In addition to this collection of outstanding peer-reviewed feature articles, this volume featured the familiar columns that are beloved by many RUSQ readers. I am fortunate to work with this team of creative column editors: M. Kathleen Kern (“The Accidental Technologist”), Neal Wyatt (“The Alert Collector”), Lisa O’Connor (“Information Literacy and Instruction”), Marianne Ryan (“Management”), and Barry Trott (“Readers’ Advisory”). Barry Trott did double duty this year as he served as RUSA President, contributing the occasional presidential column as well as serving as an ex officio member of the editorial advisory board.

Tammy J. Eschedor Voelker and Karen Antell continued their excellent work as section editors of “Sources.” Many individuals have reviewed reference books and professional materials this past year. The result is a body of substantive, comparative, and analytical reviews that help readers make wise collection decisions during this period of tight budgets.

While I would like to thank all of the book reviewers for their important work, I would like to recognize a special group of reviewers. Tammy Voelker, editor of the reference books section of “Sources,” has informed me that the following reviewers have reached the milestone of contributing ten reviews of reference books since volume 40: Suzanne Larsen, Evan M. Davis, and Bernadette A. Lear. Karen Antell, editor of the professional materials section, has asked me to acknowledge these distinguished reviewers of professional materials: Jenny Foster Stenis, Larry Cooperman, Sarah Hart, Katy Herrick, Lisa Powell Williams, Melanie Wachsmann, Margie Ruppel, Rachel Vacek, and Mike Matthews.

While this volume marks an important anniversary, it also marks an important change. Volume 50 will be the last issue to be published in traditional print format. Beginning with Volume 51, Number 1 (Fall 2011), the journal will only be published in a digital format. I served as the chair of a task-force that spent more than a year exploring the migration of RUSQ from a print to a professionally designed electronic version. The other members of the taskforce were Judith M. Arnold, Gwen Arthur, Bobray Bordelon, and Neal Wyatt. After carefully examining many factors (cost implications, possible impact on advertising, access, archival issues, potential impact on the journal’s scholarly reputation, and membership satisfaction), the taskforce recommended that the print version of RUSQ be abandoned and that we move to an all-electronic version. This recommendation was accepted by the RUSA Board at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

The taskforce believes that the time is right to make this change. RUSQ has an established reputation and we are confident that the move to a digital format won’t impact the journal’s reputation. Prospective authors are more concerned with whether or not a journal is peer reviewed. Contributors and readers will understand that cost issues are moving us forward. Additionally, readers are accustomed to the online environment since many journals have made this transition.

One major advantage of a digital version will be lower production costs. While we will still have production costs and start-up costs, we will not have paper, printing, and mailing costs. The savings will be substantial; these three items alone account for approximately 46 percent of the journal’s annual budget (based on the FY 2011 journal budget). Additionally, ALA Production Services projected that paper and postage costs will increase 2 to 3 percent this year. Another advantage is that the production schedule will be slightly shortened. It currently takes three to four weeks to get an issue into the hands of subscribers after I have reviewed final proofs.

From a logistical perspective, the taskforce recommended that we move to the digital version with volume 51 as this is the final volume that I will be responsible for editing. RUSQ editors may serve no longer that six consecutive years and another editor will be responsible for volume 52 on. There is a steep learning curve when assuming the editorship. It would be unreasonable to burden a new editor with oversight of a major change. This gives us one year to work out any problems before a new editor comes on board.

We will retain the services of ALA Production Services for copy editing, proofreading, and composition. ALA Production Services does an excellent job, and the taskforce firmly believes that money should be spent on the production quality of the journal rather than printing and mailing costs. MetaPress will be used as the platform for the journal. MetaPress, owned by Ebsco, has a strong track record and is used by other professional associations, including the prestigious Academy of Management, to host journal content. Additionally, ALA has experience with MetaPress. The first digital issue and all new issues going forward will be available in both HTML and PDF formats. Archival content (from 2006 forward) will be available in PDF format only. The taskforce has recommended a one year embargo since the journal is one of the benefits of RUSA membership. The RUSQ Online Companion will be eliminated with Volume 51. This was originally developed as a stop gap measure until a full electronic version was in place. This will result in some savings as the RUSA office has been responsible for loading content. Another advantage is that the digital version (unlike the current RUSQ Online Companion) will include the book reviews contained in each issue. One of the most exciting developments is that JSTOR will be used for permanent archiving. JSTOR is stable and many libraries are members. JSTOR is currently implementing a number of changes that will provide the capability to archive e-journals only.

From the reader’s perspective, the digital version of RUSQ will probably not look much different than the print version. Although I confess that I will probably feel some nostalgia about the paper version (it is very satisfying to open up the latest issue in the mail), I know that there will be no loss of quality with the digital version. Rest assured that you will find the same high quality feature articles, cutting edge columns, and thoughtful reviews. You will no longer need to reserve stacks space for future issues of the journal. Farewell stacks … hello digital!

Correspondence for Reference & User Services Quarterly 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.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This volume marks a milestone for RUSA. RUSA’s journal is celebrating its fiftieth year. The first volume of our division’s journal was published in November 1960. This inaugural issue of RQ (the title preceding RUSQ) was eight pages long. In the past fifty years, our journal has come a long way in terms of length and production quality. Issues now average 104 pages in length, and the top notch staff at ALA Production Services is responsible for the crisp and contemporary design. While the look and feel of the journal has changed over the past half-century, the journal has consistently published a balance of thoughtful articles on practice and empirically based articles on issues in reference and public services librarianship. Many articles published in the journal over the past five decades have become classics in reference librarianship, library instruction, collection development, and readers’ advisory.

Since 1960 there have been many advisory board members, referees, column editors, and book reviewers who have donated their time and talent. While impossible to list all of these individuals by name, it does seem fitting to recognize those editors who have come before me. On behalf of the division, I want to thank my predecessors for their hard work and vision.

• William S. Budington
• Ben C. Bowman
• John Fall
• Bill Katz
• Dennis Ribbon
• Geraldine B. King
• Helen B. Josephine
• Kathleen Heim
• Elizabeth Futas
• Connie Van Fleet and Danny P. Wallace
• Gail A. Schlachter

Of course, many of you know that the journal’s only joint editors (the dynamic duo of Connie Van Fleet and Danny P. Wallace) served two terms, albeit not consecutively. They retain the record of editing the journal for the greatest number of years (twelve in total).

This anniversary volume continues the fine tradition of publishing reflection and research to guide practice. I know that RUSQ readers will enjoy this volume in particular, with content covering future trends as well as the occasional look back at our profession.

Correspondence for Reference & User Services Quarterly 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.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This past year was a stressful one for several individuals associated with RUSQ as they took on additional responsibilities at work (myself included), dealt with budget cutbacks in their libraries, and in some cases took salary reductions themselves as a result of pay cuts and furloughs. Even under these trying circumstances, editorial advisory board members, referees, column and section editors, and book reviewers found time to volunteer their services to the journal. While resources were also stretched thin at ALA Production Services, Justine Wells, our extraordinary production editor, never sacrificed quality.

I am grateful to the great editorial advisory board that guides me. These members also spend considerable time carefully reading and evaluating submissions. The following individuals served as members of the 2009–10 RUSQ Editorial Advisory Board: Judith M. Arnold, Gwen Arthur, Sian Brannon, Corinne Hill, Jessica E. Moyer, Judith M. Nixon, Lisa O’Connor, Amber A. Prentiss, Michael Stephens, and Molly Strothmann. Manuscript submissions continue to rise, necessitating the need for additional referees. A large number of experts volunteered their services as occasional reviewers this past year. I am appreciative to the following individuals who took on this important role: Rebecca Albitz, Steve Alleman, Dawn Amsberry, Karen Antell, Curt Asher, Bobray Bordelon, Dawn Childress, Christina Desai, Joe Fennewald, Linda Friend, Russell A. Hall, Daniel Hickey, Neil Hollands, Alexia Hudson, Nancy Huling, Sally Kalin, M. Kathleen Kern, Daniel Mack, Eric Novotny, Bonnie Osif, Mary Popp, Marie Radford, Karen Sobel, Barry Trott, and Neil Wyatt. The result is an outstanding collection of feature articles.

I am also grateful to column editors M. Kathleen Kern (“The Accidental Technologist”), Neal Wyatt (“The Alert Collector”), Lisa O’Connor (“Information Literacy and Instruction”), Marianne Ryan (“Management”), and Barry Trott (“Readers’ Advisory”). Judith M. Nixon did double duty for part of the year as she completed her term as editor of the “Management” column while serving on the editorial advisory board.

The quality of the book reviews remains a strength of the journal. Tammy J. Eschedor Voelker’s first year as editor of the reference books section of “Sources” went off without a hitch. While there are too many reference book reviewers to list by name, I would like to recognize two special reviewers: Peter Bliss and Aimee deChambeau. Both entered the ranks of those who have contributed ten reviews of reference books for “Sources” since 2000. Karen Antell continues to select fascinating professional books for inclusion in “Sources” in her role as editor of the professional materials section. Distinguished reviewers of professional materials include Jenny Stenis, Larry Cooperman, Katy Herrick, Anthony Stamatoplos, Bernadette Lear, Lisa Powell Williams, Melanie Wachsmann, Robin Sinn, and Sarah Hart.

Since this is a division journal, there are a great many other people who contributed to the journal’s success this past year. Susan J. Beck never failed to deliver interesting and thought-provoking presidential columns on schedule. Several RUSA sections and committees used the journal to highlight their best work. Finally, Susan Hornung patiently answered my many questions relating to the budget and other issues while learning on the job during her first year as RUSA’s new executive director.

Correspondence for Reference & User Services Quarterly should be addressed to Editor Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The Pennsylvania State University, 309 Paterno Library, University Park, PA16802; e-mail: dxz2@psu.edu.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Academic Business Library Directors (ABLD), an association consisting of the directors of libraries at the preeminent business schools in the United States and Canada, comes together each year to discuss issues of interest. Prior to the meeting, members are asked to respond to a questionnaire on what has happened in their libraries in the previous year. This survey results in the Annual Review, a collaborative report on new initiatives, organizational changes, space and collection issues, business school events, and the budget situations in their libraries. Roye Werner compiled this year’s Annual Review. This article contains the highlights from that report, which were also presented at the latest ABLD meeting, held at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, April 21–23, 2009. These trends will be of interest to many RUSQ readers because they relate to broad concerns that affect libraries of all types.—Editor

When I switched from being a public business librarian to an academic one three years ago, I thought I should get my collegiate bearings by studying some relevant journals. I spent some time perusing, among other publications, the Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, which turned out to be right on target for that purpose—and it was there, through references in various articles and reports, that I learned about the Academic Business Library Directors (ABLD) association.

ABLD is a small, specialized association, consisting of the directors of libraries at the preeminent business schools in the United States and Canada. The first meeting—which was inspired by discussions at the College and Universities Business Libraries Roundtable at the Special Libraries Association—was held in May 1987 at the Columbia University’s Watson Library at the invitation of their business librarian Jane Winland. It began with less than a dozen members; today, membership is limited to fifty. As described in the charter (www.abld.org/charter.html), ABLD provides

a forum for directors of academic business libraries to discuss mutual concerns and share information. Interests include: managerial and administrative issues and trends; cooperative initiatives to preserve and provide access to unique collections in business; opportunities to influence development of new products and services for the academic business library market and to influence contract development (vendor relations); and opportunities for informal collaboration and networking.

The organization has frequent contact and occasional meetings with sibling groups overseas, such as the European Business Schools Librarians’ Group and the Asia Pacific Business School Librarians’ Group, and recently has communicated with the newly formed Agrupación de Directores de Centros de Información in Latin America.

Lucky for me, I soon became a member, and have since made good use of the group’s accumulated wisdom and collegial support through their e-mail list, statistics compilations, conference sessions, website, and professional contacts. Perhaps the most extensive and revealing form of information gathering takes place a few months before the annual meeting, when the Annual Review is compiled. An editor sends a questionnaire to all members, who are asked to describe and record their reflections on what has happened in their libraries in the past year. The results are combined and distributed, and the editor then tries to make sense of the collected responses—finding common themes, shared concerns, and standout events and ideas—to report on at the conference.

This past year, I had the privilege of being that editor, and saw the process through, from distributing the questions to presenting the synthesis. For this latest Annual Review, we asked the members to report on the following:

• new and ongoing initiatives
• library organizational changes and new staff
• physical space
• collection and vendor issues
• business school issues, organizational changes, and new initiatives
• effects of the current economic situation
• other

Detailed and thoughtful reports came in from forty-three of our forty-nine members (an 88 percent response rate!), resulting in a sixty-four-page compilation. What follows are the highlights of those contributions.

First of all (with apologies to Star Trek), space is indeed the final frontier. In response to lively student demand, group study rooms are being built by the dozens, as are scores of seats in quiet study areas. Learning labs, interactive classrooms, presentation rooms, and lounges are being added. Collaborative workstations are popular. In a representative case, the Schreyer Business Library at Penn State is installing new collaborative workstations for group projects and planning, and equipping a group study room as a “presentation practice room,” complete with a high-definition screen, projector, and a podium. The William C. Gast Business Library at Michigan State has created the Collaborative Technology Learning Lab, equipped with an interactive whiteboard, videoconferencing capabilities, a DVD player, plasma screens, a projector, and a laptop. Boston College’s O’Neill Library redesigned their formerly solo business workstations to allow two users to sit and work together.

In conjunction with this, reference print materials continue to be moved to the stacks or offsite—also weeded and downsized, often drastically, and making intense use of compact shelving. Some reference collections are being moved almost in their entirety. Print serials and journals also are being cancelled and relocated. Naturally, the concurrent move is to e-books and databases, both in reference and the general collection—which continues apace. At the Howard Ross Library of Management at McGill, the collection policy has a new guideline to order e-versions of books whenever possible. Several reports mentioned making a special effort to enhance user access to electronic texts and data, which is not as intuitive as it should be.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Connie Van Fleet is well known to RUSQ readers. She edited the journal (in conjunction with Danny P. Wallace) for twelve years. Upon completing her final term as editor, she assumed leadership for the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). ALISE is the premier organization for faculty teaching in graduate programs in library and information science in North America. Connie graciously took time out of her busy schedule to respond to my questions about library education and LIS students.

All of a sudden librarianship is becoming portrayed as a hot occupation. Last spring, U.S. News & World Report (see “The Best Careers for 2007,” in the issue dated March 19, 2007) ranked librarianship as one of the top twenty-five careers for 2007. This summer, the New York Times (see “A Hipper Crowd of Shushers,” in the July 8, 2007 issue) ran a story on how librarianship is becoming a career choice for Generation Xers. Have library schools noticed a marked increase in applications over the last year or two?

I loved those articles and really got quite a kick out of sharing the NYT piece with my students. It’s great to see librarianship getting attention and respect. I think those articles, however, reflect recognition of a trend, rather than drive enrollment figures. Enrollment in ALA-accredited programs has been increasing steadily since an inexplicable dip in 1999. In fact, according to the ALISE statistics, enrollment in accredited masters’ programs grew by about 8% per year between 1999 and 2006, resulting in an increase of over 65%. The 2007 statistics have just been collected from the schools and have not yet been analyzed, but it is my sense that this upward trend is continuing.

Who is attending graduate programs in library and information science these days? Is there a demographic profile of the typical student enrolled in a master’s degree program? Is librarianship a second career for many individuals?

There is a very diverse group of individuals who attend graduate programs in library and information science for a variety of reasons. The profession may still be overwhelmingly female and white, but we are seeing more men and ethnic groups represented in the program. I think the data gathered in Fall 2006 probably gives a pretty accurate picture of this year’s class. It shows that enrollment in MLIS programs was 71% female and 29% male. Of those students for whom ethnicity data is reported (such reporting is illegal in Canada), 74% of the students were identified as white, with about 4.4% black, 4.34% Hispanic, and 3.37% Asian. Nearly 5% were international students. Perhaps the most dramatic change is in the age of those attending graduate programs in library and information science: 40% were under the age of 30; 69% were under 40; and 87% under 50 years old. The majority (73.7%) of students reside in the state or province in which they attend school.

Librarianship still remains a second career for many individuals. We don’t have statistics on students who come into our programs with advanced degrees or from other careers, but my experience at three different universities and my impression from speaking with other faculty indicate that a number of students come to us from a variety of professions, including law, music, education, business, and retail sales. We also see a number of library workers who enroll in school for advancement or professional development.

It appears that there has been an explosion in online course offerings in library and information science. Are there data on how many students are enrolled in distance versus residential programs? Are there some master’s degree programs that are a hybrid? Has ALISE or any other body sponsored research evaluating the quality of online programs?

We don’t have figures that indicate the balance of enrollment in distance and residential programs that have been aggregated on the national level, nor do we have directly comparable data on those enrollments. ALISE is currently working on a project to evaluate the data elements we collect for the ALISE Statistical Report, so this is certainly an area for us to look at.

The Statistical Report does tell us that well over 80% of schools with ALA accredited master’s programs offer distance education courses in a variety of formats. Web courses are the most frequently offered: nearly 1,100 sections were offered in academic year 2004–2005. On-site but off campus face-to-face courses remain popular and were the next most frequently offered, followed by hybrid or multimedia courses and video. Many programs offer a combination of on-site instruction and other delivery mechanisms. Some others have completely separate online programs. The majority of online programs, however, require some sort of intensive, on-campus experience.

There have been several research studies that explore the quality of online programs. The WISE (Web-based Information Science Education) project is a consortium of schools that works to enhance online pedagogy as well as to share courses. (See www.wiseeducation.org/home_p-home.aspx) Perhaps the most influential factor in program quality, however, is the ALA Committee on Accreditation. The ALA Standards for Accreditation require that schools meet the same standards of quality in their distance education programs as they do in their on-campus programs.

Is there a core curriculum in library and information science? If so, what does it look like? I am sure RUSQ readers would be interested in learning whether or not reference (if it is still known as that) is generally a required course.

This is an area that seems to provoke a great deal of discussion. Is there a course by course congruence among the required courses in all of the ALA accredited programs? No. Are the basic concepts outlined in the ALA Standards for Accreditation found across all of the programs? Yes. I found Renee McKinney’s analysis of curricula of ALA accredited schools and the ALA Draft Core Competencies very revealing. She found that nearly 95% of the schools offered courses to address all eight of the core competencies. Ironically, for those who keep up with such concerns, a Knowledge Organization course was required in all but one of the ALA schools (and that one not yet fully accredited).

“Reference” is not mentioned in the ALA core competencies, but it seems to fall under “Knowledge Dissemination: Service.” According to McKinney’s analysis, nearly 75% of the programs offer a required course in this area.

In my quick review of curricula of ALA accredited programs, the majority of programs (34) have a “reference” course as a core requirement and another few include the course as a guided (or second tier) elective. That is, reference is one of a second level of required courses. Another eight offer such a course as an elective. I defined a reference course as one that, regardless of its title, included the components of a basic reference course: exploration of users and user needs, interpersonal interaction and question analysis, and information resources and retrieval processes. By far the most frequently used course title is some iteration of “information sources and services.” Variations of “reference and information services” or just plain “reference” are still used in many schools. I cannot estimate how many students and faculty use “reference” as shorthand for more elaborately titled courses, but I think the practice is fairly widespread.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
In her inspirational article in the Winter 2008 issue of RUSQ (“A Personal Choice: Reference Service Excellence”) Marie Radford reminds us that reference service excellence begins with the initial patron interaction, whether it is face-to-face or virtual. In this guest editorial, Lorraine J. Pellack reinforces the importance of first impressions formed by patrons. Coincidentally, Pellack’s point mirrors the message contained in Susan J. Beck’s inaugural presidential column (“This is Our Time to Shine: Opportunities in a Recession”) contained in this issue.—Editor

Every library that I have worked in over the last twenty-plus years has had at least one staff member grumbling about how often they have to give directions to the restroom. They grumble about patrons who need lessons in reading signs and architects who evilly plan library buildings with invisible restrooms or restrooms far from the entrance. My question is this: Why grumble? This is our chance to shine, to invite people in. While it’s true that any trained monkey could point in the correct direction, I would like to believe that human beings aspire to be a bit more helpful than this. In the current economy, with declining numbers of reference transactions and dwindling budgets, every patron encounter is important. These are not just people in need; every one of them has potential. They are potential Nobel Prize winners, potential legislators, potential parents of eager readers, potential library enthusiasts, children with future academic potential, and maybe even future library supporters.

Put yourself on the other side of the desk and rethink why someone might be asking a particular question. In the case of questions such as “where’s the restroom?” most likely the person has never been in the building before. Yes, you’ve answered the question a bazillion times, but most people only ask the question on their first visit. Despite many efforts to the contrary, we are still fighting librarian stereotypes of cantankerous old ladies who shush people. Here is a golden opportunity to make a positive first impression, be welcoming, and influence a new person about the helpfulness of library staff. These interactions, in turn, affect the eagerness of visitors to return in the future.

Patrons frequently ask for directions even when the person they are asking is standing right next to a sign that gives the answer. Clearly, some people prefer to ask a human being rather than take the time to read building signs. Habits of people in a new environment often include asking directional questions first because they are less threatening. If they do okay, and feel comfortable, they work their way up to more complicated questions later on. Directional questions may seem mundane, but they can be the first step toward answering future needs and instilling confidence in the person asking the question.

Have you ever noticed that patrons working at computers near public service desks often overhear conversations? If you watch, you will occasionally see a nearby person looking up and smiling after a joke someone made at the desk. They might even raise an eyebrow after being startled by a particular comment. Have you ever wondered if that person sitting near the desk is too shy, or too embarrassed, to ask a question? Could it be they asked a simple question in the past and were affronted by a less than enthusiastic staff member?

Working at a public service desk can definitely get tiring after a while. Repetition can wear down almost anyone, and many libraries have put in an “information desk” to siphon off directional questions to ease the burden on other public service desks. While this may seem to help relieve repetition among a number of desks, the bulk of the repetition goes to a smaller number of individuals who are likely to wear down faster. Very few people can manage cheerful countenances on a constant basis, especially when faced with recurring questions or for a long period of time. Each staff member has a breaking point of a maximum number of hours beyond which they cannot be expected to retain their sanity, let alone be welcoming. If you seem to reach your breaking point too often, maybe it is time to cut back your public contact hours or take a long overdue vacation. Remember, all patrons are important—even ones that are “just” asking directional questions. They are the reason we are here.

I recently read an advice column in Managing People at Work (a newsletter published by McMurry) that recommended pretending each staff member is a volunteer to ensure we show appreciation more often. This can easily be applied to many service desk encounters. Pretend each person is your mother, the next Louis Pasteur, or the library director’s spouse. The question is important to them, or they would not have taken the time or effort to ask it.

Library desk staff regularly can, and do, affect visitors’ first impressions. Try coming through the front door of your library and pretending you are a first-time visitor. Go visit a nearby library and see what reaction you get when you ask a few simple questions. Which library staff make you feel at home and why? Do any of them annoy you enough to not ask questions in future? Why? Use this information to rethink how patrons may feel as they enter your library and have a question.

I still get a chuckle out of patrons who ask “do you have a restroom?” They don’t seem to want to know where it is . . . simply whether or not we have one. It has been a long time since a library was built without public restrooms, and every now and then I have to work hard to resist the ornery urge to see their reaction if I say “no.” After all, they are in obvious need, and I am there to help them find their way. If you are tired of hearing “where’s the restroom?” then maybe it’s time to rethink your choice of jobs or how you perform it. Simply put, either stop working at a public help desk or take the challenge to rejuvenate your patron interactions and become a positive face for your library.

Correspondence for Reference & User Services Quarterly 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.

Lorraine J. Pellack is Head, Science and Technology Department, Parks Library, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
I am using this space to once again thank all the individuals who contributed to the production of RUSQ during the past year. Members of the RUSQ Editorial Advisory Board strive to provide meaningful and constructive feedback to authors. The 2008–09 board was composed of Judith M. Arnold, Gwen Arthur, Corinne Hill, Jessica E. Moyer, Kjerstine Nielsen, Lisa O’Connor, Amber A. Prentiss, Marianne Ryan, Michael Stephens, and Molly Strothmann. When my inbox is overflowing with manuscript submissions, I sometimes call upon other experts to serve as referees. I am grateful to the following occasional reviewers who stepped in to lend a hand this past year: Rebecca Albitz, Christine Avery, Susan Beck, Anne Behler, Ellysa Stern Cahoy, Phillip Edwards, Linda Friend, Jennifer Gilley, Kevin Harwell, Nancy Huling, Daniel Mack, Cheryl McCallips, Bonnie Osif, John Riddle, Emily Rimland, Matthew Wayman, Beth S. Woodard, and Carol Wright. The guidance provided by all of these dedicated reviewers helped produce a collection of high-quality feature articles. The following peer-reviewed feature articles were published in volume 48:

“Preference for Reference: New Options and Choices for Academic Library Users,” by Diane Granfield and Mark Robertson.

“Reference Desk Staffing Trends: A Survey,” by Julia Banks and Carl Pracht.

“Don’t Shelve the Questions: Defining Good Customer Service for Shelvers,” by Luke Vilelle and Christopher C. Peters.

“Subject Searching Success: Transaction Logs, Patron Perceptions, and Implications for Library Instruction,” by Karen Antell and Jie Huang.

“Using Continuous Quality Improvement Methods to Evaluate Library Service Points,” by Merrill Stein, Teresa Edge, John M. Kelley, Dane Hewlett, and James F. Trainer.

“Overcoming Transactional Distance: Instructional Intent in an E-mail Reference Service,” by Martha Portree, R. Sean Evans, Tina M. Adams, and John J. Doherty.

“Volunteers in Libraries: Program Structure, Evaluation and Theoretical Analysis,” by Erica A. Nicol and Corey M. Johnson.

“Use of Public Libraries by Immigrants,” by Susan K. Burke.

“Whose Decline?: Which Academic Libraries are ‘Deserted’ in Terms of Reference Transactions?” by Rachel Applegate.

“Developing a Model for Reference Research Statistics: Applying the ‘Warner Model’ of Reference Question Classification to Streamline Research Services,” by Harry C. Meserve, Sandra E. Belanger, Joan Bowlby, and Lisa Rosenblum.

“Exploring Academic Library Users’ Preferences of Delivery Methods for Library Instruction: Webpage, Digital Game, and Other Modalities,” by Michael J. Robertson and James G. Jones.

“Uncovering Black Feminist Writers 1963–90: An Evaluation of Their Coverage in Research Tools,” by Rebecca Hankins.

“Making Unmediated Access to E-Resources a Reality: Creating a Usable ERM Interface,” by Kate Fuller, Jill Livingston, Stephanie Willen Brown, Susanna Cowan, Thomas Wood, and Leslie Porter.

“Perception and Use of PowerPoint at Library Instruction Conferences,” by David J. Brier and Vickery Kaye Lebbin.

“Promoting Library Reference Services to First-Year Undergraduate Students: What Works?” by Karen Sobel.

“Reference Classification—Is it Time to Make Some Changes?” by Tina M. Neville and Deborah B. Henry.

“Retaining Intellectual Capital: Retired Faculty and Academic Libraries,” by Karen A. Hartman.

“Creating a Digital Archive for Students’ Research in a Credit Library Course,” by Tiffany R. Walsh and Christopher V. Hollister.

I invited several prominent individuals to contribute guest editorials on important developments, interesting trends, or model practices relating to reference and public services librarianship. Robert H. Kieft, general editor of the new ALA Guide to Reference wrote about the transformation of this classic tool. Marie L. Radford’s blueprint for reference service excellence generated a lot of buzz at the 2009 ALA Midwinter Meeting. Ellysa Stern Cahoy and Loanne Snavely demonstrated how libraries can utilize data from national environmental scans and local surveys for assessment and planning purposes.

Neal Wyatt did double duty. As 2008–09 RUSA President she contributed columns on RUSA’s values, traditions, activities, and initiatives. She also edited “The Alert Collector” column. This past year, the column provided advice on building collections relating to criminal justice administration and criminology (Richard A. Stoddart, Brett Spencer, and Adrienne R. McPhaul); American presidential power (Amalia L. Monroe); and global warming (Denise A. Brush). A genre-related column was also published, this one highlighting core collections in fantasy fiction (Charlotte Burcher, Neil Hollands, Andrew Smith, Barry Trott, and Jessica Zellers).

The “Readers’ Advisory” column, edited by Barry Trott, has a loyal readership. Columns in this past volume highlighted the success of the Johnson County (Kans.) Library’s Book Club to Go Kits (Virginia Hermes, Mary Anne Hile, and Johnetta L. Frisbie), Barry Trott’s reflections on the future of readers’ advisory, Kaite Mediatore Stover’s insights on the value of social networking sites for readers’ advisory, and Julie Elliott’s research findings relating to barriers to leisure reading promotion in academic libraries.

M. Kathleen Kern wrote about personal experiences in her role as editor of the “Accidental Technologist” column. One column provided a fascinating account of her month-long work exchange at the Shanghai Library. Her second column focused on teaching reference, weaving in her recent experience as the instructor for an online course offered by Rutgers University.

As usual, Judith M. Nixon recruited authors to write on timely topics for the “Management” column that she ably edits. Mitchell J. Fontenot wrote about the challenges (and rewards) of mid-career job changes, and David Shumaker focused on the managerial issues relating to the growing practice of embedded librarianship.

In this past volume, the “For Your Enrichment” column featured a new professional’s perspective on workplace stress experienced by reference librarians (Marcella Knibbe-Haanstra), an article on the implications of changes made to a widely used citation style (Leslie A. Lewis), and survey findings on innovative and best practices in business libraries and centers (Adriana Trujillo Gonzalez, Vincci Kwong, Julie Strange, and Julie Yen).

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
A few months ago I was riveted by an in-house presentation disseminating results from a 2008 survey of computing by Penn State University faculty, students, and staff. I couldn’t help but think that RUSQ readers would also find the Penn State data interesting, especially comparisons with national survey data. I invited one of the presenters (Loanne Snavely) to collaborate with Ellysa Stern Cahoy on an article that would share data from this survey as well as another locally executed survey. Both of these surveys represent a library partnership with other campus units. Additionally, I asked the authors to provide advice on how other libraries can replicate what Penn State has done in this area, and to demonstrate the importance of national and local technology-focused surveys for assessment.—Editor

Gaining a perspective on student and faculty opinions and abilities relevant to libraries and information technology (IT) is integral to and can locally inform planning for future services and resources. Yet, without ready access to campuswide survey instruments, how can academic librarians assess their users in this area? Building a culture of assessment can enrich evidence-based librarianship and provide a sound basis for decision makingand strategic planning.¹ LibQUAL+ and other standardized library assessment tools have provided a basis for under standing library user needs, and surveys of technology use are becoming more essential to library planning. With the continued merging of libraries and IT on college campuses, it makes sense to capitalize on and integrate within already existing IT user surveys. The constant and rapid shift in popular technologies mandates that librarians, faculty, IT departments, and all of higher education understand how students and faculty are using technology in connection with libraryresources. This knowledge assists librarians in developingtechnology-related resources, programming, collections, and services, keeping library programming vital and relevant.In only a few years, librarians have witnessed a shiftfrom e-mail to instant messaging to Facebook, from landline telephones to cell phones to the mobile Web. What are the national technology trends, and how do they play out on an individual campus? How do technology trends inform the development of new services and experimentation with emerging methods for serving users? This article provides strategies for using national surveys of library users and leveraging and maximizing partnerships for local library data collection and analysis. The Penn State University Libraries have locally executed two surveys of faculty and students in partnership with Penn State Information Technology Services and the Office of Student Affairs, Research and Assessment. Details of the Penn State studies are shared in this article, along with examples of national technology surveys useful in local benchmarking.

National Technology-Focused Surveys

In recent years, the academic library community has used LibQUAL+, a primary assessment tool, to manage user satisfaction with and effectiveness of library services.² Based on SERVQUAL, a survey instrument designed to measure service quality for businesses, LibQUAL+ was developed by the Association of Research Libraries in collaboration with Texas A&M faculty.³ Designed to identify gaps in library services, LibQUAL+ provides libraries with a standardized, Web-based survey to help librarians objectively evaluate services.⁴ The tool also carries the option of benchmarking results with other peer institutions (and LibQUAL+ participants). LibQUAL+ covers a broad range of library topics of interest, including information literacy outcomes, effectiveness of services, and library as place. Responses can be broken down by specific audiences, including discipline, age, sex, and academic status. While it is a highly powerful survey tool, it is one that is administered solely by the library without buy-in from other campus groups. Furthermore, LibQUAL+ may not provide the in-depth technology and library-use data needed to develop new and cutting edge services in today’s library environment.

Findings from national, technology-focused surveys can provide a powerful foundation for the structure and focus of locally based surveys. Consider the power of a statistic that can show not only your library users’ abilities or views, but also a comparison with national findings. Finding that a majority of your users access the library website gains greater significance if your users turn to the library webpage at a higher rate than users nationally. There are several large, recurring national studies of technology use that can be used to help provide a baseline of comparison between students at your college or university and students nationally. Perhaps the best current supplier of student technology and library-use statistics is the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), which has produced what the company refers to as “landscape reports” since 2003.⁵ As its first effort in this realm, OCLC published The 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition.⁶ This initial report sought to identify and detail current issues and future trends projected to affect libraries significantly. The report was focused to assist OCLC decision makers and the larger audience of librarians in strategic planning.⁷ Following up on the success of the Environmental Scan, OCLC produced Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources in 2005. In the report’s introduction it was noted thatthere are no major recent empirical studies that look specifically and broadly at the role libraries and librarians play in the infosphere, from the point-of-view of the information consumer. How are libraries perceived by today’s information consumer? Do libraries still matter? On what level? Will library use likely increase or decrease in the future?⁸

The 2005 report explored the library brand—specifically, how users perceived this brand and the value of libraries in general. OCLC partnered with the corporate research firm Harris Interactive to survey library users in six countries: Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Users were asked their relationship with, awareness of, and trust of library resources and services. The report provided an important, never-before-seen snapshot of the brand effect of libraries in the day-to-day lives of information consumers. The following are sample questions from Perceptions of Libraries and Information Services:

• How much has your personal library use changed over the last three to five years?
• Please indicate if you have used the following electronic information sources, even if you have used them only once. (The list of choices included search engine, library website, online databases, and online library question service.)
• Where do you typically begin your search for information on a particular topic?⁹

In 2006, OCLC published College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, a subset of the 2005 report that focuses on a specific audience. Containing invaluable data for academic libraries, this report shares data on students’ general use and familiarity with libraries, usage of libraries (in-person and online), perceptions of the library brand, and student advice for libraries and librarians. Specifically, the report covers the responses of 396 college students, both graduate and undergraduate, from the 2005 report. Responses from fourteen- to seventeen-year-olds are also in the report to provide contrast with current college students and context on needs of potential future college students. Because it is a subset of the 2005 report, the same questions are used, but college student response trends and patterns are highlighted. In the introduction to the report, Cathy DeRosa, OCLC vice president for marketing and library services, writes, “As is the case with the full Perceptions report, the findings presented in this report do not surprise, they confirm.”¹⁰ The report highlights the significance of drawing out the responses from a specific population to gain different insights into certain user group needs.

OCLC took a different approach to their research in 2007 with the publication of Sharing, Privacy and Trust in our Networked World. This report looks only at a core set of issues facing libraries—the use of social spaces online and expectations for libraries in this realm. It explores user behaviors and preferences in online social spaces (including Facebook and MySpace), user attitudes toward sharing information online (including library websites and social spaces), user attitudes toward online privacy, and librarian views of social spaces and future possibilities for library services in this realm. This study expands to include users in Germany, France, and Japan. U.S. library directors were also queried as part of the study. The following are representative questions included in the study:

• What type(s) of online activities have you done or participated in during the last twelve months?
• Generally, do you think that your personal information on the Internet is kept more private than, less private than, or the same as it was two years ago?
• How likely would you be to participate in each of the following activities on a social networking or community site if built by your library? Choices included being notified of terms of interest to you, sharing ideas with library staff about services, and self-publishing creative work.¹¹

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has also been a source of statistical reports relevant to libraries. Known as a nonpartisan, “non-profit ‘fact tank,’”¹² the project regularly shares data findings on the effect of the different aspects of the Internet on a variety of audiences, including adolescents and adults. The Pew project primarily conducts phone surveys and relies on information from research partners. Recent Pew reports include Information Searches that Solve Problems: How People Use the Internet, Libraries and Government Agencies When They Need Help and Teens and Social Media.¹³ Each report surveys a large number (from more than nine hundred to several thousand) of U.S. residents on a specific topic related to the Web. While these surveys are not directly library related, they can provide data that highlights how users are responding to and integrating specific aspects of the Web into their daily lives.

Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education also yields powerful data for libraries. The project details the aggregated responses from more than four thousand faculty, indicating preferences and opinions on the role of the library in higher education, the future of the library as a repository, faculty publishing, and the library as scholarly publisher. Libraries interested in their faculty’s feedback would be wise to build questions related to the Ithaka study and compare responses accordingly.¹⁴

Print version (Adobe Reader required)

In an effort to bring RUSA’s ALA Annual Conference programming to RUSQ readers who cannot attend the conference, I invited Marie Radford to write this guest editorial based on her address that was presented as part of the 2008 RUSA President’s Program, “Quality Service in an Impersonal World,” at ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim. However, this article is much more than a reworking of that excellent presentation. This reflective piece synthesizes findings from other recent workshops and conferences focusing on reference and provides a blueprint for reference service excellence. The innovative and practical reference strategies presented here can be easily implemented by academic and public libraries.

Marie holds a PhD from Rutgers University and an MLS from Syracuse University. Prior to joining the faculty at Rutgers University, she was the acting dean at Pratt Institute, School of Information and Library Science in New York City. Previously, she was the head of curriculum materials at William Patterson University of New Jersey, and a school librarian and media specialist at Belvidere (N.J.) High School and Franklin (N.J.) Township School.

Her research interests are evaluation of virtual reference, interpersonal communication aspects of reference, nonverbal communication, and media stereotypes of librarians. Marie’s dynamic presentation style is well known and she has given numerous conference presentations and workshops. She has also published extensively in scholarly library journals and is active in professional organizations, including ALA, RUSA, Association for Library and Information Science Education, and the New Jersey Library Association. She served as program chair for the Reference Renaissance: Current and Future Trends conference held August 4–5, 2008, in Denver. Marie is one of the editors of Virtual Reference Service: From Competencies to Assessment (Neal-Schuman, 2008). Her book, Web Research: Selection, Evaluation, and Citing, was published by Allyn and Bacon (2006) and The Reference Encounter: Interpersonal Communication in the Academic Library by ACRL/ALA (1999). She blogs at Library Garden (http://librarygarden.blogspot.com) and her website is www.sclis.rutgers.edu/~mradford.—Editor

I want to celebrate the rise and revitalization of reference service excellence and to talk with you about the realities and possibilities we face in today’s libraries. I have been involved in reference for twenty years on the front line in school and academic libraries, and as a researcher for an overlapping time of twenty-three years. I have never seen a more exciting time for reference. In fact, I’ve never seen any time that has even come remotely close. So my talk will be in the context of what I believe to be a time of reference renaissance. Why do I feel this way? Let me share some of my reasons.

Over the past year, it has been my privilege to be intensely involved as program chair for the Reference Renaissance: Current and Future Trends conference held August 4–5, 2008, in Denver, co-sponsored by Colorado’s Bibliographic Research Center and RUSA.¹ Presenters of competitive papers, workshops, and panels reported an astonishing array of creative, successful, and groundbreaking reference endeavors from all forms of services and library types—including all modes of Virtual Reference (VR), innovative Face-to-Face (FtF) services, novel phone-based services (including text messaging), pod- and vodcasting, Web 2.0 social networking applications, etc. As a post–Annual Conference 2008 note, I am delighted to report that the Reference Renaissance conference was an incredible success! A total of 508 participants from 42 states, the District of Columbia, and seven countries came together in Denver to share and celebrate everything reference.

The success of the Reference Renaissance conference is just one reason why I don’t believe that VR or FtF reference is in decline. Quite to the contrary, I see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rapid and remarkable advances are taking place in a variety of library settings across the United States and beyond. These changes involve the merging and morphing of a large range of reference modes. Groundbreaking experiments in outreach to user communities including on-ground as well as cyberspace communities (such as Facebook, MySpace, and Second Life) are appearing at an accelerating pace.

In a November 2007 Library Journal article, David Isaacson said, “Unfortunately, the 1984 reference model endures in too many libraries today: librarians passively waiting at a desk for people to approach.”² Now this scenario may be all too true for some libraries, but a growing number of exciting outreach initiatives are appearing that are breaking new ground in brick and click environments. At Penn State University Libraries, I helped facilitate a two-day reference retreat in August 2007 and learned about a range of new enterprises this forward-looking group of professionals is undertaking to forge stronger connections with their students. I learned about Billie Walker, the “Library Dude,” whose reference outreach is described on the Penn State website:

The ASK cart (actual hotdog cart) is a mobile library service offered by the Thun Library to provide reference assistance. Designed as a simple, effective and fun approach to faculty and student outreach, the Library Dude aka Billie Walker and other librarians offer on-the-spot information and/or reference assistance outdoors. Equipped with wireless laptop and various goodies (highlighters, candy, etc.) the librarians at Berks are increasing visibility and awareness of reference service (one-on-one consultations, specialized databases, etc.) and library resources (podcast, bestsellers, etc). So when you see the ASK cart please give a shout-out to the Library Dude!³

I’ve been told that students now come in to the library and specifically ask for the “Library Dude” when they have reference questions.

Another sign that there is heightened interest in the scholarship and practice of reference is that “Reference in Digital Environments” was one of the two themes for Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) conference in Croatia, June 2–8, 2008.⁴ As chair of that half of the LIDA program, I was impressed by the number of creative approaches to reference I heard about, in both digital and on-ground environments. For example, Scott Vine and Pamela Snelson of Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, presented a paper highlighting outreach activities at their small, private institution.⁵ They spoke about their practice of making “House Calls” to faculty offices and other buildings on campus. A team of librarians let the departments know when they are coming, and now offer coupons for free coffee for those with substantial reference questions that are asked on the visits. This service started slowly, but now business is growing and faculty and staff eagerly await the “House Calls” and have meaty questions to ask and concerns to share.

Also at LIDA I had the pleasure of meeting James Malloy of University College Dublin (UCD). He told me of a fun way that the UCD library is involving students and faculty in their library blog. They have designed a cloth library bookbag that sells for a pittance (£2) and have invited students to take photos of the bookbag in exotic places and post them on the blog! Students have responded enthusiastically and artistically in posting shots that display the bookbag all over the world. What a great idea for drawing students to the library blog!⁶

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Two events this past August prompted me to think more about reference services than I have for some time. The first was being interviewed by the editor-in-chief of Arugus, a journal published by the Corporation of Professional Librarians of Quebec. I was asked to respond to several questions about the future of reference services for a forthcoming thematic issue on this topic. The second event was a two-day Penn State University Libraries reference retreat, an in-house workshop attended by approximately eighty-five librarians and staff members (with additional virtual attendees). I am using this space as a forum to share what I learned from my innovative colleagues and the incomparable Marie Radford, the keynote speaker and workshop facilitator.

Radford, an associate professor in the Rutgers University School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, is well-known to many RUSQ readers. She is a leading researcher on the topic of interpersonal communication in face-to-face and virtual reference encounters. In addition to being a highly sought-after speaker, she has published widely on virtual reference. Our understanding of the latter will be greatly enriched by her ongoing study of virtual reference services. She is the co-principal investigator of “Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives,” a study funded by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Readers wanting to track Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway’s (the other principal investigator) progress on this important study may do so by visiting Radford’s page.¹

I was struck by one of the comments made by associate dean Sally Kalin in her message welcoming retreat participants. She notes a resurgence of interest in reference, reflected in part by large and enthusiastic audiences at reference-related programs at recent professional conferences. The standing-room-only crowd at the 2007 RUSA President’s Program on the future of reference and user services certainly confirms this observation.² Kalin’s hypothesis is that more libraries are recognizing that the provision of excellent public service is essential to the future of libraries. Regardless of how one feels about referring to patrons as customers, the delivery of quality reference service is good customer service.

Subsequent speakers described the current reference environment at Penn State University Libraries. Because our university is a highly complex, multisite institution, the reference climate varies considerably based on location.³ At University Park, reference statistics have been flat for the past three years after a downward trend. Librarians are spending considerably less time on desk, relying more heavily on students and other part-time reference assistants to staff desks. However, during this same period, there has been a marked increase in instruction and liaison activities, resulting in more direct (that is, bypassing the reference desk) reference encounters between patrons and subject specialists. Some samples of reference questions answered by Penn State librarians provided evidence that librarians are, indeed, answering more complex questions. While ready reference transactions have decreased, users continue to turn to librarians when the Internet fails them. Penn State librarians also are making a concerted effort to connect to users by providing both roving reference inside the library and off-site reference assistance. In sum, personal contact with users seems to be increasing. At many locations outside University Park, librarians are very involved in the daily life of faculty and students. In general, students and part-time reference assistants are relied upon less frequently to provide reference service. Throughout the Penn State system, reference is being delivered face-to-face and virtually (using e-mail, instant messaging [IM], chat, Facebook, and Second Life). This discussion of our reference climate highlighted one important shortcoming. The statistics we collect fail to capture this varied and complex reference activity.

In her keynote address, Radford reiterated that it is critical that we record our interactions with users, especially as we are not having less user contact.⁴ In describing the current and future reference environment, Radford noted that users born between 1979 and 1994 are experiential learners who like to be engaged. They also want services that are customized and personalized. While they are confident of their ability to find information, research indicates that they are not necessarily adept in doing so. Radford offered great concrete tips for meeting their needs, from promoting phone reference (have students enter the reference desk number on their cell phone), to offering instruction on searching Google. While there may be a generational gap between library staff and users, Radford cautioned that there also may be generational differences between those providing reference service. While younger librarians may have stronger technology skills, they may lack the depth of experience and knowledge of resources possessed by more experienced colleagues. Consequently, she recommended that libraries pair up librarians from different generations.

Radford reinforced these differences in expectations between millennial users and librarians during her lively presentation on communication strategies on day two of the retreat.⁵ While providing excellent suggestions for facilitating communication (in both face-to-face and virtual reference encounters), Radford reminded us that the “RUSA Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers,” offer a framework for practice.⁶

One of the most interesting aspects of this retreat was the concise lightning reports on programs and initiatives. The term “lightning reports” truly conveys the fast-paced experiments that are going on across our library system. These reports profiled a range of activities that Penn State librarians are currently engaged in: Facebook and other social networking tools, Second Life, virtual reference service, Meebo (a Web site that allows you to monitor multiple IM accounts at the same time), use of library-related widgets to create an undergraduate research portal, roving services, outreach services, and the creation of a portal for patrons using mobile technologies. Details about some of these initiatives can be found on individual Web pages.⁷ In addition to these brief sessions, hour-long sessions were conducted on information trapping (guidance on how to use RSS feeds and journal alerts to build a personal research desktop) and methodologies and tools for reference evaluation and assessment.