Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Readers’ advisory (RA) services have always been about building a two-way line of communication between a reader and the readers’ advisor. The whole premise of contemporary RA practice rests on the idea that the advisor comes up with suggestions for a reader by listening carefully to how that reader experienced a book or author that they particularly enjoyed. Armed with that understanding, the advisor can then make reading suggestions that go beyond the basic matches of genre or subject. In this way, RA service has always been a “2.0” service. The Library 2.0 movement is centered on using technology to build a more user-focused library and to promote the development and expansion of communities into the virtual world. In the following article, Kaite Mediatore Stover explores some of the prominent book-focused social networking sites and begins the discussion of how these resources, being used by millions of readers, can be incorporated into our RA practice. Along the way, Stover examines the way that readers’ advisors can use reader tagging of titles to expand our vocabulary of appeal. Kaite Mediatore Stover is the head of Readers’ Services for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Library. She also is a columnist with Booklist, writes for the Booklist Online Book Group Buzz blog, and is a contributing writer for NoveList.—Editor

Just when readers’ advisors everywhere thought they’d assigned taxonomic ranks to libraries’ jungle of bookshelves holding books of every spot and stripe, along comes another new set of shelves needing taming. First, Melville Dewey gave library staff a system that separated all the reading material by subject area. Then Nancy Pearl and Joyce Saricks further separated the bibliophylums with genre definitions and other elements of appeals, making the species eminently more identifiable to the modern book watcher. Library staff were pleased. Our shelves, it seemed, were ordered, classified, separated, and manageable.

But, just as things seemed to be comfortable, librarians discovered a new online unit of shelves with critters that looked familiar, but were behaving in ways that librarians hadn’t quite seen before. The books had the same names, but they were being classed into subgenres, idiosyncratic lists, and cross-pollinated species that defied logic. They weren’t being organized by the professionals, but by the readers. Clearly, some form of order needed to be restored, but it would require keepers and visitors to work together to build a system both could use to the most benefit.

Few would argue that the Internet is one big jungle, and navigating it occasionally requires a machete, not a mouse. Conducting a successful readers’ advisory conversation with a reader can be akin to slashing one’s way through adjectival vines as tangled as “well written,” “good story,” and “not boring.” Yet the moment those brave new explorers of the social Web went searching for readers, librarians knew they had to follow curious Stanleys to even curiouser Livingstones.

Social Animals

Readers’ advisory (RA) is one of the most social services libraries offer. It’s no surprise that talking about books so easily made the leap to the Internet. This discussion is a natural extension of the readers’ advisory conversation. “The entire point of RA is to reach readers…. Library 2.0 tools play to the strengths of RA work and can deepen and broaden the interaction, introduce new ways of connecting books to other items, and enable librarians to enlist the entire community of readers in the collaborative creation of RA services for everyone.”¹

Many library staff will tout the in-person RA interview as the best way to determine what a reader wants in the next book he or she wants to read. In a face-to-face interview, the advisor is privy to tones of voice, facial expressions, and some level of enthusiasm or disdain for a particular type of book. Still others swear by in-depth questioning through reader profile forms, either in print or online. The benefits to the form-based RA are numerous. Patrons can take their time answering the questions and staff can take time to evaluate the forms without worrying about a queue forming behind the reader. More specific information can be obtained, creating better reading matches.

Book-centered social networking sites are a combination of the above. Online readers are using all the descriptors available to express what they like about what they have been reading or what they want to read. They are in a relaxed environment, they are taking their time, they are enjoying looking for the right words, or even using creative terms to describe what they like. Ike Pulver, of Shaker Heights (Ohio) Public Library, notes how wonderful it would be if we “could classify books—fiction, especially—by ‘feeling’ rather than by subject, or adjectivally (big, fast, exciting, intricate, thought-provoking) instead of nominally (horse, houses, shops, satellites, cheese).” Pulver refers to appeal as a “feeling taxonomy.”² The shared language of readers’ advisors and readers is changing and expanding when put to use on the Internet.

Expanding readers’ services online also creates larger communities of readers and readers’ advisors. “The library as a physical place must extend well into the virtual space—in social networking communities, across web sites of all kinds, on any form of digital device.”³ This is how librarians stay aware of how their patrons are using the Internet and which books are generating the most electronic conversations in these “unique environments for expanding baseline library services, for reaching new audiences and providing decidedly new services.”⁴

Not only are library staff reaching new and different patrons, but they are improving their own knowledge of books read, heard of, and glanced at, and it is all in one place. Library staff are equipped with easy-to-use tools that help them organize their own reading and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses in reading areas.

What is surprising—perhaps daunting—is the variety of venues available to readers who eagerly share their favorite books, current reads, and ever increasing to-be-read stacks with friends and strangers, both virtual and actual. The number of book-related social networking sites seems to be growing by the hour, but there are three that stand out among readers and library staff, GoodReads, LibraryThing, and Shelfari. Look for a list of others at the end of this article.

Best in Show

GoodReads, LibraryThing, and Shelfari are all social networking sites with a focus on gathering readers and the titles of what they are reading. They all offer similar basic services. Users register for free and begin adding books by title, author, or ISBN. Almost all of the titles appear with color covers and the option to add to one of three established shelves: Currently Reading, To Be Read, or Have Read. All sites give users the option of adding tags or reviews to the titles, participating in discussions or forums and “friending” other registered users or inviting friends to join the site.

Of the three, LibraryThing, based in Portland, Maine, launched first, in August 2005. Presently there are well over half a million users of LibraryThing, and those users have cataloged over 35 million books. LibraryThing allows application programming interfaces (APIs) for blogs and other websites and is moving into the business of library catalog enhancement with its LibraryThing for Libraries service. More than seventy libraries are using LibraryThing for Libraries, according to the LibraryThing website. The newly released Reviews for LibraryThing for Libraries has just fewer than twenty users.⁵

LibraryThing for Libraries allows libraries to pull in additional information on a title from the content-rich mine of LibraryThing’s user-added information. Examples include other editions and translations of the work, similar books, and tags. LibraryThing is quick to point out that all of the information added has been evaluated and vetted by LibraryThing staff for appropriateness and use. Only the five best matches are listed for “similar books.” Tags that are too vague or personal are removed. LibraryThing has devoted the same attention to the reviews that are now available for library catalogs. Each one has been read by LibraryThing’s staff (two librarians) and those reviews deemed too short, too long, or containing too many quotes, for example, have been culled. A subscribing library’s patrons may also contribute reviews to items in the catalog.

There are other entertaining reading-related activities on the LibraryThing website: The Zeitgeist page is full of fascinating statistics and lists for readers with a math bent. For library staff, perhaps one of the most useful lists is “Authors who LibraryThing.” This list can serve as a resource for libraries looking for authors to invite for a program or a fun promotional tool to encourage readers to “read what your favorite author is reading.” The only drawback to LibaryThing is the limit to the number of titles a user can catalog with a free account. With a free account, members are permitted up to two hundred books in their personal libraries. To add more titles, a user must either pay a $10 yearly membership or a $25 lifetime membership. Users who obtain a membership are permitted unlimited cataloging of titles.

The second book-related social network on the scene was Shelfari, located in Seattle. Shelfari debuted in October 2006, and the last confirmed report had their total users at one million, although that figure is probably higher by now.⁶ Like LibraryThing, Shelfari allows APIs for blogs and other websites as well as the import and export of book lists.

Shelfari has been in the news several times this past year and a half. In November 2007, the social website was accused of duping its new users by sending e-mailed invitations to join Shelfari to everyone in these users’ Yahoo!Mail And Gmail e-mail accounts. This “spam” was followed up by reminder e-mails to join Shelfari, and the website lost quite a bit of social capital in the blogosphere as users angrily cancelled accounts and accused Shelfari of “poaching” contact information.⁷ Shelfari has since corrected the usability of their sign-up page, and users must make concerted efforts to invite friends to join Shelfari.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
RUSA is an oddity. Usually institutions fall into one of two categories: Either the sum of its parts is greater than the whole, or the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Think about Congress, the UN, or a car manufacturing line. In each case, either the total institution is more important than its parts, or the parts are what make the institution shakily hold together. RUSA is in a perfect state of balance—its parts are its whole and its whole is its parts. We, as the current “it” word likes to portray, are at that happy point when everything works and innovation, creativity, and effort are in perfect sync: We are in a state of flow.

Flow is a funny thing. It is fragile; a tiny tilt right or left and it is lost. It is elusive; go looking for it and you will never find it. But once attained, it is self-generating. The kind of effort and outcome that is achieved through flow keeps feeding back into the flow state. The flow-state generators, in RUSA’s case, are the sections.

RUSA has six sections, and each provides a place for energy and creativity to regenerate the division. In celebration of the lifeblood of RUSA, I talked to its section chairs about their sections and the future of the profession.

The six sections of RUSA seem to address very different elements of librarianship, so my first question was, What made you join RUSA and your section?

Michael Levine-Clark, chair of the Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES), stressed that at first RUSA fit his job and then over time he found RUSA kept him connected as he grew professionally. “At the time that I joined CODES, I was a reference librarian with collection development responsibilities. I was very interested in collection development issues and looked for places within ALA where I could fit those interests. As a reference librarian, I very much valued the connection between public service and collection development. I am now head of collection development, with no reference responsibilities whatsoever, but I still value the way that reference/public service can inform and be informed by collection development.” Each chair agreed. Judy Solberg, chair of the Reference Services Section (RSS), finds that the mix of reference and public service just worked for her: “I joined RUSA because of its focus on reference and user services. My library career has been focused on public services. I started my career as a reference librarian. RUSA offered programs and discussion groups that were relevant for my day-to-day work life.”

From the answers of each chair, it is clear that all of us, no matter our specialty, appreciate and value that RUSA approaches librarianship from a user-oriented service point of view. It is that philosophy of service, and our holistic approach to the profession, that is the glue that melds six different sections of RUSA together.

Following up on that, I asked the chairs, What is the best thing about your section?

I got back a resounding “our members!” David Lincove, chair of the History section (HS), says the best thing about his section is the “opportunities to meet colleagues from across the country and engage in discussions about common interests. The HS offers programs that draw many people because of the widespread interest in history and genealogy research, teaching, reference, new resources, and collection development.” Rosemary Meszaros, chair of the Machine-Assisted Reference Section (MARS), agrees “librarians from every type of library, from all parts of the country, and all with a keen interest in sharing their expertise and learning from others is the strength of MARS.” Stephanie Atkins, chair of the Sharing and Transforming Access to Resources Section (STARS), finds the same thing, “I am always so impressed with the wealth of knowledge and expertise of STARS members—and most importantly, their willingness to share information.”

There are many high-profile activities in each section, such as the Reading List in CODES and RSS’s Reference and Research Forum, but there are many hidden gems as well. My next question was about that very issue: What does your section offer that you think people might not know about?

A common reply centered on the section discussion groups. Solberg points out, “They are a great way to engage with colleagues and get involved with the section.” Almost all the sections have discussion groups of one kind or another, and they bring new ideas and information from the front lines of librarianship to the forefront of RUSA. A good example is the Business Reference and Services Section’s (BRASS) Publishers Forum. According to Rita Moss, BRASS chair, “it is a time for librarian members to talk about problems and issues with resources. This is pretty much a no-holds-barred discussion. We get to know about resources, the cost, and the problems. It is always very stimulating.” On the same theme of focusing on the new and hot issues, Meszaros talked about section preconferences, stressing that they are always “on a pressing topic of interest to all librarians every year.”

The focus of the sections on hot issues and the future of the profession led directly to the next question: What are the big trends or hot issues surrounding your section’s subject area(s)?

While all tilted toward the expertise of each section’s focus, replies were really about the same thing: the role of technology in defining the future of our work and the role of the section in helping figure out the changes in this landscape. CODES is looking at the change in reference publishing and electronic resources from a collection development point of view, and their Cooperative Collection Development Committee (which is a joint committee with STARS) is poised on the front lines of this issue. The History section, as Lincove points out, is facing the same issue with the “digitization of all types of resources for research in history and genealogy.” His section is looking at the “increasing number of high-quality online resources from vendors,” as well as the “increasing number of free resources of high quality available on the Internet” and the resulting “de-emphasis on browsing print materials and the decreasing size of reference collections as more materials appear online.” Meszaros says that MARS is considering the same landscape. “Reference is ever-changing. Innovative technologies as well as the very newest trends in reference service are on the forefront, issues such as privacy, gaming, Second Life, Facebook, MySpace, etc.” Solberg says RSS is seeing the same thing and wondering about the “changing nature of reference work and the best ways to assist our users. There are questions about the role of the reference desk and how to best use new technologies to assist people.” Over at STARS, “The big trends in ILL and resource-sharing revolve around technological changes too,” says Atkins. “Document delivery through RapidILL and similar systems are allowing us to get materials faster to users. STARS is also part of the Rethinking Resource Sharing initiative, whose mission is to get materials to users with the fewest barriers to access.” Moss sums up the situation for BRASS and all of RUSA this way: The future is all about the “cost of resources, outreach, and integrating new technologies.”

I think this is where flow comes from. All the sections are focused on the same issues and are bringing their own particular expertise and specialized knowledge to the question. As a follow-up, I asked, What is your section doing to address these hot issues?

Not surprisingly, the answer was, “A lot!” There were many examples—I’ll focus on three: CODES/STARS’s Cooperative Collection Development Committee, MARS’s Hot Topics, and RSS’s Management of Reference Committee. The Cooperative Collection Development Committee has been working to identify best practices in the area and, says Levine-Clark, “should become the place to go for information about cooperative collection building.” Meszaros shared that “the dynamics of reference work are being addressed by the MARS Hot Topics Discussion Group as well as by the Virtual Reference Discussion Group. Each presents a forum addressing the hot issues everyone is talking about.” At this past ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver, RSS’s Management of Reference Committee hosted an open and informal discussion session on the topic, informally calling it “Embracing the Reference Desk: Who’s really in love—patrons or staff?”

Maybe it is this multiperspective approach to the creation of the profession and the ideals of the services we offer that provides RUSA with its flow-state energy. Maybe it is just that we all love what we do and are committed to doing it better each day, so flow is built into the process. Or perhaps it is because RUSA itself is built on the collaborative process of its six sections and is therefore constantly open to new ideas, new members, and new initiatives, and flow just wants to come along with us for the ride. In any case, whatever it is, it’s a lot of fun and we invite you all to join us.

Neal Wyatt, 2008–09 President of the Reference and User Services Association, is a Collection Development and Readers’ Advisory Librarian from Virginia. She wrote The Readers’ Advisory Guide to Nonfiction (ALA Editions, 2007), is an Editor of Library Journal’s “Reader’s Shelf” column, and compiles LJ’s weekly “Wyatt’s World Lists”; e-mail: rusa@ala.org.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
The merger of an academic library with the main branch of a large city’s public library in 2003 required a new method for determining customer–patron transactions. The Warner model, previously reported in RUSQ in 2001, was adopted and used to investigate the possibilities for developing tiered reference, adjusting staffing levels, and improving service in a merged reference unit. The adopted model is recommended to other libraries that want to develop effective tools for analyzing reference services.

The new Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Library, which opened in August 2003, was a collaborative project of the City of San Jose and San Jose State University (SJSU). Two libraries, the University Library of SJSU and the MLK Library—the main branch of the San Jose Public Library (SJPL) system—merged to create a new entity. The six-year planning process has been documented on the library’s website and in a number of articles, covering the vision of one reference department, the principle of “economies of scale” as they apply to merged units, and creating a collaborative library from two different institutions.¹ In a broader context, other articles discuss the library as an example in the general discussion of the library as place and consider the implications of how different work and service cultures are brought together in a new institution.²

There are merged and unmerged units in the new library. The four merged units in the new library are Access Services (including Circulation), Information Technology, Technical Services, and Reference. Data is gathered in the same way by all public service points, including those that remained unmerged: the public library’s Youth Services, General Collections, and the California Room and the SJSU Special Collections unit.

A key element of the planning process dealt with the kind of statistics to be collected to evaluate the library. A comprehensive program of data collection commenced with the opening of the MLK Library in September 2003. The plan involved a number of library services and units, including circulation, collections, computer and study room booking, database usage, donations, financial reports, gate counts, interlibrary services, library services and instruction, website usage, and focus group reports. A consultant, Thomas Childers, was engaged in 2003 to undertake a user and cost analysis aimed at developing benchmarks and to administer two surveys over four years, one on library facilities and one on library services. A four-person assessment team under the direction of Jo Bell Whitlatch, associate dean of the University Library of SJSU, undertook the evaluation of service delivery, initiated or coordinated a number of service metric studies, and began a workload activity study in 2004. Only results from the assessment of reference and instructional services have been published to date.³

Literature Review

Many articles report the evaluation of reference services through studies of patron satisfaction, patron queuing, reference accuracy, information-seeking behavior, and patron perceptions of reference service.⁴ Methods ranging from observation, unobtrusive testing, time considerations, transaction logs, survey cards, and forms have been used to investigate reference interactions and staffing. ⁵ During the planning phase for the MLK Library, the SJSU and SJPL administrations and the Reference and User Services planning committee supported finding a method for evaluating service point activity to facilitate planning, determine levels of business, promote tiered reference models, and address staffing needs.⁶

Whitlatch uses state of the art reference question classification to analyze reference service despite the method’s limitations and the need for its categories to be mutually exclusive.⁷ A later survey of methods and forms conducted under the auspices of the Association of Research Libraries suggested that libraries could not agree on methods, models, frequency, or forms; however, the most important data elements were identified as date, type of question, time of day, and location in which the question was asked.⁸

Prior to the library merger, both the university and city libraries had been gathering the statistics required for the SJPL and the California State University systems. For the university library this meant sampling the number of reference transactions only one week out of each semester (in October and March). Initially, every question asked by a patron was simply noted by a slash. Later, academic reference staff and librarians moved to using the letter R for reference questions and the letter D for directional questions. Ciucki’s survey of libraries (fifty-seven academic and thirty-two public) on the types of data collected found that while academic libraries kept records by type of question, public libraries gathered written responses.⁹ The task for the combined library was to identify a method acceptable to both institutions.

The question assessment method selected for the MLK Library needed the capacity to support the joint tiered reference service, which was planned to use support staff and student assistants working in partnership with librarians. Courtois’s descriptive survey on the use of nonprofessionals in academic libraries is relevant here. Courtois found that 51 percent of responding libraries were using nonprofessionals more, identified four categories of reference queries, and ascertained that 37 percent limited nonprofessionals to answering questions in the first two categories (directional and instructional). The 63 percent of libraries that indicated that nonprofessionals answered questions in all categories also reported that nonprofessionals worked alone during evenings, weekends, and early mornings, when “there is little attempt to formally define the types of questions they should or should not answer.”¹⁰

Murfin and Bunge also studied the use of paraprofessionals in academic libraries using the Wisconsin–Ohio Reference Evaluation Program, which employs a two-part form completed by librarians and patrons. Their results show that 20 percent of libraries used paraprofessionals effectively but that 80 percent of libraries found that their use may lower patron success and satisfaction. Effectiveness can be improved when paraprofessionals are encouraged to consult others and are freed from time pressures.¹¹

The Warner Model

In the context of the MLK Library, Debra Warner’s new method for classifying reference questions looked like a promising option. Based on the experience of librarians at the East Carolina University Health Sciences Library, Warner’s schema categorized patron reference questions into four levels of increasing complexity, each level designating the kind of activities necessary to answer the question. The four levels were Level I (non-resource based), Level II (skill-based), Level III (strategy-based), and Level IV (consultation). For each level of question, a definition and series of questions was provided to help reference librarians and paraprofessionals recognize the level to which a particular question belonged.¹²

The Warner model showed the greatest promise for collecting useful data that could be used in the assignment of the appropriate mix of librarians and staff to in-person, telephone, e-mail, and live online reference services. Our article reports on the application of the Warner model in the MLK Library Reference unit and how activity count results were used to adjust staffing levels, change the service point configuration, and improve the tiered reference model. The Warner model was adopted as the most potentially useful method to count in a more sophisticated way all the questions asked in the building.

Reference Services

The impetus behind the merger of reference includes both a desire to achieve staff economies and a commitment to strengthen the mission to provide opportunities for lifelong learning. Planning for the merger of SJSU’s and the SJPL’s separate reference departments began in fall 2002 with the creation of planning teams charged with developing policies and procedures in specific function or service areas, including assessment, reference collection development, electronic resources, e-mail reference, information literacy, reference, information desk, telephone reference, training, and virtual reference. These cross-organizational teams also served as a means for the public and academic staffs to begin working together through a shared discussion list, a “library buddies” program, and team-oriented meetings. Conforming to the dictates of the Memorandum of Understanding between the SJPL and the University Library of SJSU, staffing of the reference desk was to be achieved through an equal division of staff hours.¹³ This was interpreted to mean that usually one academic and one public librarian would work at the desk together in a “seamless” way.

The idea of “seamless” service was that SJSU students or public customers would receive high-quality reference assistance regardless of the affiliation (academic or public) of the person assisting them. Patrons who needed more help than the desk staff could provide would be referred to a subject specialist. Formal staff training and informal and collegial consultation and mentoring increased the skill levels of all librarians. Generally speaking, the merged units in the new library (e.g., Circulation and Reference) work together with as little staff differentiation as possible in the delivery of customer service.

Upon opening in 2003, the reference desk was located at the north end of the second floor, a general information desk was on the first floor, and the SJPL’s general collection desk was on the third floor. The reference desk was configured to provide four workstations serving walk-in patrons. Distance services—telephone reference, e-mail, live online reference—were provided by librarians working in a separate room called the Reference Connection.

Data Collection

Data collection at the MLK Library began in September 2003, one month after the library opened. Each service point within the library collected data during survey weeks using the Service Point Activity Count forms (see appendix). The two forms, one for in-person and one for remote (e.g., telephone and e-mail), were used at all six public service points in the nine-floor facility: the information desk and the circulation desk (first floor), the reference desk (second floor), the general collections desk (third floor), the periodicals desk (fourth floor), and the Cultural Heritage Center desk (fifth floor). For one week in each month, hourly data was gathered. During the initial year of operation from September 2003 through June 2004, only the Reference unit distinguished the levels of questions as Levels I–IV.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
One of the newer ideas being discussed and tried in libraries is “embedded librarians.” The phrase comes from “embed ded journalists,” and places a reference librarian right in the midst of where the user is to teach research skills whenever and wherever instruction is needed. In colleges and universities, our users are in the classroom, especially the electronic classroom. In business they are in the research lab or office. In hospitals they are with doctors and nurses. Embedded librarians are like bibliographic instruction librarians that have been totally immersed—this is more than collaborating with classroom faculty members. The embedded librarian is David Shumaker’s area of research, and here he gives a good introduction to the topic and some specific guidelines on how to start an embedded librarian program in your library. What next for the column? I am on the lookout for ideas and writers on the broad range of topics that relate to running a reference or public service department. I encourage you to suggest column topics and to become an author and write on any successful reference programs or services.—Editor

Interesting things are going on in the world of library user services. At a campus of Penn State University, Librarian Russell Hall—instead of limiting his role to providing two in-library bibliographic instruction lectures—arranged to attend every class meeting of the first-year “Effective Speech” course. As a result, student research skills and the quality of their speeches showed a marked improvement, and Hall planned with the instructor to further increase his role the next time the class is taught.¹ At Wake Forest University, Susan Smith and Lynn Sutton accompanied students and faculty of the course “Social Stratification in the Deep South” on a two-week bus trip. The experience was so successful for all concerned that at the end of the course they immediately began planning to continue the practice.²

At the headquarters of Fairfax Media, the largest news media organization in Australia, a library space downsizing dispersed librarians into the office areas of the various news bureaus they serve. When a subsequent office move offered them the opportunity to recentralize in new library space, there was no sentiment in favor—the new arrangement had proven too successful. Customers valued the new services and the new relationships that they had established with their librarians.³ At the Mitre Corporation, a librarian’s office was moved from the library to the space occupied by his prime customer, and the change resulted in heightened visibility and new opportunities to provide valued services.⁴ And at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, the Nursing Department and Library collaborated on plans to involve the clinical librarian in the important knowledge-sharing conversations that take place as the nursing shifts change—so that she could provide essential clinical literature to advance the delivery of excellent nursing care.⁵

These librarians broke out of their libraries, built new relationships, and found new ways to deliver new kinds of services to the people in their communities who need them most. While others may wring their hands with worry over the competition that digital libraries and the Internet pose for traditional reference and public services, these folks have found ways to create new services and new value for their libraries by getting out into the communities they serve!

This change is both driven and enabled by the increasingly digital, networked, and mobile society we live in. We’ve known for a while that libraries’ monopoly on factual information is gone. People don’t need us to find out who won the National League pennant in 1946, or who was the only president born in Pennsylvania. Anyone with a computer and a network connection can now do their own research anytime, from anywhere. As E. Stewart Saunders said in this space a year ago, “The Internet and Google have changed the information landscape. Libraries now compete for a share of the information market.”⁶ That’s true, but the same technologies that are competing with traditional reference service have freed us reference librarians from the chains that have kept us in the library. We’re free to roam and share our expertise wherever our customers are because we can, in a sense, take many of our most valuable tools with us.

What’s really critical here is not just getting out of the library. It’s that the very nature of our service, and the relationship we have with our customers, changes—or can change, and must change—when we start roaming. The librarian at Penn State didn’t just hang around before and after class, waiting for students to ask reference questions—he actively participated in class discussions, sharing his knowledge of information sources and insights on research methods. The librarian at Mitre didn’t sit behind his desk and wait for reference questions—he went to meetings, participated in conversations, and found himself pulled in and consulted about upcoming technical projects as well as the organization and management of the group’s library. The librarian at the University of Sheffield isn’t just supposed to sit at a desk and wait for questions either—now she’s supposed to be a participant in the nurses’ conversations.

The fact is reference librarians have deep knowledge and special skills that have the potential to be immensely beneficial to many of those in our communities. But we can only unlock that value when we establish the relationships that allow us to join their conversations—to identify their unexpressed information needs. Because, as we all learned in Reference 101, people often have a tough time articulating what they need to know—and many times they don’t articulate it at all. We need to build relationships so we can gain deeper insights into what our customers are doing and how they will use the information we provide. We need the background knowledge about them and their work that will enable us to perform successfully and establish our credibility.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a call to abolish the reference desk or traditional reference services. It’s not a call to close the library or forget about the library as place. It’s not even a suggestion that we abandon our efforts to establish virtual reference services. All those things have their place. Rather, this is a call to do something else new as well, to explore new territories outside the library and take new opportunities to build working relationships—true collaboration and partnerships with our customers—as we’ve never been able to do in the past.

Some may say, “But we’ve had ‘liaison librarians’ for years. What’s really new here?” The question is, Have liaison librarians been outwardly focused and engaged in developing collaborative relationships with customer-partners, or have they been library-focused, seeing collection development, not teaching or reference and research, as their primary role? There’s substantial evidence in the literature to suggest the latter. See, for example, RUSA’s Guidelines for Liaison Work in Managing Collections and Services, which defines liaison work as “the process by which librarians involve the library’s clientele in the assessment and satisfaction of collection needs.”⁷ See also the extended discussion of research findings by Rodwell and Fairbairn.⁸ The difference is between saying “we’d like you to help us build the library collection” and “let’s work together to achieve our mutual goals.”

The name often given to this new kind of user services librarianship in recent years is “embedded librarianship”— “embedded” because the librarian becomes a member of the customer community rather than a service provider standing apart. The embedding may often involve physical collocation, such as the office moves at Fairfax Media and Mitre, or the class attendance by Hall, Smith, and Sutton. Or it may involve a virtual collaboration, such as interacting with dispersed students in a computer-based distance learning environment. It fits well within the academic, specialized, and corporate sectors because there are parent organizations (universities and corporations) with well-defined groups of library customers. But public librarians and librarians in primary and secondary education may be thinking that this model doesn’t apply to them. Their customer groups may not be so well defined. And, after all, the examples used so far have all been taken from higher education and specialized corporate libraries. Still, some of these ideas and principles may well apply. For example, the magazine Teacher Librarian is dedicated to the principle that instruction and student achievement are enhanced when librarians are able to form multidimensional partnerships with classroom teachers. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if school libraries were so well staffed that librarians could afford to specialize and develop deeper relationships with the classroom teachers in a particular grade or a particular academic department of a secondary school? The Guidelines for Liaison Work mentioned above incorporate a section on liaison in public libraries. So why not extend the concept in the public library sector as in the others? As T. Berry Brazelton said, addressing the 2008 ALA Annual Conference, librarians have an “opportunity to be part of the family system,” should become partners with parents in the learning and development of young children, and should move from “objective involvement to empathic involvement” in the family system.⁹ A way to do this is to enable librarians to spend more time out in the community, participating in community groups.

It’s a telling fact that in the literature, many embedded library service relationships are established because of customer initiatives or external events. The Wake Forest, Penn State, and Fairfax Media stories are all cases in point. We library managers shouldn’t sit back and wait for these opportunities to come to us any longer. It’s time for us to start the process and lead the way!

But how do you begin to create the kinds of relationships that are forming at places like Wake Forest, Penn State, Fairfax Media, Mitre, and the University of Sheffield? And what are the pitfalls to watch out for along the way?

Here are some ideas for initiating and sustaining an embedded library service:

Assess Your Readiness

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Has the move toward online resources had an effect on source material for the study of black feminist theory? The last forty years have witnessed a critical mass of literary and theoretical writings on the black feminist movement. This article evaluates the coverage of writings by a select group of forty “second wave” (1963–75) and pre– “third wave” (1976–90) black feminists in twelve major electronic-literary and women’s-studies indexing and abstracting services. Most of the twelve resources studied provide materials on the black feminist movement; however, Gender Studies Database, Black Studies Center, and Periodical Index Online, respectively, were identified as offering the best overall coverage of black feminist writers. Each of the twelve databases studied are discussed in detail, offering some useful hints for black feminist studies researchers interested in finding the most comprehensive materials in the field. The survey investigates the breadth of coverage of writings authored by these black feminists and determines that there is a critical need to either update current thesauri or develop a new comprehensive tool for indexing and abstracting black feminist writings. Finally, the results of this study will assist libraries and librarians in making decisions about purchasing the most relevant resources for research on the writings of the feminist movement in general and black feminists in particular.

Since the mid-1990s, there has been an explosion of indexing and abstracting databases incorporating previously print-only resources with newer, more comprehensive, full-text services. Although there are a plethora of print indexes considered invaluable to researchers, the movement within the library field to replace print with electronic access to online databases has seen a marked increase. How has this move toward online resources affected access to source material for the study of black feminist theory? The last forty years have witnessed a critical mass of literary and theoretical writings on the black feminist movement. This article will evaluate the coverage of writings by a select group of “second wave” (1963–75) and pre–“third wave” (1976–90) black feminists in twelve indexing and abstracting services. Are the writings of these black feminists indexed in the major electronic literary and women’s studies database resources available for researchers? What services provide ease of use combined with multiple levels of search strategies that include searching by author, subject, title, and publication date simultaneously for retrieval of information? The survey will answer these questions and identify the availability of these writings as full text or abstracts. The survey investigates the breadth of coverage and determines that there is a critical need to develop a comprehensive tool for indexing and abstracting black feminist writings. The study will, more importantly, show what databases provide access to scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that legitimize a subject matter. Providing access to these resources encourages critical analysis of black feminist theory, thus furthering the diversity and scope of research. The results will assist researchers in choosing the most relevant resources for their research on the writings of the feminist movement in general and black feminists in particular. In this era of shrinking budgets, the data will provide guidance for librarians seeking to purchase electronic resources in the area of black women’s studies.

The black feminist writers chosen are consistently listed in major research about and writings on the feminist movement, including Patricia Hill Collins’s Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment; the voluminous Pioneer Feminists Project out of Harvard University and its first major publication, Feminists Who Changed America, edited by Barbara Love in 2006; Barbara Christian’s seminal 1985 work Black Feminist Criticism: Perspectives on Black Women Writers; and the more recent two-volume set, Encyclopedia of African American Women Writers, edited by Yolanda Williams Page in 2007. Two comprehensive websites were also consulted during formation of the list of black feminist writers in this survey: Sherri L. Barnes’s Black American Feminisms: A Multidisciplinary Bibliography from the University of California– Santa Barbaraand the University of Minnesota’s Voices from the Gaps.¹

Literature Review

In searching library literature using the terms women, women’s studies, and indexing in a variety of combinations, five articles were retrieved: “Table of Contents Services: Retrieving Women’s Studies Periodical Literature” by Loretta P. Koch and Barbara G. Preece (1995); “Women’s Studies Periodical Indexes: An In-depth Comparison” by Linda A. Krikos (1994);“An Evaluation of Indexing Services for Women’s Studies Periodical Literature” by Deborah Mesplay and Loretta Koch; “Indexing Adequacy and Interdisciplinary Journals: The Case of Women’s Studies” by K. H. Gerhard et al. (1993); and “Indexing of Feminist Periodicals” by May Alice Sanguinetti (1984).² The Koch and Preece article surveyed table of contents services and not the coverage of individual writers. The articles by Mesplay and Koch and by J. A. Gerhard surveyed the general coverage of women’s studies journal literature but not the writings of individual black women writers that represent an important subset of feminist writers in the United States. Mesplay and Koch concluded that “of the indexing and abstracting services examined, ‘Women Studies Abstracts’ provides the overall best coverage.”³ Krikos’s article was a follow-up to the Mesplay and Koch article with the inclusion of the “Women’s Studies Index.”

Although Krikos’s article also reviewed indexes rather than the coverage of individual writers, it is an important resource because of its comparison of the three major resources at that time, “Women’s Studies Index,” “Studies on Women Abstracts,” and “Women Studies Abstracts.” The article is also important for its development of the following standards for comparing indexes: scope; depth of indexing; currency, time-lag, and cost; publisher and editor; format and arrangement; and vocabulary and subject headings.⁴ Two of these standards will be used in this study: scope, which Krikos describes as “the number and type of materials indexed (meaning articles, book chapters, books, dissertations, pamphlets) and overlaps and gaps in coverage,” and format, defined as “considering the usefulness of the overall arrangement of the service and the content of the citations.”⁵ Krikos concluded that “‘Women’s Studies Index’ actually indexes the most comprehensive combination and greatest number of women’s studies journals.”⁶ Krikos also concluded that “Women Studies Abstracts” “is essential to research collections.”⁷

Sanguenetti’s article surveyed the coverage of women’s studies and feminist journals in the leading paper indexing services available at that time and, again, “Women Studies Abstracts” was found to offer the best coverage, albeit in paper format. Some of the indexes surveyed by Sanguenetti are included in this survey: “Alternative Press Index,” “Essay and General Literature,” and “Women Studies Abstracts” (now a part of the much larger Gender Studies Database). Although the articles mentioned did not survey coverage of individual writers, they provided a set of criteria to assist in reviewing the databases. This study will also test some of the conclusions of these earlier articles and determine whether “Women Studies Abstracts,” which was found to have the best coverage of women’s and gender studies in earlier reviews, offers the best coverage of black feminists writers.

Backround

The study covers forty black feminist writers: fifteen Second Wave (SW) and twenty-five pre–Third Wave (pTW). The SW arguably dates either from 1963–75, according to Barbara Love and Harvard’s Pioneer Feminists Project, or from 1965–75, according to Darlene Clark Hine, African American historian and scholar. Love states, “we honor changemakers in the Second Wave movement beginning in 1963, when Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, was published and spurred countless women into action … some historians say the true Second Wave movement began in 1966 when the National Organization for Women was founded … 1963–1975 were the years of involvement by the greatest number of feminists.”⁸ All of the selected writers were known activists in the feminist movement. This SW period relates to the founding of the modern feminist movement that grew out of the larger civil rights era, a time when America was coming to grips with those people unwilling to be classified as “second class citizens.” The feminist movement saw the larger movement as not addressing issues of sexism, unequal pay, and the leadership role of women. Black women long involved in civil rights activism came to a similar conclusion, but the sensitive issue of women’s rights was often subsumed into the larger struggle of achieving equality as black people. With the achievement of some of the goals of the civil rights movement, such as the passing of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, black women felt it was time to turn their attention to the rampant sexism and chauvinistic tendencies in many of the black civil rights movement leaders. The Combahee River Collective, a group of black feminists that have met since 1974, state in their discussion of the genesis of contemporary black feminism that:

many of us were active in those movements (civil rights, Black nationalism, the Black Panthers), and all of our lives were greatly affected and changed by their ideology, their goals, and the tactics used… . It was our experience and disillusionment within these liberation movements … that led to the need to develop a politics that was antiracist, unlike those of white women, and antisexist, unlike those of Black and white men.⁹

Many within the black feminist movement viewed the early white feminist movement as focusing primarily on issues of gender equity while ignoring issues of racism and classism that were the everyday experience for women of color. Benita Roth, in Separate Roads to Feminism, sums up the feelings of many black feminists: “They were wary of joining white women’s liberation groups that paid insufficient attention to the links between gender, racial, and especially class oppression. Critical of the middle-class bias of liberation movements, Black and white, Black feminists therefore found themselves maneuvering in the interstices between the two.” ¹⁰

The writers in this study represent those who worked within and outside the women’s movement, and produced scholarship that reflected the issues and concerns of black women who faced discrimination that was both similar to and different from the discrimination faced by the women represented by the dominant white feminists’ movement. According to Joy James, the women chosen generated a wealth of materials to address these issues “not in an attempt to diminish feminist struggle but to enrich, to share in the work of making a liberatory ideology and liberatory movement.”¹¹ The SW writers established an unprecedented body of scholarship, which is now being studied and analyzed by scholars the world over.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
The second edition of the Reading List, RUSA’s juried selection of the best genre books in eight different categories, was announced at the ALA Midwinter Meeting this past January. The winning titles showcased the rich pleasures that genre books offer readers. To celebrate the creation of the Reading List and to highlight the importance of genre fiction in library collections, I instituted an “Alert Collector” occasional series on genre fiction. The first column in the series focused on romance fiction. This second entry focuses on fantasy fiction.

Fantasy fiction is, like much of genre fiction, at the center of a storm. Motifs, approaches, and styles that were once its sole domain have spread out and entered other genres. Today it is often difficult to decide if a book is a fantasy or a horror or a romance title. To the dismay of some purists, sometimes it is even hard to tell fantasy from science fiction. Forms are changing, genre lines are blurring, and new spin-off genres are appearing. The richness of this genre world offers readers great new frontiers to explore, but it can be a bit of a headache for librarians trying to build collections, work with readers, or even shelve titles in the most useful manner.

To help us get our bearings in this fabulously rich stew of books, I asked the Adult Services staff at Williamsburg Regional Library (WRL) to look at the genre and map it out for readers and librarians alike. I thought of WRL because several of the staff there are known in readers’ advisory circles for their knowledge of fantasy fiction and their appreciation of genres in general. Charlotte Burcher, who wrote the “Historical Fantasy” section, reads broadly in adult and young adult fantasy. She is a member of WRL’s Looking for a Good Book team and a regular blogger on fantasy titles at Blogging for a Good Book. Neil Hollands, who wrote the “Literary Fantasy” section, is the author of Read On … Fantasy Fiction (Libraries Unlimited, 2007) and coordinates WRL’s Looking for a Good Book service. He writes for Booklist Online’s Book Group Buzz blog and reviews fantasy titles for Library Journal. Andrew Smith, who wrote the “Realistic Fantasy” section, is readers’ services librarian at WRL, where he implemented the library’s Gab Bags collection for book discussion groups and coordinates the library’s book groups and author visits. He is a contributor to the NoveList readalikes collection and develops reading lists as part of the WRL Looking for a Good Book team. WRL Adult Services Director Barry Trott, who wrote the “Epic Fantasy” section, is series editor for Libraries Unlimited’s Read On series and author of Read On … Crime Fiction (Libraries Unlimited, 2008). He also writes for NoveList and edits the “Readers’ Advisory” column in RUSQ. Jessica Zellers, who wrote the “Paranormal/Urban/Contemporary Fantasy” section, is electronic resources librarian at WRL. She is completing her first book on women’s nonfiction for Libraries Unlimited and is a regular contributor of readalikes and articles to NoveList.—Editor

Fantasy is one of fiction’s largest and fastest growing genres. While there are many definitions, a generous approach to the genre includes any work that contains magic or other elements that cannot be understood by the rules of reality. It also includes largely realistic works set in imagined variations on certain historical periods—the medieval era in particular. Although fantasy does have escape value and is enjoyed by many readers for exactly this reason, it is a mistake to think of this as the genre’s only appeal. The best fantasy fiction features a wonderful blend of action, strong characters, and detailed, atmospheric settings. Classical themes such as honor, love, war, revenge, responsibility, otherness, obsession, and loyalty are explored in fantasy tales. Subjects such as bigotry, greed, religious extremism, politics, abuse, and addiction can be examined in fantasy contexts without offending cultural sensitivities. Fantasy is a chameleon, taking in elements of historical, romance, crime, and adventure fiction, often in the pages of the same book. This article highlights five major types of fantasy: epic high fantasy, paranormal/urban/contemporary fantasy, historical fantasy, realistic fantasy, and literary fantasy. While this covers the largest subset of the genre, space does not allow us to fully cover other important subgenres: political fantasy, hero fantasy, dark fantasy, romantic fantasy and fantasy romance, humorous fantasy, fables, and science fantasy most prominently. Alert collectors should also note two other aspects of fantasy: First, an appreciation of series and their reading order is critical to the genre. Series gaps in the collection reduce the enjoyment of readers and circulation of every series title. Circulation of a series may languish until that series becomes known or nears completion, but then it will rise quickly. Second, while this article focuses on fantasy published for the adult market, collectors should understand that, more than in any other genre, young adult readers will explore the adult fantasy collection and, conversely, adult fantasy fans will appreciate young adult and children’s fantasy works. Awareness of authors such as J. K. Rowling, Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, Brian Jacques, Diana Wynne Jones, Robin McKinley, Garth Nix, Christopher Paolini, Tamora Pierce, Philip Pullman, and Jonathan Stroud will behoove librarians trying to satisfy fantasy readers.

Epic High Fantasy

When many readers think of fantasy fiction, they are really thinking of epic high fantasy. These stories, often rooted in Norse and Celtic mythology, feature elegant prose, large casts of characters, arduous quests, and lots of magic. Objects play an important role here; rings, chalices, and swords are frequently keys to the success of the quest. A major appeal of epic fantasy is worldbuilding. These tales play out on a large map, giving an opportunity for authors to develop and explore their worlds. Series titles are common here as well. These tales take time to reach resolution.

Contemporary epic fantasy writers can hardly avoid being compared to the early masters. E. R. Eddison, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Lord Dunsany paved the way for writers like Terry Brooks, Ursula K. Le Guin, David Eddings, Raymond Feist, Jennifer Roberson, and Stephen Donaldson. Epic fantasy flourishes today with these writers and others producing exciting tales of high adventure. Readers come to these works looking for adventure on a sweeping scale, elegant language, and struggles between good and evil.

Bujold, Lois McMaster. Chalion series. The Curse of Chalion. New York: EOS, 2006. (ISBN 0061134244).
Perhaps better known for science fiction, Bujold is also a master of high fantasy. Here, she presents a damaged hero, betrayed by those he trusted, who returns to serve the royal family. As tutor to the young royesse of Chalion, former nobleman Lupe dy Cazaril puts his life and honor at risk to protect his charge and to revenge himself on his betrayers. Bujold presents a compelling mixture of magic, violence, and romance in this series starter.

Duncan, Dave. Tales of the King’s Blades series. The Gilded Chain: A Tale of the King’s Blades. New York: Avon Eos, c1998. (ISBN 9780380974603).
Duncan blends adventure, magic, politics, and swordplay into a satisfying tale. This series starter sets the stage, a land with a medieval/feudal feel, and the premise, that a class of men is raised to be bound swordsmen to their liege lords. Duncan tells the life of the swordsman Durendal, bound by powerful magic to serve the king. Durendal and his band are sent on a quest to uncover the secrets of the distant city of Samarinda.

Hobb, Robin. Farseer trilogy. The Assassin’s Apprentice. New York: Bantam Books, 1995. (ISBN 055357339X).
Hobb has made her name with several epic high fantasy series. The Farseer trilogy is Hobb at her best. She tells the story of a prince’s by-blow, trained as an assassin to serve the royal family. Hobb is noted for her skilled and creative world-building and for the depth of her characters. She offers up a fine mix of adventure, political intrigue, and romance.

Jordan, Robert. The Wheel of Time series. The Eye of the World. New York: Tor, 1990. (ISBN 0812500482).
Jordan’s series is an epic undertaking in worldbuilding. Over twelve books, Jordan takes readers on a far-reaching journey across his fictional landscape. The series starter introduces the heroes of the quest, who find themselves caught up in events far beyond their imagining, in a world where magic and physical prowess battle for control. Complex characters, twisting plots, and a deft blend of action and description make this a potent series.

Kay, Guy Gavriel. Tigana. New York: Roc, 1990. (ISBN 0670833339).
Kay is noteworthy for having been selected to assist in the editing of J. R. R. Tolkien’s work for posthumous publication. Tolkien’s influence is clear here in the varied cast of characters, the strong sense of place, and the story of a young hero, son of a vanquished kingdom, leading the struggle against the forces of evil. A prolific fantasist, Kay has a number of important stand-alone novels as well as series titles.

Paranormal/Urban/Contemporary Fantasy

Buffy the Vampire Slayer did a great service to humankind (above and beyond killing monsters, that is): she ushered in the craze for Contemporary Fantasy. Buffy showed the masses that fantasy can be fun, modern, quirky, sexy, and funny. Also known as Paranormal Fantasy, the books usually feature paranormal characters (werewolves, vampires, wizards, fairies, etc.) in a contemporary setting. City settings are especially popular (ergo the subgenre Urban Fantasy) and crossovers with other genres are hot, most notably with romance and erotica. Expect fast pacing, exciting plots, and hip characters.

Forerunners of Contemporary Fantasy include Charles de Lint and Emma Bull, both of whom are still popular. J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer are phenomena in their own right; other hot authors include L.A. Banks, Patricia Briggs, Rachel Caine, P.C. Cast, MaryJanice Davidson, Christopher Golden, Laurell K. Hamilton, and Sherrilyn Kenyon.

Armstrong, Kelley. Women of the Otherworld series. Bitten. New York: Viking, 2001. (ISBN: 0452286034).
Werewolves, necromancers, and other assorted denizens of the supernatural world drive the stories in Armstrong’s books. Expect a bit of mystery, a lot of romance, and female leads who steal the show. The novels work well on their own or can be read in sequence (ten to date); first in the series is Bitten.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
During fiscal year 2006, the University of Connecticut Libraries spent almost two-thirds of its collection budget on electronic resources, making it essential that students, faculty, and staff can find and access these resources without assistance from librarians. To address ease-of-use issues, a cross-functional task team spent a year assessing the libraries’ database locator and worked to create a more functional system. This iterative process of usability testing and design included three sets of usability tests, several design sessions, and revision of database descriptions. The new design now enables users to successfully and quickly find databases without mediation.

Libraries spend an increasing amount of their collections budgets on online resources: In fiscal year 2005, libraries in the Association of Research Libraries spent more than 35 percent of their collection budget on electronic resources, while public libraries allocated 8.75 percent of their collection budget to electronic materials in fiscal year 2004.¹ The University of Connecticut Libraries (UConn Libraries) spent approximately 62 percent of its collection budget on electronic resources in fiscal year 2006. Libraries now subscribe to dozens, if not hundreds, of research databases, yet patrons usually stick with the research resources they know: For undergraduates, these are Google and Wikipedia; for faculty, these are the few databases they learned while in graduate school. To support their substantial investment in electronic resources, it is imperative libraries make them easily available to patrons. Unfortunately, there is often a disconnect between the existence of libraries’ electronic resources and patrons’ knowledge of them. How can libraries best showcase the electronic databases available to patrons? A task team at the UConn Libraries recently spent a year working to resolve this problem; the result is a usable, functional solution that improves the resource discovery process for librarians and patrons alike.

The Database Locator: Opportunity for Improvement

As at most academic libraries, the UConn Libraries invest heavily in electronic resources in both dollars and staff time. For this reason, it has become more central to the UConn Libraries’ mission to increase awareness and usability of electronic products. In 2000, the UConn Libraries began delivering electronic resources to end users through a database that became known as the Research Database Locator (RDL). Newly acquired databases were added to the resource with elements such as the database name and access URL, a one to two paragraph description of each resource, licensing and access information, and a list of subjects to which the database was relevant. Patrons and librarians both used the RDL to find databases relevant to their research.

However, the database locator did not include a component for managing the administrative aspects of these resources. In early 2005, the UConn Libraries began to develop a more formal electronic resource management (ERM) system based on the Digital Library Federation (DLF) Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI). This new system combined the public resource discovery tool with modules for managing electronic resource elements. This ERM tracks a variety of information, including all of the UConn Libraries’ licensed database resources, most of the journal packages, individual journals when license information is required, and a handful of freely available Web resources such as AGRICOLA and MedlinePlus. Altogether, there are currently more than 450 resources in the ERM.²

As work was completed on the back end of the ERM in 2006, an ERM public interface team (PERM), assembled to discuss the design of the system for end users. The team wanted to look at the ERM from the users’ perspective with the goal of redesigning the Web interface to enable students, faculty, and staff to use the system without assistance from a librarian. The team spent approximately one year on this project and approached the problem from several different angles. Early work began with a literature review of website usability testing in libraries and continued by scouring the Web for examples of library database locators that met usability heuristics and used simple, clear language to describe databases. The team conducted a preliminary evaluation of the ERM from the patron’s perspective, assessing the site on the basis of common Web design and usability principles and evaluating query logs and usage data for the ERM.

Finally, the group began a several-month iterative process of usability testing and design, beginning with a test of the ERM public interface and continuing with an initial redesign. Database descriptions were rewritten to provide key information in a succinct format. The new design was tested with faculty and students, redesigned accordingly, and retested until the team was satisfied that the new system enabled users to successfully and quickly find useful databases without mediation.

Examination of Database Access Tools

There is an abundance of books and articles that describe the value and methods of usability testing. Of note is a guide by Jeffrey Rubin, which discusses the methods and materials needed for testing.³ This practical, start-to-finish guide to testing documents (as well as a primer on the setting, materials, and methods for conducting and analyzing tests) is well known and well referenced. Also well recognized within the field are the strategies of usability expert Jakob Nielsen. In columns on his Alertbox website, Nielsen recommends conducting an initial heuristic evaluation of a website followed by iterative usability testing.⁴ His studies show that testing with five users will reveal 85 percent of usability problems, and he advocates conducting three rounds of tests with five users each so that a site can be continually tested and improved. Darlene Fichter, a librarian whose interests include human–computer interaction, reinforces the value of rapid iterative testing. She recommends using a casual, try-and-see approach as opposed to the often slow-moving “next major release” approach. According to Fichter, the former “drives creativity and new ideas” and gives designers a chance to try changing different elements on the basis of user testing.⁵

A number of libraries have successfully conducted usability testing and redesign of library websites and have documented their endeavors in case studies. Cobus, Dent, and Ondrusek provide a detailed, step-by-step discussion of how usability testing was conducted on the Hunter College Library website and how testing evolved as librarians determined problems with their own testing strategies.⁶ Battleson, Booth, and Weintrop, from the University at Buffalo Library, provide a quality introduction to usability engineering and human– computer interaction in their case study report.⁷ Additionally, Manzari and Trinidad-Christensen write about their noniterative usability study of the Library and Information Science Library website at Long Island University.⁸ Other case studies are published that provide additional frameworks for testing in libraries.⁹

We conducted a wide-ranging examination of other libraries’ database access pages. During our scan, we took note of interface features we found to be effective; however, we were particularly interested in identifying database locator tools that exemplified use of best practices. In defining these best practices, we used as our guide the principles that Jakob Nielsen has defined in his usability research.¹⁰ In addition, when we were examining specifically the use of particular terminology, we were guided by John Kupersmith’s seminal article, “Terms that Library Users Understand.”¹¹ We view the usability research of Nielsen and Kupersmith as comprehensive and complementary; therefore, when we examined other libraries’ tools, we evaluated the search functionality, navigation, and icon design in terms of their learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction. We evaluated the database locator tools’ terminology with the following practices in mind: avoiding words that users often misunderstand, using natural language equivalents, enhancing or explaining confusing terms, providing intermediate pages, providing alternate paths, and consistency. The following are websites we found worthy of note (many of these websites have been redesigned since our initial examination):

• North Carolina State University’s Databases page. What we liked: The streamlined approach. NC State’s “Find Articles” page does not have a keyword search option, but rather offers a subject drop-down menu and a “databases by title” option. The site provides help at the point of need; for example, a “Tips” box is displayed prominently in the upper-right corner of the search screen that says “not sure where to start?” directing users to general databases. This is a good use of providing alternate paths. On the results screen, there are usually only three to five databases displayed; as a result, these results appear “above the fold” so users don’t have to scroll. On these pages, there is another “Tips” box, which contains helpful links on topics, such as how to find newspaper articles, something that often stymies users. All of these features fall in line with Nielsen’s principles.
• University at Buffalo Libraries Resources by Subject page. What we liked: The unique ways to access databases. These include a “Best Basic Resources” page that suggests databases on the basis of eight typical student search needs (e.g., finding statistics). On the databases results screen, the “top resources” on the subject are listed first, using very clear icons that show whether a database is restricted to University at Buffalo or is accessible to the public. On the right side of the screen, the librarian responsible for the subject area is listed prominently, with an e-mail link.
• University of Toronto Libraries homepage. What we liked: The user-friendly language. The “best research resources” pages address a common problem many library users have—making the leap from a specific research topic to a broad subject—by giving a tip beneath the subject drop-down box (“For example, are you writing a paper on ‘panic attacks’? Choose psychology.” This is a good example of using natural language to describe how to search.) The results page employs the wording “best article databases” and includes only three to five results so the user is not overwhelmed and scrolling is kept to a minimum.

After examining other library’s research database locator tools, we selected features that reflected best practices, as we had defined them, for user search interface design. It was clear that avoiding jargon, providing hints, limiting the number of results, and predicting common user problems—such as searching for topical rather than broad subject keywords—were important factors in the design of these exceptional existing database locator tools. We would later take these design elements into consideration when improving the design of our own database locator. But before we could begin to redesign the site, we needed to test the existing interface to determine where users encountered the most difficulty.

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

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Method

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

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

National Technology-Focused Surveys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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