ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 790 / C&RL News ■ December 2002 NEW REALITIES, NEW RELATIONSHIPS Old borders, new borders, bridges, and new relationships Transforming academic reference service by James Rettig C onsider a m ap of Europe and the Middle East in 1914 at th e start o f W orld War I. It depicts th e U nited K ingdom , France, Bel­ gium, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany; it also depicts Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, an d Serbia. Next consider a m ap o f that sam e territory in 1946, after tw o w orld wars. Gone are Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Serbia; new to it are Ireland, Yugoslavia, Aus­ tria, and Hungary; Germany’s and Poland’s bor­ ders have b e e n redraw n. B orders m ay have ch an g ed , b u t th e im p o rtan ce o f b o rd ers re ­ mained. Similarly, in recent decades borders in aca­ demic reference service have changed; yet the im portance o f borders rem ains. B orders are rarely as absolute as the Berlin Wall that once separated West Berlin from East Berlin. As well as being changeable, most borders are perm e­ able or can be bridged. O ld b ord e rs The borders affecting reference service w ere once obvious and easy to identify. Consider the situation 30 years ago. Students and faculty in n e e d o f referen ce service generally w e n t to their campus library to use resources in its print collections to satisfy their information needs. B eyond th e informal b oundary o f th e library building, telep h o n e calls, visits to o ther (usu­ ally local) libraries, and hit-or-miss interlibrary loan supplem ented visits to the campus library. Then the universe o f information sources avail­ able to reference librarians was almost exclu­ sively p rinted resources, especially indexes, abstracting services, and reference books. The reference desk—often large and long, some of them formidable and even forbidding— estab­ lished a distinct spatial border betw een refer­ ence librarians and their users. W hen the early online databases from pro­ viders such as DIALOG an d BRS established themselves, their arcane search com m ands re­ quiring dot-dot prefixes or im bedded slashes e stab lish ed a b o u n d ary b e tw e e n th e e x p ert searcher and the end user, even w hen the tw o w o rk e d collaboratively side-by-side as they w atched citations scroll o n thermal paper from a Texas Instrum ents Silent 700 300-baud por­ table terminal with an acoustical coupler for a phone handset. Within the profession, a long, vexing, and u ltim ately u n p ro d u c tiv e d e b a te a b o u t th e p ro p e r role of reference has pitted “inform a­ tio n ” against “instruction" as m utually exclu­ sive m odes of service. Adherents of each posi­ tion erected formidable defensive fences around th e ir resp ectiv e positions, firmly resting o n conviction. C opyright law, in its intent to balance the interests o f creators o f intellectual p ro p erty w ith th e public goo d an d the p u b lic’s use of A b o u t the author James Rettig is university librarian at the University o f Richmond, e-mail: jrettig@richmond.edu mailto:jrettig@richmond.edu C&RL News ■ D ecember 2002 / 791 intellectual property, has long formed a bound­ ary of varying strength betw een librarians and publishers. In the print-dom inated era, p u b ­ lishers and librarians were usually able to come to agreement, or at least grudging acquiescence, to guidelines for responsible use of intellec­ tual property in library services such as interli­ brary loan and course reserves. N ew bord ers Fast forward to 2002. Information technology has transformed reference borders as dramati­ cally as the last c e n tu ry ’s w o rld w ars tran s­ form ed national borders. T he Web, o f course, has all b u t ren d ered the geographic borders of print and in-person reference service obsolete. Today students and faculty rely more and more on Web-based re­ sources offered by a wide range of providers. They may use their institution’s hom epage as a starting point, but their destination and source o f in fo rm atio n m ay b e th e Web site o f a n ­ other institution’s library, a scholarly society, a governm ent agency, a not-for-profit advocacy group, a corporation, o r som e other informa­ tion provider. The physical geography of a cam­ pus no longer gives the library de facto central­ ity as an inform ation provider to a particular community. The library as a place for obtaining refer­ en ce service w as irrefutably im portant in the p re -o n lin e e ra b e c a u se o f th e integral c o l­ la b o ra tiv e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n a p e rs o n w ith a query and a reference librarian w hose know ledge o f the resources in the print col­ le c tio n c o u ld satisfy th a t p e r s o n ’s n e e d s . E n d -u se r access to a c ad em ic d a ta b a s e s — m any o f th em su p p la n tin g th e ir p rin t p r e ­ cursors an d other new creations designed to capitalize on the online m edium— has dimin­ ish ed this o n c e significant b o u n d a ry . First e-mail reference, then online interactive chat referen ce h av e fu rth er fad ed it. H igh te c h a n d h ig h to u c h h a v e n o t al­ w ays go n e hand-in-hand. Remote access to d atab a ses has rarely b e e n acco m p an ied by easily accessible assistance from a reference librarian. “Chat referen ce” offers prom ise to in te g ra te h ig h - te c h a n d h ig h - to u c h a p ­ p ro ach es to referen ce service. H ow ever an unintended consequence may be an intensi­ ficatio n o f th e g ro w in g b o rd e r s e p a ra tin g th e w ay s in w h ic h p rin t in fo rm a tio n r e ­ sources and electronic resources are used. In fo rm a tio n te ch n o lo g y has tra n sfo rm e d reference b orders as d ra m a tic a lly as th e la st century's w o rld w a rs tra n sfo rm e d n atio n a l borders. An exam ination o f transcripts of chat ref­ erence transactions show s that incorporation o f information from a print resource into one o f these transactions is a rarity. Library users are probably not conscious o f this boundary b etw een electronic media and books, micro­ forms, sound recordings, videos, sheet music, CD-ROMs, etc. A recent research study conducted by the P ew In te rn e t a n d A m erican Life p ro ject re­ veals th at “N early th re e -q u a rte rs (73%) of college students said they use the Internet more than th e library, w hile only 9% said they use the library more than the Internet for Informa­ tion searching.”1 In other words, they miss out o n a lot of goo d information. Even if m ost aren ’t conscious of the Web- print boundary, students’ collective behavior in their Web-first-and-last habits affirms it. The rise of this border rightfully worries librarians. We know that a significant portion o f current academic publishing, especially publishing of monographic reference works, continues to rely o n print as its distribution medium. O lder in­ formation resides in other media. This student preference for online and its im mediacy and convenience demonstrates how untenable the border separating “information” from “instruc­ tio n ” is today (if it ever had legitimacy). Along with all o f the information available at their fingertips through their computers and the Web, library users can benefit from being introduced through any mode of reference ser­ vice to th e b ro a d realm o f inform ation re ­ sources b ey o n d the Web an d from being in­ structed about those resources’ value to their work. In th e Pew study, “stu d en ts d o [ing] aca­ demic-related w ork m ade use o f commercial search engines rather than university an d li­ brary Web sites.”2 Even within the intensively interconnected Web, a boundary analogous to the Web-print boundary has arisen. That bor­ der separates the vast free Web from authori­ 792 / C&RL News ■ December 2002 tative, scholarly licensed databases. G oogle d o e sn ’t link students to the latter. R obert Frost o b serv ed that “g o o d fences make good neighbors,” a statement laden with poetic ambiguity. What makes a fence or a bor­ d e r go o d , particularly in referen ce service? A nother w ay of posing the question is: How, d esp ite bo rd ers, can w e guide th e o n going transform ation of academ ic reference service so that it supports to the fullest possible m ea­ sure o u r in stitu tio n s’ collective m ission of teaching, learning, and research? T h e in te rre la te d p ro c e s se s o f teac h in g , learning, a n d re se a rc h are com plex. H ow ­ ever all o f them d ep en d at least in part u p o n th e availability o f in fo rm atio n , th e qu ality o f th e av ailab le in fo rm atio n , a n d th e ease w ith w hich students an d faculty can retrieve an d select relevant information. Clearly, aca­ dem ic libraries an d their referen ce services h av e a n in teg ral ro le in fulfilling th is m is­ sion. In our current environm ent bridges are as im portant as borders. As G loria E. A ndzaldúa has ob serv ed , “Bridges are thresholds to other realities,”3— and to new relationships. The challenge to ref­ erence today is to discern existing and devel­ oping boundaries and to bridge these through new relationships with those w hom w e serve. C re a tin g b rid g e s Some library users continue to visit a library facility for reference service. N evertheless, a reference desk is no longer a given in academic libraries. Some libraries have eliminated them; others have m erged them into m ultipurpose service points; and m any m ore have m oved away from built-in desks suitable for a judge’s b ench to smaller furniture that implies a w el­ com ing rather than an intimidating message. Through the consolidation o f service points, libraries them selves have elim inated internal borders, thereby cultivating a new relationship w ith their clientele. W ithout sinking into the quagm ire o f fac­ ulty status for academ ic librarians, it is safe to say that a border of some sort betw een faculty an d librarians is m ore com m on than not. By transcending the archaic rigid information-in­ struction d eb ate in favor of the relevant, pli­ able m ovem ent to infuse information fluency skills an d concepts into college curricula, li­ brarians at many colleges and universities are bridging the librarian-faculty border. They are The c h a lle n g e to re fere nce to d a y is to d isce rn e x ist in g and d e v e lo p in g b o u n d a rie s a n d to b rid g e th ese th ro u g h n ew re la tio n sh ip s w ith th o se w h o m w e serve. forming constructive partnerships with faculty for the benefit o f students. The benefits are b o th im mediate (i.e., stu­ dents learn skills an d concepts applicable to the w ork in a particular course or discipline) and long-term (i.e., they learn skills and con­ cepts that can be generalized in solving infor­ m ation-dependent problems throughout their lives). These relationships, as valuable as they are to all parties, usually require persistence, com­ m itm ent, a n d zeal o n th e p a rt of librarians. Creating other needed bridges and relationships may be even m ore challenging. A successful and seamless way of integrating print and elec­ tronic information resources will also require creativity. There is no self-evident bridge that crosses this border to create a synergistic rela­ tionship among library users and the full range of information media. Success in information fluency efforts will increase the possibility of success in this effort. In addition, th e technologies that n o w al­ low a librarian to push a Web page to the other participant in online chat reference w ould con­ tribute to the solution to this problem if they can make pushing the image of a page from a reference book just as easy. Thereby high tech, old tech, and high touch could com e together to further high-quality reference service. A re­ lationship betw een librarians and vendors of chat reference systems is developing; librarians should do all they can to strengthen it and in­ fluence the developm ent of these increasingly im portant products. Integrating the free Web and licensed data­ bases may be just as difficult as integrating in­ formation media. There is no technological or other type of bridge to bring together the best o f the free Web and licensed databases into a new relationship. Nevertheless, standards or­ ganizations and new product development by in­ tegrated library systems vendors point the way. A border that has definitely changed for the C&RL News ■ D ecem ber 2002 / 793 w o rse is th e b o rd e r b e tw e e n p ro d u c e rs o f in tellectu al p ro p e rty o n th e o n e h a n d and th e p u b lic in terest a n d rights o f u sers o f intellectual p ro p e rty o n the other. B etw een th e Sonny B ono C opyright T erm E xtension Act (PL 105-298) an d th e D igital M illen­ n ium C opyright Act o f 1998 (PL 105-304), rights o f u se rs h av e been constricted. A re­ new ed relationship betw een producers and users o f intellectual property, especially intel­ lectual property created and distributed in digi­ tal form, seem s unlikely, especially given the aggressively adversarial stance of the entertain­ m ent conglomerates that have influenced the direction of U.S. copyright law in recent years. R eference service has alw ays involved b ridge building an d relationship cultivation am ong inform ation seekers, librarians, infor­ m ation resources, an d pro d u cers o f infor­ m ation sources. T he borders have changed over time. G ood relationships can build good bridges across new borders. W hat m ak es a fen ce o r a b o rd e r g o o d , particu larly in re fe re n c e service? T he b e n ­ efit o f th e n e w b o rd e rs d e sc rib e d a b o v e (a n d o th e rs) is th at e a c h o n e o f th e m id e n ­ tifies a c h allen g e w e n e e d to w o rk o n to ass u re th a t re fe re n c e serv ice m eets o u r u s e r s ’ n e e d s in th e cu rre n t w ire d w orld. Each o f th o s e c h a lle n g e s calls fo r a b rid g e b u ilt from n e w relatio n sh ip s. N o te s 1. Steve Jones et al., “The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology.” Pew Internet And American Life Project, 15 Septem ber 2002, h ttp ://w w w . pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71 PDF file, p. 12. 2. Ibid., 13. 3. G loria E. A ndzaldúa, “B ey o n d T radi­ tional Notions of Identity,” C hronicle o fH igher E ducation, 11 O ctober 2002, sec. 2, B ll . ■ ( “ACRL takes up the challenges..." ”continued firom pag available to th e p rofession a n d will w o rk to articulate and find funding for projects intended to fill in these gaps. In addition, there will be a n effort to create case studies o f individual academic and research libraries of all types and sizes to docum ent the effects of th e scholarly communication crisis in a concrete and under­ stan d ab le (to th e lay p ublic) m ann er. O nce these sets o f inform ation are available, ACRL ho p es to develop a profile of faculty research in liberal arts colleges, m ed iu m -sized an d smaller universities, and community colleges. Regional accrediting agencies will be con­ tacted to d eterm in e the ex te n t to w h ic h ac­ creditation at some institutions may be affected du e to deficiencies in library resources. The findings of this survey will b e incorporated in the case studies mentioned above, as appropri­ ate, and will be conveyed to librarians and aca­ demic administrators for their use in planning. C o n clu sio n . . . o r a b e g in n in g ACRL has ta k e n a g ian t ste p in identifying scholarly comm unication as an issue requiring th e im m ed iate a n d in te n se a tte n tio n o f its membership and in providing support for a pro­ gram officer position. With only tw o m onths’ experience under my belt, it is already obvious to m e that it will be trem endously effective to have som eone w hose responsibility is fully to e 787) pay close attention to these issues o n behalf f th e ACRL m em bership. Most librarians w h o are co n cern ed about cholarly com m unication— and that accounts or the vast majority, one w ould suspect—have ultiple responsibilities a n d are not able to ive the time and attention to these questions nd concerns that they perhaps w ould like. A ew organizations have devoted all or part of a osition to scholarly com m unication; ARL is n e o f th ese. But th e re are n o t a sufficient um ber o f library advocates to address all the any an d various issues that arise constantly n this w o rld o f inform ation that is changing ven more rapidly than w e had projected. In th e ro le o f p ro g ra m officer, I h o p e to ake ACRL very visible w ithin academ ia and ith our colleague organizations as an associa­ io n w ith a clear and distinct focus o n schol­ rly com m unication issues and w ith sufficient oice to b e heard on this continent and poten­ ially w o rld w id e. T he ACRL le a d e rsh ip has rovided the groundwork; the Scholarly Com­ unication Committee an d discussion group re providing the ongoing support an d direc­ ion. As the task force originally hoped, their rec­ mmendations and subsequent ACRL action will llow ACRL to play a prominent national role in haping the future of scholarly communication in artnership with other groups. ■ o s f m g a f p o n m i e m w t a v t p m a t o a s p http://www 794 / C&RL News ■ D ecem ber 2002