ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 350 / C&RL News ment grants, curriculum improvement grants, or faculty research grants and may have some size or subject limitations. Faculty and/or administration committees commonly review the proposals and make recommendations, so if you are the first li­ brarian to submit a proposal on your campus ex­ pect suspicion and maybe questions. However, al­ ways remember, “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” and submit your proposal anyway. If you have no experience with proposal writing, the above mentioned offices, especially the OIR/OIS, will provide tips for success. Another local resource is the office which acts as the clearinghouse for funding proposals to outside agencies. The staff of this office will suggest the best bets for funding and may well provide practi­ A new C&RL News column By Sharon Rogers ACRL Vice-President/President-Elect The Research Forum originating in this issue of C irR L News will be an occasional feature of ACRL’s professional communication for the next year or so. Its inception arises from several discus­ sions and speculations about the role played in scholarly communication of the contributed pa­ pers at national conferences, the quality and vari­ ety of methodologies and viewpoints selected by authors of contributed papers, and, therefore, the quality and variety of scholarly communication in academic librarianship. In the Research Forum, ACRL members will be asked to describe the conceptualization and devel­ opment of their research projects, to explain the sources of research ideas, to suggest ways of locat­ ing methodological and financial support on local campuses and within ALA. We also want to de­ scribe model programs that libraries have devel­ cal advice and guidance in writing the proposal. This valuable assistance should not be ignored. Many faculty have become adept at grantsman- ship and the full exploitation of the services avail­ able on the local campus. There is no reason why librarians cannot do the same. Our experiences show that there is much assistance and funding available for the asking, if one has a good research proposal. We believe similar services are available elsewhere, thus negating the notion held by many of our colleagues that they cannot do research. Our individual experiences also prove that the often heard lament that “they” will not share the re­ sources with librarians is just not true. They will, and happily. ■ ■ oped to assist librarians in conducting research. The stimulus for some of the current discussion of research in academic librarianship was the ACRL National Conference Wrap-Up Session pre­ sentation of a comparison of the first, second and third national conferences within a common con­ ceptual framework. The conceptual framework for categorizing the production of scholarly inquiry was developed by Robert J. Silverman1. The Silver­ man model, briefly, is based upon the interaction of previous works by Mitroff and Kilmann2 and Robert J. Silverman, “Journal Manuscripts in Higher Education: A Framework,” Review o f Higher Education 5, no.4 (1982): 181-96. I. Mitroff and R. Kilmann, M ethodological Ap­ proaches to Social Science (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1978). RESEARCH FORUM July /August 1984 / 351 Analytic Conceptual Conceptual Particular Science Theory Humanism Humanism Semantic Scientist Informer Advocate Biographer Syntactical Methodologist Definer Analyst Artist Cultural Reviewer Boundary Consultant Anthropologist Agent Expressive Founder Creator Advisor Diarist Berlyne3 in which a classification of the researchers and their orientations is merged w ith a schema th at is represented in creative products. T he overall fram ew ork and definitions for each cell appear above, along w ith some examples of papers from ACRL national conferences. Scientist (analytic science/semantic): The w riter as “scientist” attem pts to draw relationships be­ tween or among a num ber of variables. The re­ search is usually original. “ARL Academic L ibrary Leaders of the 1980’s: Men and W omen of the Ex­ ecutive Suite” by Betty Jo Irvine reviews the varia­ ble of sex as it pertains to the positions held in the ARL. M ethodologist (analytic science/syntactical): The author as a “methodologist” develops an an a­ lytical model to discuss problems in the field. The emphasis is on original model construction. Reviewer (analytic science/culture): The author as “reviewer” establishes the value of the literature and discusses its level of development. Founder (analytic science/expressive): The au­ thor as “founder” of a specific school of thought ex­ pands upon the value of the theory or model and extends it into new settings. Inform er (conceptual theory/sem antic): The au­ thor as “inform er” transfers a theory from one field to another, changing its focus, if necessary, to fit into the field of librarianship. “M arketing Aca­ demic L ibrary Services” by Patricia Senn Breivik discusses the application of m arketing techniques b o rro w ed from business to th e concerns of li­ braries. D efiner (conceptual theory/syntactical): The author as “definer” reviews an established pattern for thinking about an area using various organizing 3 D. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology (New York: A ppleton-C entury-C rofts, 1971); and D. Berlyne, ed., Studies in the N ew Experimental Aes­ thetics: Steps toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation (New York: John Wiley, 1974). devices. An exploration, more than an advance­ m ent of a position, is presented. Boundary Agent (conceptual theory/cultural): The au th o r as “ boundary agent” treats existing bodies of knowledge and focuses on their utility for explaining or understanding phenom ena in librari­ anship. “A Critical Nexus: Academic L ibrary Val­ ues and Technology” by Thomas T. Surprenant ex­ plores the future of libraries. C reator (conceptual theory/expressive): The au­ thor as “creator” develops a theory, often grounded in his/her own experience. A dvocate (conceptual h u m anism /sem antic): The au th o r as “ advocate” presents inform ation a b o u t an im p o rta n t a n d , u su ally , new topic. He/she m ay also provide some direction th a t the r e a d e r sh o u ld fo llo w . “ H ow M uch R esearch W ould a Research L ibrarian Do If a Research Li­ brarian Could Do Research” by Daniel Traister champions the cause of providing the necessary re­ wards to librarians to encourage their involvement in research. A nalyst (conceptual hu m an ism /sy n tactical): The author as “analyst” discusses issues in their complexity, usually involving some p rim ary re­ search such as a survey instrum ent and including a discussion of the literature and the background of the problem. “C om puter D ata Base Use at the Ref­ erence Desk” by G ertrude E. Forem an and Celia S. Ellingson is an example of this type. Share your experiences If you have any suggestions on research methodology, tips on resources, or would just like to share your experiences w ith others in the Research F orum —w rite it all down and send it to the E d itor, College & Research Libraries News, 50 E. H uron St., Chicago, IL 60611- 2795. Contributions should be short (800 words or less), informal, and informative. 352 / C&RL News C onsultant (conceptual hum anism /cultural): The author as “consultant” provides ideas for inter­ vention to improve the effectiveness of a system. Usually examples of application are included. “Network Design Principles for a National Periodi­ cal System” by Robert W. Burns, Jr. describes the major design principles and rationale for a national periodicals system. Advisor (conceptualhum anism /expressive): The author as “advisor” shares ways in which he/she has learned to deal w ith a problem. Emphasis is on the personal experience. Biographer (particular hum anism /sem antic): The author as “biographer” describes a system, of­ ten presenting “snapshots” at some or all stages of its development. “Applying Technology at the Evergreen State College Library, 1970-1980” by Pat M atheny-W hite, Sarah Pedersen and George Rickerson describes the system in use at one partic­ ular college. Artist (particular humanism/syntactical): The author as “artist” writes in an insightful m anner to highlight a system and provide an understanding of patterns of activity th at may not be very readily visible. The author asks questions in order to dis­ cover order in a system. Anthropologist (particular humanism/cultural): The author as “anthropologist” examines how hu ­ mans and organizations interact in relationship to an issue. The treatm ent is one of contextual rela­ tio n sh ip s. “ L ib r a r ia n a n d C lie n t: W h o ’s in Charge?” by Robert J. Merikangas examines the re­ lationship in terms of power between the librarian and the library-user. Diarist (particular hum anism /expressive): The author as “diarist” attem pts to probe a system deeply, often in a very personal manner. The distribution of predom inant author p er­ spectives in 1978 and 1981 is compared below: 1978 Biographer 12 Advocate 11 Analyst 11 Consultant 9 Inform er 7 Anthropologist 7 Advisor 5 O ther 2 1981 Biographer 7 Analyst 6 Advocate 5 Consultant 4 Scientist 3 Inform er 3 O ther 2 Change appears to begin in the 1984 distribu­ tion: l t t t t c 1984 (accepted) Analyst 10 Consultant 7 Biographer 6 Advocate 5 Advisor 5 D iarist 3 O ther 8 1984 (rejected) Analyst 27 C reator 16 Advocate 12 Scientist 11 Biographer 11 Advisor 10 Anthropologist 10 Other 29 The listing of the perspectives used indicates tha ibrarians are experimenting w ith the entire spec rum of methodologies and viewpoints. Througl he Research Forum and other initiatives, we hop‹ o support these trial efforts and stimulate addi ional work th at can be shared w ith professiona olleagues in Baltimore in 1986. Personnel to be the topic in Montreal The planning committee of the 16th Annual Conference of the Corporation of Professional Librarians of Québec has issued an invitation to submit papers for presentation at the Confer­ ence which will be held May 23-26, 1985, at the Auberge du Mont-Gabriel, close to Mon­ treal. The theme of the 1985 Conference will be “Personnel: Key to successful public service.” The following subjects, dealing with personnel in the information environment, can be dis­ cussed: m anagem ent of personnel; staff short­ ages; continuing education; professional atti­ tudes; evaluation of personnel; and the role of the technician. Those interested in presenting a paper must reply in w riting before September 15, 1984. They should include, if possible, a resume of their paper along w ith an estimate of the time needed for its presentation. The principal work language of the Conference will be French. However, the Committee welcomes papers in English as well. Papers must be submitted to: Réjean Savard, Président, Planning Committee, Ecole de bib- liothéconomie, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. A, M ontréal, Q uebec, C an ad a H3C 3J7. F or ad ditional inform ation, call (514) 343-7408. July /August 1984 / 353 The research for “A Matrix Model of Organization” By J o a n n e R. Euster Library Director San Francisco State University a n d P eter H aik alis Assistant Director fo r Readers Services San Francisco State University Our paper, “A Matrix Model of Organization for a University L ibrary Public Services Division” (contributed paper, ACRL Third National Confer­ ence, 1984) represents a type of applied research w hich has significant potential for librarians. While it does not pretend to include rigorous re­ search methodology or m athem atical analysis, such applied research does have two distinguishing characteristics: first, it is solidly based on experi­ ence, and secondly, the presentation of th at experi­ ence is designed for generalization to other situa­ tions. In this paper we combined three elements: a the­ oretical base draw n from the literature of matrix organization and management, the application of th at theory to an organizational experiment in our own library, and the description of th at experi­ m ent as a case study illustrating how theory can be adapted to a practical situation. Because of the applied nature of the project, there was no need for special funding to do data gathering or analysis. W hat was needed, however, was psychic support. This came in two forms: one was the necessary organizational commitment to perm it the experiment to go forward and to accept the risks inherent in organizational change. The second was a more heuristic kind of support which was built into the project. Because the concept was not applied in a vacuum but instead developed in response to expressed needs and opportunities which were available in the environment at that time, it was possible to experiment without creat­ ing the traum a of radical change. Organization of the research presentation posed a num ber of interesting problems. In particular, we felt th at it was necessary in order to have an un­ derstandable and interesting presentation to de­ scribe organizational structures and processes graphically. We were fortunate in being able to draw upon the expertise of the library’s graphics as­ sistant in this process of transforming a complex ab­ stract idea into a single diagram. W ith her help, we discarded several trial diagrams before arriving at the final figures which appear in the published pro­ ceedings and which were utilized to make over­ head transparancies for the oral presentation. A second aspect of organizing the paper involved determ ining—since this was to be presented as an illustrative case study rather than an example of “how we do it well in our library”—w hat level of detail unique to our situation was necessary to give life to the description of the study and w hat was simply extraneous anecdotal m aterial. Not least among our considerations in the organization of the presentation was looking for an opportunity to report our study in an appropriate forum, in this case as an ACRL contributed paper. W hat would we do differently if we were to re­ peat the experience? It would have strengthened our report and added to the general applicability of the study had we designed an objective evaluation process before the organizational experiment be­ gan. Because this was not done, we were primarily lim ited to subjective evaluations, w hich w ere heavily weighted to staff satisfaction factors. How­ ever, the project was initiated to apply theory to the solution of a practical problem rather than as an exercise in pure research. Therefore, it was best suited to presentation as a report of application of theory in a quasi-experimental setting. The research for “A Survey of Library Acquisitions’ Fiscal Problems” By R oger L. P resley Interim Head of Acquisitions Georgia State University Getting the idea The most difficult part of w riting a research p a­ per is getting started. This includes getting the idea. About two years ago, in order to promote re­ search and creative activities among our library faculty, Dr. Ralph Russell, our university librar­ 354 / C&R L News ian, held a research “brainstorming” session. At the session we talked about the research projects in which we were currently engaged, and also sug­ gested topics in which we were or might be inter­ ested. Our Collection Development Departm ent had already been talking with me about doing a re­ search project together. Lyn Thaxton, our social sciences bibliographer, suggested that we write a paper on the budgetary problems libraries have faced over the last few years and w hat various li­ braries have done to help with the problem. We were interested in this topic for two reasons: 1) since pressure was mounting at our library for li­ brarians to produce more publications and re­ search, we felt this was a feasible project; and, 2) as we had experienced a basically no-increase budget for the last three years and had been unable to or­ der any new serial titles without cancellations, we were interested to see if other libraries were having the same problems. Lyn and I, along with William Meneely, our science bibliographer, and John Yelverton, the chief bibliographer, got together to develop and plan the project. Organizing the idea In the spring of 1983, Lyn Thaxton sent ACRL a letter of intent to submit a paper for presentation at its T hird N ational Conference and briefly de­ scribed the research project. We were now com­ mitted to finishing w hat we had started. Person­ ally, I recom m end co-authoring a paper w ith colleagues, especially if you are a novice at doing research. You can utilize your colleagues’ profes­ sional experience and creativity, and you can di­ vide up the workload for the project. This is espe­ cially helpful if you are doing a survey where there is a lot of paper work and calculation of statistics. John Yelverton was assigned the task of identifying the libraries we would survey. William Meneely was assigned to do literature searches on the topic, A new ACRL publication on collection development The Collection Management Subcommittee of the Problems of Access and Control of E du­ cation M aterials/Curriculum Materials Joint Committee of ACRL’s Education and Behav- ioral Sciences Section has compiled a model col­ lection development policy. The subcommittee was chaired by Ilene Rockman. Curriculum Materials Center Collection Development Pol­ icy contains information on objectives, scope and boundary of the collection, review sources, personnel roles and responsibilities, selection criteria, gifts, weeding, and interlibrary loan policy. It is 30 pages long and is available pre­ paid from ACRL for $5 for ACRL members and $7 for nonmembers. The ISBN is 0-8389- 6777-9. and laid out the charts for our statistics. Lyn Thax­ ton was to receive the surveys and do the initial sta­ tistical tallies on the data received. I was to develop the questionnaire, draft the writing of the paper, and present it at the conference if it was accepted. Support for the idea Fortunately, our library administration is quite supportive of research projects and creative activi­ ties. The library faculty are granted one day each academic quarter to work on research. This was utilized, especially by me, in drafting the paper. Also, clerical help for typing was made available by the library administration office. This was very beneficial when it came time to submit our “cam­ era ready copy” of the paper. In addition to clerical help, the university librarian also perm itted us to charge some of our research expenses to the li­ brary’s operating budget. Postage was paid for us. Since we mailed out 100 questionnaires, this was helpful. After our paper was accepted by ACRL for presentation, we decided to use color slides for the graphics on the statistics. The photoprocessing of the slides was also paid for from the library budget. The most valuable support we received for this project was from the library itself. In total, our li­ brary faculty had four papers accepted for presen­ tation at this conference, involving 11 of our li­ brary faculty and one faculty member from outside the library. Our library’s Committee on Personnel Development was very excited at the acceptance of the four papers and organized a pre-conference presentation of them for our faculty and staff. Area librarians and library school students were also in­ vited. The conditions of presenting a paper at the conference were closely simulated. We had special m icrophones, audio-visuals, a m oderator, and each presentation was timed to be kept at 20 m in­ utes. The pre-conference was well attended, and provided two main benefits. It informed our local library community of the research being done by our library faculty. It also was an excellent practice session with feedback for our four presenters at the conference. Even though we were entering the last quarter of our fiscal year and funds were tight, Dr. Russell, our university librarian, found the money to send 11 of our authors and co-authors to Seattle for the Conference. Looking back Looking back, this project was a lot of work: hours and hours of reading, calculating, writing and re-writing, not to mention the anxiety of pre­ senting the paper itself. However, it was an excel­ lent conference and definitely a professional growth experience. In thinking about w hat we would do differently now that it is all over, I would have recommended that we start the project about three m onths sooner. E verything always takes longer than you think it is going to. I also would have liked to have learned more about developing a questionnaire. It was obvious from some of the re- 356 / C &R L News nplies th at not everyone fully understood all of the questions. Even though the survey itself was re­ w ritten several times and we thought it was suc­ cinct, not all the libraries receiving it interpreted all the questions as we thought they would. Also, since we had such a good return of the surveys, I c w t F ow wished we had asked more questions and ould have used more data. The whole experience as very rew arding for all involved. It guess it’s im e now to be thinking about Baltimore and the ourth National Conference. The research for “Values and ACRL” B y W illiam G. Jon es Assistant Librarian fo r Collection Development University o f Illinois at Chicago a n d B a rb a ra J. Ford Documents Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago We had been discussing for some time how new librarians are socialized to the values of their pro­ fession and to the institutions in which they work, and how these values are transm itted. We were in­ terested in this topic because of our concern for the practical needs of supervisors responsible for the so­ cialization of new professionals and from our ob­ servations and participation in professional organi­ zations. We had read widely in the topic and had already decided to conduct a systematic analysis when the ACRL call for papers was received. Our most significant problem was to identify a database which we could analyze in the time available. We were presented w ith a num ber of choices and de­ cided to use the annual reports of ACRL presidents because of their easy access and likely representa­ tiveness of commonly-held professional values. In dividing responsibilities for the investigation, one of us concentrated on the literatu re review while the other conducted the content analysis. Both of us derived lists of significant topics and trends from the annual reports. C arla Stoffle’s cat­ egorization of concerns and topics had just ap­ peared in her president’s annual report, and it pro­ vided us w ith a fram ew o rk against w hich to compare earlier reports. We added to the catego­ ries identified by her where appropriate, w ith one of us carrying out the detailed analysis. We form at­ ted the results in a num ber of ways before selecting one th at was both informative and visually pleas­ ing. We were supportive of each other when interest and enthusiasm flagged, and received it in ample measure from our colleagues at the University of Il­ linois at Chicago. The library faculty periodically schedules brown bag lunches where faculty present and discuss research ideas and work underway. Several colleagues gave us excellent feedback and assisted us in focusing and clarifying our work and analysis. Financial support to attend the ACRL conference was provided by the university librar­ ian. Before attending the conference we had the opportunity to present the paper to our library fac­ ulty colleagues who critiqued its content and the style of presentation. If beginning the same project again, we would begin data collection earlier and complete prelim i­ nary analyses sooner in order to have more time to consider the implications of the analysis and to con­ sider related trends and alternative methods of analysis. We would also consult more extensively w ith our colleagues in to pically-related disci­ plines. ■ ■ Guide to the organization of clearinghouses published by ACRL The Bibliographic Instruction Clearinghouse: A Practical Guide has been compiled by the ACRL Bibliographic Instruction Section’s Clearinghouse Committee. This Committee, which seeks to facili­ tate cooperation and exchange among national, re­ gional, and state bibliographic instruction groups, prepared this guide in order to encourage the for­ m ation of additional clearinghouses. It will serve bibliographic instruction librarians well and will also serve librarians who w ant to set up other types of clearinghouses. The 77-page guide contains chapters on clearinghouse organization and affilia­ tion, clearinghouse depository collections, surveys and directories of bibliographic instruction pro­ grams, planning a bibliographic instruction work­ shop, publishing a clearinghouse newsletter, and m arketing the bibliographic instruction clearing­ house. Contributors to the Guide are Claudette S. Hagle, Kathleen Coleman, Barbara J. W ittkopf, Donald Kenney, and Carolyn Kirkendall. The Bibliographic Instruction Clearinghouse: A Practical Guide is available prepaid from ACRL, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2795 at $9 for ACRL members and $12 for non-members. Its ISBN is 0-8389-6775-2. ■ ■