ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries February 1987 / 63 T he ACLS survey a n d a c a d e m ic lib rary service By Ronald H. Epp Managing Editor Choice and JoAn S. Segal Executive Director Association of College & Research Libraries How academic scholars use their libraries. Two reports have appeared w ithin the past year assessing scholarly communication and prom pting academic librarians to reconsider their role in this rapidly changing activity. In November 1985, the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) surveyed 5,385 m em ­ bers of eight humanities and social science societies th a t are p art of their association. The ACLS pre­ liminary report— The A C L S Survey of Scholars: Views on Publications, Computers, Libraries— was authored by H erbert C. Morton and Anne Ja­ mieson Price, and published in the Summer 1986 issue of Scholarly Communication. Prior to appearance in this house organ of the ACLS, the Chronicle o f Higher Education (August 8, 1986) published a lengthy survey summation un­ der the disturbing front-page headline: “Scholars Fault Journals and College Libraries in Survey by Council of Learned Societies.” In this essay we take issue w ith some aspects of the ACLS prelim inary report and the survey inter­ pretation given by its authors. W e hope to show w hat elements of scholarly communication rele­ vant to academic librarianship were not addressed by the survey. Moreover, we intend to refer at times to a seven-page assessment of The Changing System of Scholarly Communication published in M arch 1986 by the Association of Research L i­ braries. This report presented “the perceptions held w ithin the research library com m unity” about changes in scholarly communication. Its aim was rather limited: to stimulate dialogue among the m ajor participants in the system. The product of an eight-member task force, the assessment em pha­ sized the influence of the new technologies on scholarly communication. The dom inant tone of the ARL report was th at scholarly communication “appears to be changing ra p id ly .” We hope to show some im portant implications of both reports for academic libraries. The ACLS study examined three areas of aca­ demic life: the methods by which scholars keep abreast of new work and publish their own work; scholarly use of computers and the new technol­ ogy; and scholarly opinion on academic library col­ lections, service, and technologies. The survey was the first of its kind. However, it is an extension of the ACLS conferences in the early 1970s which re­ sulted in the 1979 study titled, Scholarly C om m un­ ication: The Report of the National Enquiry (Johns Hopkins University Press). T he survey sam ple was selected from seven ACLS disciplines—classics, history, linguistics, English and American literature, philosophy, po­ litical science, and sociology—th at are examples of both hum anistic and social science approaches to scholarship. A stratified random sample of 5,385 society members was selected from the domestic membership lists of eight ACLS societies num ber­ ing 49,612 members. The response rate was 71 % , and 3,835 responses w ere analyzed (replication w ith a sample of scientists in varying fields would 64 / C&RL News offer interesting com parative d a ta ). Of the respon­ d e n ts , 92% h e ld th e P h .D ; som e 26% w e re women; and fewer than 10 % were nonwhite. Most were tenured, although only 40 % were full profes­ sors. Fewer than half were employed in “research universities. ” The teaching load averaged five to six semester courses each year. Professional reading The scholars spent about $450 each (or about 1.4% of their salaries) in 1985 to purchase books ($300) and journals ($150). The results contradict the popular notion th a t scholars are discontinuing their subscriptions in favor of using library copies; they bought as m any subscriptions in 1985 as in the previous year. However, they supplem ented their basic subscriptions by regularly m onitoring other serials and checking a few on occasion. It is likely th at the academic library serves the function of providing these special resources. The survey col­ lected inform ation about scholarly use of some book re v ie w m e d ia , b u t n e ith e r C h o ice n o r Booklist are m entioned in the sum m ary of results. A m ajority of the respondents expressed frustra­ tion in not being able to keep up w ith the literature in their fields. W hile this is not surprising, it is note­ w orthy th a t a significant m inority of the respon­ dents (19-43% , depending on discipline) rarely finds an article of interest in their discipline’s major journal. Almost half w ere dissatisfied w ith the book reviewing process in their fields. The survey authors here elected to analyze m inority responses, leading readers to their conclusion th a t this is a problem . It may be, but the m ajority surveyed did find articles of interest, and were not dissatisfied w ith the book reviewing process. Scholars as authors A significant section of the report deals w ith scholars as authors. An interesting conclusion was th at while scholars concentrate on publishing in journals early in their careers, they gravitate over tim e to publishing in a variety of other categories— conference papers, book reviews, chapters and en­ tire books. Scholars in universities report strong pressures to publish. However, nearly half the sam ­ ple expressed considerable dissatisfaction w ith the peer review process, charging bias and expressing a desire for reform; yet ⅔ of the sample had served as referees of journal articles, evaluators of book m an ­ uscripts, or journal editors. Younger scholars indi­ cated a need for help in understanding the process of getting into print. The survey examined the issue of collegiality, w hich m any scholars see as the essence of academic life. Scholars more frequently collaborate w ith col­ leagues outside their departm ent th an w ithin it. The survey authors interpreted the statistics w hen they affirm ed th at “only” 77% of the scholars have one or more people in their departm ent w ith whom they share research interests, and th at “only” 61 % regularly ask someone in their departm ent to com­ m ent on their work. Readers m ay be led to share the survey authors’ conclusion th at this is a deplor­ able situation w here “40 % have no one in their de­ p a rtm e n t to ask for com m ents on th e ir m a n u ­ s c r ip ts .” T h e sm all size of m a n y a c a d e m ic departm ents provides a logical explanation for this finding. Indeed, the fact th a t the percentage w ith shared research interests climbs to 89 % in research universities— w here d ep a rtm e n ts are la rg e r— supports this contention. Of course there are also competitive barriers, especially w ithin small de­ partm ents. However, interdisciplinary coopera­ tion is also on the increase, which m ay influence the extra-departm ental co-authorship finding. The use of electronic mail or networks is very rare. Computer use The survey revealed an impressive increase in com puter use during the last five years. Over 50% of the respondents report th a t they or their research assistants routinely use computers of some kind. They use them for w ord processing (95% ), file m aintenance (55%), preparing tests (55%), com­ piling bibliographies and indexes (49 %), doing sta­ tistical analyses (37%), graphics (22%), accessing online databases (18%), accessing the library’s on­ line catalog (18%), and computer-assisted instruc­ tion (18%), among other uses. About 70% of the com puter users have their own PCs, and 46% of these use their computers at home for scholarly work. Library use The study of library use reveals th at almost all re s p o n d e n ts — in a n d o u t of a c a d e m ic institutions—have access to a library. The m ajority ranked their library collections good, very good, or excellent. (This finding must be ferreted out from the d ata which is presented in the prelim inary re­ port and Chronicle article so as to lead the reader to the opposite conclusion!) There was a significant m inority which ranked their institutional library as “fair” or “p oor,” in specific collection type areas; for instance, journal and book holdings for student needs, teaching needs, reference needs, and re ­ search needs. However, more than 75 % responded positively regarding the quality of library service and of interlibrary loan service. (These findings are reported in the text, bu t w ith no tab u lar back-up.) The survey paid particular attention to three li­ brary technologies: m icrofiche (not m icrofilm , which is far more common for back runs of jour­ nals!), com puterized database searches, and com­ puterized catalogs. Of respondents, 66% said they had used microfiche over the past 3 years. Of these users, 56 % found the fiche readable, and rated ac­ cess to machines adequate, but only 18 % were sat­ isfied w ith the quality of paper copies. C om puterized literature searching was widely available to the scholars surveyed (76%). Although February 1987 / 65 only half th at many made use of this technology, satisfaction is “fairly widespread” (71 % according to the text, 65% from Table 12 of the ACLS pre­ liminary report.) C o m p u te riz e d catalo g s w ere accessible to 45-47 % of the respondents (another minor dis­ crepancy between Table 12 and the text), but only 29% had used such catalogs. Interestingly, 65% of respondents at research universities reported access to online catalogs vs. 23% at colleges. Scholars re­ acted in a mildly positive fashion to the online cata­ log: 38 % agreed that it increased access to schol­ arly materials, 37 % found that it made library use more enjoyable, 23% believed that it increased their research productivity whereas 17% agreed that it increased their teaching productivity. When asked to rank the importance of six sources of scholarly materials, scholars placed materials in their institution’s libraries third (48%), after m ate­ rials in their personal library (77%) and materials purchased during the past year (62%), although these would presumably be included in one’s per­ sonal library. Although the library collection was still ranked third, the percentage of “great im por­ tance” rankings was 59% at research universities. The importance of interlibrary loan was clearly voiced: 52 % ranked it of moderate or great im por­ tance. The survey asked whether workshops or semi­ nars were provided at their institutions to acquaint them with new library services (46% said no, but at research universities, tw o -th ird s said yes). Scholars reported o rien tatio n /in stru ctio n p ro ­ grams for freshman (75% more at colleges!); and 37-40 % for upperclassmen and graduate students. In some fields, h alf the faculty did not know whether such guidance was provided. ACLS also reported on the nonacademic respon­ dents in somewhat less detail. They concluded that all constituencies involved in scholarly communi­ cation are p art of “a single system and thus funda­ mentally dependent on each other.” Survey reservations Although the survey shows that in most respects scholarly communication is healthier than many believe, there are some areas critical to the library community that are slighted in the survey. Several survey questions address the issue of how scholars com m unicate their findings to others: publication; presentation of scholarly papers; con­ ference attendence; teaching; and the sharing of pre-publication m aterial. However, the survey does not address the range of library-centered strat­ egies that are necessary to secure these resources. To be sure, the survey questions scholars on the ad­ equacy of their institutional holdings and the ease of ILL access to materials not available. However, the survey fails to recognize th a t scholars often must travel to other institutions in order to gain ac­ cess to materials in special collections. W hether scholars perceive themselves as impeded in access­ ing these m aterials—often located in other cities, states, and nations—is an im portant concern that the ACLS survey should have considered. On a related m atter, while the bulk of the survey emphasized the newly afforded technology, the scope of the questions seems somewhat parochial. Since scholarship knows no national boundaries, Many were dissatisfied with the peer review process. the benefits of technological development at an in­ ternational scale might have been explored. This omission is especially notable given recent efforts between nations to devise common bibliographic entries, to share bibliographic databases, and to re­ move barriers to transborder data flow. Yet even at a national level the survey did not attem pt to probe faculty awareness of the diverse forms of library co­ operation which increase scholarly access to source material: OCLC, RLG, ARL, CRL, etc. The survey does not address the issues of institu­ tional governance and academic powers, as though scholarship could prosper as well if left solely in the hands of scholars and librarians. Given the extent to w hich scholarship depends on institutional funding and external grants, it is unfortunate that no survey questions probed the role of adm inistra­ tive support mechanisms. Alumni, student, and commercial pressures influence both the quality and quantity of scholarship. Moreover, given that the questionnaire and survey report stressed the un­ necessary inconveniences experienced by faculty at the hands of librarians, corresponding questions should have addressed as well the institutional en­ cumbrances which face today’s scholars. However, the most surprising omission in the survey concerns future scholarly access to rapidly deteriorating source material. The Gouncil on Li­ brary Resources estimates th at among the 305 mil­ lion books in America’s major research libraries, 76 million (or 24.9%) are brittle. The Library of Con­ gress reports th at one-fourth of its book collection is crumbling, with books published on highly acidic paper between 1860-1920 at particular risk. Surely scholars are not indifferent to the fate of these irreplaceable materials. Some may argue that the disintegration process can be stalled, yet the de­ bate continues on the relative merits of mass de­ acidification, even as the L ib rary of Congress moves ahead with the diethyl zinc process. Preser­ vation by microform reproduction is costly and is presently proceeding at a snail’s pace. A recent re­ port on “Cooperative Preservation Efforts at Aca­ demic Libraries” in the Occasional Papers of the 66 / C&RL News University of Illinois G raduate School of L ibrary and Inform ation Science (1986) analyzes the m ajor national plans for preservation in the U.S. from 1954-1985. It asserts th a t preservation (i.e., p re­ ventative care, replacem ent, or reform ation of in­ form ation) will present m ajor difficulties for schol­ arly com m unication over the next several decades. The ACLS survey did not explore the types of Preservation efforts were not addressed. preservation action—research, education, fund­ ing, or individual and collective effort—desired by the com m unity of scholars. This oversight is sur­ prising given the recent form ation of an Office for Preservation w ithin ACLS as well as the findings of the ACLS–sponsored N ational E n q u iry th a t a f­ firm ed th a t “w hat is needed is not the preservation of all items in all libraries, but the certainty th a t no works are lost in their entirety.” Hence, recom ­ m endation 4.4 of their 1979 report stresses urgent federal and private attention to preservation pro b ­ lems faced by research libraries, yet the ACLS sur­ vey seven years later did not query scholars on their assessment of the significance of this problem . In the W inter/Spring 1986 issue of the A C L S N ew sletter readers learned of the mission of the newly established NEH Office of Preservation. Its director, H arold C. C annon, m ade a passionate appeal for scholarly responsibility in selecting w h at is to be saved in each field of specialization. Al­ though librarians saw the funding of this office as a m ajor step tow ard preservation as a national fund­ ing priority, C annon reports th at scholars “seem to be content to let librarians take care of these m at­ ters.” However, if the essential task of the hum anist scholar is to make available our cultural heritage, to rescue from oblivion each w orthy creation of the hum an spirit, then the scholarly com m unity was slighted w hen preservation issues w ere om itted from the survey. Implications for academic librarians The survey offers academ ic librarians an un u ­ sual opportunity to “see ourselves as others see us,” a benefit of inestimable value. W hile we m ay be pleased th a t the scholars who responded were, in the m ajority, satisfied w ith library collections and services, the results indicate areas w here academ ic libraries could correct popular misconceptions, fill some gap, do a b etter job, prom ote services better, m ake specific changes, or correct m isinform ation. This section of our article addresses some of these areas. Scholars’ substitution o f library subscriptions fo r personal subscriptions. The report indicates th at scholars do not cancel their own subscriptions to journals in favor of using lib rary subscriptions. One im portant reason for this can be im plied from the study: the journals the scholars deem most sig­ nificant are those received as p a rt of m em bership in professional associations. The survey evidence does not support the lam ent of hum anities journal editors, th a t circulation is stagnant or dw indling because scholars rely on library copies, thereby re­ ducing subscription levels. Evidence seems to point the other way: the average num ber of journal sub­ scriptions was 4.7, w ith 67% reporting no change for the previous year, w ith more scholars (19%) in­ creasing the num ber of subscriptions than decreas­ ing them (13%), a p attern consistent across disci­ plines. For the academ ic librarian, however, this figure is im portant inform ation in dealing w ith publisher associations th a t claim th a t library sub­ scriptions cause attrition in individual subscrip­ tions. Scholars regularly m onitor or check occasionally 6-8 serials in their specialty. Are these journals in the library? In a departm ental collection? Do they belong to colleagues? G iven th e fa c t th a t the scholars consider them im portant enough to m oni­ tor, there m ay be a role for the academ ic librarian (particularly the subject specialist) in m aintaining tim ely co m p u ter–generated interest profiles for faculty and research staff, and regular m onitoring (m anually or online) certain journals for them (so- called Selective Dissem ination of Inform ation). This kind of activity could prove invaluable, not only in providing a service for which a clear need is expressed in the study results, but also to keep the library faculty in touch w ith the im portant work of the institution; to contribute to knowledge useful in collection development; and to indicate interest in being directly useful to faculty and research staff. Budgetary costs m ight be shared w ith d ep a rt­ ments, since the benefits are reciprocal. H alf of the scholars responding read book review p u b lica­ tions; but neither Choice nor Booklist was included by ACLS in its list of such publications. ALA has an obligation to inform scholars of its valuable book review tools, em phasizing Booklist w ith its orientation tow ard general readers and the u n d e rg ra d u a te -o rie n te d C hoice. A cadem ic li­ braries are often remiss w hen they design user book review aids and ignore Choice and Booklist, deem ­ ing them in-house trade journals. ACRL should undertake additional efforts to prom ote Choice; ALA’s Public Inform ation Office m ight be inter­ ested in a com bined effort. Scholars need help in understanding the process o f scholarly com m unication. The ARL report, The Changing System o f Scholarly C om m unication, does an excellent job of sum m arizing the role of re­ search libraries in the scholarly publishing cycle. However, the need for an agent to explain and in­ February 1987 / 67 terpret the process of scholarly communication is clear from the survey. Here is a potential role for the library, although the ARL report acknow l­ edges th a t “there is not much evidence th a t re­ search libraries have become as closely involved w ith the scholars they serve as is desirable." Think­ ing about com m unicating the results of scholarship should be a p art of the development of the research itself. The role of library staff in research courses need not be limited to the use of the library’s re­ sources, but could expand to include an explana­ tion of some of the options for dissemination: • th e journal article: how to w rite it; the exist­ ence of guidelines for various journals; how to ap­ proach different kinds of journal editors; the peer review process; tim e delays; revising and resubm it­ ting manuscripts; page costs; preprints; and re­ prints. •presentation of papers at meetings of profes­ sional associations; the call for papers; timing; peer review; techniques for oral presentation; use of au­ diovisual aids; dealing w ith questions; publication of proceedings. •presentation of brief results as letters in major journals or in newsletters, w ithout peer review. •publication of books or parts of books: dealing w ith a publisher and editor; advances; deadlines; tran sm ittal of m anuscripts online; tim e delays; royalties; and contracts. The library faculty is unique on the campus in relationship to the publishing industry; we have an opportunity to contribute more broadly to the dis­ semination of the work done on our campus, to be truly helpful to scholars in our institution, and to establish another area of expertise for which we are rarely given credit. A possible ACRL contribution m ight be continuing education courses for aca­ demic librarians on these topics. Scholarly use o f electronic mail and networks is still rare. Librarians are increasingly fam iliar w ith a num ber of electronic networks. They began using TW X ’s in the 1960s for in terlib rary loan; they m oved on to electronic netw orks for IL L and shared mail. This aspect of the librarian’s expertise should be exploited by their institutions, but rarely is. The reasons include: few academics th at we know have this expertise; m any institutions haven’t done much about networking outside the campus; librarians know more about inter-institutional net­ working than about local networks; and the con­ cepts and practices th at guide networking are not prom oted to faculty who rem ain largely ignorant of the research benefits of OC LC , RLG, ARL, etc. This would be an excellent tim e for librarians to bom bard adm inistrators and personnel w ith sug­ gestions based on library experience and a good as­ sessment of w hat is likely to happen in the future. L ibrarians should volunteer to serve on institu­ tional committees investigating networking and telecommunications. If they don’t, their needs are likely to be overlooked. Administrators need the in­ fo rm atio n academ ic lib ra ria n s have available. They need it now, and in a form they can use—at least partially digested. For instance, 3 or 4 articles on various university telecom m unication systems, fiber optic cable, and m icrow ave transm ission m ight be sent, w ith a brief sum m ary and im plica­ tions for the institution, to the data processing head w ith a copy to the adm inistrator to whom the li­ brary reports. Most scholars do not use existing online catalogs. Som e c o m p u te r a p p lica tio n s m ost used by scholars are library–related. Knowing th at scholars are likely to use computers to compile bibliogra­ phies and indexes, access online databases, and use the online catalog, academic librarians could play a more active role in educating the academic com­ m unity in these areas. The library m ight make available dem onstration copies of software pack­ ages for compiling bibliographies and indexes, and offer brief instruction in the principles of such packages and how they work, together w ith some demo time. End-user training is becoming more and more a p art of library services; an academic library th at doesn’t have such a program should aim at estab­ lishing one. A ttitudes toward computers are rapidly becom ­ ing more positive. W hereas academic librarians in the past may have feared faculty rejection of li­ brary com puter applications, they may now expect more acceptance. It is a good time to let faculty members know w hat is happening with computers in the lib ra ry w ith the expectation th a t m any scholars will w ant to make increased use of such applications. Scholars ranked libraries lower than their own personal collections in importance as a source of scholarly materials. They evaluated library collec­ tions least positively in relation to: journal and book holdings for student needs and journal hold­ ings for faculty teaching needs. These findings should give academic librarians some concern. Certainly in the areas of the hum an­ ities and social sciences libraries should carry out needs assessments, evaluate collections, and work w ith faculty to improve collections. The use of the RLG Conspectus may be helpful in this regard. Moreover, the 3rd edition of Books fo r College L i­ braries will be published in 1987-88, adding up-to- date faculty–approved selections for collection de­ velopment. Scholars do use microfiche; they are dissatisfied w ith library equipm ent and collections. Librarians generally assume th at scholars will not use m icro­ 68 / C&RL News forms. At least for fiche, the study shows w ide­ spread use—acceptance is higher th an librarians believe. H ow ever, two im p o rtan t areas for im ­ provem ent are equipm ent and collections. Up-to- date reader-printers are lower in price th an older models. Making microform use more com fortable w ill increase facu lty acceptance, w hich is ex­ trem ely im portant as so m any libraries tu rn to m i­ croforms to preserve the intellectual content of de­ te rio ra tin g m a te ria ls. A ccording to th e ARL report, “existing book and journal collections will no doubt need to be m aintained and developed for years.” The ACTS survey shows scholars still w ed­ ded to hard-copy form at. Yet it offers little faculty input on how libraries m ight respond to the presen­ tation of scholarly demands in traditional formats, while rem aining oriented to participation effective in future systems of scholarly communication. Scholars are m aking modest use o f available on­ line search services. W hile 76 % of the scholars said com puterized searching was available to them , only 38% said they ever used it, and only 18% re­ ported using computers to access online databases. There is clearly an im portant role for the lib rar­ ian in p ro m o tin g m ore extensive use of online searching. If problems of fees for access cloud the issue, librarians must come to grips w ith them . So­ lutions are to be found in increased sharing of infor­ m ation through groups such as ACRL’s FISCAL Discussion Group, and through research studies. M eanwhile, the training of end-users in libraries must take on increasing im portance. Although cer­ tain searches will require the expertise of an inter­ m ediary, more and more scholars (and students) will do their own com puterized searches. This will include the new CD-ROM databases, packages such as Info-Search, which simplify search strategy development and com m and languages, and the in­ creasing num ber of nonbibliographic databases available to scholars. Failure to take a leadership role now will dim in­ ish the library role in future campus autom ation developments. Scholars are not yet taking fu ll advantage o f on­ line catalogs, and they report not receiving ade­ quate instruction in the use of this service. Not only is online searching underused, but the survey re­ port shows th at most scholars do not use existing online catalogs. W hile 45-47 % have online c a ta­ logs available for at least p art of the library collec­ tion, only 29% report ever having used them , and only 18 % said they used computers to access th em . The library role in educating users is clearly of prim e im portance. This is a m ajor difference be­ tween the searchable features of the card catalog and the online catalog, even at this early stage in their development. The library is the only unit on campus th at can provide training in the use of this tool, but to justify the tremendous expense of creat­ ing it the library must make converts of faculty, staff, and students. Studies of online catalog use are crucial if each academic library is to appreciate the use of inform ation by its com m unity and improve access to the catalog and other library services. The relatively modest level of enthusiasm expressed in this study must be raised if librarians are to con- February 1987 / 69 tinue to receive funding for automation projects. While 65 % of respondents at research universi­ ties reported the existence of an online catalog of part or all of the collection, only 23 % at colleges so reported. While this finding is not a surprise, it demonstrates a strong opportunity for college li­ braries at this time. According to Richard Boss, who recently spoke to college librarians at the Oberlin Conference for College Librarians, the time is ripe for development of online catalogs. Much development by vendors in creating catalogs for larger libraries has placed such agents in a posi­ tion to provide at this time integrated systems for smaller academic libraries. W hile costs are not trivial, the expectation of success is much greater than a few years ago. Conclusion The ACLS survey of scholars in relation to pub­ lishing, computers, and libraries provides implica­ tions for librarians both in research and in action. Such studies provide valuable material needed by librarians in order to direct them toward improved collections and service. The authors are grateful to ACLS for providing us with useful insights about our relationships with one of our user communities and would welcome further dialogue on these issues. ■ ■ W illiam W ordsworth an d the Age o f English R om an ticism By Linda G. Schulze Assistant Director, Wordsworth Project Rutgers University Rediscovering the Romantics. B e g in n in g in November of 1987, libraries across America will have the opportunity to join in a m a­ jor humanities project th at promises to have a last­ ing im pact on the teaching of humanities in this country. The project, “William Wordsworth and the Age of English Romanticism,” will provide a chance for people throughout the country to ex­ plore the topic of Rom anticism from its 18th- century roots to its 19th-century triumphs, and im­ plicitly invites the spectator to consider the 20th century’s debt to the Romantics by making clear the crucial role of Romanticism in shaping hum an thought. Politically, historically, philosophically—the changes wrought during this era transformed the world and inevitably our conception of how we re­ late to it. The aim of this project, then, is to engen­ der a reassessment of the role of Romanticism in the modern world: in high school and college curricula and, even more significantly, on the life of the indi­ vidual and the culture as a whole. Funded by a grant from the National Endow-