instant messaging (IM), voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), and text messaging. All of these new services provide new communication challenges in reference and instruction.

Whatever the service model, attuned librarians recognize that the library website, the physical facilities, the print and electronic collections, reference, and instruction should be essential and interconnected components.

The Information Commons

One response to technology was the development of the information commons (IC). Beagle defines a library IC as a “new type of physical facility” or section of a library “specifically designed to organize workspace and service delivery around an integrated digital environment” along with the support technology.² The physical library space is coordinated to become an extension of student study areas, and workspaces are organized to accommodate collaboration. Therefore the physical commons is designed to incorporate a cluster of access points to the digital arena. Armed with these access points, trained staff help users query, navigate, and process information.

In this “functional integration,” some reference librarians continued to assume the role of general-information provider, technical expert, referral assistant, point of contact, and help center. Even more than before, librarians became jacks-ofall-trades and had insufficient time to master any one trade.

If one envisions the library as two interacting spheres—the virtual and the physical—the library as interactive system and the user experience of that system demand attention. The stage was set for the next new thing. There were, it appeared, many stakeholders in library services. The interactive system expands to include not just library-based information-technology specialists, metadata librarians, media specialists, and bibliographic instruction coordinators, but also campus-wide technology professionals, instructional designers, and distance-education coordinators. The evolutionary stream of social technology blurred the boundaries of print, and the “functional integration of technology and service delivery to realign the library with the rapidly evolving digital environment” became the order of business.³ For some libraries, this order of business is leading to the next step from the IC to the LC.

From Information Commons to Learning Commons

The terms information commons and learning commons may easily be confused. Bennett, however, defines an LC as a place that brings people together not around informally shared interests, as happens in traditional common rooms, but around shared learning tasks, sometimes formalized in class assignments. The core activity of a learning commons would not be the manipulation and mastery of information, as in an information commons, but the collaborative learning by which students turn information into knowledge and sometimes into wisdom.⁴

Libraries often create new LCs during an extensive renovation or new building project, where money is flowing and new space can be added. Though some might consider the LC a necessary response to a changing environment, a high-performance LC requires the luxury of a committed university administration and community; a budget big enough to build, renovate, or reorganize existing reference space; and the ability to bring together units or groups with disparate knowledge and culture.

The most visible and highly touted feature of the LC, in comparison to the IC and other reference models, is the number and variety of stakeholders both within the library and within other campus groups and units. Intended to foster collaboration, communication, and easy access to assistance, the added physical space might be a new environment for reference librarians.

The Reference Librarian in the Development and Implementation of the Learning Commons

The frontline reference librarians’ role in initiating, planning, implementing, and operating LCs is unclear. Scholarly articles about LCs often focus not on reference librarians but on the students at the center of the LC or on the other stakeholders, such as university administrators. While the literature does not acknowledge the fullness of the reference librarians’ role, a few pale signs appear.

Reference librarian service on LC planning and implementation committees does appear to be common. For example, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s LC Planning Committee, in its final report, notes that in addition to the original library representative, “the Library’s Information Services Department requested that two additional librarians from their department serve on the committee.”⁵ In the case of the LC, they write that “evidence-based information exchanges between librarians and their faculty and student constituencies continue to fuel collaborative partnerships.”⁶

Haug, in “Learning Curve: Adapting Library Spaces,” points to librarians’ observations as the origin of the LC at Longwood University:

Library staff began observing that groups of students frequently crowded around a single PC to work on collaborative projects. University professors seemed to be assigning more and more group activities, and library staff saw that the commons area should be redesigned to meet the need for more collaborative style workspaces.⁷

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
These are challenging times for libraries. Stories of budget cuts abound while librarians report rising demand for library services.¹ As we slash budgets and defer expenses, we may wonder how libraries coped during the Great Depression. Then, as now, library use increased sharply as millions of unemployed hunted for career information and sought light reading to fill their “enforced leisure” hours.² Librarians were forced to make difficult choices between services, staff, buildings, and books. Libraries responded by forging new partnerships with state and federal agencies and involving community residents in large-scale book drives.

The experiences of the Chicago Public Library provide a fascinating case study of efforts to maintain a public service under trying circumstances. Chicago in the early 1930s was on the brink of collapse. As unemployment soared to an estimated 30 percent, desperate workers took to the streets where they were met by tear gas and baton-wielding police.³ The Chicago Public Library’s financial fortunes declined rapidly. As early as January 1930, the library predicted a budget shortfall of 20 percent. The initial response included reducing library branch hours and laying off about one-fifth of the staff. Prominent progressive reformer Jane Addams evocatively captured the toll of this belt tightening. Writing to the library, she noted the unusually large number of men standing in the cold outside the Hull House library, unable to get in: “They stand looking through the windows into a warm room with a great air of protest which is not always silent.” The library agreed to increase the reading room hours, but made no promises for the future, noting, “The unemployment conditions have increased our own work enormously in every part of the city.”⁴

Facing protests over reduced hours, the library reexamined its priorities. Branch hours were restored and many staff were rehired at reduced salaries. The collections budget would be the target for additional cuts. In May 1931 all book ordering was halted. An institution that normally expended $200,000 to $250,000 a year on collections simply stopped acquiring new materials. In a 1932 letter, the library director, Carl Roden, summarized the situation: “We are afflicted by the worst financial hardship we have ever suffered. We have bought no books for eight months, the magazine subscriptions for 1932 were cancelled. … No budget for the current year has been attempted and the prospects of funds for even our curtailed activities, are, at this writing, far from encouraging.”⁵ Some subscriptions were reinstated, but regular book purchasing would not resume for another four years.

Despite eliminating new book purchases, the Chicago Public Library was besieged by new users. Branch libraries reported packed reading rooms. The army of unemployed came not just to forget, but also to learn—or, as the Chicago Tribune romantically expressed it, “to emerge out of the valley of depression and into the sunlit halls of the kingdom of thought.”⁶ While the service cuts drew immediate protests, the impact of the slashed book budget only gradually made itself felt. Without new books to entice readers, circulation eventually declined, dropping from 15.8 million in 1931 to 10.2 million in 1935. As one young patron put it, “Gosh, we can’t read the same one more than three times.”⁷ While times are different, it’s worth remembering that users attracted to the library during the current recession may drift away if we are unable to provide the resources and services they need.

Although extreme, the circumstances in Chicago were not unusual. Detroit saw its library appropriation decline by 24 percent. Knoxville’s budget was slashed 36 percent in three years. Relatively fortunate cities such as Louisville and Springfield, Massachusetts reported salary cuts and other austerity measures.⁸ How did public libraries cope? A 1932 survey identified two “compensating mechanisms” adopted by libraries: rental collections and calls for book donations.⁹ By 1934 the Chicago Public Library offered rental collections in over half its branch locations. Patrons paid five cents for the first three days and two cents each day after to rent newer books. The proceeds were invested back into the rental collection fund, allowing the library to “offer a fairly representative assortment of the better class of new publications at a very low fee, and this service has been appreciated by many.”¹⁰ Rental collections were adopted despite initial resistance as the deepening crisis changed opinions about what was appropriate. It remains to be seen what challenges to tradition our current economic crisis will foster.

The Chicago Public Library also appealed to the public for support. The library organized a city-wide book drive in 1934, working with civic clubs, schools, and other agencies. The news media trumpeted the call for books and the city responded, donating more than eighty thousand volumes. About half were added to the library’s permanent collection, while others were sold to cover the cost of the campaign or donated to emergency relief shelters, where they “did their part in lightening the desperation of the long days of enforced and hopeless leisure.”¹¹ From the library’s perspective, the primary benefit of the book drive was an increased presence in the community. A lesson worth noting is that the partnerships formed with civic groups and associations continued long after the formal campaigns concluded.

While libraries did their best to tighten their belts, they increasingly turned to federal and state agencies for aid. Hundreds of unemployed workers were assigned to the library through the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. They worked on binding and repairing the many worn-out books and completed a long-delayed inventory of the collection. In addition to aiding the overburdened library staff, the positions helped sustain the recipients through dark times. Caroline Harris received one of these jobs and wrote expressing her gratitude: “I cannot live any longer on relief money. It is just existing. … [I was] very happy while working … as a book-repairer. I felt like a different person.”¹² “Relief men” who were not suited for library work were employed as guards, or provided services such as typewriter repair, carpentry, and other mechanical jobs. The library deemed the projects a success and petitioned for more workers than the relief agencies could supply.

State aid also played a critical role. In 1935 the Illinois state legislature approved an increase in the library tax rate and established a library relief fund. The Chicago Public Library received $168,000 for two years from this fund. The book-starved library began ordering immediately, and circulation showed signs of coming back. This good news prompted Carl Roden to predict in 1936 that the library “is well on the way back to its former position as the Public Library with the largest circulation in the world.”¹³ While this proved optimistic, the tide had turned. The library slowly recovered from the deprivations of the earlier years.

Why rehash this grim historical tale? Actions taken when times are tough can reveal professional and societal values. As Frank P. Graham stated in an address to ALA, “the depression … tests what we really believe in. Budgeting in a depression searches through the stuff of our conviction.”¹⁴ Libraries sought to compensate for their reduced budgets through rental collections, donations, and appeals for state and federal aid. As an institution, the Chicago Public Library chose to maintain staff and hours while slashing the collections budget. These decisions were typical. Libraries, regardless of size, were fairly consistent in where they sought savings. Book collections experienced the sharpest reductions in expenditures. Many libraries retained staff, perhaps reluctant to contribute to the unemployment crisis. Library hours were preserved to accommodate people seeking physical and mental refuge.¹⁵ While libraries did their part and made unpleasant choices, it’s important to highlight the role played by state and federal governments. Their support helped cash-strapped libraries weather the storm. In documenting the choices of our predecessors, I am not suggesting we follow the same path, but we might examine what the difficult budget and policy decisions being made today will say to future historians about our priorities.

Eric Novotny is Humanities Librarian, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The Pennsylvania State University, 309 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: dxz2@psu.edu.

References and Notes

1. American Library Association, “New National Poll Shows Library Card Registration Reaches Historic High,” press release, Sept. 23, 2008 (accessed Nov. 25, 2009); Jim Carlton, “Folks are Flocking to the Library, a Cozy Place to Look for a Job. Books, Computers, and Wi-Fi are Free, but Staffs are Stressed by Crowds, Cutbacks,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2009 (accessed Nov. 25, 2009).
2. A national survey of public libraries showed increases of 25–30 percent in library circulation from 1930 to 1932. See Douglas Waples, Leon Carnovsky, and William M. Randall, “The Public Library in the Depression,” The Library Quarterly 2, no. 4 (Oct. 1932): 321–43. A later analysis found that circulation increased 14 percent between 1930 and 1935, with most of the gains occurring in the early years of the Depression. See Margaret M. Herd-man, “The Public Library in Depression,” Library Quarterly 13, no. 4 (October 1943): 310–34.
3. Dominic A. Pacyga, Chicago: A Biography (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2009).
4. Jane Addams, letter to Carl Roden, Nov. 21, 1930; Carl Roden, letter to Jane Addams, Nov. 28, 1930, Carl Roden Papers, Chicago Public Library Archives.
5. Carl Roden, letter to Mr. A. G. S. Josephson, Feb. 9, 1932, Carl Roden Papers, Chicago Public Library.
6. Chicago Tribune (Mar. 19, 1933): 14.
7. Gad’s Hill sub-branch report, 1933, Chicago Public Library Branch Annual Reports, Chicago Public Library Archives.
8. R. L. Duffus, Our Starving Libraries: Studies in Ten American Communities during the Depression Years (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1933).
9. Waples, Carnovsky, and Randall, “The Public Library in the Depression,” 330.
10. 62nd Annual Report of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Public Library 1933 (Chicago: Chicago Public Library, 1934): 34.
11. 63rd Annual Report of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Public Library 1934 (Chicago: Chicago Public Library, 1935): 41–44, 56.
12. Caroline Harris, letter to Carl Roden, Aug. 25, 1935, Carl Roden Papers, Chicago Public Library Archives.
13. “The Chicago Public Library in the Depression,” Carl Roden Topical Papers, Chicago Public Library Archives.
14. Frank P. Graham, address to the American Library Association, n.d., quoted in “Voices from the Past: Librarians on Libraries during the 1930s,” Texas Library Journal 85, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 30.
15. Waples, Carnovsky, and Randall, “The Public Library in the Depression.”

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This interview highlights one reference librarian’s creative approach to marketing librarians’ services. The goal of the Slam the Boards project, initiated by Bill Pardue, is to increase public awareness of the reference assistance that librarians can provide.—Editor

Bill Pardue is a virtual services reference librarian at Arlington Heights Memorial Library, a public library in Illinois. He recently spear-headed an innovative grassroots campaign, Slam the Boards, which encourages librarians from around the world to visit online answer boards such as Yahoo! Answers on a given day for the purpose of providing accurate and reliable reference services. By identifying themselves as librarians on these boards, the participants hope to make the public aware of the reference services that information professionals can provide. The first Slam the Boards was held on September 10, 2007, and has turned into a monthly event. Pardue has created a wiki with detailed information about the event, found at http://answerboards.wetpaint.com.

Tell me about how Slam the Boards was conceived.

It started as a loose idea that became firmer over time. I had been hearing that a lot of people were going to sites such as Yahoo! Answers, so I decided I needed to look into it to see what kind of opportunities were there. I thought it would be a good idea for librarians to go in, identify themselves as librarians and let people know we can help. One of my colleagues suggested we should have a lot of librarians doing this, not just a trickle. Then Caleb Tucker-Raymond [a virtual reference librarian in Oregon] had the idea to pick one day when this would happen.

What does the name signify?

It’s a basketball term that refers to going for a rebound. I wanted to find a name that incorporated the word “boards” and reflected the idea that we were taking aggressive action.

What did you hope to achieve with Slam the Boards?

I wanted to achieve two things. First, I wanted to get librarians more involved. We need to figure out how we can get ourselves where the patrons are. Second, I wanted to let the public know what we do. There’s a lack of awareness that librarians answer these questions every day.

OCLC did a study in 2005 that found the public’s perception is that libraries equal books. Reference services are not even on the public’s radar screen. People know about libraries, but not librarians. We all believe there’s a role for us, but we’ve failed to market ourselves appropriately.

I have no illusions that this will change the world, but it’s one way of doing it. Let’s go out there and find questions, look for opportunities, go out in the community and show off our services. I like to call it “proactive reference” or [laughing] “predatory reference.”

How did you spread the word and elicit support?

This was strictly a grassroots effort. I put the word out through discussion boards that I belong to, and then people started mentioning it in their blogs. Then there was an item in American Libraries Direct, and some newsletters picked it up.

What was the response from fellow librarians?

The majority of people I heard from were really excited about it and thought it was a fun idea. There were a few naysayers. At least one librarian/blogger took a more cynical view and said, “Oh right, we should give away skills for free to people who don’t appreciate us.” But that’s just not the point!

Tell me about the day of the first Slam the Boards event. What sites were involved?

Yahoo! is the big one. Something like 96% of the business goes there. I tried to go to other sites as well, like Amazon’s Askville, Ask MetaFilter, AnswerBag. With some of the sites that don’t require registration, there’s more frivolity. Some of the questions are just liberal-baiting or conservative-baiting, not serious questions. I ended up answering about twenty-five questions throughout the day, and I know of one librarian who answered twenty-five by noon. Some others answered two or three questions, whatever they had time for.

How many librarians participated? Where were they from?

There were one hundred people who signed up on the wiki saying that they would participate. I would guess, though, that it was as many as two hundred or three hundred. I’d say that it’s in the range of possibility that we answered one thousand questions that day. We had librarians from England, New Zealand, Sweden, and all over the U.S.

Was the event a success?

I did feel it was a success. I don’t have anything quantitative, but most of the e-mails I received from people who participated said they were glad they had done it.

Is there an opportunity for teaching information literacy through this event?

I think so. One of the reasons we’re better at this is that we give real answers. There are some people who will provide an answer like, “Just Google it.” I think we have an obligation as librarians to give sourced answers, so I tried to provide links to where the answer was from. I tried to approach it the same way I would if it was by e-mail or VR, and ask myself, “Is my mission to just answer this, or to teach you?” It’s always a gut decision.

What was the most memorable question that you responded to?

One of the good ones was, “What determines the difference between a lake and a pond?” I was able to find a great site that had a glossary of terms that defined things like lakes and ponds.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
In this column, Mike Furlough writes about repositories from a user services perspective. His engaging and accessible article provides a fascinating history of repository hype, a primer on technical tools, and thoughtful reflections on the future of institutional repositories. Mike Furlough joined The Pennsylvania State University Libraries in 2006 as the assistant dean for Scholarly Communications and co-director of the Office of Digital Scholarly Publishing. Furloughs graduate training is in American Literature, but he ran away to join the University of Virginia Library, where he developed and led a number of services to support digital scholarship. He currently serves as a member of the Association of College and Research Libraries Scholarly Communications Committee and begins editing a column on that topic for C&RL News in 2009.—Editor

Throughout the past few years, I have come to dislike the word “repository” because it obscures the variety of problems we are attempting to address through their development, and in turn may constrain our thinking about what may be possible through the services they can enable. Modifiers such as “institutional,” “central,” “digital,” “open,” and “collections” (or some torturous combination of these) do not help because each variation implies a singular technological solution to a set of complex changes in the way research is conducted and information is communicated. “Repository” carries with it many connotations, some of them rather unfortunate. In general it describes a place where things lay, not where things are happening. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a repository could be “a vessel, receptacle, chamber, etc., in which things are or may be placed, deposited, or stored” (definition 1.a). Definition 5—“A person to whom some matter is entrusted or confided”—is a less common use, but one that certainly resonates with the institutional mission and responsibilities that libraries hold for their collections. Yet it is also hard to overlook definition 2.b: “A place in which a dead body is deposited; a vault or sepulchre.”¹

“Institutional repository” (IR) often refers to a service that supports and encourages the deposit of student- and faculty-created materials, primarily open-access versions of research articles that have been formally published elsewhere or not at all. The early energy surrounding IRs centered on a hope that promoting open access could serve as a countermeasure to commercial publishing power and its ability to distort the market for knowledge. Taking control of our institutions research by providing the ability to distribute this information to the world in an open-access mode seemed to be an inevitable outcome of the Internet. What follows is a brief history of IR hype.

In July 2002, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported “Superarchives Could Hold All Scholarly Output: Online Collections by Institutions May Challenge the Role of Journal Publishers.”² Also in 2002, a Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) position paper declared that:

institutional repositories—digital collections capturing and preserving the intellectual output of a single or multi-university community. . . . provide a critical component in reforming the system of scholarly communication—a component that expands access to research, reasserts control over scholarship by the academy, increases competition and reduces the monopoly power of journals, and brings economic relief and heightened relevance to the institutions and libraries that support them.³

But in 2004 The Chronicle provided an update: “Papers Wanted: Online Archives Run by Universities Struggle to Attract Material.”⁴ IRs soon became the butt of jokes, even inside the community of practitioners. In March 2006, Dorothea Salo, an institutional repository manager, rechristened herself in her blog. “I have a new title. Innkeeper of the Roach Motel,” she wrote, describing her repository as a site where data goes in but doesnt come out.⁵ By November 2008, attendees at the SPARC Repositories Conference worried openly about how faculty can be persuaded to use the IRs on their campuses and how these services were going to survive the worst economic crisis in decades if they didn&srquo;t.

Many of my publishing colleagues have warned me that if IRs are successful they will go out of business, and eventually the entire scholarly communication system will start to break down. I can assure my friends that their jobs are quite safe. The emphasis on opening access has been driven heavily by our institutional (library) hopes, not the needs of our users, whose work is changing and who require new services to keep pace in their fields. Archiving single articles didnt make much sense to them in that context. While IRs have generally had limited success, many publishers have adapted their policies to allow authors to distribute pre– or postprint versions of articles in open-access forms. Those changes are at least partly related to funder and public pressure and the availability of repository outlets. Some institutions have begun to have luck negotiating with publishers for the rights to deposit their facultys articles in those same repositories. However, continuing to focus on IR “deposits” by faculty and students—which sounds like a one-way proposition for the information—will not carry us forward.

Repository tools and many related programs have been developed with a potential scope of use broader than that implied by the IR hype, and may yet serve, as Clifford Lynch and Joan Lippincott wrote, as “general-purpose infrastructure within the context of changing scholarly practice.”⁶ Deployment has varied. Some libraries have focused first on “the intellectual output of the institution,” others have focused on particular disciplines or user groups, while still others have attempted to better manage and provide access to digitized versions of the physical collection of the library. Libraries also are using these services to manage born-digital resources acquired by the library from a variety of sources, including vendors and publishers. None of these activities are mutually exclusive, and it is likely that libraries will end up working with all of these materials simultaneously.

So what is it that we think we are talking about when we talk about repositories in research libraries today? Are repositories things? If so, they are more like conglomerate rocks than uniform applications and programs. Are they places, like the open stacks or the closed archives? If so, they are Victorian follies—an aggregation of features, not all of them fully functional, offering none of the transparency of Phillip Johnsons glass house. In the widest possible sense, when we are talking about repositories, we are talking about a set of organized methods for content management, not about specific applications or even specific access points online. Managing and providing access to diverse digital content requires many different processes, methods, policies, and technologies, just like a physical library collection. Collectively, we are today determining how to manage digital data as smoothly and with the same degree of certainty as we do physical collections.⁷ Repository-based content management can and must serve many functions at once, and successful implementations will recognize this to move beyond our early narrow focus to succeed. So, where do we begin? One potential answer to these questions is provided by Catherine Mitchell, who at the 2008 SPARC conference presented with the title “Lets Stop Talking About Repositories,” arguing instead for a talk about services.⁸ That is a critically important, rhetorical shift.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
I had the opportunity to view the work produced by the American Library Association’s (ALA) Emerging Leaders at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim. While I was impressed overall with the quality of work produced by these rising stars, I was drawn to the research that one group presented as a poster session. This project related to identifying best practices of innovative business libraries and business centers. Since I believed that these findings would be of interest to a broader audience, I invited the group to submit an article on their project for this occasional column.—Editor

Leslie Burger, 2006–07 American Library Association (ALA) president, initiated the Emerging Leaders program. This program provides an opportunity for new librarians to serve the profession in a leadership capacity. Emerging Leaders participate in problem-solving workgroups, network with peers, and gain an inside look at the organizational structure of ALA. Beginning in December 2007, our workgroup from the 2008 Emerging Leaders program took on a project sponsored by the Business Reference and Services Section (BRASS) of RUSA. The goal of the project was to create a guide to excellent creative business libraries and business centers to provide examples of innovative and best practices. To better understand the current practices of business libraries and business centers, we conducted a Web-based survey to identify innovation and best practice. The findings from the survey are discussed in this article. Note that we have used the term library to designate both business libraries and business centers.

Literature Review

Given that none of the authors are business librarians and lacked in-depth knowledge about business librarianship, we began with a broad literature review. Our review of the literature on business librarianship expanded to include current practices, innovative practices, marketing, and collaboration. We found a paucity of literature on current practices and nothing concrete on best practices.

Abels and Magi reported on current practices and trends in twenty top business school libraries.¹ While their research focused on academic libraries, their findings apply to other types of business libraries as well. They found that, despite the organizational structure of these academic business libraries, the needs of patrons drive the delivery of services and resources. Listening to patrons’ needs and implementing changes to meet those needs are important for continued success. However, budgetary restrictions or constraints may play an important role in the delivery of services and resources. Abels and Magi identified the following trends:

• Library websites offer access to a variety of services and resources.
• Library websites provide access to a variety of commercial online databases.
• E-mail reference service is increasing in popularity and use.
• User education sessions focus on topics instead of specific resources.
• Interactive online tutorials may become more prevalent but will remain as supplements (rather than replacements) to classroom instruction.
• Reference desk hours will most likely remain stable in the short term, but will likely decrease over the next five years.
• Materials budgets will reflect more spending on serials than on monographs.

Abels and Magi also found that a demand exists for in-person reference service. But they acknowledged that the “emergence of new technology will require business school libraries to adjust their practices.”² A follow-up or duplication of this study would be interesting, since Abels and Magi published their findings in 2001.

The goal for this project was to create a best practices guide applicable to various types of business libraries and centers (academic, public, and corporate). More specifically, the task was to identify innovative practices. The question therein lies, what is innovation and how is it defined? Additionally, definition of innovation is required to analyze our survey data. We used the definitions cited by Olaisen, Lovhoiden, and Djupvik in “The Innovative Library” as a guideline. They cited the following definitions of innovation: “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption”; “any idea, practice, or material artefact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption”; “breaking away from the established pattern”; and the “successful introduction into an applied situation of means or ends that are new to the situation.”³

It is important to keep in mind that there are differing opinions about what is innovative in business libraries today. While one group may consider using e-mail an innovative way to provide reference services, another group may consider e-mail a tool of the past, and instead consider Second Life an innovative practice for reference providers.

Dunsmore maintains that there is a need for continued use of pathfinders or subject guides.⁴ Pathfinders and subject guides have been used by libraries for a very long time. Dunsmore’s study focuses on the use of pathfinders in a Web-based environment. Subject guides are not the most popular reference tool and therefore tend to be underused. Dunsmore concludes that more research needs to be conducted on the usability and instructional role of pathfinders. This research might help librarians understand why pathfinders are under-used. There are several issues this research could address. For example, what is the best way to introduce these guides to patrons during instructional sessions? Do these guides help enhance information literacy skills of patrons? On the other hand, is it innovative to use online subject guides as opposed to print or to use subject guides to begin with?

What have other libraries done to be characterized as innovative? A more recent article written by Janet Williamson demonstrates another way of delivering online services. She explains the need for tailored services by stating that “it is apparent that the proliferation of information on electronic commerce on the Internet is an opportunity for us to foster an increased liaison with the faculty of the School of Business” at the University of Alberta Libraries.⁵ The amount of information available on the Internet is greater than any librarian or faculty member could ever keep up with. Consequently, Williamson and her colleagues at the University of Alberta’s Winspear Business Reference Library recognized the need to deliver information to the business faculty in a more systematic method. Using a corporate library service model, a collaborative effort was made with the School of Business to create an awareness service called E-Commerce Alert. It was tailored to meet the needs of the business faculty, especially in light of the growth of e-commerce courses. This awareness service helped both librarians and faculty keep abreast of the expansive literature on e-commerce and fulfilled faculty members’ expressed need for “readily available quality information on ‘hot topics’ or current trends.”⁶ When this value-added service became Web-based in 2002, the number of subscribers increased substantially, resulting in an increased profile for the School of Business and the library. More than ever, librarians need to rethink and reengineer the service delivery model, delivering service in more creative ways. Additionally, service models should not be restricted to a specific type of library; they need to be applicable in various settings.

Academic libraries are similar to science laboratories— both are open to experimentation. Another example of innovative work is the creation of the Virtual Business Information Center (VBIC) at the University of Maryland (UMD), a collaborative effort by the College of Information Studies, the Robert H. Smith School of Business, and the UMD Libraries. The VBIC is a website that provides “one-step access to both electronic and print resources, along with guidance in selection of databases, general and specific search strategies, and links to e-mail and chat reference.”⁷ The UMD Libraries recognized the value in collaborating with others outside of the library, since “no single unit on an academic campus can claim sole responsibility for developing and insuring information literacy among its students and faculty. This situation argues for exactly the kind of collaboration and cooperation among interested academic units to develop specialized sites that is seen in VBIC.”⁸ Not only did students and faculty benefit from better service as a result of the VBIC, but the VBIC resulted in cost savings (both in resources and staff time) as it eliminated the need for expensive, parallel systems.

Similarly, the Lippincott Library (one of the nation’s premier academic business libraries) of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania devised an online knowledge database called Business FAQ. This database “contains hundreds of questions and answers and thousands of links to resources.”⁹ While technical expertise is required for initial setup, and maintenance of the database is labor intensive, it has proven to be a very effective and efficient way of service delivery, especially if a librarian is not available. The University of Pennsylvania is not the only beneficiary of the online knowledge database model. The software was offered to Columbia University’s Watson Library of Business and Economics in 2004, and nine other academic libraries adopted the software between December 2004 and March 2006.¹⁰ Anello and Bonfield reported that nineteen business libraries were participating in the Business FAQ project as of October 2006.¹¹

While the above examples demonstrate different innovative approaches taking place in academic libraries, it is important to point out that innovation has been happening in other types of libraries and outside the United States. For example, the services of the British Library have evolved to meet changing patron needs. The Business and Intellectual Property Centre (BIPC), a unit within the British Library, was created to provide service to businesses throughout the United Kingdom.¹² In her account of the development of the BIPC, Jackie Marfleet wrote, “The future provision of information services within the British Library will ultimately be determined by the needs of our user population and our response to providing products and services which meet that need.”¹³ At that time, the collection was undergoing transformation as electronic resources were being expanded. Services like Ask an Expert and Information Advice Service were developed to provide consultation services. In addition to workshops, evening events were hosted for business entrepreneurs. To accommodate remote users, online reference services were expanded and the library website was redesigned to improve usability. The British Library did not stop there. Two years later, Neil Infield wrote that users of the BIPC had evolved from being “readers to customers to clients.”¹⁴ As the needs of patrons changed (and their knowledge base grew), librarians at the BIPC had to grow with them. These librarians equipped themselves through continuous professional development. Some business librarians accomplished this through six months of specialized external training to become Business Advisors. The goal, as it is for libraries throughout the world, was to better serve their users. This example demonstrates that innovation does not necessarily mean the development and implementation of high-end technology, but rather an out-of-the-box approach to serving users.

Method

Print version (Adobe Reader required)

This column addresses the impact of recent changes to APA style citation on the academic community, which widely uses this style to document its research. The author notes that these changes, especially the wholesale adoption of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for citing electronic journal articles, have caused frustration and confusion for users of APA style, and the problem is likely to worsen as more students and faculty realize what the new changes entail. The column also touches on the problems these changes will create for citation software and online bibliographic management tools like RefWorks, EndNote, and Zotero. Lewis concludes that the American Psychological Association needs to recognize the problems its new changes are causing and institute an interim measure for the millions who use APA style on a daily basis to document their research.—Editor

A common question at academic library reference desks is how to properly cite a source in a specific citation style. Because students and faculty may use a variety of citation styles, libraries often keep copies of the most current versions of major citation styles at the reference desk. While librarians are not necessarily experts on all styles, they will usually be familiar with the styles most used at their institutions. If institutions offer subscription citation tools like RefWorks or EndNote, reference desk librarians will also receive numerous questions pertaining to the use of these tools and their rendering of particular citation styles. Not surprisingly, it is often reference librarians who teach classes or workshops on citation styles and citation tools at institutions of higher learning. Thus academic reference librarians are among the first to deal with the impact of citation style updates. A perfect example involves recent changes to APA style, which is widely used today by many disciplines in the academic community.

In June 2007, the American Psychological Association (APA) released an update to its citation style titled APA Style Guide to Electronic References. This twenty-four page pamphlet, available for purchase as a PDF from the APA website, does not replace the fifth-edition (2001) manual, but rather revises and updates that section of the manual dealing with electronic resources. Because APA has not released a new edition of its manual and because this electronic addendum has restricted access even when purchased (e.g., libraries must purchase site licenses to post the electronic version and limit access to authenticating users), users of APA style have been slow to realize the changes and their ramifications. In addition, although the update addresses many new types of electronic content and technologies, the wording of the publication itself is at times ambiguous, confusing, and difficult for users to interpret.

APA’s most significant change to citing electronic resources is the application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). A DOI is a unique alphanumeric code that identifies a specific article or document and provides a persistent link to its location on the Internet. The intent of the DOI is to provide a consistent way for users to find articles and documents on an ever-changing Internet. In a very forward-looking move, APA made the inclusion of DOIs in citations the method of choice when citing scholarly journal articles accessed online. Now, instead of adding a retrieval date and URL or retrieval date and database name when citing journal articles accessed electronically, users are directed to include the DOI assigned to that article by an approved registration agency (see figure 1).

While this change makes sense conceptually, in practice its implementation seems a bit premature. DOIs may well be the wave of the future, but right now not all articles have DOIs. Furthermore, many research databases do not yet include DOIs in their records or articles. At the same time, as many academic librarians will tell you, students at the college and university level currently access the majority of the journal articles used in their research papers from the myriad subscription research databases available through their institutional libraries. Therefore the most common form of journal article citation at the college and university level is that of the journal article retrieved from a research database. The recent changes to APA style, however, now make this a confusing and difficult source to cite.

Subscription research databases enable students to search for information on their topics and find full-text articles electronically from a wide range of publications. They allow faster, more efficient searching and the reassurance that students are searching authoritative sources. When citing these sources, students want a quick, efficient way to glean the information needed for whichever citation style they might be using. They certainly want all of the required information to be readily available in the databases they are using. What if they do not see a DOI for a journal article they want to cite? This is currently a very common dilemma, and herein lies much of the problem with APA’s change in electronic citation style.

Some research databases, like PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES (both sponsored by the American Psychological Association), do a great job of including DOIs, and citing articles from these sources is simple. Many other research databases, however, do not—or at least have not yet—embraced this new technology. APA realizes this and offers the following solution: If one does not find a DOI for a journal article in a research database, one should then search for an article’s DOI by going to the CrossRef.org website and using its “free DOI lookup.”¹

If one goes to CrossRef.org and finds that no DOI has been assigned to a particular article (currently a very real and distinct possibility), one should then “give the exact URL (if the content is open-access) or the URL of the journal home page (if the content is accessible by subscription).”² Needless to say, this explanation has left many a student, faculty member, researcher, and librarian scratching their heads. These additional, external steps are making databases, the primary research tool at the college and university level, harder, not easier, to use, if one wants to cite one’s sources properly in APA style. What happened to simply citing the name of the database itself in one’s retrieval statement, which was what the fifth edition of the APA manual specifically prescribed?³

APA states, however, that one should no longer include the name of a database in a retrieval statement for a journal article. Instead, if unable to locate a DOI for an article (either by finding it in the article itself, in the database record, or via CrossRef.org), one should then go searching further on the Web for an appropriate URL. The APA Style Expert confirmed this cumbersome procedure in response to an e-mail query: “Please note that if the article is open access, the exact URL of the article (not the database home page URL) should be provided. If the content is accessible by subscription, the URL of the journal home page should be provided.”⁴

The new APA style guide does not address what to do when neither an article URL nor a journal home page is available for an article lacking a DOI. The fact remains that researchers today will find such articles in many research databases. How then should they properly cite these articles in APA style? Would it not make sense to cite the name of the database, at least when no DOI is readily available?

While the APA style was developed specifically for articles published in American Psychological Association journals and publications, APA style is widely used today by students and researchers in many different disciplines. At my university alone, our schools of nursing, business, and education all use APA style, as do many of the departments in the social sciences and health sciences. Many students coming to the university have never heard of APA style before, and if familiar with any citation style, it is usually Modern Language Association (MLA). Now not only will librarians and faculty be teaching their students a new style that is quirky and detail-oriented, they will also be telling them to search for DOIs, article URLs, and journal homepage URLs to cite articles accessed in research databases. This process seems very untenable indeed, especially for undergraduates.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Some things are timeless: the golden rule, family traditions, and even the more materialistic simple black dress or string of pearls. These classic items are often passed over for a shinier new toy or the latest trend. However, they are timeless because we can always return to and trust them. They ground us. For librarians, Ranganathan’s five laws of library science are timeless objectives that put our profession’s goals in perspective. If we ever lose sight of why or how we’re doing our job, Ranganathan’s laws provide guidance and structure. So take yourself back to library school–where you probably first heard of Ranganathan–and explore why his laws are timeless for librarianship and how they help libraries stay relevant.

Shiyali Ramainrita (S. R.) Ranganathan (1892-1972) was an Indian mathematician and library science scholar.¹ In 1931 he published his Five Laws of Library Science, which were meant to be essential principles to define a library’s function and purpose.² The five laws state:

1. Books are for use
2. Every reader, his/her book
3. Every book, its reader
4. Save the time of the reader
5. The Library is a growing organism

A Closer Look

1. Books are for use.

In other words, library materials and services should be accessible to users. This law might seem trivial in our day and age, but it harkens back to times when books were often chained to bookshelves and locked in rooms away from the patrons who wanted to use them. Fortunately, we’re seeing less and less of this type of restriction to access. However, the digital age does have new repercussions for this first law. One way libraries are making their materials more accessible is by providing free online access to resources where and when the users need them. This means that more and more, our users can access materials when they want and from the location of their choice. An extension of this law is that libraries ensure that their users at multi-campus locations have access to the same resources as at the main location.

A caveat to keep in mind is that electronic access is not always the only way to go for better access. While it seems like most users today prefer online access, it’s a careful balancing act. Eliminating free access to print resources in lieu of complete online access for only those users with a login and password can be viewed as a modern-day equivalent to breaking this first rule, and librarians should take their patrons’ habits and desires into thoughtful consideration.

One way that libraries have exemplified this law is interlibrary loan (ILL) service. While librarians tend to overlook this service because we’re so familiar with it, it is quite powerful. Often explaining the ILL concept to patrons produces that wow-factor that is sometimes hard to come by. At Penn State, I often hear our student Lion Ambassadors mention ILL to prospective families on campus tours–so you know the concept resonates with them. Recently my sister asked me for “the skinny” on ILL so she could inform a parental support group about the service to help them locate more resources about raising children with autism. ILL is a true manifestation of the adage that there’s strength in numbers, and by building networks of information resources, libraries are truly indivisible. Collaborating is something we do well and we should capitalize on it to pass this great service on to our patrons.

While it’s easy to think of examples of making materials accessible to patrons, we can also look at this law from a service standpoint. Librarians have strong commitments to service and finding out what kinds of services our patrons want is another way we continue to stay relevant in today’s world. For example, we realize that learning doesn’t stop after the library’s doors close at night, so when possible, libraries increase their hours–often staying open all night. Serving patrons via shared 24/7 virtual reference services is another way libraries are making their services accessible, even if they don’t have the budget to keep the physical library open later.

2. Every reader, his or her book

No patron can own all the materials they need. Unlike some who think that libraries are being marginalized because anyone who needs a book just buys it, patrons cannot own all the resources they need, nor do they want to. This is especially true in an academic environment where textbooks and research materials can be cost-prohibitive to faculty and especially students. Also, research interests and discoveries change frequently. Libraries are in the business of targeting collections for their user populations and building collections around their users. We talk to our users, attend faculty meetings, and scour book reviews to find out what kinds of materials our patrons are interested in–we’ll even buy a book based on a user’s recommendation or request. Starbucks and Barnes and Noble do their own research about their clientele in general, but librarians take it a step further. Librarians take into consideration format issues so that the most appropriate form for the patrons using it is available. We also consider preservation issues and do our best to ensure long-term access to the material. Not only do we do this, but we make sure that we provide materials that are credible and reliable. We’re happy to help and we take pride in finding a reader his or her book.

The second law speaks mainly to the areas of acquisitions and collection development. However, it also speaks to the very basic materials that libraries supply but librarians tend to forget about, such as photocopiers, staplers, pencils, computers, and reserve items. By providing the basics, we serve patrons throughout the continuum of their quest for knowledge and the research process. First, they can receive assistance and direction for finding resources from librarians and then obtain the actual resources. Often patrons use library printers to print the assignment and our staplers to drive the final staple into the corner of a research paper before turning it in. From beginning to end, the library is there.

Another service that gains its relevance from Ranganathan’s second law is reference services. Librarians know their patrons and collections and provide expertise you will not find anywhere else. Reference questions are more complex than in the past because users often do preliminary research online first. When someone does ask a reference question, they have most likely done some searching on their own and are stumped by the time they come to the library. Through our expertise, we know what kinds of materials best help our users and we know how and when to use them. This is how we ensure that every reader has his or her book.

3. Every book, its reader

This is the complementary reverse of the second law and supports the first law as well–it is all about providing pathways. Although the first and third laws sound similar, they actually support each other. The third law serves to remind us to build more connections for our users so that they can find all the materials that we have made free and accessible. Classification systems are one way to do this. When used intelligently, technology helps to increase connections exponentially through tools like course management systems and Web 2.0 technologies that promote conversations about our materials and services. Technology must be accessible, intuitive, affordable, and simple if it is to be useful to patrons.

Instruction is another often-overlooked way librarians make connections. As librarians, we can provide almost anything patrons need to make the information relevant: hour-long sessions that are expertly tailored to students’ needs, one-on-one research assistance, or open sessions on a variety of topics. Instruction entails both connecting the user to available resources and educating them about what we as librarians can do for them. If patrons leave with nothing else but the knowledge that the library can help them, we have done our job and we have taken this third law to heart.

In a similar vein comes outreach. Reaching out to the community and networking is perhaps the quintessential representation of the third law. Through programming that supports information literacy, making contact with groups such as adult learners or immigrant populations, and providing orientation sessions and tours to new users, we are constantly making new pathways to the library.

4. Save the time of the reader

This law is self explanatory–everyone likes to save time–but how are libraries providing efficient access to materials and services? Not only do we staff service desks with trained employees, but our virtual presence through e-mail and chat reference has grown. Of course, these services save users’ time by getting them to the information they need more quickly. Virtual and phone reference allows users to stay in their location and not have to worry about physically visiting the library. Soon reference services accessible by handheld wireless devices will make this service even more convenient.

It is no surprise that technology has helped librarians to apply this law. Online catalogs, link resolvers, metasearching, and Z39.50 technology make finding online full-text content much easier. While there are still some kinks to be smoothed out, just try going back to the old ways of searching. Similarly, tools like the Google Library Links program help our patrons save time by allowing them to use an interface they are familiar with to find quality resources that are owned by their local library. At Penn State, we have seen evidence that Ranganathan’s fourth rule is much appreciated by patrons. An “I Want It” button in our online catalog is a feature that allows patrons to easily place a hold or recall a book that is not available at their current Penn State location or campus. This feature lets them pick up the item at any other Penn State location, including a branch library that might be closer to their lab or dorm. At a large university like Penn State, this feature can save quite a bit of time for users and the feature gets used heavily. Finally, taking advantage of Web 2.0 technologies like RSS feeds can save users’ time by allowing them to get updates for content that they regularly like to see without having to visit a number of sites to get that content. Everyone likes to save time and the fourth law reminds us to do it for our patrons.

5. The library is a growing organism

Libraries are growing by broadening and deepening their collections. Public, school, and academic librarians are planning new outreach initiatives and offering new services such as roving and remote reference services. We are also expanding and reworking our physical spaces by building beautiful new libraries, moving to an information commons model of service, and remodeling spaces to make them more inviting. Ranganathan’s fifth law leaves us with this logical conclusion that libraries are, and always should be, changing.

Even though repercussions of today’s digital age may seem to cloud what Ranganathan’s five laws mean for libraries, his laws are still relevant. No matter which of Ranganathan’s laws a new service falls under, libraries always provide services that people value and that remain timeless. Two things that patrons always appreciate are personal attention and a smiling face–those never go out of style. Libraries provide empowerment. Knowledge is power and libraries provide the materials necessary for gaining that knowledge. Libraries provide a place for discovery and serendipity. Perhaps browsing a new-books display leads a researcher to a new area of interest, or a young student discovers a new career path by consulting the career section of the library. The idea that libraries are life-changing places not only provides a great feeling to librarians but to patrons as well–and that is especially timeless.

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to: Editor Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The Pennsylvania State University, 309 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: dxz2@psu.edu.

Emily Rimland is a Reference Librarian, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

References

1. “Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan,” from Contemporary Authors database, http://galenet.gale.com (accessed Jan. 5, 2006).
2. S. R. Ranganathan, The Five Laws of Library Science (Madras, India: Madras Library Assoc., 1931, and London: Edward Goldston, 1931). Also available at http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1220 (accessed Jan. 5, 2006).

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
“Let me be sure I understand you: You want to start a tearoom and bakery business, and you’d like to know the number of women living in Kansas City whose households have incomes of more than $60,000? … Okay! Yes, I can help you with that.”

So begins another reference interaction in which a librarian is asked to provide quite specific data for a business plan. Where should libraries without specialized staff turn for help? Why, the State Data Center network, of course. One of the most successful programs of the U.S. Census Bureau, it is probably the least expensive and also the least well known.

History

In 1978, the U.S. Census Bureau inaugurated a program to test a new kind of partnership. Using existing state resources, the State Data Center (SDC) program designated in every state a unit to closely communicate with the bureau about its many surveys and products. In turn, the bureau would benefit from local knowledge and disseminate its information to local areas.

North Carolina was fortunate to be one of the four states selected to test the arrangement. Francine Stephenson, head of NC-SDC, reflects on the early days:

Back then, staff stood at keypunch machines punching Hollerith cards to customize reports for clients across the state, and the reports were on ledger-sized, newsprint-quality, green bar paper. We consulted microfiche for voluminous printed reports as well as for census maps. Most technical staff agreed that scrolling back and forth, up and down for a particular block or tract in a darkened room was sure to induce a headache. Personal computers and e-mail were unknown, so requests came over the telephone and through walk-ins.

North Carolina and the Census Bureau invested heavily in training to build good data representatives. In some sense, we became experts to the experts because of our encounters with the big picture and our firsthand knowledge of data user needs. But the information didn’t end at the state level; we trained local affiliates, and the knowledge spread across the state.

In 2006, most census-related publications arrive on DVD or are available in the bureau’s online database, American FactFinder. Communication among all levels of the program–federal, state, and local–is still critical to its success but is now facilitated electronically in addition to other means. Data users have likewise become more sophisticated. Questions received by the network are less often about how to find a particular figure and more often about how to interpret data that users have already located.

Structure of the Program

While each state has a lead agency serving as the primary contact with the Census Bureau, a wider network is necessary to ensure distribution of information to the local level. SDCs often have coordinating agencies that provide special services or knowledge, such as geographic information system (GIS) services, but most have also formed coalitions of affiliates that have regional or even more localized contacts and knowledge. As figure 1 shows, there are two main types of affiliates in North Carolina: Lead Regional Organizations (LROs), which are the Councils of Government (COGs) across the state, and public library affiliates. These affiliates are in close contact with the lead agency and can field questions about and from their local areas.

The Program’s Effectiveness–An Example

One example of the critical role of affiliates is demonstrated by the Count Question Resolution (CQR) process following the 2000 Census. This process was the official means by which governmental entities could dispute the census bureau’s count of their population. State, local, or tribal officials could submit documentation to challenge the bureau’s tally. Census counts directly affect not only representation in Congress but also funding from most federal programs. As a generalization, the more population a place can claim, the more federal money it is eligible to receive. Consequently, local governments want the largest possible count.

Each challenging entity must prove that some portion of its population was missed in the original count. Once the bureau reviews this documentation, it may correct the count or reject the challenge. In North Carolina, because SDC affiliates were proactive in promoting the program to local officials, more than one hundred geographic entities in the state received corrections to their counts, far more than any other state (see caveat in sidebar 2).

Local Benefits of SDC

Unknown to many, the figures in the Census Bureau’s online database, American FactFinder, do not reflect the count corrections from the CQR process–such revisions were deemed too expensive. Moreover, the corrections themselves were limited to four variables: total population, population in group quarters, total housing units, and vacant housing units. (Group quarters include, among others, military barracks, prisons, dormitories, and nursing homes.) How would a data user know where to find the corrected counts or how to use those data? There are many examples of such complex questions. SDC affiliates can help librarians find the answers.

SDCs educate their affiliate networks so that the individual agencies can spread such knowledge within their local communities. Some SDCs even provide workshop leaders who travel around their states upon request. Some provide specialized services for business planning. Quite a few provide specialized, state-specific resources on their Web pages. For North Carolina, see http://census.state.nc.us, a page with links to a variety of North Carolina census resources including the CQR corrections and maps, as well as the NC Census Lookup database, which provides access to the most frequently used North Carolina census data.

A few SDCs provide spectacular online resources for the whole country. For example, Indiana’s Stats Indiana provides States IN Profile and USA Counties IN Profile. (The capitalization of IN is a play on Indiana’s postal abbreviation.) Missouri’s SDC offers a variety of online tools for nationwide use. For the benefit of all census data users, SDCs across the country collaborated in 1990 and 2000 to formulate brief profiles from the decennial census data. The Missouri SDC Web site provides access to many of these under the heading Profile Products. Of course, all SDCs consult the bureau about questions and issues that arise in their states.

It is fair to say that SDCs and their affiliates perform wonders on shoestring budgets. Typically, SDCs have fewer than five staff members, yet service statistics are impressive. As reported in the bureau’s latest annual report (calendar year 2004), the national network of affiliates handled about 660,000 requests from local governments, businesses, academia, research organizations, public service and nonprofit organizations, the media, and others. Of these requests, 15 percent required in-depth data analysis, technical assistance, or consultation. SDC Web sites received 320 million hits. The network also prepared about 26,000 customized products. Such products may include location analyses for business start-ups or a customized GIS map. Network trainers conducted about 1,300 workshops on bureau data. Yet for all of these achievements, the cost to states was only about $14.7 million, including costs for personnel, equipment, travel, and supplies. And 60 percent of these requests were free to the customer.

The need for the SDC network is still easily demonstrable. American businesses and governments at all levels continue to need help finding and using detailed data for planning and growth. The Census Bureau is now conducting the new American Community Survey (ACS), which will take the place of the long form in the decennial census. The ACS produces annual data but uses a radically different survey method. The SDC network is the primary means by which local officials and librarians will learn how to navigate and use ACS data. As 2010 approaches, SDC affiliates support local governments’ participation in preparatory programs for the decennial census, to ensure that the bureau has the most current information available about local communities before it begins mailing surveys and sending out enumerators. When Congress wrangles over the budget for the bureau, the network acts as its advocate, contacting key officials to explain the wide variety of critical local needs met by census data.

As society grows more and more complex, so do the data required for successful planning. The demands for census data and the expertise to use them effectively are only increasing. Together, the Census Bureau and the SDC network are meeting the challenges of the information age and putting data to work for the American people.

How to Contact Your Local Affiliates

Find your State Data Center from the Census Bureau’s SDC Web site. From there, link to the Web site of the lead agency in your state. Most SDC Web sites have prominent links to local affiliates; or you may contact your SDC directly to determine local affiliates and how to reach them. The SDC Clearinghouse Web site provides more information about current network issues, congressional activity affecting the Census Bureau, and internal workings of the network.

Correspondence concerning this column should be addressed to: Editor Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The Pennsylvania State University, 309 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: dxz2@psu.edu. Michele Hayslett is Librarian for Data Services and Government Information at North Carolina State University, Raleigh. The author would like to thank the staff of the North Carolina State Data Center and Renee Jefferson-Copeland of the U.S. Census Bureau for their assistance.

Sidebar 1: CQR and Citizens Overseas

After the 2000 Census, the most attention-getting challenge came from Utah, on the grounds that if the bureau had counted the large number of Utah residents living abroad, the state would not have lost a congressional seat. Court challenges yielded no gain for Utah but did force the bureau to test ways to count U.S. citizens overseas. (The state that won the extra seat in the House was North Carolina.) The bureau concluded that counting citizens overseas was an impractical endeavor. Because citizens overseas are not tracked by the U.S. government, they could only be invited to participate. Voluntary participation domestically has generally been shown to result in low response rates (participation in the decennial census is required by law). Moreover, the bureau has no funding to station staff overseas; consequently, such a count would result in a new administrative burden for American embassies.

Sidebar 2: The Risk in a Challenge

Local governments do gamble a bit in filing a challenge–only 65 percent of the CQR corrections in North Carolina increased the geography’s counts, and 8.5 percent of the decisions resulted in no change. If the bureau finds that the original count was inaccurate but that there were actually fewer people than they thought, there is no appeal for the decision.