Internet-related work activities and academic government documents librarians' professional relationships

Internet-Related Work Activities and Academic Government Documents Librarians’ Professional Relationships

Ann Roselle*

This article examines specific Internet-related work activities of academic government documents librarians in the United States, and how these activities are affecting academic government documents librarians’ professional relationships. Findings are reported from a nationally distributed mail survey of 226 academic government documents librarians, with an 83% return rate. Descriptive statistics indicate that, as a result of the Internet, closer professional relationships are being formed, especially with library systems/automation units, documents librarians at other institutions, and government representatives. Multivariate analysis results show that participation in Inter- net-related work activities is a key factor in explaining some of the variation among these changing professional relationships. Background characteristics and institutional characteristics are generally not significant. Implications of expanding professional relationships are discussed.

As a result of the U.S. government’s commitment to disseminating information electroni- cally, the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is now moving from paper and microforms distribution to electronic access, including the Internet.’ Efforts to revise Title 44 of the U.S. Code, which stipulates the roles of the FDLP and the responsibilities of the Government Printing Office (GPO), are underway to reflect, among other things, electronic dissemination of government information.2 Duncan M. Aldrich states that due to this “momentous change in the infrastructure through which Americans gain access to federal government information . . . documents librarians could, in fact, more appropriately be

* Direct all correspondence io: Ann Roselle, Reference and Government Documents Librarian, Eastern Wash-

ington UniversiQ Libruries, Mail Stop 84,816 F Sn-eet, Cheney, Washington 99004.2453 <[email protected]>.

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 16, Number 2, pages 149-168. Copyright 0 1999 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

150 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 1 ~/NO. 2/l 999

called information specialists not working at a depository library but at a Federal Informa- tion Access Center.“3

Government information available over the World Wide Web (WWW), along with general Internet-related technologies such as electronic mail and electronic conferencing, is impacting the work activities of documents librarians. 4 Documents librarians have increas- ingly had to adjust their work activities to utilize Internet-related technologies. These work activities include, but are not limited to:

l Selecting depository items via WWW forms; l Utilizing electronic discussion groups to distribute needs and offers of documents

material; l Assisting users, who have diverse levels of computer proficiencies, in locating gov-

ernment information over the Internet; l Providing formal instruction on government WWW sites; l Cataloging government information which is available over the Internet, including

providing hypertext links to WWW sites; and l Creating and maintaining WWW pages which organize government information

available over the Internet in a meaningful way.

Some depository libraries have even developed formal partnerships with GPO to work on projects related to the building, storing, disseminating, and preserving of FDLP electronic resources.5

This article investigates the impacts that work activities related to the WWW and other Internet-related technologies are having on academic government documents librarians. Specifically, this study explores the impact of the WWW and other Internet-related technologies on the professional relationships, both on and off campus, of academic govem- ment documents librarians. The professional relationships in this study include the working relationships between academic government documents librarians and library administration units, instruction units, systems/automation units, reference units, academic departments, government documents librarians at other institutions, and government representatives.

This research focuses on academic government documents librarians rather than govem- ment documents librarians as a whole. The work activities and relationships of academic, public, and special government documents librarians are likely to be somewhat different and, as a result, it can be said that they constitute distinct populations. It was decided, therefore, to focus on one group of documents librarians in order to maximize sample size and to make the survey more relevant to all respondents. The researcher selected academic government documents librarians because they are likely to be working at institutions that have been utilizing Internet-related technologies and the WWW for a significant period of time and in a variety of capacities.

Concentrating on modifications among professional relationships is important because they may affect:

l The resources that academic government documents librarians have to do their job successfully;

Internet-Related Work Activities 151

l The patterns of collaboration and cooperation; l The status of academic government documents librarians within and outside of the

library; and l Career options and career mobility.

The study of professional relationships among academic government documents librarians, thus, has importance for the study of professions more generally. Expanded professional relationships may change the scope of specialized knowledge and information shared by documents librarians, which is the basis on which professions are defined.6 As a result, changes in professional relationships may be the means by which changes in work lead to the changes in specialized knowledge necessary for professions to deal with changes in work. Bridging relationships with other professions and occupations is significant because of the frequent difficulties often involved in achieving cooperation and collaboration. As Leonard S. Cottrell and Eleanor B. Sheldon suggest, professions frequently have difficulties communicating and collaborating because of differences in the perception and conceptualization of facts, particular goals and scales of values, distinctive languages, and distinctive bodies of technology.7 This study will examine to what extent new technology, specifically Internet-related technologies, may be bridging these barriers.

The researcher hypothesizes that academic government documents librarians who are more involved with activities involving the use of the WWW and other Internet-related technologies are more likely to be forming professional relationships with new individuals both on and off campus. In addition, the researcher hypothesizes that, preexisting professional relationships of these documents libraries are being affected, than they otherwise would, because of the Internet.

THE LITERATURE

Technology’s Impact on library Staff

A considerable amount of research has been done on the impact of new technology on the nature of work for various library personnel. One of the most extensive areas of library research related to the occupational effects of new technologies in academic libraries involves the impact of new technologies on support staff. Many of these studies have discovered that new technologies have upgraded job tasks and responsibilities in ways which will affect relationships between librarians and support staff.’ However, Leigh Estabrook, Lisa Mason, and Sara Suelflow tested the relationship between the amount of computer use by support staff, the supervision and evaluation of their work, and the amount of control and discretion they had in the workplace. The researchers distributed questionnaires to 11 academic libraries and conducted focus group interviews. Results found few direct relationships between the amount of computer use and work characteristics.’

The research on the effect of technology within the academic work environment for both librarians and support staff has also focused on the social consequences of technological change in terms of internal relationships. Hilary Dyer, Deborah Fossey, and Kathryn McKee identified components of job design and job satisfaction which were affected by the advent of new technology. The authors explain that changes in staff structures due to

152 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 16/No. 2/1999

new technology often affect communication patterns and patterns of relationships. lo David H. Waters surveyed 70 library employees, both support staff and librarians, at the Univer- sity of Tasmania after the introduction of automated systems within the library. Respon- dents were asked how they felt about their positions in the library, the work they perfom,

and their social relationships in the workplace. Waters’ found general stability in terms of job satisfaction, prestige, and self-esteem. He discovered no significant patterns of change in the social relationships within the work environment, especially for the professional librarians.’ ’ On the other hand, Sara Kiesler, Scott Obrosky, and Felicia Pratto, in a study of the effects of new technology on library employees at Carnegie-Mellon University, discovered secondary consequences due to new technology affecting internal professional relationships.‘2 Their findings, which were based on two surveys of library employees, primarily discovered that:

Differentiating competence happened as some library employees acquired extraordinary skill and competence with computers and the library technology. The competent group gained recognition, prestige and support within the library. This created a new social group category of library technologists that did not fit within the traditional order of academic library professionals and skilled support staff.13

The secondary consequences included an increase in popularity and prestige for “library technologists” and changes in patterns of contact. These changes were occurring, based on new computer technology, in contacts being made between members of library units. For example, the researchers found greater communication across status boundaries, such as greater direct contact between library administrators and support staff. At the same time, they also discovered that librarians were reducing their contact with other units, especially with support staff.

Technology’s Impact on Library Administrators

Since studies have discovered changes in the work environment due to new technology, it came as no surprise that managerial issues associated with these changes attracted attention within the library literature. Margaret Myers provided an extensive annotated bibliography of managerial literature related to the impact of new technology in libraries.t4 Studies brought to the forefront issues associated with the impact of technology on work, including physiological, psychological, communication, and authority changes, all of which are important to library administrators. I5

These changes were not just appearing among support staff and librarians. Lewis D. Car- tee, Jr. explained how automation and new technologies were affecting the position of the academic library manager because, among other things, external organizational relationships had expanded to include: new types of local, regional, and national networks; ven- dors of new technologies; and an increased relationship with campus computing and other university-wide telecommunications units. I6 Joanne R. Euster came to the conclusion that:

Almost all of the change, particularly the technological developments, in our libraries involves changes in relationships, with the work itself, in the organizational relationships around the work, with other individuals, and groups in the organization, and even with our library users.”


Impact of Electronic Communication

One particular type of new technology that has received attention is electronic discussion groups. Much of this literature focused on introducin

8 a particular electronic discussion

group and its possible uses to the library community. More recently, however, research has begun to take a closer look at actual uses of electronic discussion groups and outcomes of these uses.19 Lois Kuyper-Rushing discovered that MLA-L, an electronic discussion group on topics of interest to music librarians, was affecting dimensions of cooperation and networking among music librarians.*’ Similarly, Roxanne Missingham’s analysis of FEM- INIST, the American Library Association’s Feminist Task Force discussion list, and PACS-L, the Public Access Computer Systems discussion list, found that participation in these groups positively affected career opportunities for female librarians through enhanced developments of mentoring and networking.*’ Sharyn J. Ladner and Hope N. Tillman studied uses of the Internet, as both a communication tool and as an information resource, by special librarians. The number one advantage of the Internet, according to the respondents, was as a communication tool. They felt that electronic discussion groups and electronic mail “reduce geographical distance and feelings of isolation from colleagues and instill a sense of collegiality and connectedness with other library professionals.“** The research study reported in this article examines the extent to which use of GovDoc-L, a government information discussion list, and electronic mail are impacting professional relationships of academic government documents librarians.23

In 1994, W. Carlton Brown analyzed traffic over GovDoc-L for one month in order to establish a taxonomy of types of messages. In analyzing messages, he discovered that while requests for personal or organizational contact information, as a taxonomy, con- tained one of the lowest number of postings, the personal/organizational contact taxonomy received the second highest number of postings among responses. 24 Brown concluded that GovDoc-L “may be effectively used as a resource to obtain personal and organizational contact information.“25 Diane K. Kovacs, Kara L. Robinson, and Jeanne Dixon also examined use of GovDoc-L, along with several other electronic discussion groups, in a qualita- tive research study. Findings were obtained from open-ended surveys which were sent out to 57 library and information science-related electronic discussion groups. While the majority of respondents indicated that electronic discussion groups enhanced sources of professional information (journals, conferences, telephone conversations, and postal mail), they did not believe that discussion groups were replacing these sources.26

Research outside the library literature has explored the relationship between electronic discussion groups, along with other forms of computer-mediated-communication (CMC), and the social structure of organizations, the sizes of professional networks, and the levels of scholarly productivity.27 For example, Bradford W. Hesse, Lee S. Sproull, Sara B. Kiesler, and John P. Walsh found in a study of oceanographers that those who were heavier e-mail users also indicated having a larger professional network. However, the direction of causality was not ascertained. In addition, John P. Walsh and Todd Bayma conducted 67 interviews with biologists, chemists, mathematicians, and physicists on their use of CMC. Their findings indicated changes in collaboration patterns in terms of an increase in research group size and in remote collaborations. Results also suggested that CMC may he contributing to an increase in the amount of communication during a research project.** Respondents reported the impression that CMC was “providing new opportunities and

154 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 16/No. 2/l 999

resources to younger scientists and those located at less prominent institutions.“29 Other studies have also begun to explore the extent to which electronic networking can lead to decentralization or reduced status differences in a group.3o

The research in this article builds upon previous research while adding to the realm of library research related to the occupational impacts of new technologies in academic libraries. It does so for several reasons. First, a concentrated study of the impact of new technologies on professional relationships among academic government documents librarians has not yet been examined. Second, an examination of the WWW and other Internet-related technologies as “the new technology” has not been thoroughly conducted in terms of their impact on professional relationships. Third, this study explores the impacts on both internal and external relationships, unlike previous research on the effects of new technologies, which primarily concentrated on one or the other. Fourth, going beyond previous research, this study examines the impact of the use of the Internet as a resource for information, primarily in terms of the WWW, as well as the use of the Internet as a communication device, primarily electronic mail and electronic discussion groups. Examining both areas of use will provide a more complete picture of any impacts that may be occurring.

THE SURVEY AND PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE

As stated, this study examines how participation in work activities involving the Internet impacts on professional relationships of academic government documents librarians. In July 1997, a pre-tested mail survey was sent to 226 academic government documents librarians working at United States depository libraries. The 226 academic government documents librarians represent a simple random sample of one third of all academic government documents librarians as listed in the Federal Depository Library Direcfory.31 One hundred and eighty-seven responded for an 82.7% return rate. As the findings below show, there is considerable variation in a number of key sample characteristics.

The respondents are predominantly female (136, 72.7%), and their ages range from 23- years-old to 67-years-old; the mean age is 46.2 and the median age is 47. The length of time employed as a documents librarian ranges from 6 months to 3 1 years; the mean number of years is 10.3 and the median number of years is 8.0. Approximately half (95,50.8%) of the respondents were hired on a tenure-track.

In terms of institutional characteristics, the respondents consist of documents librarians working at public institutions (116, 62%) as well as private institutions (71, 38%). Total student enrollment ranges from 675 to 60,276; the mean number of students is 9,874 and the median number is 6,321. Forty-four percent of the institutions provide degrees up to and including the Masters, 35.8% of the institutions provide degrees up to and including the Doctorate. The remaining 19.8% of the sample institutions offer a Bachelor’s degree.

Library holdings range from 57,000 to 64,000,OOO volumes; the mean number of volumes is 1,427,964 and the median number is 427,812. The sample selected between 2% and 99% of available U. S. federal item numbers from GPO; the mean selection rate is 38.7% and the median selection rate is 30%. The number of full-time professional librarians working at the libraries represented by the sample ranges from one to 145 persons. The mean is 19 and the median is 11. The number of library support staff ranges from one-and-a-half to 500; the mean number is 38 and the median is17. The majority (167,

Tabl

e 7

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s fo

r W

WW

an

d In

tern

et-R

elat

ed

Wor

k Ac

tiviti

es

2 q s Vd

riabk

s %

Tot

ally

7 %

I M

ostly

%

5om

ewhd

t %

Slig

htly

% N

ot

Resp

onsih

k F

Exten

t res

pons

ible

for

libra

ry’s

WW

W

site

4.3

9.6

28.9

24

.6

32.6

5 6

Exte

m

resp

onsib

le

for

prov

idin

g hy

perte

xt lin

ks

3.2

34.2

Exte

nt

e-m

aii

GPO

Exte

nt

e-m

ail

fede

ral

agen

cies

Exte

nt

e-m

ail

polit

ical

fig

ures

Ex

tent

e-

mai

l W

WW

m

aste

rs

31.0

76

Freq

uentl

y

11.4

3.

8

0 1.7

10.2

%

Seldo

m/N

ever

38.0

5Y

.3

8.5.

6 76

.2

21,.4

% S

omet

imes

50.5

36.8

14

.4

22,l

Mean

2.7

2.3 3.4

2.6

%NO

60.8

85.0

32

.1

Hour

s pe

r we

ek

usin

g G

ovDo

c-L

Hour

s pe

r we

ek

sear

chin

g In

tern

et

for

gove

rnm

ent

site

s Ho

urs

per

week

us

ing

WW

W

to l

ocat

e in

form

atio

n fo

r us

ers

Hour

s pe

r we

ek

usin

g In

tern

et

for

colle

ctio

n m

aint

enan

ce

Mem

ber

of

Inte

rnet

lib

rary

co

mm

ittee

(s)

Mem

ber

of

Inte

rnet

ca

mpu

s co

mm

ittee

(s)

Inclu

de

inst

ruct

ion

on g

over

nmen

t in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

over

th

e In

tern

et

Resp

onsib

le

for

train

ing

libra

rians

on

ac

cess

ing

gove

rnm

ent

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e ov

er

inte

met

Rang

e

o-12

O-

20

o-25

o-

15

% Y

es

39.2

15

.0

67.9

64.7

35

.3

156 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 16/No. 2/1999

89.3%) of the libraries represented by the sample are units separate from the campus computing center. The length of time which the libraries have been connected to the Internet ranges from 3 months to 17 years; the mean number of years is 4.2 and the median number of years is 4.

WORK ACTIVITIES

In order to determine the nature of work for academic government documents librarians, several survey questions were developed that reflect the respondents’ work-related activities with the WWW and other Internet-related technologies. These include:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Developing the library’s WWW site;

Providing hypertext links to government information on the library’s WWW site; Searching the Internet for relevant government sites; Using the WWW to locate information for users; Using the Internet to assist in collection maintenance for the documents collection; Serving on a library committee(s) directly related to the Internet;

Serving on a campus-wide committee(s) related to the Internet; Training other librarians on accessing government information over the Internet; Teaching students about government information available over the Internet during instructional sessions; Utilizing GovDoc-L, an electronic documents discussion group; and Utilizing e-mail. There was little variation in use versus non-use of e-mail by respondents; 98.9% (185) of respondents used e-mail. However, the extent to which respondents used e-mail to contact GPO representatives, other federal agency

Table 2 Factor Analysis of WWW and Internet-Related Work Activities

E-Mail Activities Factor

Variable Factor Loading

E-mailing GPO

E-mailing federal agencies E-mailing political figures E-mailing WWW masters at government web sites

WWW and Listserv Activities Factor

Using GovDoc-L Searching Internet for government WWW sites

Locating information for users using the Internet Using Internet for collection maintenance

Committee and WWW Site Activities Factor Library’s WWW site responsibility

Providing hypertext links Member of Internet library committee(s) Member of Internet campus committee(s)

Instructional Activities Factor Training librarians on accessing gov. info. available over Internet

Including gov. info. over the Internet in student instructional sessions

,780 ,756

,591 ,712

,788 ,823

,643 ,737

,880

.759

.424

,719

,804 ,763

157

representatives, political figures, and WWW masters at government WWW sites did vary and, therefore, will be used during analysis.

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for respondents’ WWW and other Internet-related work activities. In order to simplify the nature of work activities, a factor analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which these activities could be grouped. As reflected in Table 2, four factors were identified based on a varimax rotation of the principal components. These will be referred to as the “E-Mail Activities” factor, the “WWW and Listserv Activities” factor, the “Committee and Web Site Activities” factor, and the “Instructional Activities” factor. These factors will later be used as independent variables in multivariate analysis when testing the hypotheses.

PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Along with their Internet-related work activities, the researcher surveyed respondents on the nature of their professional relationships, which included persons with whom they currently work, the extent of the interaction, perceptions of changes within preexisting relationships, and the development of new professional relationships. The following eight survey questions, which will serve as dependent variables in this study, dealt specifically with changes in professional relationships:

l Do you feel you work more closely with your library administration than you otherwise would because of the Internet?

l Do you feel you work more closely with your instruction unit than you otherwise would because of the Internet?

l Do you feel you work more closely with your systems/automation unit than you otherwise would because of the Internet?

l Do you feel you work more closely with your reference unit than you otherwise would because of the Internet?

l Do you feel you work more closely than you otherwise would with academic departments because government information is available over the Internet?

l Do you feel you have developed closer ties than you otherwise would with govem- ment documents librarians at other institutions as a result of Internet-related technologies (e-mail, listservs, WWW sites)?

l Do you feel you have developed closer ties than you otherwise would with govem- ment representatives as a result of Internet-related technologies?

l In performing tasks related to the Internet (e-mail, listservs, WWW searchingiwrit- ing), have you come into contact with any new persons who have helped you with these tasks?

Table 3 provides descriptive statistics on respondents’ perceptions of changes in their professional relationships and their frequency of contacting individuals. A discussion of these survey results, along with relevant bivariate correlations, will be presented in four subsections. The bivariate relationships will be tested more stringently in the “Testing the Hypotheses” section that follows.

Tabl

e 3

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s fo

r Va

riabl

es

Rel

ated

to

Pr

ofes

sion

al

Rel

atio

nshi

ps

FREQ

UENC

Y O

F

CONT

ACT

(%j

% I

ndita

tmg

Wor

king

Clos

er

with

Un

itilndiv

iduak

Fr

eque

ntly

Som

etim

es

Seldo

m

to

Neve

r

1. L

ibrar

y Ad

min

istra

tion

2. S

yste

ms/

Auto

mat

ion

Unit

3. I

nstru

ctio

n Un

it 4.

Re

fere

nce

Unit

5. A

cade

mic

Depa

rtmen

ts

6.

Docu

men

ts

Libr

aria

ns

at O

ther

In

stitu

tions

7. G

ovcm

men

t Re

pres

enta

tives

:

16.4

56.9

33.1

9.9

47.x

56.6

28.0

15.4

23.0

62.5

25.5

12.0

21.3

85.5

11.8

2.7

28.6

33.3

56.5

10.2

70.1

N.A.

N.

A.

N.A.

41

.6

Polit

ical

Fi

gure

s 1.1

20

.8 78

.1

GPO

7.6

57.3

35.12

Oth

er

Fede

ral

Agen

cies

4.8

42.9

52.2

%

Resp

ondin

g “Y

es”

%

Resp

ondin

g “N

o y

8. M

ade

Cont

act

with

Ne

w Pe

rson

(s)

while

Pe

r- 28

.8 71

.2 fo

rmin

g Ta

sks

Rela

ted

to t

he

Inte

rnet

Internet-/7e/ated Work Activities 159

Relationship with Government Documents Librarians at Other Institutions

An overwhelming majority of respondents (13 1, 70.1%) believed that they were developing closer ties with documents librarians at other institutions because of the Internet. As shown in Table 3, in performing tasks related to the Internet, 53 (28.8%) respondents indicated coming into contact with a new person(s) who helped with these tasks. When those respondents who had made a new contact were asked to identify the position of the new person(s), a documents librarian at another institution was identified by a quarter of the respondents. There was a significant correlation at the .Ol level of .239 between the development of closer ties with documents librarians at other institutions and the establishment of completely new relationships due to the Internet.

In addition, the use of GovDoc-L may be influencing relationships with other document librarians. Fifty-four (29.2%) respondents indicated that they met a documents librarian through GovDoc-L with whom they communicate with on a regular basis. There was a significant positive correlation at the .Ol level of .236 between those respondents who indicated meeting a documents librarian through GovDoc-L and those developing closer ties with documents librarians. In addition, there was a significant correlation at the .05 level of .I67 between the number of hours per week respondents used GovDoc-L and the development of closer ties with other documents librarians.

Relationship with Systems/Automation Unit

A total of 87 (47.8%) respondents felt that, because of the Internet, they were developing closer ties with their systems/automation unit. This was not unexpected because this is the library unit that is generally most engaged in Internet-related work. Some 139 (74.3%) respondents indicated that they could go to the systems/automation librarian for help with the WWW and other Internet related-technologies. In fact, when respondents were asked to identify the individual whom they went to most frequently for Internet help, the systems/ automation librarian was listed by 69 (38.5%) respondents- the most-frequently listed person compared to any other on-campus or off-campus person.

Among the 126 respondents who worked on the development of their library’s WWW site, 53 (43.8%) indicated that they worked with the system/automation librarian during the process. Among the 53 respondents who had made new contacts because of tasks related to the Internet, 9 (16.9%) identified the systems/automation librarian as the new contact.

Relationships with Government Representatives

A total of 77 (41.6%) respondents believed that they were developing closer ties than they otherwise would with government representatives as a result of Internet-related technologies. This is an interesting finding considering that, in general, respondents less frequently contact GPO, other federal agencies, and political figures compared to contacting library units or other documents librarians (Table 3).

One way in which the Internet may be affecting contact with government representatives is in the area of Internet-training workshops. One-hundred-and-six (56.7%) respondents had attended at least one workshop presented by a government representative within the last two years. The number of workshops ranged from 1 to 12, with a median of 1. There was a significant positive correlation at the .Ol level of .365 between the number of training


workshops respondents attended and the belief that they were developing closer ties with government representatives.

When respondents were queried about persons they met through GovDoc-L with whom they communicate on a regular basis, 41 (21. I%) respondents indicated they met a GPO representative and 8 (4.3%) indicated that they met a representative from another govem- ment agency. There were significant positive correlations at the .O 1 level of .3 13 between those respondents who indicated meeting a GPO representative through GovDoc-L and those developing closer ties with government representatives.

In addition, the majority of respondents (154, 89%) perceived e-mail, in terms of a tool for contacting political figures, federal agencies, and GPO, as an easier means of communication than more traditional methods of communication. A total of 106 (61.3%) respondents found e-mail much easier, 48 (27.8%) found it somewhat easier, and 2 (1.1%) considered it actually harder. Seventeen (9.8%) respondents perceived no difference. There was a significant positive correlation at the .05 level of ,182 between perception of e-mail and the development of closer ties with government representatives.

Other Relationships

In performing tasks related to the Internet (e-mail, listservs, and WWW searching/writing), 53 (28.8%) respondents came into contact with a new person(s) who helped with these tasks. As previously discussed, the survey identified a quarter of these new contacts as documents librarians in the United States. The other types of positions identified (fre- quencies in parentheses) include: systems/automation librarian (9), librarian in same state (7), librarian in different state (7), campus computing/college webmaster (6), paraprofes- sional (4), student/teaching assistant (3>, vendor (2), faculty member (2), other campus webmaster (I), information specialist (I), writer (l), person from listserv (I), reference librarian (I), GPO representative (I), documents librarian outside of the United States (I), and associate director of budget and technology at another university (1).

Table 4 provides bivariate correlations that show that those respondents indicating a closer working relationship with one group on campus were more likely to be developing closer working relationships with other campus units. In addition, similar patterns emerge when examining the development of closer ties with qff-campus groups and the establishment of new relationships. Table 5 provides bivariate correlations that show significant correlations between these groups of relationships. This suggests that those respondents

Table 4 Correlations between Variables on Closer Working Relationships in the Library

Work More

Closely With

Administration

Systems Instruction Academic Depts. Reference Unix Note: **p < .ot

Administration

-

.286**

.531**

,144 .523**

Work More Closely With Academic

Systems Instruction Depts.

.2w** .531** .I44 - .353** ,274s”

.353** - .25!3** .274** .258** -

.361** .686** .328**

Reference

Unit

.523**

.361**

.686**

.328** -


Table 5

Correlations between Variables on Off-Campus Relationships and New Relationships

Developing Closer Ties

with Documents Developing tloser Ties Making New

Librarians with Government Reps. Contacts

Developing Closer Ties with Documents Librarians Developing Closer Ties with Government Reps. Making New Contacts Notes: **p < .Ol.

*p < .os.

- .381** .239**

.381** - .178*

.239** .178* -

developing closer ties with other documents librarians are also more likely to be developing closer ties with government representatives, as well as establishing new contacts.

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

The researcher conducted multivariate analysis in order to test the hypotheses that deeper involvement in Internet-related work activities was correlated with changes in preexisting professional relationships and the development of new professional relationships of academic government documents librarians. Table 6 presents results from multiple regres- sions of the four Internet-related work activities factors with each of the eight dependent variables.

As is evident in Table 6, R2s range from .035 to .195, five of which were significant at the .O I level. Out of these five, Internet-related work activities explained the most variation in the development of closer ties with government representatives at 19.5%. The other two cases with a noteworthy level of variation explained included the extent to which respondents felt they were working more closely with academic departments (10.1%) and with their systems/automation unit (10%).

Controlling for the other work activities factors, the E-MAIL ACTIVITIES FACTOR was significant with “Working More Closely with Systems/Automation” at .OOl, with “Closer Ties with Documents Librarians” at .OOl, with “Closer Ties with Government Representatives” at .OOO, and with “Making Contact with New Persons” at .015. This sug-

Table 6 Variation in Dependent Variables Explained by Work Activities Factors

Dependent Variable

Extent of Working More Closely with Library Administration

Extent of Working More Closely with Systems/Automation Unit Extent of Working More Closely with Instruction Unit Extent of Working More Closely with Reference Unit

Extent of Working More Closely with Academic Departments Developing Closer Ties with Documents Librarians at Other Institutions Developing Closer Ties with Government Representatives Making Contact with New Person(s)

R2 Significance

,034 ,215 ,100 ,002

.044 .I12 ,035 ,200 ,101 ,001

,089 ,003 ,195 ,000 ,089 ,003

162 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 1 G/No. 2/1999

gests that respondents who more frequently used e-mail to communicate with government representatives were: (1) more likely to be working closely with the systems/automation unit, (2) developing closer ties with other documents librarians and government representatives, and (3) making contact with new persons while performing tasks related to the Internet. However, because these dependent variables could be affecting e-mail use, the direction of the relationships was unclear.

Controlling for the other work activities factors, WWW AND LISTSERV ACTIVITIES was significant with “Work More Closely with Instruction” at .029, with “Work More Closely with Academic Departments” at .005, with “Closer Ties with Government Repre- sentatives” at .013, and “Making Contact with New Person” at .042. This suggests that respondents spending more working hours with GovDoc-L and the WWW were more likely to be working closer with their instruction unit and with academic departments on campus. Likewise, this suggests that they were more likely to be developing closer ties with government representatives as well as making contact with new persons. Again, the direction of causation was unclear.

Controlling for the other work activities factors, INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES FACTOR was significant with “Work More Closely with Systems/Automation” at .044, with “Work More Closely with Academic Departments” at .012, and with “Making Con- tact with New Persons” at .041. This suggests that respondents more involved with instruction on government information available over the Internet were more likely to be working closer with the systems/automation unit and with academic departments. This also suggests that they were more likely to be making new professional contacts. Again, the direction of causation was unclear. Finally, COMMITTEE AND WEB SITE ACTIVITIES was insig- nificant @=.05), controlling for the other work activities factors, with all of the dependent variables.

Impact of Background Characteristics

The researcher performed chi-square tests to determine whether background characteristics of respondents affected the extent to which they engaged in Internet-related work activities. Gender, Age, and Total Years Served As a Documents Librarian were each examined. None of them were close to significant. The researcher also tested respondents’ opinions about the Internet with Internet-related work activities. The following three survey questions were used during the analysis:

l How confident do you feel working with government information over the Internet? l How much do you think the Internet has improved access to government information

for your primary users? l How enthusiastic are you about the Internet as a vehicle for disseminating govern-

ment information?

Similarly, use of the chi-square test of independence showed respondents’ opinions were not significant.

In order to determine the effect that background characteristics and opinions about the Internet have on professional relationships, independent of Internet-related work activities, the researcher conducted multivariate analysis. Again, respondents’ opinions about the


Table 7 Significant P Values for Chi-Square Analysis of the Association between Institutional

Characteristics and Two Dependent Variables (N=l85, df=4)

Closer Ties with Government Representatives Work More Closely with System$Automation Notes: *Became non-significant in bivatiate correlation.

Enrollment

,035

Holdings * Percent Depositoryf

,016 .012 ,008 ,000 .oal

iBecame non-significant in regression, controlling for work activities

Internet were not significant. Only “Total Years Served as a Documents Librarian” was significant, when controlling for Internet-related work activities, with “Making Contact with New Persons” at .048 and with “Closer Ties with Documents Librarians” at .OOO. This suggests that those respondents who have been working for a longer period of time as documents librarians were less likely to be developing closer ties with other documents librarians as a result of Internet-related technologies, and less likely to be making contact with new persons while performing tasks related to the Internet. This may be because more experienced academic documents librarians already have a well-established network of professionals with whom they can consult.

Impact of Institutional Characteristics

Because no more than 19.5% of the variation in changes among professional relationships of respondents was explained by the work activities factors, further analysis was car- ried out to determine to what extent changes in professional relationships were dependent on institutional characteristics of respondents’ places of employment. Three institutional characteristics (student enrollment, library holdings, and percent depository) were examined. Initially, chi-square tests identified associations with only two of the dependent variables. Table 7 shows the results from the Chi-square tests, which reveal an association between the institutional characteristics and “Closer Ties with Government Representa- tives” and with “Work More Closely with Systems/Automation.”

Initially, this suggests that respondents from larger institutions were more likely to be developing closer ties with government representatives and were working more closely with their systems/automation unit because of the Internet. Furthermore, significant bivariate correlations existed for both ENROLLMENT and PERCENT DEPOSITORY with these variables. ENROLLMENT was correlated at .I93 with government representatives and .230 with systems/automation unit, while PERCENT DEPOSITORY was correlated with these variables at .247 and .296, all of which were significant at the .Ol level. How- ever, LIBRARY HOLDINGS showed no significant bivariate correlation.

Next, multivariate analysis was used to determine if institutional characteristics had an effect on professional relationships independent of respondents’ work activities. In all cases, institutional characteristics dropped out as non-significant. It should also be pointed out that for seven of the eight dependent variables, all of the work activities factors that had significant correlations as previously discussed remained significant. Only the E-MAIL ACTIVITIES factor and the INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES factor became non-significant, when controlling for institutional characteristics, with the dependent variable “Work More Closely with Systems/Automation.”

164 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. lb/No. 211999

DISCUSSION

The results of this survey indicate that there is a perception that changes are occurring among professional relationships of academic government documents librarians. Respon- dents felt that they were working closer than they otherwise would because of the Internet with the following on-campus units: library administration, the systems/automation unit, the instruction unit, the reference unit, and academic departments. The most heavily perceived increased on-campus relationship was with the systems/automation unit. Interest- ingly, those respondents indicating a closer relationship with one group on campus were also more likely to be developing closer relationships with other campus units. In terms of off-campus relationships, respondents felt that they were developing closer ties with documents librarians at other institutions and government representatives. In some instances, new relationships were also being formed. Similar to the tendency with on-campus relationships, those respondents developing closer ties with other documents librarians were more likely to be developing closer ties with government representatives. This tendency to form closer relationships is only minimally correlated to respondents’ background characteristics and institutional characteristics of their places of employment. Modifications in professional relationships are, therefore, occurring for some academic government documents librarians regardless of who they are and where they work.

The researcher had hypothesized that respondents who were more involved with activities involving the use of the WWW and other Internet-related technologies would be more likely to experience modifications in their professional relationships. Results found that the WWW and other Internet-related technologies do explain some of the variation among changing professional relationships. The hypotheses were most supported in terms of: (I) developing closer ties with government representatives, (2) working more closely with academic departments, and (3) working more closely with systems/automation units.

It is interesting to note that when comparing results from the multivariate analysis of Internet-related work activities with each of the dependent variables, the E-MAIL ACTIV- ITIES factor and the WWW/LISTSERV ACTIVITIES factor were most significant. One reason why the WWW/LISTSERV ACTIVITIES factor remained most significant may be because of the GovDoc-L usage component, suggesting that the Internet as a communication device has a stronger correlation with changes in professional relationships than the Internet as a resource of information. That is, using Internet communication devices, such as electronic mail and electronic discussion groups, automatically involves other persons, while work related to the Internet as a resource of information, such as preparing for instruction or writing a WWW page, may be more independent in nature.

The directions of causation between the work-related activities and professional relationships were not completely evident from this survey data. It is possible that changes in relationships may also be affecting patterns of use of Internet-related technologies. This argument is more conceptually plausible in terms of use of e-mail and electronic discussion groups, than other Internet-related activities. In addition, survey results did not provide information on whether certain other professional relationships are being reduced due to the formation of closer professional relationships with certain individuals and new contacts. A follow-up research project, which has been funded by a faculty research grant, will illuminate these relationships. The project will consist of 20 open-ended interviews with survey respondents whose survey results demonstrate significant impacts on their profes-


sional relationships. Interviewees will be asked to describe professional projects on which they worked and in which they collaborated with persons they otherwise would not have because the project included Internet-related technologies. Specifically, questions will be asked on how they got involved in the project, the nature of the project, whom they met through the project, and in what capacity they continued to contact these persons.

The statistical findings in this article suggest that an electronic FDLP, which requires the utilization of an array of Internet-related technologies, may be affecting the academic government documents librarian profession by altering internal and external relationships. These findings raise several important issues. For example, how well will academic government documents librarians manage these new relationships? On campuses, academic government documents librarians may find themselves within altered work environments where they are now required to interact and communicate with units or individuals in new capacities. Will academic government documents librarians have the appropriate technical knowledge and skills to collaborate with these units or individuals? Likewise, will they be able to communicate the goals and objectives of an electronic FDLP to persons with whom they might not have had to interact previously? As suggested previously, communication between different professions may face serious obstacles. Even if these groups are communicating more, to what extent do obstacles persist, preventing successful communication? Conversely, the need to communicate may help overcome these barriers.

In terms of alterations among off-campus professional relationships, there are potential benefits of an expanded network. Thus, this study discovered the development of closer ties with government representatives. Will this, in turn, affect academic government documents’ ability to influence the FDLP? To what extent are formal partnerships between GPO and academic libraries affecting the status of academic government documents librarians at these institutions? Developing a broader range of relationships may directly affect the opportunities that documents librarians have in integrating government information within a wider arena and providing enhanced access to library resources, more generally.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that for some academic government documents librarians, professional relationships both on and off campus are being affected by Internet-related technologies. Changes in work activities are producing some changes in patterns of collaboration and cooperation with persons both on and off the campus. These changes are significant because they are likely to affect the resources, especially knowledge and information, that academic government documents librarians have at their disposal for performing their jobs successfully. In turn, having these resources is likely to affect the position of academic government documents librarians on and off campus. It is not clear from the results of this survey the extent to which new knowledge and information is being shared or produced, and the extent to which barriers to effective communication between different professions and occupations are being overcome. However, increased communication may be achieving these goals to some extent.

As suggested earlier, professions are defined in part by a monopoly on specialized knowledge, which renders then uniquely capable and qualified to provide certain goods and services. Changes in the nature of work done by a profession require concomitant


changes in the body of knowledge held by members of a profession. This study suggests that changes in work as a result of Internet-related technologies are necessitating changes in the specialized body of knowledge required by academic government documents librarians. Moreover, it suggests that academic government documents librarians may be attempting to develop this new knowledge through new patterns of collaboration and cooperation with individuals on and off campus. It is not clear to what extent these changes are affecting other professional academic librarians. However, since the work of other professional academic librarians is also being impacted by Internet-related technologies, it is plausible that these changes are occurring at least to some extent for them as well. How these changes in work activities and the specialized body of knowledge required by the profession will affect the profession is, at this point, unclear. The author recommends that further studies in this area be undertaken.

Acknowledgment: The author is grateful to Dr. Steven J. Neufeld for his invaluable comments on previous versions of this article.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

I, See Peter Hemon & John A. Shuler, “The Depository Library Program: Another Component of the Access

Puzzle Shifting to Electronic Formats,” in Federal Information Policies in the 1990s: Views and Perspec- tives, edited by Peter Hemon. Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996). pp.

259-278; Ad Hoc Committee on the Internet, “Government Information in the Electronic Environment: A GODORT Whitepaper,” Documents to the People 24 (March 1996): 21-39; “Symposium on Federal

Depository Libraries: Challenges and Opportunities for the 21” Century,” Government Information Quar- My, 15 (1998): 1 I-121.

2. See S. 2288, “A bill to provide for the reform and continuing legislative oversight of the production, pro- curement, dissemination, and permanent public access of the Government’s publications, and for other pur- poses,” which was introduced into the U.S. Senate on July 10, 1998.

3. Duncan M. Aldrich, “Depository Libraries, the Internet, and the 21” Century?’ Journal of Governmenr Informafion, 23 (July/August 1996): 389.

4. See Charles R. McClure, William E. Moen, & Joe Ryan, “Academic Libraries and the Impact of Internet/ NREN: Key Issues and Findings,” Proceedings of the Xth American Society for Information Science Annual Meeting, 30 (1993): 32-38; Daniel C. Barkely, “Public Service Guidelines in an Electronic Environ- ment.” Government fnformarion Quarterly, 15 (January 1998): 73-85.

5. For example, University of North Texas provides permanent online access to electronic publications of the

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; the University of Illinois at Chicago maintains per-

manent access to electronic information that is removed from the State Department’s WWW site; and Wichita State University maintains a WWW site to depository collection management tools.

6. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Proj&sionali;ation: A Sociological Analysis (London: University of

California Press, 1977); Andrew Delano Abbott, The System of the Prqfessions (London: University of Cal- ifornia Press, 1988).

7. Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. & Eleanor B. Sheldon, “Relationship Expectations,” in Professionali:arion, edited

by Howard M. Vollmer & Donald L. Mills (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1%6), pp. 232-237.

8. See Marie L. Bednar, “Automation of Cataloging: Effect on Use of Staff, Efficiency, and Service to

Patrons,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14 (July 1988): 145-49; Bronwen Prince & Paul F, Burton,

“Changing Dimensions in Academic Library Structures: The Impact of Information Technology,” British Journal of Academic Librarianship, 3 (1988): 67-81.

9. Leigh Estabrook, Lisa Mason, & Sara Suelflow, “Managing the Work of Support Staff,” Library Trends, 41 (Fall 1992): 23 l-249.

10. Hilary Dyer, Deborah Fossey, & Kathryn McKee, “The Impact of Automated Library Systems on Job

Design and Staffing Structures,” Program, 27 (January 1993): l-16.

11. David H. Waters, “The Effect of New Technology on Prestige, Self-esteem, and Social Relationships of

University Library Employees,” LASIE, 20 (July/August 1989): 16-22.

12. Sara Kiesler, Scott Obrosky, & Felicia Pratto, ‘Automating a University Library: Some Effects on Work and Workers,” in Computing and Change on Campus, edited by Sara Kiesler and Lee Sproull (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 131-49.

13. Ibid., p. 135.

14. Margaret Myers, “Library Automation and Personnel Issues: A Selected Bibliography,” Journal oflibrary

Administration, 13 (1990): 205-214.

15. See Ganga Dakshinamurti, “Automation’s Effect on Library Personnel,” Canadian Library Journal, 42

(December 1985): 343-351; Hella Dockel, “Managing the Impact of Automation on Library Personnel,”

Mousuion (Third Series), 10 (1992): 83-92; John N. Olsgaard, “The Physiological and Managerial Impact of Automation on Libraries,” Library Trends, 37 (Spring 1989): 484-494; Ann Prentice, “Jobs and Changes in the Technological Age,” Journal oflibrary Administrarion, 13 (1990): 47-57; Celina Pasco, “The Impact of an Integrated Information Management System on the Job Characteristics, Satisfaction and Motivation

of Library Staff,“Australian Library Review, 13 (May 1996): 135-146.

16. Lewis D. Cartee, Jr., “Is Library Automation Producing a New Kind of Manager?,” Journal of Library

Adminisrration, 13 (1990): 99-l 15.

17. Joanne R. Euster, “Coping with Changing Times,” Wilson Library Bulletin, 69 (May 1995): 60-6 1.

18. See Martin H. Raish, “Bl-L: An Electronic Discussion Group for IME, ” Medical Reference Services Quar- terly, 11 (Summer 1992): 79-88; Larry R. Oberg, “COLLIB-L: Listservs in Library Communications,” Col-

lege & Research Libraries News, 54 (December 1993): 632-634: Diane K. Kovacs, “GovDoc-L: An Online Intellectual Community of Documents Librarians and Other Individuals Concerned with Access to Govem- ment Information,” Government Publications Review, 17 (September/October 1990): 41 I-420; Steve McK-

inzie & Diane K. Kovacs, “E-Mail Discussion Lists: A New Dimension in Resource Sharing,” Advances in Library Resource Sharing, 2 (1991): 135-145; Birdie MacLennan, “SERIALST and the Global Serials

Community: The Five Year Evolution of an Electronic Discussion Forum,” Serials Review, 22 (Fall 1996):

I-21 : Paul D. Pattwell. “‘An Electronic Bulletin Board for Sharing Government Documents Information.” Journal of Government Informorion, 21 (March/April 1994): 139-147.

19. See Donna E. Cromer & Mary E. Johnson, “The Impact of the Internet on Communication among Refer-

ence Librarians,” Reference Librurian, 41/42 (1994): 139-157; Barbara M. Wildemuth, Lisa Crenshaw, William Jenniches, & J. Christine Harmes, “What’s Everybody Talking About? Message Functions and Topics on Electronic Lists and Newsgroups in Information and Library Science,” Journal ofEducarionfor

Library and fr@rmation Science, 38 (Spring 1997): 137-156; Robert C. Pedersen, “A Quantitative Approach to the Description of Internet Mailing Lists,” The SeriaLy Librarian, 30 (1996): 39-47.

20. Lois Kuyper-Rushing, “Networking and Cooperation within the Music Library Association,” Resource

Sharing and Inform&on Networks, 12 (1996): 3- 16.

21. Roxanne Missingham, “Cyberspace: No Women Need Apply? Librarians and the Internet,” The Australian Lihra~ Journal, 45 (May 1996): 102- 119.

22. Sharyn J. Ladner & Hope N. Tillman, “Using the Internet for Reference,” Online, 17 (January 1993): 45.

23. W. Carlton Brown (see reference no. 22) identifies 168 GovDoc-L subscribers (7%) with .gov or .mi] domain type in 1994. According to Brown, this number dramatically increased from 7 in 1990. Currently, there are 113 GovDoc-L subscribers (5%) with .gov or .mil domain type. The overall number of subscribers

(non-concealed) has slightly dropped from 2,292 in January 1994 to 2,042 in July 1998. The majority of subscribers are from educational/research hosts (.edu/.bitnet).

24. W. Carlton Brown, “Message Traffic Analysis of GOVDOC-L and BUSLIB-L: Two Library-Oriented List-

servs” (unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1994), p, 83.

25. Ibid., p. 13 I.

26. Diane K. Kovacs. Kara L. Robinson, & Jeanne Dixon, “Scholarly E-Conferences on the Academic Net-

works: How Library and Information Science Professionals Use Them,” Journal of the American ~ociey .&jr Information Science, 46 (May 1995): 244253.

27. See Lee S. Sproull & Sara B. Kiesler. Connections: New Wuys of Working in the Networked Organirorion - ~~

(CambrIdge. MA: MIT Press, 1991); Bradford W. Hesse, Lee S. Sproull, Sara B. Kieslcr, & John p. Walsh,



“Returns to Science: Computer Networks in Oceanography,” Communications of the ACM, 36 (August 1993): 90-101.

28. John P. Walsh & Todd Bayma, “The Virtual College: Computer-Mediated Communication and Scientific

Work,” The Information Sociezy, 12 (October/December 1996): 343-363. 29. Ibid., p. 354. 30. See Lee S. Sproull & Sara B. Kiesler, “Reducing Social Context Cues,” Management Science, 32 (Novem-

ber 1986): 157-187; Ronald E. Rice, “Impact of Computer-Mediated Organizational and Interpersonal Communication,” Annual Review of hformation Science and Technology, 15 (1980): 221-249; Vitaly J. Dubrovsky, Sara B. Kiesler, & Beherus N. Sethna, “The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Com-

puter-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups,” Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (1991): 119- 146.

3 1. Federal Depository Library Directory (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Programs Service, 1996).