ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 6 3 2 COLLIB-L: Listservs in lib ra ry communications By Larry R. Oberg The development o f a listserv L istservs are a unique new m eans o f com ­m unication am ong m em bers o f particular interest groups. Still in their infancy, listservs are controversial, m uch as the telegraph, the telephone, an d th e radio w ere w h en they first appeared. Academic listservs are criticized by detractors as a babble o f disparate voices d es­ perately seeking to b e heard, an d lauded by supporters as forums that stimulate the discus­ sion and the resolution o f practical an d theo­ retical problem s w ithin a given field. Although the value o f listservs to librarians has yet to be reckoned, their use has outstripped o ur u n d er­ standing o f their role an d potential.1 The nature of listservs Listservs, often referred to as electronic discus­ sion groups, electronic sem inars, o r sim ply lists, broadcast mail am ong m em bers o f an invisible electronic college an d archive it for later retrieval. Postings are sent automatically to all subscribers or held for review by a modera­ tor w ho releases selected items for general dis­ tribution. Lists may be o p en to the entire net­ working com m unity or closed to all but the invited. Participation assum es access to Bitnet or the Internet, often referred to collectively as “the net.” Academic listservs are fostering the em ergence o f a distinctive form o f dialogue that involves members o f a profession in pro d u c­ tive, often informal, discussions o f practice and theory.2 W hether listservs depress or elevate the level o f discourse, they have becom e an enorm ously p o p u la r m eans o f com m unication to w hich librarians an d su p p o rt staff alike commit sig­ nificant am ounts o f tim e. T he voices h eard o n the lists can b e cantankerous, ornery, te­ dious, an d trivial. T hey can also be stimulat­ ing, inform ative, creative an d , occasionally moving. Participation in listserv discussions helps k eep librarians aw are o f n ew develop­ m ents in the field, resolve practical problem s, clarify theoretical issues, an d minimize profes­ sional isolation through communication and col­ laboration. COLLIB-L: The CLS listserv The n ee d for better and m ore imm ediate com ­ munication b etw een the m em bership an d the officers o f ACRL’s College Libraries Section has b e e n recognized for som e time. At the 1993 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver, the CLS Ex­ ecutive Committee approved the creation o f a listserv to en h an ce com m unication w ithin the section, supplem ent its newsletter, an d increase m em bership. The list w o u ld serve a dual p u r­ pose, it w as decided, by functioning as a fo­ rum for com m unication am ong all librarians in p red o m in ately u n d erg rad u a te institutions as well as linking the Executive Board with the m embership. Mignon Adams, section chair, and the Executive Committee charged m e w ith u n ­ dertaking the project. On March 9, 1993, COLLIB-L, the College Librarians Listserv, w as m a d e a v a ila b le to m em bers o f the netw orking community. Within three months, nearly 600 subscriptions w ere received from librarians an d library su p p o rt staff in the United States, Canada, Australia, and o th er countries. The rapid grow th o f COLLIB-L dem onstrates that m ore college librarians have access to the netw orks than had b ee n previously Larry Oberg is university librarian at the Mark O. Hatfield Library, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; e-mail: loberg@jupiter. willamette.edu 633 estimated. Although the num ber o f new subscriptions has levelled off, the list contin­ ues to grow. If growth is interpreted to indi­ cate approval, then COLLIB-L is a success, fill­ ing a void w here no equivalent forum had existed. A n e w voice an d its problem s Listservs are fostering a new m ode o f expres­ sion and COLLIB-L has found its voice som e­ w here betw een oral and w ritten com munica­ tion. Stevan H am ad suggests that this voice is akin to the scholarly letter writing that charac­ terized an earlier era.3 It may also be a self- limiting voice. Listservs favor tw o groups: those with excellent verbal and rhetorical skills and those with chutzpah and netw ork saw y .4 On most listservs, a minority o f subscribers contribute postings, and “lurkers” abound. The term lurkers is used to designate subscribers w ho follow, but do not participate in, list dis­ cussion; it is not considered disparaging by old list hands, but “readers” might be a more gen­ erous appellation. Listservs probably differ little from print media in the ratio o f readers to writ­ ers. The role of the m oderator in the develop­ mental process of listservs is an im portant one. List moderators can set the tone for the list and encourage o r discourage postings. As COLLIB- L moderator, I chose to encourage a thought­ ful tone. Always lively and occasionally heated, the list’s collective voice nonetheless has been a serious one. Discussion topics have included rethinking the current m odel o f reference, digi­ tizing course reserves, configuring autom ated services, constructing gophers and campuswide information systems, and gender as a determi­ nant of list-posting habits. Practical concerns are raised on COLLIB-L, but a high percentage o f the postings address professional and even theoretical issues. Complaints indicate that subscribers are not altogether comfortable with this new medium. Many are overw helm ed by the volume o f mail they receive. Although the problem o f junk mail is a real one, irrelevant and trivial postings can be deleted with a single keystroke. List mail can also be m anaged effectively by electing to r e c e iv e m ail in d ig e s t fo rm a t a n d w h e n listowners or moderators post judicious remind­ ers o f listserv protocol. T he persistence and vehem ence o f these complaints indicate that som e subscribers are p erplexed by this new medium and unable to define with precision w hat is o f importance to them .5 The eclectic nature o f the postings no doubt also reflects the range and interrelated­ ness o f librarians’ concerns. It also com es as a surprise to the uninitiated that u nrestricted listservs are democratic forums in w hich the postings of support staff receive the same at­ tention, interest, and respect accorded those of directors and even venerated icons o f the pro­ fession. Since its inception, COLLIB-L has functioned well and little intervention o n the part o f the moderator has been required. The list has been remarkably free of “flames,” the rude and dis­ courteous postings that pose a problem on some lists. Flaming may indicate that those w ho ex­ ercise little self-control w hen posting are u n ­ aware o f the size o f their audience. The infor­ mality o f listserv communication may also lead new o r naive subscribers to commit opinions to a list that they w ould hesitate to express in conversation or print. In any case, it is clear that listservs encourage an academic, rather than a bureaucratic, style of discourse. Listservs favor two groups: those with excellent verbal and rhetorical skills and those with chutzpah a n d network savvy. Another, perhaps more serious, complaint is that the imprint left by these electronic fo­ rums differs markedly from that of their print counterparts. Unlike books and journals, listserv records are ephem eral, volatile, and mutable. They may be archived, but search mechanisms are primitive, bibliographic control lacking, and preservation responsibility informally bestow ed o r assumed. Listservs an d e-jo u rn als Some o f the thinking o u t loud that occurs o n th e lists appears to b e stimulating w hat one librarian recently term ed “the greater de­ gree o f thought and formalization” that p re­ cedes publication.6 Not surprisingly, listservs are spaw ning electronic journals and e-joumals are spaw ning listservs. PACS-P and Psycholo q u y are tw o exam ples o f e-journals paired with listservs. This symbiotic relationship may help stabilize, codify, an d preserve the more scholarly communications that appear o n the lists. 6 3 4 Electronic journals rapidly disseminate schol­ arly in form ation to th e p e e r co m m u n ity . Psycholoąuy‚ for exam ple, has foregone the time-consuming standard double-blind review process and adopted an online version o f the “open peer com mentary” originated by Sol Tax in Current A nthropology an d c o n tin u ed by Stevan Harnad in Behavioral a n d B rain Sci­ ences. Contributions to Psycholoąuy are refer­ eed by the journal’s 70-member editorial board, often within a few hours. In this manner, these new experimental journals hold the promise of speeding up the production o f new know l­ edge.7 The future of listservs Still in their infancy, listservs are beset with problems that will n eed to be resolved before they are accorded the trust, confidence, and respect enjoyed by nonelectronic media. The privatization o f the networks is an overarching concern. Many fear that in the n ew “infotainm ent” environm ent, Internet funding will change, an eventuality that may modify profoundly the Many fe a r that in the new “infotainment” environment, Internet fu n d in g will change, an eventuality that may modify profoundly the ways in which listservs are used. ways in w hich listservs are used. The current flat fee m o d e l (b u y in g th e riv er) allo w s listservs to function in a m an n er that m etered charges (p ay in g b y th e d rin k ) m ost likely w ould not. Concerns have also b ee n raised about the possible imposition of institutional restrictions on netw ork access, excessive staff time spent on irrelevant o r trivial lists, and the privacy an d ow nership o f netw orked communications. Some librarians are concerned that their pro­ fessional associations, strapped for cash, will s u b s titu te lis tserv s fo r e x p e n s iv e p r in te d new sletters an d journals w ithout first d eter­ mining m em b ers’ inform ation n eed s an d re­ lating those n ee d s to ap p ro p riate m eans of distribution. O thers w orry that listservs, es­ tablished to facilitate associational com m unication, are being supported by public or pri­ vate institutions, an arrangem ent w hose value will n ee d to be made clear to the institutions involved and w hose perm anence, in any case, cannot be assured. Despite these concerns, listservs are increas­ ingly popular and appear to satisfy many of the conversational, practical, and even schol­ arly communication needs o f librarians. Their value as a forum for academic discourse and their effectiveness as an agent o f change, how ­ ever, have yet to be assessed. T he lack o f sh a re d protocols leave subscribers u nsure of n e t etiquette. Still, many users expect listservs to have a salutary effect u pon the profession by involv­ ing librarians, especially those w ho w ork in p o o r schools and remote areas, in an evolving discussion of our practice, theory, and collec­ tive future. If the perform ance o f COLLIB-L is an example, our expectations may one day be realized. Notes 1Willard McCarty, “HUMANIST: Lessons from a Global Electronic Seminar,” Computers a n d the H um anities 26 (June 1992): 205. 2McCarty, “HUMANIST,” p. 217. McCarty suggests that w e “must be able to argue con­ vincingly that what may at a glance seem an en d less p rocession o f unjustified opinions, u n s u b s ta n tia te d arg u m en ts, a n d irrelev an t serendipity just might be the sound of ancient h u m a n is m r e b u ild in g its e lf o u t o f n e w materials.” 3 tevan R. Hamad, “Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means o f Pro­ duction o f Know ledge,” in Michael Strange- love and Diane Kovacs, Directory o f Electronic Journals, Newsletters a n d A cadem ic Discussion Lists, 2nd ed,, Ann Okerson, ed. (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office o f Scientific and Academic Publishing, 1992), p. 241. 4McCarty, “HUMANIST,” p. 206. 5McCarty, “HUMANIST,” p. 212. McCarty no tes that “the anxiety o f inform ation over­ load, then, originates partially in the frustrated d e s ire to p re s e rv e th e tr a n s ito ry a n d so points to our need for a model to tell us w hat e-mail is, w hat to expect o f it, and so how to handle it.” 6 ichard H. Werking, personal com munica­ tion to the author, August 2, 1993. 7Harnad, “Post-Gutenberg Galaxy.” ■