Print version (Adobe Reader required)
During the 2002-2003 academic year a team of reference librarians at the Kent State University main library began working with two freshman learning communities as part of an initiative to learn more about the needs of first-year students. This article reports on the outreach to one of those, the Science Learning Community, and on the results of a focus group undertaken with members of that group. The study found that the students valued the library instruction offered and were even inclined to request that more library-related instruction be incorporated in the future. Students revealed apprehensions about using the library and also offered suggestions for new services, including the idea that all freshmen should have the same learning opportunity. The community program director was very pleased with the library’s contributions to the students’ learning experience. The initial outreach was considered a success by all involved and it was decided that the Main Library continue to develop the services and to further integrate library components into the students’ curriculum for future semesters.

In the spring of 2002, a team of four reference librarians at the Kent State University (KSU) main library began thinking of new ways to market the library’s services and information resources. Most traditional marketing plans begin with “an investigation of needs in a given market, together with an analysis of organizational talent and resources to determine which needs the organization is best fitted to satisfy.”¹ The selection of a target market, or a subgroup of customers, upon which to concentrate ones’ efforts is the next step.² Early in the process, several key patron groups were identified, of which the team hoped to gain a better understanding. First-year students were one of the identified groups. The quickly changing information environment was making it increasingly difficult to make assumptions about their experiences, skills, and needs, as well as their expectations from the libraries.

The team’s first task, therefore, was to devise a means of learning more about the freshman class. An article in a university-wide faculty-staff newsletter made the team aware of several new learning communities beginning on campus in fall semester 2002. The article also highlighted a few communities that had been ongoing for several years, none of which had had any involvement with the libraries. Lippincott confirmed “involvement in learning communities can provide academic librarians with a window into the thinking of students who have grown up with technology and who regularly use the Web to locate all kinds of information.”³ The team immediately recognized the potential inherent in belonging to such a community and began brainstorming about ways to become involved and what could be offered to the community.

Learning communities vary greatly in their organization, goals, and activities. At its simplest, a learning community may be defined as “an intentionally developed community that will promote and maximize learning.”⁴ Each of the communities on the KSU campus had a unique focus and drew on different criteria for forming the community. Some were based on academic major, others on lifestyle (healthy living, fitness), and others on interests (community service). Each community promoted and maximized learning from a unique perspective. However, none had yet tapped into the resources of the library. The librarian team believed that the library had a unique role to play in enhancing the first-year experience for these students. Becoming involved with learning communities could be an opportunity for librarians to provide additional guidance and nurturing of students’ information literacy skills, and to discover new and creative ways to interact with students. This would coincide with KSU libraries and Media Services’ mission to find new and effective ways to infuse information literacy instruction into the curriculum. The librarians would in turn benefit from the close-knit structure of the communities by fulfilling their need to better understand first-year students’ needs and expectations. It was with these goals in mind that the team set out to become involved with learning communities on campus.

The Learning Community and Information Literacy

A review of the existing literature on learning communities reveals that, although not a new concept in education, learning communities and similar forms of collaboration are in the forefront of the minds of many librarians across the country. Recent Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) presidential themes focused on such collaboration and were based on ACRL’s Strategic Plan 2005.⁵ In his 2003-2004 theme, Cannon stressed that “partnerships, connections, learning, and knowledge building define present-day higher education.”⁶ Reichel, in the introduction to her 2001-2002 presidential theme, highlighted the recent shift in emphasis from teaching to learning and stressed that librarian-faculty collaboration in promoting information literacy creates meaningful learning experiences for students. She noted that information literacy “focuses on the learner and the process of learning.”⁷ Even with such emphasis on the learning community theme, Frank, Beasley, and Kroll noted in 2001 that “the number of articles that include the academic library as a key element of the learning community is surprisingly small.”⁸

The literature does, however, reveal the key reasons there has been such a focus on new collaborations with learning communities. In the first place, as librarians become involved with learning communities, they can establish themselves as partners in the learning enterprise in new and important ways.⁹ Secondly, in addition to developing new and valuable working relationships, involvement in a learning community enables librarians to try out new services that could benefit all students making library visits.¹⁰ Last, it is now recognized that information literacy initiatives must reach beyond the walls of the library to achieve their full potential.¹¹ The nature of learning communities allows for a deeper level of integration of library components and is a natural environment for information literacy instruction.¹² Still, Iannuzzi stresses the importance of approaching each new collaboration initiative with the appropriate motivation. She notes that instead of focusing on how to advance a library’s information literacy agenda, it is important to stress and question the way in which information literacy efforts can help others succeed in their goals and initiatives.¹³ This was the intent of the team’s approach to becoming integrated with learning communities on the KSU campus.

New Kids on the Block

Becoming Part of a Community

It is necessary for librarians to be proactive, to initiate collaboration, and to be willing to leave the library building itself to become actively involved in the greater community.¹⁴ The notion of “if you build it, they will come” does not necessarily work in regard to library collections and services. “They” may indeed come. But the question remains, will they then use the resources to their best advantage? The team’s proactive approach began by contacting the interim dean of undergraduate studies, under whom all learning communities were organized, and arranging to meet and discuss with him becoming members of the communities. The meeting was a great success, largely due to an unexpected element. KSU’s dean of Libraries and Media Services had already paved the way for an open, enthusiastic attitude at a recent dean’s retreat, where new roles for academic librarians had been discussed. This demonstrated the importance of an ongoing and consistent message from the library about its role in building information literacy competencies. The interim dean recommended two communities to approach, based on a preference for communities serving at-risk students: the EXCEL Program, which is open to any exploratory major, and the science learning community (SLC), intended for first-generation college students in a science-related major. The program directors in turn welcomed the team with very enthusiastic attitudes about the library’s possible contribution. The librarians involved decided to split into two teams. However, one librarian remained involved with both; therefore, SLC had a total of three librarians interacting with it over the course of the academic year (the science librarian, the humanities librarian, and the head of the library’s instructional-services team).This article will report on the activities, challenges, and outcomes of working with SLC.

Supporting Retention Goals

SLC was in its first year at KSU, so it was necessary to anticipate some of the challenges these students might confront and to help equip them with the related skills and information resources they would need to face and overcome those challenges. SLC is composed of twenty-five freshman science majors, all first-generation college students. They are enrolled in three courses together, two of which–English and biology–have integrated curricula. The students also live on the same floor of a residence hall. In addition to their similar course schedules, learning community members are required to attend several extracurricular activities per month allowing for further enrichment and social interaction.

The learning community offers a very practical way for librarians to contribute to the retention of at-risk students. Components were to be spread throughout the academic year, building on each other and building student comfort levels as they became more familiar with the staff, services, and resources in the university libraries. This required taking into consideration two key characteristics. First, they were all new college students. The literature has established library anxiety as a detrimental barrier to student success in the library, and freshman students are more anxious than any other group of students.¹⁵ Studies have determined several key approaches to easing library anxiety. Scoyoc found that face-to-face interaction with a librarian was the best method of instruction (versus online tutorials) for increasing student comfort levels with the library. The presence of a librarian was found to be critical, regardless of the students’ experience level. This study also found that student perceptions of staff are a major determiner of library anxiety.¹⁶ The Jiao and Onweugbuzie study also concluded that students who take library skills courses have fewer effective barriers to library use and recommended that interventions target freshman students. Both this study and the Keefer study concluded that library instruction should affirm that library anxiety is natural and that the frustrations the students experience doing research are normal.¹⁷ Additionally, Keefer noted that students who are lacking time and under other stress will have more difficulties. They will begin to miss external cues such as library directional signs and other forms of help. Thus, it is critical that these students are reached before they arrive at that critical melting point. Keefer also notes that students who most need assistance are the least likely to ask for it.¹⁸ This helps reinforce the need for early intervention and the development of a trusting relationship between librarians and new students, both issues that the learning community environment are particularly geared to address.

The second important characteristic to consider is that the students were all science majors. A study by Kuh and Gonyea found that science majors were part of a group of those least likely to use the library (along with business, math, and undecided majors).¹⁹ Leckie and Fullerton’s study may offer some insight as to why science majors fall into this group, noting that most science courses rely primarily on standardized texts well into the first two or three years of study. “In other words, it is quite possible for science and engineering undergraduates to avoid the library, if not completely, at least until relatively late in their educational experience.”²⁰ These studies seem to emphasize the need for individualized attention for students similar to those in this particular community.

Personalized Attention Is the Key

Sherona Garrett-Ruffin, director of the KSU SLC, immediately emphasized how important it was for all of those involved in supporting SLC to be willing to become a part of a close-knit community and to want to interact regularly with the students. She stressed that it was key for students to be able to receive personalized attention whenever needed, and that all faculty and staff members in the community should maintain an open-door policy. The librarians were very encouraged by this philosophy and indicated their desire to be fully integrated.

The librarians’ contact with SLC students began on the very first night the students moved into the residence halls. Two of the three librarians involved were able to attend an opening social arranged by the program director. This was an opportunity to meet the classroom faculty involved, as well as enabling the librarians to be a part of the community from day one in the minds of the students and faculty. It also offered a unique opportunity for students to be introduced to the idea of a librarian being an integral part of their learning experience.

The SLC director saw personalization as a necessary component of the community experience. Thus, the first and most basic service the team could offer the community was to provide a more personalized approach to services already in place. All university orientation classes have an integrated library component. This component was designed by KSU librarians, but is typically presented by the student or faculty orientation instructor (which is due to the limited number of librarians available on staff to serve the more than 150 sections of the course). For the SLC orientation section, however, a member of the librarian team, the instructional services head, visited the class and presented the library component (which introduced the research process, stressed the importance of evaluating information, and encouraged students to solicit help from librarians). This enabled the students to meet the third librarian working with their community and also allowed the librarian to see firsthand how a class reacted to and interacted with the lesson plan she had created for orientation.

A second preestablished service is that of PERCs, or PErsonalized Research Consultations. This service is open to all students and promoted to all freshman English courses. Normally, students phone or stop by the reference desk to set up an appointment during any available librarian’s office hour. The personalized touch for this service simply entailed introducing the learning community students to their own personal librarians early in the semester and encouraging them to call their librarian directly for any needed help. SLC students were specifically guided to the librarian for biological sciences, who they had already met at the opening social. Several students took advantage of this personal contact by e-mailing and phoning questions to their librarian. Those that took advantage of this option have commented that they appreciated having a personal contact in the library.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
In spring 2006, a spirited debate on the merits of separating out library fiction collections by genre was held on the Fiction_L discussion list (subscribe at www.webrary.org/rs/FLmenu.html). Interesting points were made on both sides of the issue, and while no firm conclusions were reached, the discussion exemplified the thought and passion that readers’ advisors bring to their work. This issue’s column features two articles that present each of the sides in the ongoing question of how to best present a collection that will best serve the reading interests of library users. Looking at the concerns about separating out genre collections is Barry Trott. He is Adult Services Director at the Williamsburg (Va.) Regional Library, past chair of the RUSA CODES Readers’ Advisory Committee, and series editor for Libraries Unlimited’s Read On … series.

Writing on the value of genre separation is Vicki Novak, who earned her MLS from the University of Arizona and has worked for fifteen years at the Maricopa County Library District in Phoenix. She wrote the chapter, “The Story’s the Thing: Narrative Nonfiction for Recreational Reading” for Nonfiction Readers’ Advisory, published by Libraries Unlimited in 2004, edited by Robert Burgin. Trott and Novak are both active participants in the discussion of readers’ advisory (RA) theory and practice on the Fiction_L discussion list.–Editor

A recent New Yorker cartoon depicts a bookstore clerk talking to two men. The clerk is saying, “We no longer shelve gay fiction separately. It’s been assimilated.”¹ It has been an accepted truth in readers’ advisory (RA) that separating out genres from the rest of the fiction collection is the best mechanism for serving readers who come into our libraries. Sharon Baker, in The Responsive Public Library: How to Develop and Market a Winning Collection, gives an excellent summary of the research done on genre separation and shelving.² Her work makes a compelling case for separating out fiction genres in library collections. However, as increasing numbers of authors are crossing genres from book to book and publishing titles that encompass multiple genres in a single work, practitioners of RA may consider rethinking how they use genre classification in their practice. It may be that our goal of serving genre fiction readers has unintended consequences for all our readers and for the practice of RA.

There are several issues to consider when looking at whether to interfile fiction collections or to separate out the various genres. Among these are problems in defining genre, the stigmatization of genres, time and space issues, and the role of the readers’ advisor. In all of these cases, it is worth examining the effect of separating out genres from the rest of the fiction collection.

Defining Genres

There is no question that genre provides a way to describe and access certain types of writing. Even Ursula K. Le Guin, who is no fan of the use of genre, notes, “The concept of genre is a valid one. We need a method for sorting out and defining varieties of narrative fiction, and genre gives us a tool to begin the job.”³ As readers’ advisors, we need to understand genre, for it is in analyzing genres that we come to understand the stylistic elements that authors use that will appeal to readers–of fantasy, Westerns, romances, mysteries, and so on. Here the idea of genre is useful because it defines a set of precepts that describe a certain style of writing. This knowledge will then allow us as readers’ advisors to connect readers to books that they will enjoy. In fact, it is an understanding of what the appeals of a particular genre are that will allow us to make connections between books and authors that may be separated by genre classification.

For instance, a classic appeal of the Western genre is the story of the lone hero, struggling to right an imbalance created by a monolithic evil (be it a land-hungry cattle baron, a rapacious outlaw, or the impersonal and unfeeling machinations of banks and railroads). A readers’ advisor who understands that this is a common thread in many stories in the Western genre will certainly be able to direct a reader to the next Louis L’Amour or Stephen Bly novel. But at the same time, the readers’ advisor may also suggest that this reader try the legal thrillers of John Grisham or Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan stories, both of which have similar elements of the lone hero and his faceless nemesis.

There are, however, problems that arise as we try to define genre and place titles accordingly. As noted above, many authors are writing books that could feasibly be placed in a variety of genres. Is Audrey Niffenegger’s The Time Traveler’s Wife a work of science fiction? After all, its most prominent plot feature is time travel. Should it be classified as romance? This is certainly how many reader reviews on Amazon.com described the book.⁴ Or is the book literary fiction, telling a story of family and relationships in lyrical and elegant prose? Logically, this book could be placed in any one of these genres, and in libraries that separate out genre fiction, a reader could possibly expect to find this title in one of three places, depending on how the catalogers chose to identify the book. The Time Traveler’s Wife is by no means the only recent title that exemplifies this problem. Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, Mary Doria Russell’s The Sparrow–both of which have strong science fiction elements–and many other titles have crossed genre boundaries.

The Genre Stigma

Where libraries choose to place titles like those mentioned above points out a potential problem that can arise in the use of genre classification. There are many readers who use genre classification not so much as a tool for selection of titles but rather as a means of rejecting titles they do not wish to read. These are the readers that all readers’ advisors have encountered, who say things like “I never read science fiction” or “Fantasy stories are for teenagers.” In the case of such books as The Sparrow or The Time Traveler’s Wife, putting these titles in a genre collection will mean that readers who automatically reject those genres will rarely come across these books. At the same time, putting one of these titles in the general fiction collection may mean that readers who limit their browsing to genre collections might never come across a title that they would otherwise enjoy.

In her essay “Genre: A Word Only a Frenchman Could Love,” Le Guin notes that it is when genre begins to be used to make value judgments about a particular work that the system leads to “arbitrary hierarchies” that promote “ignorance and arrogance.”⁵ We have made great strides in RA to get away from the notion that genre books are inferior; that if a book of horror or romance is “well written” (whatever that means) then it must not be a real genre book; and our efforts towards this end have had some measure of success. Most readers’ advisors subscribe, at least in theory, to Rosenberg’s First Law of Reading: “Never apologize for your reading tastes.” Nevertheless, a quick look at any readers’ forum on the Web will indicate that many readers still think of genre fiction as something less than real literature.

The danger that arises in separating out genre fiction in libraries is that this separation can contribute to the continued notion that there is a hierarchy of writing and that genre fiction belongs lower on the scale than literary fiction. Too often, genre fiction collections that are separated out are not clearly identified as such, and represent the arcana of the library’s holdings, where only the true devotees venture. While these true devotees may be delighted to have a section devoted to them, such breaking down of the collection into specializations makes it less accessible to those readers who “don’t read horror” or “never pick up a Western.”

As Wendell Berry points out, one of the dangers of specialization is that it allows you to ignore everything that is not in your specialty.⁶ When fiction collections are separated out into specialized subcollections, we are trying to create a library that is easy for readers of genre fiction to use. But at the same time, we may also be creating a library in which readers can simply ignore parts of the collection because they are labeled science fiction, fantasy, or mystery. As readers’ advisors, this should give us pause because our goal is to make connections between readers and books and not to artificially wall off parts of the collection.

Space Issues

Another series of concerns that arises with collections that are arranged by genre relates to the use of library space. With increasing numbers of writers moving from genre to genre with each book they write, genre separation in the fiction collection means that readers who are looking for works by a particular author are going to have to look in multiple locations to find books that they want to read. This concern becomes particularly pressing given the data cited by Baker et al. indicating that readers consistently choose titles by author.⁷

With an author such as Walter Mosley, it is possible that a reader would have to look in science fiction, general fiction, and mystery fiction in order to locate all of his titles (unless, of course they were all grouped together in an African American fiction section, which raises another set of issues). Similarly, a reader looking for the works of Doris Lessing would need to look in science fiction and literary fiction. The alternative would be simply to put Lessing’s science fiction works in with her literary works, which makes a negative statement about science fiction writing.

An often mentioned solution to this problem of collocation of an author’s works is to purchase multiple copies of these titles and place them in all the appropriate sections of the collections. Two problems arise here. First, few libraries have the financial resources to purchase multiple copies of all the titles that would be required. Second, few libraries have the shelf space available to house substantial additional copies of titles. This second concern also applies to the suggestion that book dummies be used to direct readers to other copies of an author’s works that are located in a separate collection.

Time Issues

A common thread in discussions of genre placement is the necessity of reviewing the cataloging of the fiction collection to ensure that materials are in the proper subcollection. A recent discussion on the Fiction_L list included the following post: “We find similar slip-ups all the time, when catalogers work from subject rather than other things more pertinent to a genre, so that we are continually pulling books like, say, Ira Sher’s Gentlemen of Space, a lovely mainstream novel that just happens to involve astronauts, out of science fiction.”⁸

A frequent concern of readers’ advisors is the lack of time to practice their craft. If a result of separating out genre collections is that we are spending significant amounts of time rechecking the work of the cataloging staff and then sending back titles to be recataloged, consider interfiling the collections and spending more time out in the stacks working with the readers, connecting them to the titles that they are seeking. We would better serve our readers by devoting more of our time to providing assistance to them through direct service and building useful guides to our collections than by spending the time trying to decide where a particular book fits in the collection. The increasing prevalence of outsourced cataloging that is not under the direct control of the library makes this an even more pressing issue.

Much of the literature that supports the separation of genres notes that breaking the collection down into smaller units makes it easier for the reader to browse and locate titles. Baker cites a study by Spiller in 1980 that indicated “[M]ost fiction readers try to expand their list of favorite authors by browsing for preferred genres.”⁹ But in reality, this sort of browsing is not that simple. Sheldrick Ross discusses an interview with a reader who has been frustrated by her inability to locate new horror authors who can recreate the pleasure she found in the writings of Anne Rice and Stephen King.¹⁰ This reader was frustrated that the titles she was picking up in the library did not have the fast pace and immediacy of her preferred authors (there was no indication if her library separated or interfiled genre fiction).

In this case, as in many others, the reader was looking for titles not so much by genre as by appeal (fast-paced) and by author (Rice and King). Sending this reader over to the horror collection would not necessarily address her frustrations, as the books in a horror section would range from the fast-moving King-like titles to slower-paced titles that the reader would not enjoy. In this case, as in many others, a successful conclusion to this reader’s library visit would more likely be made by a direct encounter with a readers’ advisor. The reader’s browsing habits were not helping her find what she wanted. Here is where the readers’ advisor’s time would be best spent in seeking out readers and in developing useful displays and guides to the collection. Read-alike lists placed in the stacks near the appropriate authors, ongoing displays of genre fiction titles, and direct assistance to readers in the stacks will best serve both the readers and the library.

The Role of the Readers’ Advisor

Finally, the question of whether to separate out genre collections deals in part with the view of the role of the readers’ advisor. Among many librarians working in RA, there seems to be a reluctance to suggest titles to readers that go beyond the reader’s genre interests. This may be in part a reaction to the early days of the RA movement, where the goal was to raise the standards of the reader from novels to the heights of nonfiction.¹¹ Openness to all sorts of reading interests is a laudable goal and has immensely improved RA service.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Because I knew the goals of my Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) presidency would cluster around encouraging membership by new librarians, I took the opportunity as vice president of RUSA to appoint interns to all the RUSA-level committees and to nominate some for American Library Association-level (ALA) committees. My second column takes a peek at the people who filled these positions. I will outline the interns’ opinions relating to Millennial and NextGen librarians and their characteristics and discuss their views about librarianship, both as it exists today and its prospects for the future. In addition to being termed NextGen or Millennial Generation, this demographic cohort is sometimes referred to as NetGen or Gen Y.¹ I would like to thank the new RUSA committee interns for their time in responding to my questionnaire, and I would also like to thank Megan Perez, who is the RUSA Spectrum Scholar this year, for his comments relating to their responses. (The list of questions is included in the appendix.) Some of the interns’ thoughts and ideas, along with Megan’s, are included throughout this piece.

In the July/August 2005 issue of Public Libraries, Features Editor Renée Vaillancourt McGrath wrote about Tecker Consultants’ analysis of Millennials (which Tecker Consultants defines as the generation born between 1983 and 1993) as “the digital generation.”² She notes that Tecker Consultants reports that younger generations:

• want to be part of a highly motivated team of committed people;
• thrive where they can be who they are and express themselves;
• want to work closely with and learn from colleagues they respect;
• want to socialize and form friendships; and
• set goals big enough to engage their imagination.³

Many of these characteristics make the Millennial Generation good organizational members. McGrath then argues:

younger generations will join associations not because they have to, but because they really want to. They seek life challenges that match their skills and interests. They are also looking to contribute to something greater than what individuals can accomplish alone, as well as human connections that make work fun.⁴

Certainly some of what McGrath and others like Rachel Singer Gordon, who writes and edits the NextGen column for Library Journal, say is true. I admit that for the most part these new librarians are technologically savvy, but how different are they from the Baby Boomer librarians, like myself, who they will be replacing? For the purposes of this column, I thought it would be interesting to examine several characteristics of NextGen librarians. In the process, I would like to consider several aspects and characteristics of being a new librarian–according to both what the literature is saying about them and what they are saying about themselves. My discussion will focus on the following aspects of NextGen librarians: their library school experience, their motivation for joining ALA and RUSA, and their attitudes about the future, including the changes the profession will undergo, and their feelings about what will remain the same.

Library School Experiences

Of the fourteen responses I received from the new RUSA committee interns, all were demographically NextGen or Millennial in age, and all but one have been practicing professional librarians for between one and three years (although a couple of them are second-career new librarians). Their current positions are all in academic libraries of varying sizes and locations; several have past experience in public libraries either as students, paraprofessionals, or professional librarians. The library schools they attended were located across the country from east to west and north to south, and all but one did some type of internship or practicum. In addition, two had been paraprofessionals before going to library school to earn an MLS. For most, the experience they received from their practicum, paraprofessional days, or assistantship was listed as the single most important part of their library education learning experience. The areas where they worked during these experiences included reference (in three cases, in a public library), instruction, creation of online guides, teaching, and even (in three cases) cataloging and digitizing of materials. What most felt they had missed out on was information about budgeting and collection development. A couple of interns mentioned they did not expect needing to know “how to be a liaison to an academic department” in their new jobs.

Some of the interns’ responses are perhaps best explained by the work of Stephen Bell and John Shank, who suggest that the modern day librarian is a “blended librarian” (http://blendedlibrarian.org).⁵ The term “blended librarian” reflects the need for librarians to juggle multiple tasks in their positions; now, more than ever before, new librarians are being asked to be multifaceted librarians, responsible for reference, instruction, collection development, and information technology all at once. Several of the interns’ comments centered on the importance of the internship or assistantship in demonstrating this aspect of librarianship. One intern noted that, “The program seemed far too general; none of the classes went in-depth enough to prepare me for the workplace. It did, however, acquaint me with the principles of librarianship.” Another said, “It was hard to decide whether to concentrate in one area or spread yourself thin in a lot of different areas. I chose the latter and was disappointed.” Still another (perhaps not to be unexpected) said, “Despite my work at the library, I started my first position still not fully understanding what exactly I would do all day as a librarian. I was not at all prepared for my work as a liaison to an academic department.” Megan, too, noted that work experience while a student was critical both in its own right and in combination with coursework. One person who had been part of a new online program said, “[I] felt it failed to provide the distance students with an environment of community.” Megan, who is currently a student, noted that the responses to this question probably depended a lot on the library school and the individual, that the respondents somehow saw theory as negative if there was no practical to complement it. He felt that the important comment here was that “despite preparing students well, online programs did not provide students with a sense of community.”

Motivation for Joining ALA and RUSA

Another telling piece of information revealed by the interns’ responses was that only four of the respondents had had any orientation to professional organizations during their library school experiences, and for most that was optional. RUSA is hopeful that its new RUSA Ambassador Program, which is taking RUSA members into library schools to discuss professional organizations, will serve to increase this participation in RUSA. A couple of the respondents indicated that instructors and mentors (and in one case, someone they met during a practicum) encouraged them to get involved in ALA. Interestingly enough, more than half of these interns were initially nominated for their intern positions either by former library school instructors or experienced librarians where they are now employed, who saw my call for nominations and volunteers on a discussion list.

So what do new librarians expect from their organizational memberships? Tecker Consultants, during a workshop I attended, suggests that members expect their organizations to use technology for the following purposes:

• to identify and anticipate their needs;
• to give them instant, easy access to useful knowledge;
• to enable them to actively participate in the work and decision-making of the association; and
• to create a sense of community that fosters attachment and connection.⁶

Of the RUSA interns, three respondents mentioned being student members of ALA. The interns’ motivations for joining ALA and RUSA after graduation varied and included such reasons as:

• staying engaged in the profession;
• meeting tenure requirements;
• participating in discussions with colleagues;
• being part of the future of the profession;
• avoiding getting left behind professionally;
• adding to a “weak” resume; and
• sampling library organizations.

Perhaps some of their comments are simply reflective of their status as NextGen librarians. One person said, “I felt I wasn’t a complete librarian without an involvement in my professional organization. RUSA’s related to my job and I thought this was also [a] way of connecting and sharing ideas with other professionals doing the same thing as I do.” McGrath cites research by Tecker Consultants that indicates that it is difficult for organizations to attract younger members because:

• programs are not relevant enough for younger
  members;
• programs are not interactive or hands-on;
• it takes too long to get involved;
• leadership opportunities are not accessible;
• associations are not open to new ideas; and
• associations are not welcoming to new members.⁷

To some extent, what Tecker Consultants says about the difficulty of attracting and keeping younger members is born out by some things the interns said. One remarked, “At the moment I’m sampling library organizations. Based on my experience, what I’d tell new library students is that there’s a wide range of organizations out there–if something doesn’t fit, keep looking and something out there will.” Megan felt these responses were “quite honest.” He noted that most responses were fairly typical and expected: to network, to keep up with the latest trends, to stay engaged, to connect with and learn from the more experienced members of the profession, and so on. However, responses indicating a need to serve the profession as part of a tenure-track requirement or to have something to add to a weak resume surprised him, as did the one respondent who admitted to “sampling” library organizations.

Although the rationale may have seemed surprising to other NextGen members, it is what such writers as McGrath and Richard T. Sweeney have expected. According to Mark Levin:

Whatever the underlying reason, baby boomers carried their need to network into the mainstream of membership organizations in every industry, profession, and community. As Generation Next questions the value of participation in association leadership, the generation that gets credit for the whole concept of challenging values is now having its own values challenged. Virtually every trade association, professional society, social-service organization, and community group is seeing a (sometimes dramatic) reduction in the involvement of young people.⁸

While the first step may be to get the NextGen librarians to join an organization, the important next step will be keeping them involved and letting the strings of leadership fall into their care. Now that these new librarians are involved in RUSA, we must make it relevant for them to be involved–that is, more than something to be merely “sampled” and discarded. This very topic was the subject of a brainstorming session at the 2006 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio that resulted in suggestions for ways to engage and keep these NextGen librarians involved in our organization. The high-priority items identified during this session included:

• targeting communications for new librarians,
• publicizing new opportunities
• emphasizing benefits of face-to-face communication,
• promoting participation in the RUSA Ambassador Program to reach library school students, and
• incorporating more of the new technology, for example, blogs, wikis, and online communities.⁹
• Some of these ideas will come to fruition during the coming year.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
As librarians and instructors strive to provide optimal learning experiences in an online medium, they need to consider the different ways that students learn. Some of the questions that should be asked include: Does one’s learning style or preference for a face-to-face environment carry over into an online environment? What learning principles should be considered when designing instructional content for the Web? Are there clues that can be used from what is already known about learning styles for multicultural populations that should be considered as materials are put online? The purpose of this column is to provide some examples from the literature that discuss these questions as they relate to online learning styles, especially for diverse populations.

Overview of Learning Styles

The identification, classification, or definition of learning styles varies widely depending on the perspective of the researcher. Additionally, the term “learning styles” is sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as “thinking styles,” “cognitive styles,” and “learning modalities.” There are numerous theories and opinions on learning styles. While early researchers, such as Kolb, focused on experiential learning, more contemporary researchers have expanded their models to include both psychological and affective dimensions.¹ James and Gardner suggest that individual learning styles are developed as an outcome of heredity, experience, and current environment, and that a core concept of learning styles is “how people react to their learning environment.”² Dunn cites another commonly accepted definition: “Learning style is a biologically and developmentally determined set of personal characteristics that make the identical instruction effective for some students and ineffective for others.”³

Four of the common theories and models used to explain how students’ learning styles vary are:

• the single learning-style continuum, which includes field dependence and field independence;
• definite learning style, which includes serialist and holist classification;
• situational learning style, which includes surface and deep processing; and
• multidimensional learning style, which includes analytic and intuitive dichotomy.⁴

Other contemporary models, as well as inventories, have also been used to assess learners’ modes of thinking. Gardner, for example, asserts that humans have different forms of intelligences or intellectual strengths, each with its own developmental path.⁵ Research has also shown that many people possess secondary learning styles that can reinforce initial learning.⁶ For this column, Witken’s Model and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory will be highlighted, as they provide applicable information regarding cultural distinctions in learning with carryovers to the online environment.⁷

What Do We Know About Learning Styles for Diverse Groups?

There is no one preferred learning style that works for all students or even for any one particular ethnic or cultural group. Not all students from any particular group learn in the same way. In fact, different measurement methods assess different dimensions of learning styles that address such factors as instructional practices, information processing, social-interaction tendencies, and the influence of personality. Librarians need to be aware of cultural differences that influence learning. Cognitive, learning, and motivational styles of many students may be different from those most often expected by teachers and librarians who represent the majority culture. Researchers also suggest that individuals tend to fall into distinct categories related to the manner in which they prefer to learn and, to a large degree, these preferences are culturally identified.⁸

Dunn reviewed dozens of studies of major cultural groups in the United States to assess preferred learning styles.⁹ Although she found that individuals in these groups reflect a diverse array of learning style preferences, she also concluded that certain learning preferences are characteristic of the majority of members of each group. For example, European Americans prefer learning alone, expecting to do things for themselves through self-reliance and competence, whereas Native Americans and Latinos enjoy learning with peers and emphasize cooperation and loyalty. Asian Americans prefer highly structured learning activities, whereas African Americans are more comfortable with minimal structure. African Americans prefer kinesthetic or experiential learning activities more than Asian Americans or European Americans do.

Field Dependence Versus Field Independence Learning Theory

Developed in the 1940s, Witkin’s theory of field dependence and field independence cognitive styles carries many implications for cross-cultural learning.^1- It also significantly impacts users’ information processing, because the theory describes how well an individual is able to restructure information based on the use of salient cues and field arrangement.

Witkin designed an Embedded Figures Test to determine how well people can deal with a portion of a field separately from the field as a whole.¹¹ Field independence and field dependence as defined by Witkin and others are related to those characteristics of individual functioning that surface in social, intellectual, and perceptual domains of human behavior. For example, field-independent individuals perceive objects as separate from the field; abstract figures from a field; impose personal structures on the environment; set self-defined goals; work alone; choose to deal with abstract subject matter; are socially detached and rely on their own values; and are self-reinforcing. Field independents tend to be more self-directed and better able to make sense of unstructured material. Due to their narrow focus and ability to screen, field independents can usually process information more efficiently, but may miss the social context that their field-dependent peers more readily perceive.

In contrast, field-dependent people tend to rely on the field for clues about an object; prefer a structure provided by the environment; experience the environment more globally; are interested in people; use externally defined goals; receive reinforcement from others; focus on socially oriented subject matter; and prefer to work with others. Field dependents tend to learn better in a social setting (for example, class discussion, group work) and where direction and structured material are provided for them. They tend to specialize in work and study requiring interaction with people.

Findings by Anderson and Adams concluded that white and Asian American men tend to be field-independent learners who are parts-specific, can isolate facts as needed, are rather linear in their thinking and problem solving, and tend to test well.¹² On the other hand, white females, African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos of both sexes tend to be field-dependent learners; must see the big picture; are able to see details only in relation to the whole; seek to find personal relevance in the task at hand; and require that some sort of personal relationship be established between the instructor and the student. Field-independent learners may work well in a teacher-centered classroom that encourages competition and that allows them to develop their own strategies in nonsocial problem-solving domains, whereas field-dependent learners may prefer a cooperative learning environment that encourages peer interaction and support and that pays more attention to the social context in which tasks are framed.¹³ Field-dependent learners may also prefer to interact with the teacher, and tend to learn better when some structure, mediation plans, or strategy is provided.

Kerka stated that field-independent learners are more efficient in search-and-navigation tasks, whereas field-dependent learners are more likely to feel lost and disoriented in computer-mediated or hypermedia environments.¹⁴ Ogle compared field dependents’ and independents’ performance on a task of recall.¹⁵ The content was presented through two different treatments: a virtual environment and static images. A significant interaction was found between field dependence and treatment type favoring field independents in the virtual-environment treatment. DeTure found that students who are more field independent not only have higher self-efficacy when using online technologies, but also have higher confidence levels with online technologies.¹⁶ The research using this model suggests that those who are field dependent (for example, large proportions of Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans) may have a disadvantage in an online environment if geared to the dominant culture.

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory

A number of studies have applied Kolb’s theory to investigate how learning styles affect e-learning and hypermedia learning (with specific considerations for diverse groups), and most of them indicate that learning styles play a key role in learning.¹⁷ Other studies on relationships between learning style and e-learning have been done on college- and graduate-level students, and citations to them can be found in the references.¹⁸

Kolb’s model conceptualizes the learning process as a four-stage cycle including:

• reflective observation or “learning by watching and listening, carefully observing before making judgments, viewing issues from different perspectives, looking for meaning of things”;
• abstract conceptualization, or focusing on using logic, ideas, and concepts;
• active experimentation or “learning by doing, ability to get things done, risk-taking, influencing people and events through action”; and
• concrete experience, or using experiences and real situations that are personally and immediately relevant to the individual. It emphasizes feeling, as opposed to thinking.

By pairing preferences for how experiences are perceived (theoretical or pragmatic) and how these experiences are transferred into knowledge (doing or reflective), Kolb identifies four different learning styles:

• Assimilator = Reflective/Theoretical–(Asian Americans tend to fit into this category.) This category includes individuals who are best at understanding a wide range of information and putting it into concise, logical form. They are less focused on social aspects of learning and more interested in abstract conceptualization and reflective observations.
• Converger = Doer/Theoretical–This category includes individuals who can take ideas and turn them into concrete situations. They use abstract conceptualization and active experimentation to learn.
• Diverger = Processor/Reflector–This category includes individuals who are strong on imagination and can view a concrete situation from a variety of perspectives. They use reflective observation and processing to learn.
• Accomodator = Processor/Doer–(Latinos, white females, African Americans, and Native Americans tend to fit in this category.) This category includes individuals who use concrete experiences, or attempt to make any situation concrete. They are good adaptors.

Online Success Characteristics

Of the four learning styles described by Kolb, Accommodators seem to be the most at risk in online-learning environments. Researchers are finding that Accommodators are the least likely to succeed in an online-learning environment that is abstract and reflective.¹⁹ Rourke commented that:

The Accommodators have an intuitive, active approach to perceiving and processing information. They perform best in environments in which concrete, practical information is presented through interaction with peers and instructors. They process information best when they can actively apply this information to authentic situations.²⁰

Moeller also found that “the most dominant learning style in the nontraditional learning environment was the accommodator style.”²¹ In other studies, students with assimilating and accommodating learning styles demonstrated significantly more agreeable attitudes toward varied aspects of network-based instruction than students with converging and diverging learning styles.²² When creating online-learning environments, it is critical that the needs of Accommodators be met via personalized learning with hands-on experiences. Kolb’s study remains one of the most significant for those working with learning styles. As others research learning in the online environment, they have used Kolb’s work as a starting point for their online research. Honey and Mumford’s work is one example of this.

Honey and Mumford developed a modified version of Kolb’s learning style inventory, which turns the Doer, Reflector, Theoretical, and Processor preferences into learning styles called Activists, Reflectors, Theorists, and Pragmatists.²³ Of the four types, Reflectors and Theorists tend to do best in online environments, partly because an online environment might provide them more time to think about their tasks. The remaining groups, Activists and Pragmatists, also have various characteristics that benefit from online instruction, but do well in face-to-face instruction as well. Activists like to be involved in new experiences and problem solving. They enjoy doing things and tend to act first and consider the implications afterwards. They like working with others, but prefer being leaders where they can direct the course. Pragmatists are keen to try things out. They want concepts that can be applied to their job or life. They tend to be impatient with lengthy discussions and are practical and down to earth. They learn best when they have the chance to try out techniques with feedback (for example, role playing), are shown techniques with obvious advantages (for example, saving time), and are shown a model they can copy.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This study found that Ulrich’s and Serials Directory offer a wide, and often disparate, amount of information about where serials are indexed or abstracted, with Ulrich’s indexing more titles overall than Serials Directory, and more dead titles than the other directory. Serials Directory is the only provider that lists where EBSCO serials are indexed or abstracted. Both directories also provide different information on basic serial facts, such as price, address, and editor. Ultimately, the authors discovered that librarians should use whichever source is available, and realize that it may be lacking or inaccurate in its records.

All academic librarians, whether they work in public or technical areas, need to use sources that will provide accurate information to their patrons and to themselves. One source librarians use is a serials directory, either in book form or online. Reference, access services, collection development, serials, and other areas rely on serials directories to check journal names, confirm name changes, check circulation figures, and look for abbreviations. However, the most common reason to use a serials directory is to determine where a title is indexed or abstracted.

Two of the most popular titles to provide this information are Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory (or Ulrich’s), published by Bowker, and Serials Directory, published by EBSCO Information Services. According to its Web site, Ulrich’s contains information on more than 250,000 periodicals.¹ In Reference and Information Services, a popular reference services textbook, Bopp and Smith say Ulrich’s is useful in many ways. It is arranged by broad subject areas, it provides information needed to order a title, it lists the indexes and online databases that cover the contents of the serial, and it provides a list of cessations from one edition to the next.² In his definitive book, Introduction to Reference Work: Basic Information Services, Katz says Ulrich’s is easy to use: there are twenty-three points of entry, including editor information; it provides a ten- to twenty-word descriptive line for about twelve thousand titles; and it often gives circulation figures, which show the titles’ popularity.³

The EBSCO Web site lists Serials Directory with more than 182,500 United States and international titles.⁴ Bopp and Smith describe Serials Directory as each entry having more than fifty elements of information, including publisher’s name and address, telephone numbers, price, and more. It also designates whether a journal is peer-reviewed, accepts book reviews, or accepts advertising.⁵ Katz says Serials Directory was created using EBSCO’s list of periodicals, which, as a vendor, it sells to libraries, bookstores, and corporations.⁶ So what, if any, are the differences between the two titles? Katz says they are “quite small.” He continues:

Given two reference works that are almost identical in purpose and scope, a judgment has to be made about other elements. First and foremost is the matter of accuracy and complete coverage. Here Ulrich’s is ahead, possibly for no other reason than that it has been around longer, and therefore has a considerably more experienced staff. At any rate, the detailed information in Ulrich’s tends to be more current, more thorough, and more complete in details.⁷

How much of that statement is correct? Reference librarians tend to think that Ulrich’s is the bible of serials directories, but is that a fair and true assessment? Is it better than Serials Directory? The purpose of this study is to determine if there are significant differences between the two titles and how accurate each is in providing information about serials.

Literature Review

Inaccuracies with serial information sources have been an occasional topic in library science literature for at least thirty years. Palais first questioned the inaccuracy of Ulrich’s in a 1974 article. Using a core list of political science journals, Palais determined the completeness and correctness of Ulrich’s listings of indexes. In this study he found that Ulrich’s neglected 101 references the source covered and included 107 entries to indexes it did not cover. He asked the publishers of Ulrich’s to improve their reliability and, until these corrections had been made, advised reference librarians when looking where a title is indexed to “rely on their imagination and their knowledge of indexing services.”⁸

In 1980, Wyndham, using Ulrich’s 17th edition, replicated Palais’ study. Exploring health sciences journals, Wyndham’s conclusions mirrored the earlier findings from the fifteenth edition. Ulrich’s accuracy and complete information concerning abstracting and indexing had not improved with the publication of two additional editions.⁹

Swenk and Robinson compared the accuracy of Magazines for Libraries, Ulrich’s, and Chicorel Index to Abstracting and Indexing Services in the mid-1970s. Using a list of core sociology titles, they checked the indexing coverage of three subject-oriented bibliographic tools for completeness. These results were then analyzed against the three serials tools. The authors found that the rate of correctness ranged from between 6 and 28 percent. In their opinion, the greatest problem came from the journals being reported as included in indexing sources when, in fact, they were not. Once again, the authors called for revisions from the publishers.¹⁰

Writing from a collection development perspective, Eldredge raised other questions. In his comparison of Ulrich’s, SERLINE, and the Serials Directory, Eldredge concluded that all sources underreported indexing coverage. Accuracy rates for the three sources from 1981 and 1986 ranged from 92 to 97 percent.¹¹ In the past, indexing information was obtained from the editors of journals, who may or may not be aware of the indexes covering their journals. Acknowledging that indexing coverage by databases is by nature unstable, Eldredge suggested that the publishers of these publications create better means of communication with those producing indexes, which hopefully would increase accuracy.¹²

Besides indexing, the other question dealing with the accuracy of serials directories is in the category of peer-reviewed status. Librarians have used these sources to tell patrons about the editorial process of a particular journal or in collection development studies. Eldredge compared the Serials Directory and Ulrich’s. Of the 784 titles examined, only 54 percent appeared in both directories as peer-reviewed.¹³ Bachand and Sawallis raised this issue again, as well as categorization of journal type (scholarly, trade, popular) in cross disciplines. The authors found that Serials Directory identified with accuracy the publication type only 33.8 percent of the time, while Ulrich’s had an accuracy rate of 97.4 percent. Accuracy rates for identification of peer-reviewed journals were much higher, with 74.8 percent for Serials Directory, and 97.8 percent for Ulrich’s.¹⁴

Method

To compare and contrast the entries in the two primary periodical directories used today, the authors selected five well-known serials titles found in most academic and many public libraries. With circulation rates of 23,000 to more than three million, the titles represent different types of serials: American Economic Review (academic title), Library Journal (trade publication), Newsweek (popular weekly publication), New York Times (newspaper), and Science (popular academic title). To ensure equal comparisons, records from Serials Directory and Ulrichsweb.com, the online version of Ulrich’s were downloaded on the same day. Once retrieved, the authors entered the information from the directory entries onto a data-collection sheet, one for each title. This sheet, which had two columns, one for each directory, allowed for easy comparison between Ulrich’s and Serials Directory. The first area of the sheet covered such basic information as price, address, Web site, editor, circulation, and indication of refereed status. The other segment of the sheet covered the indexing and abstract coverage listed in each of the directories. Every index and abstracting service in both directories was listed, even if the title had ceased or no longer contained current information. The authors matched services that were listed under different titles so they would not be double counted. By using columns, the authors could easily determine unique titles or those that overlapped. A total of index and abstracting services was determined for each title as well as the unique index and abstracting services in each directory.

Results

The results confirmed Katz’s statement that the detailed information in Ulrich’s is more thorough than Serials Directory. The data in table 1 show that Ulrich’s indexes more records than Serials Directory in every 1 of the 5 periodicals used in the study. There are 18 more records for Library Journal, 14 more for Newsweek, 8 more for the New York Times, 36 more for American Economic Review, and 123 more for Science, for a total of 199 more records indexed in Ulrich’s than in Serials Directory for the 5 titles.

Table 1. Total Index/Abstract Titles

The data in table 2 also show that Ulrich’s and Serials Directory list many records in the index and abstract field that are unique to each directory. The percentage of unique titles in each directory is very high, more than 50 percent for all five periodicals. Of the total number of records listed in Ulrich’s and Serials Directory, Library Journal has the lowest percentage of unique titles in one or the other directory at 53 percent. The percentage rises to 67 percent with American Economic Review; Newsweek and Science are tied at 71 percent; and the New York Times comes in with an incredibly high 80 percent of unique titles.

Table 2. Total Unique Titles in Index/Abstract Field

Conversely, the same is true with all five periodicals regarding the number of shared titles found in both directories. As shown in table 3, only 20 percent of the records for the New York Times are the same in Ulrich’s and Serials Directory. They both do slightly better with Newsweek and Science, reporting 29 percent of the same titles; American Economic Review is next at 33 percent; and Library Journal is the highest at 47 percent.

Table 3. Shared Titles in Index/Abstract Field

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
The University of Maryland, Baltimore County Information Literacy Task Force developed a survey primarily based on the Association of College and Research Libraries Information Literacy Standards to gather baseline data about the skills of incoming students. Although multiple departments were involved, the biological sciences provided the highest number (151) of initial participants for the 51-item online survey. Findings indicate that the majority of students have some understanding of information literacy skills; however, a significant number were not familiar with important concepts such as search techniques, identifying print citations, how to determine bias or quality of sources, and correct citation behaviors when using research or copyrighted works. These data are being used to further develop an information literacy program that focuses on faculty development and targets areas where students lack the necessary skills for academic success and lifelong learning.

The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Information Literacy Survey is based on the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (the Standards) and offers a model for future studies of this type.¹ The results of this survey can provide some interesting insight into the information literacy abilities and attitudes of incoming undergraduates in the biological sciences.

UMBC is an honors university located in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor. A member of the University System of Maryland, UMBC has programmatic emphases in selected areas of sciences and engineering, mathematics, information and computer science, social sciences (particularly public policy studies), and the arts and humanities. UMBC is a diverse, medium-sized campus, with an undergraduate and graduate enrollment of approximately twelve thousand students. The administration and faculty endorse a philosophy that emphasizes an institution-wide commitment to student-centered learning.

In fall 2001, the UMBC Information Literacy Task Force was formed in the Albin O. Kuhn Library & Gallery to address the need for a stronger approach to information literacy for the campus.² Although there was a bibliographic instruction program, including a three-credit elective course taught once a year entitled Methods and Materials of Research, little effort had been made to assess the information literacy skills of the student body or to increase awareness of the issues across the campus. The task force decided to investigate exactly how well the students fared with all aspects of the Standards, and endeavored to develop questions to assess as many performance indicators as possible.

In this article, a literature review looks at similar studies that specifically used the Standards to assess information literacy skills of college students. There is a description of the general method used for the study, select results of the survey arranged by the Standards, a summary of the results, and finally, the future directions to be taken to further develop information literacy skills and awareness on the UMBC campus.

Literature Review

There is evidence, published and unpublished, of information literacy survey assessment efforts prior to and since the adoption of the ACRL Standards in 2000. Overall, the majority of these efforts have not been based on the Standards.³ Consequently, a body of empirical research based on the Standards is almost nonexistent. A recent review of more than seventy information literacy and library research skills-based survey instruments, identified primarily via the Web, revealed that very few were developed based on the Standards.⁴ A review of the literature since 2000 shows some use of the Standards in evaluating the information literacy skills of students and for information literacy program development.⁵

At the ACRL 10th National Conference in Denver, Colorado, Gratch-Lindauer presented selected case studies that used the Standards.⁶ Of the thirteen cases reported, one was a dissertation that used only Standard II and one described the state of Washington’s Information Literacy Assessment Group.⁷ The others were institutionally based programs that did not generate research or survey instruments.

Researchers taking part in the Project for the Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (SAILS) at Kent State University have developed their own set of information literacy standards that resembles a mix of the Standards and the earlier American Association of School Librarians (AASL) standards.⁸ This project is an attempt to develop an instrument that is standardized, easily administered, and can be used to test information literacy skills–thus providing data on a national level. As of June 2004, Project SAILS had 126 items developed, tested, and in use, and most of the outcomes from the Standards have been covered. Similarly, the Bay Area Community Colleges Information Competency Assessment Project, a collaborative project among faculty librarians in the San Francisco Bay Area, has developed and field-tested an information competency assessment instrument that is based on specific performance outcomes, and is criterion referenced to national standards. The Bay Area Project’s purpose was to develop a challenge-out or credit-by-exam instrument that can be used at community colleges that have an information competency requirement. An executive summary that details the development and field testing of the instrument was made available in September 2003.⁹

In 2003, Mark and Boruff-Jones demonstrated that librarians can apply results of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) for the purpose of assessment.¹⁰ The authors assert that NSSE provides a useful but underused tool for measuring the degree to which information literacy is incorporated into the curriculum at a particular campus. Brown and Krumholz used the Standards as a guide in designing a survey and checklists to measure information literacy levels of students in an upper-level biology course.¹¹ A pre-instruction survey was given, followed by two instruction sessions. The survey was again administered at the end of the session and revealed a slight increase in some, but not all, of the information literacy skills addressed by the authors. In 2003, Costantino developed and conducted a survey based on Standard II, which deals specifically with search methods and information retrieval systems. The purpose of her study was to investigate whether the academic community perceived information literacy skills as important and whether these skills were being learned. Participants overwhelmingly agreed that information literacy skills are important, but faculty assumed students were learning these skills elsewhere, while students reported not knowing the skills or having been self-taught.¹² In 2001, Seamans used the Standards to develop interview questions to ask students about their use of information at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University for her dissertation.¹³

These findings show that there have been only a few attempts at developing an instrument based exclusively on the Standards to test the information literacy skills of college students. The UMBC Survey provides a model for future information literacy assessment using the Standards.

General Method

To determine baseline information literacy levels of incoming UMBC students (freshmen and transfer), the task force identified those academic departments with a history of working with the library as targets for the survey. In fall 2003, the survey was made available to five academic departments on the UMBC campus: biology, computer science and engineering, English, history, and psychology. Freshmen and transfer students enrolled in required, core and other courses were identified as the target population. A total of 427 individual students from the targeted courses logged in to take the survey, but only 424 began the survey and answered any questions. One hundred and fifty-one students who began the survey identified themselves as biology students. This group represented the largest number of students from a single department participating in the survey, likely the result of professors in the biology department who awarded extra credit to students who took the survey. The survey was automated using a Web interface and a Microsoft Access database was constructed to facilitate data collection and analysis.

Research Questions

In addition to specific outcomes within the Standards, the task force investigated a number of research questions, several of which fall within a particular standard. Select survey results and relevant findings will be discussed elsewhere in this article. Detailed findings and a discussion of research questions for the entire population can be found in the UMBC Information Literacy Survey–2003–Executive Summary.¹⁴

1. What are the attitudes of college- level students about Christina Doyle’s information literacy skills?¹⁵
2. Do students who self-report a high level of confidence with information literacy skills perform well when responding to questions that represent those skills?
3. To what extent do students tend to overestimate their information literacy ability levels?
4. To what extent are students able to identify the basic elements of a bibliographic citation?
5. To what extent are students aware of what constitutes plagiarism?
6. To what extent are students familiar with the concept of fair use?
7. To what extent are students familiar with the concept of copyright?
8. Do students who self-report a high level of confidence with computers perform well when responding to questions that represent information literacy skills?
9. To what extent do faculty encourage students to use the library?

Instrumentation

With the input of a representative group of faculty and other campus leaders, the Task Force developed a fifty-one item survey based on the Standards. The majority of the questions for the resulting survey were adapted from the Neely Test of Relevance, Evaluation, and Information Literacy Attitudes.¹⁶ Many of the questions had no right or wrong answers. Most were designed primarily to solicit student perceptions about information literacy skills and the use of information. The sections that make up the UMBC Survey are:

• Standard I–The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed. The survey included questions about resource types and asked students to select those with which they were familiar. For example, one question contained a list of sources including some commonly used materials, such as magazine and journal articles, and some less commonly used, such as conference proceedings, dissertations, and manuscripts.
• Standard II–The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. Questions in the survey investigated students’ ability to select appropriate resource tools, develop successful search strategies, and extract needed information from their results. For example, one survey question asked students to specify how frequently they use search strategies such as Boolean operators, truncation, and proximity operators.
• Standard III–Information literate students evaluate information and its sources critically and incorporate selected information into their knowledge base and value systems. The survey included questions about students’ capabilities in evaluating materials and selecting those most appropriate for a specific purpose. For example, one question asked students to specify how they select the best articles in a list of results from an article database.
• Standard IV–The information literate student uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. The survey included questions about students’ abilities to synthesize collected information to produce a final product, such as a research paper. For example, a series of questions in the survey asked students to specify whether they have had the opportunity to present their research using various methods such as PowerPoint, visual projects, or personal Web pages.
• Standard V–The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally. Questions in the survey examined students’ views and understanding of copyright, plagiarism, and fair use. For example, one question offered specific writing scenarios (such as rewording someone else’s information and using it without giving credit to the author) and asked students to indicate whether they consider it plagiarism.
• Relationship with Faculty–A very important element of information literacy involves students’ relationships with their instructors. The survey contained a number of questions that investigate student and faculty relationships, including whether students are comfortable asking their instructors for assistance, and whether students have participated in directed research with a faculty member.
• Attitudinal–A number of questions on the survey gather information regarding students’ attitudes about doing research and the information literacy skills themselves. Students were asked to indicate their comfort levels in working with various types of resources, and seeking information from a variety of sources, such as the library homepage.
• Demographics–The survey gathered a great deal of demographic data regarding the participants. In addition to such basic demographic information as academic status, undergraduate major, and previous academic experience, the task force was able to obtain additional data from the UMBC student record system via myUMBC, the university’s portal, including gender, age, race, ethnic heritage, country of citizenship, and native language.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This is the debut of an occasional column exploring topics outside the purview of Reference & User Services Quarterly’s regular columns.–Editor

“The ideal college is Mark Hopkins at one end of a log and a student at the other.” This quotation–or something close to it–has become virtually a slogan among advocates of a liberal education. Even if you don’t know who Mark Hopkins was–and I used this quotation for years without knowing anything about him–you get the point with this homely image: Hopkins is the kind of professor who takes the time to really get close to his students. He’s not just chatting with students; he’s sitting on a log with them. Those of us who like this quotation use it because it has the appeal of a rich, seemingly historical tradition; even if the tête-à-tête between student and teacher took place a long time ago, the symbolic force of the image is still pertinent today. Mark Hopkins sitting on a log with a student seems to combine the grandeur of myth with the homespun quality of a folktale. It also suggests a parable–quintessentially American–about what a real education should be. Even if Mark Hopkins did not in actual fact sit on a log with a student, we want the story to be true.

This aphorism is often used by humanists to criticize penurious “educationists” who are more concerned with academic infrastructure than with people. The idyllic image of the log, student, and teacher is rhetorically very effective–we are churlish if we think a genuine college education requires anything more than the basic ingredients of a teacher and a student. Mark Hopkins and a presumably attentive student thus serve as an ideal symbolic image of an egalitarian, rustic, albeit rather sentimentalized, vision of a college education.

Am I reading too much into this simple image? I don’t think so. That’s what memorable quotations are all about: they resonate with associations. I think we can argue that the parable I have imagined functions as a significant, albeit minor, work of American cultural and intellectual history.

When the ideal professor-student relationship is pictured so compellingly, who wouldn’t want to have a one-on-one with an illustrious scholar-teacher like Mark Hopkins? It turns out that documented history gives credence to the tale I’ve imagined. Hopkins was a classics professor who was also president of Williams College from 1836 to 1872. This proverbial log image was apparently coined by James Abram Garfield, himself a professor of classics, and later the twentieth president of the United States.

Until I looked up the quotation recently, I did not know exactly who Hopkins was, let alone that Garfield apparently was the author of it. I had read this quotation and even used it once, with what I thought was considerable rhetorical success, at a convention of academic librarians. I stood up as a member of the audience in the question-and-answer period after a panel presentation proposing that librarians act as tutors to students. It pleased me to tell the panel that the innovative tutorial system they thought they were originating had already been invented years ago by Mark Hopkins when he sat on a log with a student. At that time my rhetorical point was made, not because I knew anything about who the real Mark Hopkins was, but simply because the quotation I remembered had the lofty-but-homely associations I’ve just described. (Oh, yes, it helped my cause that I said the words in a way strongly suggesting I did know what I was talking about.)

I now can claim to know a little more about this quotation and about the real Mark Hopkins. It turns out that there are some interesting differences between the actual Mark Hopkins and the imaginary one I have just described. The real Mark Hopkins published a number of books about ethics as well as being a teacher of Greek and Latin, but he was not a renowned scholar. His reputation both as teacher and president of Williams College centered on his conviction that education of the spirit was more important than education of the intellect.¹ Hopkins did try to motivate his students to think for themselves, but he also tried to indoctrinate them with a no-nonsense, muscular, evangelical Christian faith. The boys–on their way to becoming men–loved Hopkins because he did not make them recite their lessons, but really tried to get to know them as individuals. In the early years, Williams College was more like a Sunday school than what we now regard as a liberal arts college. Although the school never became a church college, and only a small number of the trustees were clergymen, Hopkins gave regular sermons and held weekly religious meetings with students while he was president.

My idyllic vision of Hopkins (which, I suspect, is that of many others who only know him through the log quotation) when contrasted with the facts as Rudolf presents them, is one that Hopkins meant posterity to have. We remember the log quotation more than the books Hopkins wrote because he had a greater influence as a teacher and college president than he had as a scholar. Just as interesting, however, is that the actual quotation may not be as compact as the one I’ve been dissecting.

Although it is not generally known outside of our profession, a good case can be made that librarians are at least as concerned with literary forms and genres as literary scholars are. But instead of paying close attention to the genres of poetry, fiction, drama, and essays, reference librarians insist on the significance of bibliographic genres or formats. We make distinctions among dictionaries, encyclopedias, indexes, abstracts, bibliographies, annotated bibliographies, bibliographies of bibliographies, and other reference formats that almost suggest we think these categories are Platonic forms. Quotations are an especially intriguing genre. Famous or familiar quotations are a subset of the larger category of quotations, which, of course, simply means words that are cited and repeated for some reason.

One of my purposes here is to suggest that familiar quotations may not be as familiar as many people think. In fact, it is often especially difficult to authenticate the exact form of a supposedly familiar or famous quotation. I discovered that the quotation “the ideal college is Mark Hopkins at one end of a log and a student at the other” is not necessarily accurate. Garfield’s actual words may not have been as memorable. Does this make the attributed quotation a misquotation? Yes, strictly speaking, it does. Does this make the misquotation a fabrication? Well, yes and no. Not trusting my memory to get the quotation exactly right, I decided to do a quick search via Google. One of my first hits on Google confirmed that the quotation is the familiar: “The ideal college is Mark Hopkins on one end of a log and a student on the other.” The source listed is “Me and My Professor,” an article by Scott Smallwood, in the February 15, 2002 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.² Smallwood says this quotation has “almost mythic significance” at Williams College because the tutorial relationship between Hopkins and students is still very much alive there today. At the time of Smallwood’s article, there was even a sculpture in a student art exhibit of Hopkins sitting on a larger-than-life log.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to check to see if other sources cited by Google also quoted Garfield the same way. Not far down the list I found this much less catchy version: “Give me a log hut, with only a simple bench, Mark Hopkins on one end and I on the other, and you may have all the buildings, apparatus, and libraries without him.” These words form the epigraph to another journal article, “Tools for Teaching: Personal Encounters in Cyberspace,” by James J. O’Donnell, also published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, this from February 13, 1998.³

Puzzled now as to which version of the quotation was correct, I finally acted like a real, old-fashioned, pre-Internet, book-oriented reference librarian. Librarians can get into some indolent, not to say sloppy, habits by trusting the Web too much. So I got up from my terminal and found the latest edition of that trusty war horse, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, the sixteenth edition, published in 1992. This source confirms that the longer version of the quotation is, apparently, authentic. Bartlett’s also says that Garfield spoke these words in an address to Williams College alumni in New York City on December 28, 1871.⁴ I am usually not fussy about quotations I am looking up just for my own edification, but it is often a good idea to check more than one source, just to verify that one collection of quotations, or some other presumably authoritative source, agrees with another one. If you are an assiduous scholar insisting on seeing primary documents, you might, in fact, want to examine some document closer to Garfield’s speech than a second-hand account in a collection of quotations. While Bartlett’s is often reliable, it is not infallible. If Garfield said these words in an address, were these remarks published, or does history have to rely on the quite possibly faulty memory of someone who only heard Garfield say these words? After all, anything only spoken, and not written down, is part of the oral tradition, and therefore much less subject to authentication. But in this case there don’t seem to be any primary documents to consult.

So I went to another well-respected compendium of quotations, Burton Stevenson’s Home Book of Quotations, the tenth edition, published in 1967. According to this source, Garfield said “A pine bench, with Mark Hopkins at one end of it and me at the other, is a good enough college for me!”⁵ While a pine bench is probably more comfortable than a log, I began to wonder about the missing allusions to buildings, apparatus, and libraries, assuming that the source quoted by James J. O’Donnell is the authentic text. And “good enough college for me!” is weak compared to the more emphatic shorter version. The exclamation mark makes this statement even weaker, suggesting that we aren’t going to believe the speaker unless he shouts.

What Garfield actually said is probably impossible to verify. Stevenson has a long note of explication stating that the actual words were not written down, and that Abraham Flexner, in his book Universities, says that Hopkins himself, not Garfield, was the originator of the image and that it should read: “The ideal college consists of a log of wood with an instructor at one end and a student at the other.” However, Stevenson’s note goes on to say, these words have never been found in Hopkins’s works, so perhaps Garfield is the source after all (in which case he probably was alluding to Hopkins’s contention that a well-paid faculty was more important than buildings). But why say “log of wood” when the one word log does the job with so much more punch? And “an instructor” just doesn’t measure up to Mark Hopkins, even if you have never heard of him. To work, the story has to have name recognition–even if, at first, we don’t recognize the proper name.

Now the plot of my story thickens. When pressed, librarians hunting quotations can pretend they are detectives. I don’t have anything like Sherlock Holmes’s famous powers of ratiocination, but fortunately, others who have written books about hard-to-find quotations do. An indefatigable researcher named Ralph Keyes wrote a fascinating book, Nice Guys Finish Seventh, published in 1992, devoted to tracing the real sources of misattributed or misquoted famous sayings.⁶ According to Keyes, who relies on Carroll A. Wilson’s article, “Mark Hopkins,” in The Colophon in the spring of 1938, the probable actual author, or reviser, of this log quotation was an orator named John Ingalls.⁷ Ingalls was a senior at Williams when Garfield was a freshman. After Garfield’s death, Ingalls, famous for creating memorable phrases, went out on the circuit with a speech, “Garfield: the Man of the People.” In that speech, Ingalls said of Garfield:

He always felt and manifested a peculiar interest in his alma mater and in President Hopkins, whom he regarded as the greatest and wisest instructor of the century. “A pine log,” he said, “with the student at one end and Doctor Hopkins at the other, would be a liberal education.”

This version may work better for some readers by describing the log as pine, by adding the title of “Doctor” to Hopkins’s name, and by referring to the more elevating ideal of a liberal education rather than the quieter ideal of a college.

Although it may sound heretical for a librarian to say this, I think it is not crucial that we determine whether Hopkins, Garfield, or Ingalls is the source of this story. As with other familiar quotations, this seems to be a case of composite authorship. Some famous quotations are like ballads–we may never know the original author. The notion of a number of authors, some known by name, others not, seems in keeping with the egalitarian spirit of this quotation. Understanding why the central image of the log, Hopkins, and a student continues to be quoted so often is more important than tracing the provenance of this quotation.

I think the meaning of this quotation is more important than the question of who said it or even what the exact words were. Long after his death, Mark Hopkins continues to serve as a model of what a fundamental liberal education is. It is of historical interest–but not of great historical significance–to note that what Hopkins inspired and what Garfield apparently said are not the same thing that Ingalls polished up. Ingalls improved what Garfield said. It’s more euphonious to say “log” or “bench” than the various longer versions of this quotation. But it wasn’t only Ingalls’s gift for phrase-turning that makes this quotation resonate. Each professor who values a true dialogue with students is, in effect, a cocreator of this quotation. By extension, every person who agrees with the sentiment in this quotation enough to repeat it clearly perpetuates it, and thus continues to recreate it. When I alluded to Mark Hopkins, the student, and a log some years ago at the librarian’s conference I mentioned earlier, I doubt that I quoted the words exactly as they are stated at the beginning of this essay. But I still quoted the sense of the saying accurately enough.

Even though the longer, less memorable version of Garfield’s remarks appears, according to Stevenson, to be historically accurate, and Ingalls’s pithier revision is therefore perhaps not true, what history remembers is the fabrication. It sticks in our memory not only because it is shorter, but because the concrete image of the log is so vivid. Furthermore, we want to believe in this image of a close encounter between the impressive professor and the presumably receptive student.

I can hear someone objecting that I have no right to dismiss the significance of the question of authenticating the speaker and his exact words. The general public, not just historians and reference librarians, need to be able to rely on some authorities to verify quotations. It’s one thing to make the case for the staying power of a well-turned phrase trumping a lame one. But it’s quite another thing to support error or, worse, legend. Don’t scholars have an obligation to get the facts right first?

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
I have read numerous manuscripts in the past few years in my role as an editorial board member for two journals and a monographic series. I recently spoke on the topic of journal publishing for an in-house workshop on tenure and promotion. Since my appointment as editor of Reference & User Services Quarterly (RUSQ), I have responded to several queries about publishing in RUSQ. I am using this column to pass along my perspectives on writing for peer-reviewed journals in general, and RUSQ in particular. I want to acknowledge the assistance of former RUSQ editors Connie Van Fleet and Danny Wallace, who knowledgeably and patiently answered my many questions about the RUSQ referee process during the past few months. Additionally, I want to thank David Kohl, my mentor and role model, for sharing his insights about scholarly publishing as well as his philosophy about the role of a journal editor.

First, there are some general trends that I have observed. It appears that there has been an increase in manuscript flow. In the case of the journals that I have been involved with, there have been more manuscript submissions in the past few years. Perhaps the number of librarians on the tenure track has increased. Unfortunately, too many of these prospective authors are writing about the same topic. As a manuscript reviewer, I have evaluated a disproportionate number of manuscripts relating to library instruction. There are literally hundreds of articles published annually on this topic. My advice to authors is to find an area that has been largely ignored. For example, my perception is that there are far fewer articles published per year relating to access services than library instruction.

I have frequently been asked by untenured colleagues to provide some sense about a particular journal’s prestige. I caution against placing too much emphasis on a journal’s impact factor, as this measurement is derived from a tool that does not index many of our profession’s journals. Additionally, certain types of articles (like review articles) are often read but rarely cited. A better gauge of a journal’s prestige may be the recent Nisonger and Davis study (which replicates the 1985 Kohl-Davis study) ranking the perception of library and information science (LIS) journals by LIS educators (deans to be precise) and directors of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries.¹

I have also been asked about the manuscript review process. Most journals publish instructions to authors that establish the review process for that journal. These instructions will let you know if an editor alone is a referee, if an article is submitted to a single blind reviewer, or if a double-blind review process is used. The instructions will also let you know how long the review process takes. Prospective RUSQ authors can review the “Instructions to Authors” in the Fall 2006 issue of RUSQ (vol. 46, no. 1). These instructions can also be found online at http://www.rusq.org/index.php/%20instructions-to-authors. RUSQ employs a double-blind review process, meaning that manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation. The referees do not know who has written the manuscript, as information that might identify the author is removed. Members of the RUSQ Editorial Advisory Board serve as blind reviewers. However, if the manuscript flow is too much for the editorial board to handle or if a manuscript is specialized, the RUSQ editor may call upon other experts to serve as referees. The RUSQ review process generally takes six to eight weeks.

Most journal editors are going to instruct reviewers to look at common elements. When I send out a manuscript to reviewers, I ask them to complete the RUSQ Referee Evaluation Form. This form uses five selection criteria. Because these five areas represent typical pitfalls (not only for RUSQ submissions but journal submissions in general), I would like to provide some guidance on how to avoid common problems.

Topicality and Appropriateness to Readership

Make sure that your topic matches the scope of the journal to which you are submitting. In the case of RUSQ, manuscripts should report scholarship relating to any aspect of reference and user services. For journals other than RUSQ, consult the instructions to authors or browse through several issues of the journal. If you are still not sure, contact the journal editor (including the RUSQ journal editor). I appreciate inquiries (as do most journal editors) that provide at least a brief abstract of a proposed work. It is important that you convey how you intend to approach a topic.

Context

Referees will assess whether an author has provided context through an appropriate and adequate literature review. Surprisingly, many manuscripts in our discipline fail to include a well-done literature review. Because this is a problematic area for many writers, I recommend reviewing Charlene Kellsey’s tips for writing the literature review.² Almost all research builds on the work of others. The literature review provides not only the foundation for an article, but gives it a sense of continuity as well. Successful authors connect their findings back to what they have found in the literature. Consequently, the discussion section of a manuscript should refer back to the literature review. Additionally, referees will assess a manuscript’s bibliography for timeliness and coverage.

Research and Scholarship

RUSQ referees are asked to determine whether the author has demonstrated an understanding of the research process and applied it. Has the research study been properly set up and executed? Reviewers will assess an author’s method for soundness. Many prospective authors fret over methodology, assuming that it is essential to employ sophisticated methodologies. It is not always necessary to use complicated methods. You may be able to get useful data through simple tabulations or quick surveys. What is essential is that you do not make assertions without appropriate data.

Quantitative and Statistical Findings

Referees are asked to assess whether the findings reported in a manuscript are relevant. Specifically, RUSQ reviewers are asked to determine whether the author explains findings in a manner that can be understood by the nonspecialist. If there are graphic presentations, they should clarify and summarize findings for the reader. Many manuscripts present too much data. I recently reviewed a manuscript containing almost twenty tables. Few journals have the space to print this many tables, and frankly, few readers will want to examine so many tables. Instead, it is critical for authors to interpret the significance of these data and to come to a conclusion. Also, it is important for authors to return to the literature review to define how their research adds to the literature, and how their research helps solve a problem.

Style and Quality of Writing

RUSQ referees are asked to assess whether a manuscript’s writing style reflects the scholarly nature of the journal. However, at the same time, the manuscript must be readable. If writing is difficult for you, ask a colleague to critically review your manuscript for grammar and clarity. Consult the “Instructions to Authors” to find information concerning stylistic requirements. In particular, please pay attention to instructions about the preparation of your manuscript because it is important that you do not use automatic features of word-processing software, such as embedded footnotes. Please keep in mind that in our discipline, most journal editors and manuscript reviewers are essentially volunteers. It is not really their job to do massive rewrites or to spend huge amounts of time reworking a manuscript because an author has failed to carefully prepare a manuscript according to guidelines.

RUSQ referees will return their review to the RUSQ editor and recommend one of the following five options: publish without revision; publish with minor revisions as indicated, not requiring further referee evaluation; not acceptable as is, needs major revisions as indicated, and requires further referee evaluation; not acceptable as a feature article, suggest consideration for a RUSQ column; or reject for RUSQ. The final decision rests with the RUSQ editor. Most manuscripts require some author revisions. The decision letter from the RUSQ editor will probably summarize commentary from the referees and offer suggestions for improvement. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, this decision letter will include a projected publication date. If you have been encouraged to resubmit your manuscript after major revisions, the decision letter will offer specific suggestions for improvement. If your manuscript is not acceptable for RUSQ, the RUSQ editor may suggest other publication venues. Most journal editors will go out of their way to be helpful by offering suggestions on how you can improve your scholarship to increase your chances of getting your manuscript accepted for publication. Now that you know how to avoid some common pitfalls, I hope you will be encouraged to submit your manuscript to RUSQ for review.

References

1. Thomas E. Nisonger and Charles H. Davis, “The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study,” College & Research Libraries 66 (Jul. 2005): 341-77.
2. Charlene Kellsey, “Writing the Literature Review: Tips for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 66 (Jul./Aug. 2005): 526-27.

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: mailto:dxz2@psu.edu.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Using established guidelines and criteria, a working group of the BRASS Business Reference Sources Committee voted to adopt these recent titles as either “outstanding” or “other noteworthy titles.” Following extensive discussion on the merits and shortcomings of each, three were voted for inclusion in the outstanding category. Seven additional works were selected as other noteworthy titles. Brief reviews are included.

Many business reference sources were evaluated. This year’s selections include interdisciplinary titles, significant new editions of standard works, and titles with an international focus. Selectors and reference librarians serving business users will find these sources to be valuable additions to their reference collections. All are suitable for public and academic libraries.

Outstanding Titles

The Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy, 2nd ed. Ed. by Joseph J. Cordes, Robert D. Ebel, and Jane G. Gravelle. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2005. 499p. alkaline, soft $75 (ISBN 0-87766-752-7).Public finance can be a difficult subject for students and citizens to comprehend, with its use of often-complicated economic theory and arcane jargon. Couple this difficulty with the impenetrability of governmental program design and tax law concepts, and it’s quite easy for lay people to get lost in this topic. The second edition of this well-designed reference work provides a nice compass to help navigate the topic of tax policy.

The volume editors are academically and vocationally well qualified in public finance; the writers of the individual entries are a mix of academics and public and private sector tax practitioners. The entries are well written and concise, and rang true with this reviewer’s understanding of the subject area. The work effectively addresses the major topics in U.S. public finance and tax policy.

Entries included address:

• economic and public-finance principles and concepts (for example, ability to pay, benefit principle, tax incidence);
• major tax types (income, sales, property);
• key features of major taxes (charitable deductions, investment tax credits);
• methods of tax and expenditure analysis (generational accounting, dynamic scoring);
• budgeting processes and structures (Highway Trust Fund, Congressional Budget Office); and
• tax administration issues (tribal taxation, state, tax amnesty)

The book contains 235 entries arranged in a standard A-Z encyclopedia layout with an extensive 22-page index. The editors report that the work reflects extensive updating of the entries in the first edition plus 45 new items.

Individual entries often include a short definition of the concept, followed by a one-quarter to several page treatment of the topic depending on its scope and complexity. Many entries include extensive, authoritative bibliographies. The authors make effective use of tables and graphics as needed for illustrative purposes. Cross references to related entries are included.

A WorldCat search yielded no comparable reference works on tax policy. While a key strength of the work is its clear presentation of often technical concepts to a lay or generalist audience, experts in the field will also find it useful as a refresher and referral source. This encyclopedia is suitable for all academic, selected special, and medium-to-large public libraries.–John P. Heintz, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota

Encyclopedia of White-Collar and Corporate Crime. Ed. by Lawrence M. Salinger. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2005. 2 vols. acid free $325 (ISBN 0-7619-3004-3).

This timely source fills a gap in the reference literature. There is nothing similar that combines criminal and unethical behavior in business, medicine, and politics, as well as the people involved in that behavior. The Encyclopedia employs a broad definition of these types of crimes. Readers will find entries on topics as diverse as Firestone tires, cigarette advertising, WorldCom, and a summary of Unsafe at Any Speed, Ralph Nader’s groundbreaking book on automobile safety. Still, many may find it surprising that entries on the Challenger disaster as well as prostitution are included.

Key to using this source for the novice researcher is the “Reader’s Guide” section at the beginning of the first volume. Seventeen broad categories are listed, including: “Products”; “Companies”; “Financial and Securities Fraud”; “Consumers”; “Scams and Swindles”; “Laws”; “Business Fraud and Crimes”; “Medical and Healthcare Fraud”; “Pollution”; “Political Scandals”; and “People.”

Contributors are primarily from criminology and sociology fields. Some of the entries on political and corporate scandals perhaps may have benefited from a review by political scientists and management specialists, respectively. For example, although recent notable corporate crimes are, of course, included, the entry for “Enron” doesn’t mention Arthur Andersen (there is a separate entry for the accounting firm; it discusses Enron and does have a cross reference to the Enron entry). And the entry on “Savings and Loan Fraud,” while lengthy, devotes only two sentences to Lincoln Savings and Loan (though there are cross references to entries for “Charles Keating” and the U.S. Senate’s “Keating Five”).

Interesting topics among the five hundred entries include unnecessary surgery, Nigerian 419 (Internet fraud), workplace violence, real estate fraud, ABSCAM, Exxon Valdez, Michael Milken, and research fraud. Each entry is one or two pages long and includes a brief bibliography as well as cross references.

Law summaries (including Sarbanes-Oxley) and a glossary assist the reader with legal concepts; these are included in the second volume. An extensive index and well-written introductory essay add to its usefulness.

Ideal for students, general readers, and business practitioners seeking background information on white-collar and corporate crime, the Encyclopedia is highly recommended for all collections.–Patricia Kenly, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

History of World Trade Since 1450. Ed. by John J. McCusker. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. 2 vols. alkaline $295 (ISBN 0-02-865840-X).

History of World Trade is a historical encyclopedia that provides a panoramic survey of the globalization of world trade since the Age of Exploration in the fifteenth century to the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in modern times. Edited by eminent economic historians, the work has more than four hundred entries contributed by expert international scholars. Entries range in size from two hundred to three thousand words and are written for high-school and college students as well as general readers.

The encyclopedia follows the fortunes of famous business families and influential people across the centuries: the conquistadors and explorers who forcibly opened the New World in the early sixteenth century; the reign of Elizabeth I that witnessed England’s rise as a seafaring trader; the influence of the Rothschild Banking dynasty; the establishment of the Sa’ud family’s oil power; and Deng Xiaoping’s historic opening that led China to become the twenty-first century’s rising trading power. Entries cover exotic historical port cities from Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Gdansk to Havana, Mumbai, and Shanghai. Coal, cotton, coffee, and other commodities have their own individual entries. Important ideas and concepts such as the balance of payments, the English Corn Laws, Most-Favored-Nation treaty provisions, the American System, patent laws, and smuggling are given separate entries. The historic and contemporary roles of companies and forms of business ownership are illustrated with articles on the East India Companies, Lloyd’s of London, DeBeers, and the Nanyang Brothers Tobacco Company. The encyclopedia visits the Black Sea, the Gold Coast, Angola, Brazil, China, Vietnam, and a host of other countries and regions notable as trading locales. Ethnic groups active in international trade are profiled along with piracy, slavery, travelers and travel, and other activities that have played important roles in extending and facilitating trade.

Essays on the great trading empires include the British, Dutch, French, Spanish, Ming, and Mughal Empires, as well as related institutions and practices, such as China’s Imperial Maritime Customs, the British Board of Trade, the Tribute System, and the African Slave Trade. Important international industries discussed in detail include arms and armaments, banking, books, illicit drugs, petroleum, retail, rubber, shipbuilding, textiles, toys, and tobacco. The infrastructure of international trade receives special attention in entries on canals, harbors, and port cities. The organizations and institutions that trade has created are covered in entries on the caravan trade, the Canton System, chambers of commerce, the Gold Standard, the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and WTO.

Each entry includes a short bibliography for more in-depth exploration of the topic. Volume 1 has both an alphabetical list of all of the articles and a thematic-outline grouping the articles by broad topic. All of the contributors are listed with their positions, credentials, and articles written. Volume 2 contains an extensive glossary, selected primary source documents, and a comprehensive index. Carefully chosen illustrations help bring articles to life. Sidebars highlight engaging aspects of selected subjects. Although there are not many primary sources reprinted, the chosen few provide a contemporaneous glimpse of historical developments such as Charles D’Avenant’s eighteenth century Essay on the East-India Trade. The encyclopedia will enrich collections large and small, public as well as academic.–Peter McKay, University of Florida, Gainesville

Other Noteworthy Titles

The Federal Reserve System: An Encyclopedia. By R. W. Hafer. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2005. 451p. alkaline $95 (ISBN 0-313-32839-0).Whether the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates to control inflation has recently been of concern to consumers and professionals. This encyclopedia puts the issue into perspective as it explains how the Federal Reserve operates and how its monetary policy functions.

The introduction serves as a timeline, starting with the rise of central banking in the eighteenth century, and concluding with the Federal Reserve’s reaction to recent financial and economic crises.

The 280 entries average two pages; graphs and charts aid the reader in understanding complex subjects. Some of the “Further Reading” lists after each entry are limited, but the book is not meant to be comprehensive; rather, it serves as a point of departure for further study.

R. W. Hafer, professor of economics at Southern Illinois University, was a research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His style is clear and concise. Reading the entry on the “LDC Debt Crisis” was like sitting across the table from a friendly economist and getting all one’s questions answered.

Reference librarians will find the topical list of entries useful, as well as the extensive index. College students and the general reader will find this a valuable source to explain topics that will continue to be headline news.–Lee Pasackow, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

Globalization: Encyclopedia of Trade, Labor, and Politics. Ed. by Ashish K. Vaidya. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2006. 2 vols. acid free $185 (ISBN 1-57607-826-4).

This encyclopedia focuses on the economic, political, legal, and environmental aspects of the phenomenon of globalization. The two volumes are divided into four parts and organized by broad topics. Arrangement is unwieldy; browsing the table of contents is a must to use this source effectively because of the limited index. Entries are lengthy (some more than twenty pages, though most are about ten pages); each includes cross references and a list of references for further reading. The international contributors are economics faculty, faculty in related disciplines, and specialists.

Globalization’s greatest strength is found in the excellent overviews of such major issues as global climate change and sustainable development, found in volume two. Also in the second volume are almost three hundred pages of well-written essays covering thirty-two international blocs and organizations.

Twelve broad industry sectors are separately covered, including “Chemicals,” “Pharmaceuticals,” and “Food and Beverages.” Each entry is about ten pages, and the entries are somewhat uneven in coverage. For example, in the entry for “Food and Beverages,” the beverage industry is not discussed. Much more successful is the entry on “Chemicals,” written by an International Labour Office specialist in that industry. It includes an excellent discussion of the various segments of the industry (such as petrochemicals) plus many charts and tables. Though the statistics are available elsewhere, the compilation in one place is useful.

Intended for college students and faculty, it is also accessible to many general readers because of the important global issues it covers. Overall, Globalization is an excellent resource and would be a valuable addition to most reference collections.–Patricia Kenly, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Graphic novels are an incredibly popular format in all types of libraries. Popular movies such as Batman, Spider-Man, V for Vendetta, and Sin City are all based on graphic novels or comics and underscore the growing appreciation for the medium. Readers are leading the way, demanding these titles and teaching us the joys of the graphic form. Yet despite our patrons’ call for these items in our collections, it is often hard to know what to buy, what is useful and popular in a sea of seemingly odd titles and collections, and how to approach the question of suitability and classification. An academic librarian undertaking a collection-building effort at her university wrote this Alert Collector column. The fact that academic librarians are paying attention to the form simply strengthens the argument that this particular type of reading experience has far exceeded its day as a boyhood pastime (if indeed that perception was ever true).

Anne Behler is a reference librarian at The Pennsylvania State University who works in the Maps and Gateway Libraries specifically, and in the instructional programs department (which runs the services of the library that are geared primarily toward meeting undergraduate and first-time user needs). She is the selector in charge of contemporary topics, which led her to developing Penn State’s graphic novel collection. Demonstrating her commitment to student outreach, she is the co-chair of the libraries’ annual open house, an event that welcomes more than four thousand students to the libraries each year, and is involved in the library’s pilot effort at providing remote reference services in the university’s student union building (the HUB). She is an active member of the ALA and the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), serving on the Reference Services Section’s Education and Professional Development for Reference Committee, as well as serving as intern for the RUSA Thomson Gale Award for Excellence in Reference and Adult Services Committee.–Editor

The graphic novel format, like all forms of narrative, includes many different types of stories. For example, the superhero story is intriguingly told in Mark Waid’s Kingdom Come. In this graphic novel, a slew of well-known DC Comic superheroes, such as Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman, confront the challenges of their new generation, and not so moral, successors. The teen-interest novel, those sly and moody books that explore the angst of approaching adulthood, finds particularly rich expression in the graphic format, as exemplified by Ghost World by Daniel Clowes. Satire is also a common form, best represented by Robert Crumb’s work. Takehiko Inoue’s Vagabond is an excellent introduction to manga, which is an extension of Japanese anime and an art form in and of itself. These works often have strong appeal with teenage girls, proving yet again that stereotypes of the format are pointless. Graphic works include nonfiction as well and cover such topics as true crime, history, science, biography, and memoir. A good example of this is the stellar work Mom’s Cancer by Brian Fies, which poignantly captures the story of his mother’s battle with lung cancer. Finally, adaptations such as Jerry Bingham’s Beowulf take well-known stories and recreate them in a graphic format, making accessible to some readers works that would otherwise be off-putting. This rich range of reading choices not only answers our patrons’ calls for titles, it adds a richness and depth to our collections and helps encourage a love of reading.

The graphic novel represents a format that has come into its own in the last three decades. In the words of Will Eisner, the man credited with writing the first graphic novel and coining the term for the format, “The manner of [comics] creation has evolved from a work written and drawn by a single individual to a wedding between writer and artist. This has established a creative process that employs the skills of an accomplished writer and an artist of great sophistication.”¹ With roots in the serial comic strip, during the 1970s and ’80s, comics began to take on a more literary tone; many publishers moved away from the serial publication of short comic books to focus on more complex book-length titles, and as a result, comic readership expanded from children to young adults and adults, who found their preferred format maturing along with them. The move away from serial titles also meant that the desired book would much more likely be in stock in bookstores rather than solely available (and often sold out) at the local comic shop.²

The evolution of comics from Sunday-morning strips to comic books to graphic novels–”book-length comic books that are meant to be read as one story”–has drawn much critical attention.³ Several titles have won prestigious book awards, beginning with Art Spiegelman’s Maus, which won the 1992 Pulitzer Prize. Widely read review sources like the New York Times Book Review have published articles on graphic novels, including “Draw What You Know: Graphic Novels Are Never Dull–Try Saying that About Most Works of Prose Fiction,” in which writer Nick Hornby relates (when comparing his pile of “proper books” to his pile of comic books) “[C]omic books are never dull, in the excruciating way that prose fiction can be, and it’s as hard to imagine half-reading most graphic novels … as it is to imagine half-reading a sonnet.”⁴

The graphic novel’s rise in popularity and sophistication has also grabbed the education community’s attention. Educators recognize that today’s students are constantly visually stimulated by the media and have a strong impatience for sitting down and wading through dense text. Graphic novels cater to young people’s growing affinity for the visual rather than written media.⁵ It is no wonder, then, that graphic novels are often cited as wonderful tools to help get the “reluctant reader” into books. Gretchen Schwarz has pointed out that, in addition, graphic novels provide readers with the opportunity to learn about literature they might otherwise never encounter (through adaptations), as well as to critique the way visual portrayals create meaning.⁶ It is clear that graphic novels engage readers, and in fact, studies have shown that graphic novels make useful literacy tools as well, exposing readers to twice as many words as the average children’s book.⁷

There is also little doubt that graphic novels are extremely popular with readers. The combined educational value and high appeal of graphic novels make them an essential asset to any library collection. Therefore it is extremely important for librarians to become familiar with the many incarnations of the graphic novel, in order to build the best collection possible to serve our patrons.

The resources presented in this column are meant to serve as a starting point for selectors working with graphic novels and will provide background information on the format as well as recommended selection tools. A listing of graphic novels that selectors should consider when building a core collection for any library is also included. This list is not comprehensive and is–like any other list–admittedly subjective. It includes titles that have been recognized for their significant contributions to the world of graphic novels; it has been compiled to form a solid foundation for anyone interested in learning more about this exciting area of literature. I highly recommend that newcomers to graphic novels read these core titles to get a sense of the form as well as to enjoy both serious literary, artistic endeavors and pure reading pleasure.

Background Information on Graphic Novels

Gravett, Paul. Graphic Novels: Everything You Need to Know. New York: Collins Design, 2005. (ISBN: 0-06-082425-5)

Paul Gravett presents an in-depth look at many of the graphic novels that could be considered core titles. This text intermingles graphic novel history and analysis of titles, with colorful excerpts from the highlighted texts to create a work that is useful for the graphic novels neophyte and the long-time reader. The section titled “Resources” is especially helpful. It presents a bibliography of publishers’ Web sites, suggested further readings about graphic novels, review sources, and more.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. Edited by Mark Martin. New York: Paradox Pr., 2000. (ISBN: 1-56389-557-9)

This text is a reference source that reveals the inner workings of the comic format by using the format itself. Artist Scott McCloud uses a book-length comic to illustrate the complex artistic elements and creative process that distinguish the comic format from all others. Readers are trained in vocabulary as well as how to follow the sequence of a comic work. McCloud’s reverence for the elevation of art that comics can achieve is apparent on every page, creating a text that is effective in helping the novice comics reader to not only understand how to approach the reading of the medium, but to appreciate comics as a literary and artistic form as well.

Robbins, Trina. From Girls to Grrrlz: A History of Comics from Teens to Zines. San Francisco: Chronicle Bks., 1999. (ISBN: 0-8118-2199-4)

Graphic novels and comic books are often perceived as a male-centered format. Trina Robbins’s book proves that this has not always been so. From Girls to Grrlz traces the history of girls’ comics from the 1940s to the 1990s and presents readers with several titles that should be considered when building a graphic novel collection meant to appeal to both genders. As with many titles that relate graphic novels history, Robbins’s takes the form of an annotated bibliography intermingled with historical details. This is a form that works particularly well for the beginner selector, as it allows one to review a foundational list of titles while developing an understanding of the history and culture surrounding the format.

Sabin, Roger. Comics, Comix, and Graphic Novels: A History of Comic Art. London: Phaidon Pr., 1996. (ISBN: 0-7148-3993-0)

Roger Sabin’s bountifully illustrated history of comics is noteworthy because it reaches back to the very beginnings of comic-like creation with its examination of art forms since the Middle Ages. This text is also unique because it examines the format’s history in both the United States and Britain.

Weiner, Stephen. Faster than a Speeding Bullet: The Rise of the Graphic Novel. New York: Nantier Beall Minoustchine, 2003. (ISBN: 1-56163-367-4)

Weiner skillfully presents the history and development of the comic, from the birth of the very first comic strips in the early 1900s to the graphic novels of the present, using language and structure that makes the complex history easy to understand for those new to the format. The work is structured so that each chapter covers roughly a decade in the history of comics, and Weiner gives not only raw historical facts but presents analysis that helps the reader to understand the core reasons for the evolution of comics into the graphic novel. The book also highlights comic and graphic novel titles and authors who have come to represent the changes in the comics format as well as suggestions for further reading, in effect helping the reader to create a core list for him or herself.

Resources Addressed to Librarians

Goldsmith, Francisca. Graphic Novels Now: Building, Managing, and Marketing a Dynamic Collection. Chicago: ALA, 2005. (ISBN: 0-8389-0904-3)

Graphic Novels Now is the perfect handbook for a librarian starting a graphic novel collection. After giving a brief overview of the graphic novel format and its history, Goldsmith provides selectors with the tools they will need to get started–recommended review sources, collection-maintenance suggestions, cataloging advice, marketing and programming suggestions, and even advice on how to handle the politics associated with graphic novels. Much of Goldsmith’s advice is drawn from her own experiences with trying to start a graphic novel collection in a public library; the text takes a slight angle toward public libraries, but would serve as a wonderful tool for academic and school librarians as well.

Weiner, Stephen. The 101 Best Graphic Novels. Edited by Keith R. A. DeCandido. New York: Nantier Beall Minoustchine, 2001. (ISBN: 1-56163-284-8)

Stephen Weiner, a librarian and leading graphic novels specialist, presents an annotated list of 101 graphic novels that he considers to be the best. Of course, no list can be considered definitive forever, and new titles are published every day, but Weiner’s titles are carefully chosen and his annotations keep in mind the appeal of the book to different types of readers. Librarians might use the list to assess their own library’s graphic novel collection or as a foundation for building new collections. As is usual of Weiner publications, this guide also includes a brief history of graphic novels, as well as an appendix of suggested further readings about the format.

Selectors’ Tools

Bibliographies and Lists

Rothschild, D. Aviva. Graphic Novels: A Bibliographic Guide to Book-Length Comics. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1995. (ISBN: 1-56308-086-9)

Aviva Rothschild’s bibliography is proof of the complexity and variety of theme that exists within the graphic novel format. Rothschild’s annotations are thorough and helpful and range in category from adaptations of classics to superheroes to Westerns.