TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT

This article was downloaded by: [Oregon Health Sciences University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 10:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technical Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORTKalyani Parthasarathy a , Jack Hall b , Frances M. Krempasky c , Rebecca L. Mugridge d ,Cynthia M. Coulter e & Carolyn K. Coates fa University of New Orleans , New Orleans, LAb University of Houston Libraries , Houston, TXc Wayne State University , Detroit, MId Pennsylvania State University Libraries , University Park, PAe University of Northern Iowa , Cedar Falls, IAf Eastern Connecticut State University , Willimantic, CTPublished online: 10 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Kalyani Parthasarathy , Jack Hall , Frances M. Krempasky , Rebecca L. Mugridge , Cynthia M. Coulter& Carolyn K. Coates (2006) TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT, Technical Services Quarterly, 23:4, 73-87, DOI: 10.1300/J124v23n04_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J124v23n04_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J124v23n04_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J124v23n04_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J124v23n04_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT

This columns features reports on what is going on in the rapidlychanging, ever fascinating field of Technical Services. Each quarterlyissue will consist of reports on systems including new developments atthe bibliographic utilities and networks; conference happenings and re-ports from meetings; what’s new in technical services publications; aswell as reports from technical services professionals on their researchand projects. Such reports, announcements, and brief articles for con-sideration for inclusion should be sent to: Barry B. Baker, Editor,“Technical Services Report,” Director of Libraries, University of Cen-tral Florida, P.O. Box 162666, Orlando, Florida 32816-2666.

REPORT OF THE ALCTS CREATIVE IDEAS IN TECHNICALSERVICES DISCUSSION GROUP MEETING. AMERICANLIBRARY ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE, CHICAGO,JUNE 2005

The ALCTS Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Groupmeeting was held at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago on Sunday, June26, 2005. Co-chairs Jack Hall, University of Houston, and KalyaniParthasarathy, University of New Orleans, selected five topics for discus-sion: (1) Ceasing Check-in of Serials; (2) Putting Materials in RemoteStorage; (3) Gathering Collection and Usage Statistics; (4) CollectionsBudget: Allocating and Reallocating Money to Subjects and Other FundAccounts; and (5) Evaluating Technical Services Librarians: RegularEvaluations and Evaluations for Promotion and Tenure.

The topics were announced prior to the meeting through variousInternet lists calling for volunteers to facilitate and record thediscussions. The co-chairs prepared questions for each topic to guidethe discussions.

Technical Services Quarterly, Vol. 23(4) 2006Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/TSQ

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J124v23n04_05 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

The Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group was wellattended in Chicago with 39 people in attendance at the meeting. Fivesmall groups were formed, each given one of the five topics and 30 min-utes discussion time. This was followed by a five minute oral report by adesignated speaker from each table who shared the group’s major dis-cussion points with all participants.

Participants were actively engaged in their discussions and enjoyedsharing information about the selected topics. One criticism that hasbeen noted in the evaluations of past meetings has been the lack of timefor discussion. Beginning with the 2006 ALA Midwinter meeting, theduration for the ALCTS Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discus-sion Group will be increased from one hour to an hour and a half.

Topic No. 1: Ceasing Check-In of Serials

Facilitator: Tricia Jauquet (Purdue University North Central Library,Westville, IN)

Recorder: Brian Falato (University of South Florida, Tampa, FL)

This discussion had a practical component because the largest libraryin the group, the University of South Florida in Tampa, was about toembark on a pilot project that would entail the ceasing of check-ins forperiodicals. The project would include a six-month trial to determinethe effects of not checking-in issues of periodicals and newspapers.

One library had temporarily ceased check-in when a budget crisiscaused massive layoffs, including the check-in staff. This situationlasted for a year and a half until sufficient funds allowed the library tohire individuals to do the task again. It took three years to resolve theproblems caused during the period of no check-in.

The participants in this discussion felt that some of the majorconcerns about not checking in periodicals were the ability to claim amissing issue; binding of issues when the library is not certain if all is-sues of a volume have been received; and keeping track of title changes.Oftentimes, it is the check-in personnel who first notice and report a titlechange. OCLC’s Bibliographic Notification service was suggested as apossible solution to this problem since it reports changes that have beenmade to OCLC bibliographic records, including title updates.

Another participant mentioned that ceasing check-in does not have tobe an all-or-nothing proposition, but could be done for particular classesof materials. For example, ceasing the check-in of newspapers, materials

74 TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

for which only the latest year is retained, or print issues for titles wherethere is also an electronic version available may be possibilities.

It was mentioned that a six-month period may not be long enough tomake a permanent decision on whether to cease periodical check-in ornot. The idea was seen as fairly radical by the discussion group and amajority of the participants in this discussion favored keeping thecheck-in process. The recorder was encouraged to report the findings ofthe no check-in project as a means of further disseminating informationon this important topic.

Topic No. 2: Putting Materials in Remote Storage

Facilitator: Glenda Lammers (OCLC, Lacey, WA)Recorder: Richard Guajardo (University of Houston Libraries)

Participants at this table noted that the two most important reasonsfor placing materials in remote storage were to create more storagespace and to provide a more suitable environment for the conservationof materials.

Some of the suggestions for locating space for a remote storage facil-ity included via a consortium, finding temporary storage space throughresearch sites, and using a vacated branch library. Weight load limitsand shelving needs at the remote site should also be considered, as wellas heating and ventilation capabilities. Often campus officials must beeducated on the importance of this issue, especially from a preservationperspective. Organizing a remote storage project may involve gettingapproval and/or funding at the campus or state government level ifbuilding or retrofitting a new storage site.

The participants also discussed which categories of materials to sendto remote storage. Low-use collections and easily identifiable large setsof material, such as JSTOR print titles, where online access is availableto the patrons, were some suggestions. One library selected theses anddissertations for remote storage and included a plan to scan the high usematerials in this collection.

The group next considered the planning necessary for the physicaltransfer of library materials to a remote storage facility. The preparationfor transfer of materials may include the bar coding of volumes and up-dating location information or other coding in the library catalog forfuture access to the materials.

Contractors may be involved in various aspects of a remote storageproject. A contractor might handle the physical transfer of materials as a

Technical Services Report 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

one-time project. One library contracted with a commercial provider forremote storage and retrieval of library materials. If the remote storagesite is a shared facility, generally each library retains ownership of itsown materials, but sharing of materials is a fundamental part of thestorage site agreement. Arrangements for courier service need to beincluded in the planning of a remote storage facility.

Library staff and patrons are usually informed about remote storageof materials through the library catalog or library Web site. This re-quires location information to be updated in the catalog. One library in-cluded links to a remote storage information page from each catalogrecord of materials sent to the remote storage site.

A variety of retrieval options in use at various libraries were alsodiscussed. Most requests for remote storage materials were made onlineby the patrons. The range of times required to fill requests and retrievematerials varied from 2 to 72 hours.

Topic No. 3: Gathering Collection and Usage Statistics

Facilitator: Mary Ann Mercante (Maryville University Library, St.Louis, MO)

Recorder: Mary Lang (Augustana College, Rock Island, IL)

All participants in this discussion group reported that gatheringcollection and usage statistics is part of their job responsibilities. Col-lection statistics are used each fiscal year for internal annual reports aswell as for external reports to accreditation agencies such as ACRL andthe Academic Library Survey (formerly IPEDS).

Usage statistics for print, microform, and electronic journals anddatabases are tracked during the year to determine if current print jour-nal subscriptions should be canceled and/or possibly replaced with theelectronic version of the journal. Gathering interlibrary loan use statis-tics by subject area is useful for collection development purposes. Onelibrary is planning to run reports to track usage of current acquisitionsand the collection as a whole to determine if subject funds need to bereallocated and/or shifted.

Integrated library system reports appear to be the major resource forstatistics gathering, though several participants still used hash marks onpaper. Vendor and publisher usage statistics are also used. The groupdiscussed the importance of “planting data while working” and theimportance of consistency in data entry. At one library, part of the year-end statistics gathering includes reviewing the process and “tweaking”


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

where the information is entered, used, and recorded in the local systemto make the process more efficient each year.

The group agreed that gathering statistics on serials is the most prob-lematic because of the wide variation in terminology used by local andaccrediting institutions. Sometimes one is asked for the number of allsubscriptions; other times only for paid subscriptions. In some cases atitle is counted once regardless of how many formats one subscribes to(paper, microform, electronic); in other cases each format is counted asa separate subscription. Some reports request the number of titles a li-brary owns in an aggregator’s database; other reports request the countsfor only the titles one pays for on a title-by-title basis.

Discussion ended with the following questions and observations:how do we track statistics consistently? How are other colleges and uni-versities tracking and reporting statistics? Is there a standard? Couldthere be more consistency and better definitions for the external reportsfrom accreditation agencies? It was felt that these agencies need to up-date their questions to reflect electronic resources in library collections.

Topic No. 4: Collections Budget: Allocating and ReallocatingMoney to Subjects and Other Fund Accounts

Facilitator: Beth Bogdanski (ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI)Recorder: Carla Davis Cunningham (Temple University, Philadelphia,

PA)There were participants from several academic libraries, a law library,

and a public library at the table. In addressing how collections budgetdecisions are made in their libraries, the answers varied depending oninstitution. For example, the public library’s director gives the librariana lump sum; the law library allocates by format and on the basis of for-eign and domestic materials (a peculiarity of the state’s budgeting stan-dards), and by using previous years’ percentages to allocate funds oncethey know the base budget figures.

Responses varied among the academic libraries. Some budgets arecategorized as either fixed, which are not subject based, or discretion-ary, which are subject based. Discretionary budgets change when newprograms are initiated in the university, starting with a lump sum withmonies then allocated the following year into the annual budget. Insome libraries a portion of the funds are specifically designated at thebeginning of the year, with some money being reserved to spend in a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

discretionary way. The money is distributed by format and subject orbased on FTE or expenditures in previous years.

Since the line between formats like serials and electronic resources isblurring, that may lead to changes in the future relating to format basedallocations. In the law library, materials that are not permanently re-tained (like some news magazines) come out of the operating budgetinstead of materials funds. In one academic library, the budget was pre-viously under the control of academic departments rather than the li-brary, but that has recently changed with the library making the decisionusing FTE and number of faculty to reallocate funds because ofinterdisciplinary programs. At another academic library the budget isunder library control, and allocated by format, with consideration forcontinuing obligations and consortia fees.

A smaller academic library does not have subject librarians that workfull-time with departments, but has liaisons to some. A larger library hasreference librarians assigned to academic departments, and faculty re-quests for purchases must come through them. Faculty members haveexpectations that their research will be supported, but not all activelyrequest specific titles. Reference materials are usually a separate fund,because they are interdisciplinary in subject.

When faced with reviewing budget allocations, academic librarieslook at data such as FTE and credit hours by department. Selectors forsubject areas should keep themselves informed about course offeringsand new programs. In the academic libraries, most allocations are basedon a legacy of previous allocations in support of the curriculum. A par-ticipant asked whether usage should be considered in making allocationdecisions. For example, if a discipline isn’t using the material that ispurchased for it, why keep supporting it? One could perform statisticalanalyses by fund code and circulation statistics using reports from theILS. Another possible consideration would be the importance of mono-graphic literature to the discipline. For example, there could be a verydifferent allocation picture among monographs and serials in thehumanities versus the sciences.

Topic No. 5: Evaluating Technical Services Librarians: RegularEvaluations and Evaluations for Promotion and Tenure

Facilitator: Janet Swan Hill (University of Colorado Libraries, Boulder,CO)

Recorder: Janette Griffin (University of New Orleans, New Orleans,LA)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

The six participants at this table were asked to share informationabout librarian status and/or tenure at their institutions. The participantsincluded four ARL libraries, one mid-size university and one smallercollege. Understandably, participants were working under differentpromotion and tenure systems. Five institutions reported having facultystatus and of these five, three had similar tenure-track programs whichincluded evaluating committees and/or peer evaluation for tenure.

In answer to the question “Are the same people doing evaluation forcompensation as for job status/promotion and rank?” most participants in-dicated that there are two separate processes for evaluating for yearly com-pensation/merit and for promotion and/or tenure. One institution reportedautomatic annual raises and selected merit increases based on evaluation.Two reported annual unit/supervisory evaluations for compensation and/ormerit, but not everyone has supervisory driven evaluations.

In the separate process for promotion and tenure, three institutionsstated that a standing body assists in evaluation and two noted that thereis an informal or dress-rehearsal evaluation and a formal six-year evalu-ation which includes external reviewers. Thus, most reported that therewere indeed two systems, with supervisors making compensation eval-uations and peers (or peers plus external reviewers) providing theevaluation for promotion and tenure.

As an additional note of interest, several mentioned that technical ser-vices librarians seem to be judged for tenure on criteria more appropriatefor reference librarians whose dossiers include teaching documentation.A better and fairer way of evaluating technical services librarians needs tobe found. All participants agreed that the 30-minute discussion time wasbarely enough to scratch the surface of this topic and carried on a livelydiscussion even after presenting the oral report to the whole group.

Kalyani ParthasarathyUniversity of New Orleans

New Orleans, LA

Jack HallUniversity of Houston Libraries

Houston, TX

edited by Frances M. KrempaskyWayne State University

Detroit, MI


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

LIBRARIANS, LEARNING AND CREATIVITY: A BOUNDARY-BREAKING PERSPECTIVE. A REPORT OF THE ALCTSPRESIDENT’S PROGRAM. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIA-TION ANNUAL CONFERENCE, CHICAGO, JUNE 2005

Karen Calhoun, Associate University Librarian for Technical Servicesat Cornell University, opened the program by describing her goal,which was to provide an “insider’s view” on learning and creativity.She began her discussion with a description of the boundaries that sur-round libraries, which are perceived as either a warehouse or as a centerof experts and tools. Instead of those conceptions of libraries, Calhounsuggested that they could be viewed as rivers that connect and nourishrather than serve as boundaries. However, because of our service mod-els and the fragmentation of our resources into separate databases, weare more often behind some kind of barrier. Calhoun referred to a quoteabout librarianship from an 1890 Library Journal article that stated:“There are few professions which contribute so much to the saving oftime and to the progress of science.” She mentioned three trends that weare observing: (1) technology is driving research, teaching, and learn-ing; (2) there is an increase in disintermediation (users see themselvesas self-sufficient); and (3) there is an accelerating shift in informationseekers’ preferences for Web-based information and multimedia.Calhoun questioned how we can continue to contribute in this environ-ment and described a model for moving forward that is based on thework of Chun Wei Choo, a professor of Information Studies at the Uni-versity of Toronto. This model includes collaboration between domainexperts, who create information; information experts, who organize in-formation; and IT experts. Calhoun described how Cornell UniversityLibrary’s Faculty Grants for Digital Library Collections exemplifiesthis model, with the faculty member creating content through collabora-tion with librarians and IT staff.

Calhoun stated that in order to make our collections and servicesmore visible, librarians must be where the users are, must be where theusers’ eyes are (through interconnections, interoperability, and infor-mation delivery), and make partnerships. She described mindsets as an-other type of boundary and reminded us that mindsets are neither goodnor bad, are essential for making sense of the world, contain hidden as-sumptions, and are not absolute truths. However, some get stuck inthem and we need to challenge them. It is important to nurture creativityand Calhoun listed some of the friends and foes of creativity. Friendsinclude a spirit of inquisitiveness, openness, the ability to question


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

assumptions, and flexibility. Foes include cynicism, fear, anger, and anunwillingness to question mindsets. Calhoun mentioned that vision isnecessary but not sufficient; we need creative leadership to move for-ward. We should foster teamwork and innovation, manage transitions,but still honor the past. She quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “Whenyou get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on,” making thepoint that librarians need perseverance and courage. We must build a vi-sion of a new kind of library that actively collaborates in learning andcreativity; make boundaries between us and our users more porous;lower barriers to discovery and use; leverage skills of librarians to ad-vance knowledge; and integrate librarians into community social andinformational processes. Steps to achieve this are to increase visibility,examine mindsets, nurture creativity and innovation, and invest in peo-ple. Her presentation is available at http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/1490.

Dr. Michael Hawley, recipient of the Jack Kilby Award for Innova-tion in Science and Director of Special Projects at MIT, described howhe came to create the largest book ever published–Bhutan: A Visual Od-yssey Across the Last Himalayan Kingdom. Hawley entertained the au-dience by describing his five expeditions to Bhutan where he and hiscompanions took over 80,000 photographs. He recruited children andothers throughout his travels to tour with him and take photographs us-ing equipment that he supplied. Hawley described some of the manydifficulties with photographic equipment, film, labels, and other detailsthat they encountered. Bhutan has approximately 800,000 people, with20 different languages, and borders Nepal, India, and Bangladesh. Thephotographs that they took are all GPS-encoded so they can tell exactlywhen and where they were taken. Many of the pictures are available athttp://ark.media.mit.edu/. Hawley ended his presentation with a sneakpreview of the book, which measures five by seven feet and weighs 133pounds.

Overall this was an exciting and thoughtful program that illustratedhow librarians can foster learning and creativity, and how informationtechnology can enhance and support it.

Rebecca L. MugridgePennsylvania State University Libraries

University Park, PA


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

MANAGING ACROSS THE GENERATIONS: TRADITIONAL-ISTS TO MILLENNIALS. A REPORT ON THE ALCTSLEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PROGRAM.AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFER-ENCE, CHICAGO, JUNE 2005

The ALCTS Leadership Development Committee had a full houseattending their panel discussion of “Managing across the Generations:Traditionalists to Millennials” in the McCormick Convention Center onSunday, June 26 in Chicago. As a follow-up to their successful 2002ALA program in Toronto on multi-generational workplaces, this pro-gram focused solely on the library workplace. Dina Giambi, Chair ofthe ALCTS Leadership Development Committee and Program Co-Chair with Betsy Simpson, opened the session with an introduction tothe topic and general comments.

Giambi noted that the professional literature typically identifies fourdifferent generations currently sharing the same workplace. Each gen-eration seems to have different goals for their careers and different out-looks on the importance of jobs in their lives. In any organization wheremembers of multiple generations work together, the differences be-tween each can sometimes lead to misunderstanding, confusion, resent-ment, and, in the worst case, conflict.

The generation known as Traditionalists, born between 1900 and1945, focuses on building a legacy. They typically expect to build a life-time career with one employer, or plan on working in a single field, andhope to make a lasting contribution in that job.

Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, have the goal ofbuilding a stellar career. At this time in their lives with the career clockticking, they find themselves questioning where they have been andwhere they will go and if they’ve attained their stellar career.

Gen Xers, born between 1965 and 1980, focus on building a portablecareer. Their experience with the job market has them looking for careersecurity rather than job security. They want to build a portfolio of skillsand experiences they can take with them.

Finally, Millennials, born after 1981, focus on parallel careers. Thisgeneration has grown up multi-tasking and sees nothing wrong withpursuing more than one line of work at a time.

Giambi said that not all people feel they can identify with a singlegeneration solely by their birth date. Many people become what the lit-erature calls “cuspers,” or persons who cross more than one generationeither because of their year of birth or their outlook.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

To address the topic of “Managing Across the Generations: Tradi-tionalists to Millennials,” the ALCTS Leadership DevelopmentCommittee invited a representative of each of the four generations com-monly recognized as part of today’s multi-generational working societyto serve on a panel. The committee asked each speaker to make somegeneral remarks and then to participate in a discussion of a scenario de-veloped by the committee that would hopefully stimulate discussion ofthe commonly held differences between the generations in the work-place and how best to work with them.

Giambi asked each speaker to answer three questions before theirgeneral remarks. First, what did they consider their favorite book? Sec-ond, what world event do they most remember? And third, why did theybecome a librarian?

Hannah Kwon, a graduate student in the school of Communication,Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers, the State University ofNew Jersey, served as the representative of the Millennial generation.Kwon, who said she was looking for a job and currently volunteers atthe Newark Public Library, said she actually considered herself more ofa cusper between the Millennials and the Gen Xers. She identified JudyBlume’s Are You There, God–It’s Me, Margaret as her favorite bookand most remembers the Los Angeles riots and Rodney King. She be-came a librarian because it gave her the opportunity to put theory intopractice with underserved populations.

Kwon’s remarks on Millennials characterized them as “multitaskers”with an emphasis on visual learning and who began their careers duringa period of economic boom. As librarians, they prize technology, diver-sity, and community. For Millennials, technology doesn’t representanything new, but instead has become part of the typical environment.Likewise, as members of one of the most diverse generations inAmerica, diversity has become a natural part of their daily lives. Kwonsees that libraries must change to accommodate that diversity.Millennials seek becoming part of communities in part because of theisolation that comes with an increased use of technology. In Kwon’sopinion, libraries can create a sense of community in which the patrons,as well as the librarians, come from all four generations.

Kwon noted that some Millennials have found themselves movinginto supervisory positions with little, if any, experience. They can feelinsecure and overwhelmed. Kwon had several suggestions to aid in thissituation, e.g., matching the strengths of Millennials with those staffwith weaknesses so they can teach each other. She also suggested ask-ing more senior staff to share their knowledge with others and that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Millennials should take advantage of the information known, such aslibrary history. Such ideas, Kwon posited, might make a rigid hierarchyless so and flatten an organization on an informal basis. Kwon also sawthe conflict that might arise in intergenerational situations as positiveevidence of staff engagement and interest.

Dena Heilik, the Gen Xer representative, works as a Librarian/GenreSpecialist at the Free Library of Philadelphia. She identified I Want toGo Home by Gordon Korman and Monica Hughes as her favorite bookand authors and WKRP in Cincinnati as her favorite television show.The Gulf War and the Quebec Referendum in 1995 were the two worldevents she most remembered. Heilik said she became a librarian largelybecause of the influence of her librarian parents, specifically remember-ing a dinner party at which she understood everything said by all thelibrarian guests.

Heilik cautioned the audience not to expect Gen Xers to stay at thesame job for their entire career. She saw Gen Xers as committed to askill set rather than an institution. She did not believe in job security, butinstead in a good resume. In her opinion, self-fulfillment seemed moreimportant than money with positive experience as an evaluation of hersuccess. She also sees personal fulfillment as less important than enjoy-ing herself. Heilik had less trust in the hierarchy and said she wouldargue with the hierarchy because she wants to understand the “why” be-hind a decision before she would buy into it or trust it. She also charac-terized Gen Xers as more loyal to an individual than to an institution,preferring team work and consensus over working alone, and dislikingmicromanagement. She advised the audience that Gen Xers expect reg-ular, specific, and constructive feedback and acknowledgment all thetime instead of annual evaluations. She recognized that she could getimpatient with a slow decision-making process. Within a library shesaid she had a natural affinity toward members of her own generation,but she also felt comfortable working with others regardless of theirage, who shared some of the same affinities and characteristics. Heilikconfessed to some feelings of bitterness over systems that would lay offemployees based on seniority instead of performance as libraries needyounger workers. For her, the incentive of a pension plan that getsvested in ten years has no appeal–she will have moved on by then.

Baby Boomer Mary Chute presently works as Deputy Director of theInstitute for Museum and Library Services. She named To Kill a Mock-ingbird by Harper Lee as her favorite book and Perry Mason and the DickVan Dyke shows as her favorite television programs. She very clearly re-members the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Neil Armstrong’s


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

walk on the moon. She said she became a librarian because she liked tosolve problems and puzzles.

Chute sees it as an issue of trust and openness of attitude. She seesherself willing to try different approaches and building on trust and re-spect. She tries to make those institutions built by Traditionalists moreopen and less bureaucratic. She characterizes the greatest Boomer traitas job and institutional loyalty. She noted that the user group in librariescontinually change. Libraries must remain equally fluid. Librariansmust remain in touch with their customer groups.

Carol R. Kem, Association Librarian for Collection Management atthe University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries represented theTraditionalist generation. She identified the Forsythe Saga by JohnGalsworthy as one of her favorite books and Upstairs, Downstairs as afavorite television show. She listed the Little Rock lunch counter sit-ins,the Tet Offensive, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the KentState shootings as her most vivid memories of world events. She be-came a librarian because a colleague told her that she had the time, she’dfind it useful, and she could get a scholarship.

Kem challenged any automatic characterization of herself as a “typ-ical” Traditionalist based solely on her birth date and identified severalpersonal characteristics as evidence, including optimism, curiosity, and awillingness to learn. Kem found in her own preparation for the panel dis-cussion that the Traditionalists actually included several sub-generations,including the Depression Era (1910-1920), the Veterans (1922-1943),the Silent Generation (1930-1945), and the post-war generation (1945-).She noted that members of her generation included Jane Fonda, GloriaSteinheim, and Martin Luther King. Kem’s generation came at the sametime as the woman’s movement and had to work past long- held expec-tations that women didn’t do certain jobs. Kem suggested that she sawmore similarities between her Silent Generation and the Gen Xers asboth have large cohorts behind them. Both can build on that similarity.Like librarian Gen Xers, she also doesn’t like the top down approachand likes teams, preferring to let people do what they like to do best.However, she knows that as chair or leader, a responsibility exists tomake sure that the work gets done.

Unfortunately, time did not permit the discussion of the scenario asplanned, so Giambi asked for audience questions instead. One audiencemember described a situation that had happened at her library for thepanelists to discuss. One day, the e-mail system went down and peopleresponded very differently to that situation. The Boomers waited untile-mail service returned, while the Gen Xers said they couldn’t work


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

until it returned and wanted to go home. She asked how the panelistswould have responded in this situation. The panelists’ responses echoedwhat had actually happened. Chute and Kem said they’d work on otherthings until e-mail returned, but Heilik said she’d use vacation and gohome.

To the question of how technology governed the generations, Tradi-tionalist Kem felt that the older generations could adapt better than theyounger because they’d had experience of working without technology.Gen Xer Heilik saw technology as a form of convenience and that itenhanced instant gratification. Millennial Kwon saw members of hergeneration as overscheduled and using technology to become moreefficient and productive.

The panelists agreed that supervisors in organizations with multiplegenerations had to develop different communication strategies to help thevarious generations that might work in the same organization. Theyshould adapt to each person and allow for all variations, not just onemethod.

Cynthia M. CoulterUniversity of Northern Iowa

Cedar Falls, IA

REPORT OF THE ALCTS SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONSDISCUSSION GROUP MEETING. AMERICAN LIBRARYASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE, CHICAGO, JUNE2005

The Scholarly Communications discussion group met Mondaymorning, June 27, and had the good fortune to host two guest discussionleaders, Ray English, Director of Libraries, at Oberlin College andChair of ACRL’s Scholarly Communications Committee, and KarenWilliams, Associate University Librarian for Academic Programs at theUniversity of Minnesota, also a member of the committee and one of theprincipal authors of ACRL’s Scholarly Communications Toolkit. WithMr. English and Ms. Williams at the helm we held an informal discus-sion on recent developments and ongoing challenges to our systems ofscholarly publishing and library acquisitions.

English reported on ACRL’s recent efforts on advocacy and educa-tion, focusing on new (and perhaps somewhat untraditional) alliancesthat are helping to educate the public and political leaders on the waysthat changing technologies and corporate structures affect scholarly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

communications. The issue has moved from being one that merely in-terests academics to one that dovetails with calls for taxpayer rights andgovernment accountability. One manifestation of these concerns is theAlliance for Taxpayer Access (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org), whichcoordinates efforts to create a system in which the results of tax-payer-funded research are published in a free and accessible manner.Another is a congressional bill, signed into law last year that asks theNational Library of Medicine to create a system to make the results ofall National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research publicly avail-able via its digital library, PubMed Central. The NIH originally plannedto make all such research available six-months after publication in acommercial journal. After being pressured by the publishers, the em-bargo period was moved back to twelve months, but this neverthelessrepresents a step forward.

Williams introduced ACRL’s Scholarly Communications Toolkit(available at http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm) and discussed its impetusand the different audiences that it intended to reach. The toolkit is de-signed to present scholarly communications issues to three specific au-diences: librarians, academic administrators, and faculty. It organizes“key issues,” “impact,” and “strategies for change” in a succinct table,organized to highlight the differing concerns of these three higher edu-cation and research constituencies. Author control, for example, mayhave a stronger resonance for researchers and other authors than woulddifficulties in balancing a library’s serials budget and is thus highlightedon the faculty page. The Toolkit also provides useful links to further dis-cussions and background documents, making it a distinctly useful toolfor education and advocacy.

Other discussion group participants related the impact that scholarlycommunications issues have had their own libraries–inordinately risingserials prices still plague us–or described their own efforts at advocacyand education on their own campuses. The issues are becoming betterknown as librarians and other activists work to educate their colleagues,but changes in scholarly communications still remain a challenge to thesolvency and intellectual integrity of our scholarly institutions.

Carolyn K. CoatesEastern Connecticut State University

Willimantic, CT


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:28

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT