A Poll for the Librarians out there

Ok, this is for all you librarians (probably all one of you) out there.  I have a new poll on my blog site.  It is one question, it will take you less than 30 seconds to answer.

So, please go to my blog if you are using a feed reader and take the poll on the right side.  And, if you want to elaborate on your answer, feel free to do so in the comments to this post.

Thanks!

Blog spammers! You are wasting your time here.

So, I know I don’t really have many readers to this blog and subsequently I get even fewer comments.  But I’m fine with that.  I consider this blog a work in progress, it is always developing and changing.  And I can understand that not every post I put up here is going to appeal to everyone.  That being said . . . with the %#@&*! spammers cut it out?!?!

There are only so many ‘This blog is great!  I will definitely be back here soon!’ comments I can take.  And the stupid links to the stupid money-making schemes.  Seriously?    

Luckily for you, my two readers (Hi Dad!), you don’t have to endure them, they all get deleted.  Now, at this point I think the real question is . . . how soon before someone tries to spam this post?

Article Series (14): some thoughts on interlibrary loan to ponder

Smith, Jane. “The RAPIDly Changing World of Interlibrary Loan.” Technical Services Quarterly. 23.4 (2006): 17-25. Print.

I was reading this article for my online interlibrary loan class and found that while most of what the article was about was not relevant to me, I found some interesting things at the beginning I wanted to comment on.

The article begins as follows:

‘Traditionally, Interlibrary Loan (ILL) has been a largely unacknowledged service in many libraries.  ILL seemed to chastise, serving as a reminder that carefully constructed, painstakingly reviewed collections were inadequate.  A library’s need for ILL seemed to signal a failure of analysis resulting in a lack of material, as well as a lack of foresight in planning in future research needs.  No library would ever admit a reliance on ILL to satisfy its clientele.’ (17-18)

This is an interesting observation.  Although, I would like to know where Ms. Smith got this idea.  Was it her original thought?  Or are there several others that have brought  this up in the professional discourse?  I don’t think I would define interlibrary loan as something that seems to chastise the performance of a library’s collection development staff.  Each library has its own unique circumstances for why it provides interlibrary loan services.  These observations seem to gloss over all these circumstances.  Besides, in some libraries I think the success of interlibrary loan services can be significant signal of success for the library in general.

In the next paragraph, the author writes the following:

‘It is undeniable that the importance of resource sharing has grown quickly and tremendously in the past five years.  The burgeoning costs of journal subscriptions, regardless of format, have seriously affected budget-crippled libraries worldwide . . . Couple this budget crisis with users’ easy access to a growing number of online bibliographic databases and a spiraling increase in research indexing, and the result is the inability of any library to serve its patrons well without serious resource-sharing participation.’ (18)

Ok people, do we just keep regurgitating the same statements and phrases in print and in conversations with colleagues and never really doing anything about it?  Hmm . . . I’m starting to wonder.  I mean, seriously, this article was published in 2006, it is now 2010 and I hear the same arguments today.  What made these statements unique in 2006 and what makes them unique today? 

She goes on:

‘The increasing attention to ILL services highlights the drawbacks of resource sharing.  Slow, expensive, and staff intensive, resource sharing is a struggle for understaffed, under-funded libraries.  The premise of ILL service is that requested materials are delivered in a timely, cost-effective, and efficient manner; the reality of the service is often very different.’ (18)

What planet was she working on in 2006?  Slow?  Expensive?  Staff intensive?  Granted, not all libraries can afford to have a fast and robust ILL service, but I think it is unfair to imply the service was cumbersome in all libraries in 2006.  It was not, and is not today.  However, I will agree that ILL is still a service that needs improvement in some libraries because of things like lack of staff and funds. 

Also, the author does not take the time to define resource sharing.  From the context of the article, I get the sense she is suggesting that interlibrary loan and resource sharing are one in the same.  However, today, in 2010, I think they can mean different things.  Interlibrary Loan is specifically about borrowing and lending materials between libraries in ‘just in time’ fashion to supplement a user’s research with materials not at their local library.  Resource sharing is much broader than that.  Now, I will admit that I am still shaping my definition of resource sharing, today I see it as more of a concept/philosophy, of which, interlibrary loan is one aspect.  I see resource sharing as a blanket phrase used to identify the collaborative efforts between libraries to share print and electronic materials, provide services, possibly share staff, as a way to expand upon and change the way collection development is conceived and carried out, and much more.  I think it all hinges on the word ‘resource’.  If you stop and think for a moment, how do you define the word resource in the context of libraries?  What do you consider a resource?  I think the libraries of 2010 can easily blow the roof off of what we think we mean by resource sharing.  I only wish Ms. Smith had taken the time to define what she meant by the phrase. 

Come on people, tell me how you define resource sharing?

My second ‘Library Day in the Life’-Day 5

Oy vay!  Very glad this day is over.  Why didn’t anyone tell me there was a full moon?!?!?

• Yeah, I had every intention of getting up at 6 and getting to work early . . . instead I woke up at 6:49 . . .
• Once I got to work I had a half hour before a meeting and found out there was a mix up with an overdue interlibrary loan book that is still not resolved, but it will be eventually.  But, I am going to have to start revising our interlibrary loan policies . . . yes, necessary, but I’m thinking about how I now have more to do . . . ugh.
• The meeting went ok, it was necessary, but more work too.
• Then, after the meeting and before lunch I got a call from accounts payable.  They had a question about a reimbursement request I had submitted for my current online class.  Basically I was told I submitted the request late, despite the fact that the class is not over yet, and had to send an email explaining why it was late.  But I am still confused about why it is considered late and why I was unaware of all the requirements for submitting such requests.  So, in the afternoon I sent the email, but I wish I knew about this before it was considered late because I would have had it in in advance . . . oh well.
• Actually left the office for lunch, but it was wicked cold.  Really, really cold!
• I was supposed to have a student helper in the afternoon, but they never showed, so I ended up doing more ILL processing than I expected and paperwork, overdues and phone calls have to wait until next week.
• Did go online at 2 for a chat with classmates for my online class.  Unfortunately, the conversation didn’t really interest me much.  Thankfully I have dual monitors so I was able to do work at the same time.
• Late in the afternoon there was a photocopier toner problem.  I didn’t hear what the resolution was but then a student came into my office looking for help with the copier, I sent him to Circulation and not 30 seconds later the Circulation student was in my office asking for toner.  I had no idea what to tell him and explained why there was no toner.  I know I should have made more of an effort (bad librarian!) but I didn’t have any answers for them, I think I would have made things worse.
• Got out of work around 5:30 and only then saw the giant full moon hanging over campus as I drove home.  Well, at least I know why the day was so crazy. 
• Went home, made dinner, and watched some movies on HBO while browsing my stack of unread Time Out New York magazines.  Hooray for the weekend!  Now I can focus on some wedding planning.

My second ‘Library Day in the Life’ week-Day 4

So . . . I thought I was getting a jump on today by going to bed earlier last night . . . but the weather decided otherwise.

This was my quietest day.  The snow we got during the morning commute kept me from getting to work before 9:30.  And, because of the weather some classes never met.  It snowed until after lunch and then just stayed cold.  It was just a day of more interlibrary loan (4 buckets of delivered books!  Over 70 books total and no student help.), paperwork, etc.  Overall, not much happened.  Although . . . I’m still trying to figure out if I got anything significant or enough done.  Well, I can’t say what I got done, but I did work all day.  Ever have a day like that?

Article Series (13): a nugget of truth

This installment in my article series is not an article.  It is a quotation from a book I am reading.  Naturally, I heard an interview of the author on NPR and went in search of the book.  The book is titled My Paper Chase by Harold Evans.   Mr. Evans is from Manchester, England and he writes about his career in newspapers.  Currently I am about halfway through and find it very entertaining.  It makes for a very good story.  I recommend you pick it up if you are looking around for something new to read.  Or, add it to your list of things you want to read.  The quotation is not long, but I think it is something that, in addition to teachers, librarians understand very well. 

“I’d been made to appreciate what schoolteachers learn painfully but journalists behind a shield rarely do: transmitting information is easier than creating understanding.” (And . . . I neglected to write down the page number . . . sorry Mr. Evans.)

Week 4 ILL/Res. Sharing online class . . . uh, yeah, totally behind.

So, how is this four-week online class going you ask?  Well, maybe you aren’t asking, but I want to say that the time has completely gotten away from me on the readings.  Just not enough time to do it all, I am nowhere near getting all the readings done. 

Maybe a marathon reading session needs to be done some time today . . .

And I thought this class would be a piece of cake.  Although I cannot deny that the information is really valuable and extremely useful. 

Ugh!  Ok, back to work.  Or I will never get to the chat session that is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.

Article Series (12): Why are some non-users of interlibrary loan non-users?

Porat, Lynne and Sara Fine.  “Factors and characteristics of interlibrary loan use and non-use.”  Interlending & Document Supply.  31.1(2009): 20-27.  Print.

I found this article interesting first because of the title.  Non-use is an issue in the ILL department I run.  Although, we have  a small faculty on our campus, a very small number of those use the ILL services the library supplies.  I have wondered about that a few times in the three+ years I have been here.  So, I thought this article would possibly shed some light on why some patrons simply are non-users.

However, once I read the article there was not much information I could take from it beyond a few things that confirmed some of my suspicions (but not all of them).

To start though, I have one beef with the article, it fails to covey whether it accomplished its purpose(s).  The section ‘Differences between users and non-users of ILDS’ reads as follows: 

‘The problem addressed in the current study is why some researchers do not use ILDS even though items that are relevant and useful to the research at hand are not immediately available in their library or free on the Internet.  The main purpose of the study was to investigate whether there were differences in the style of information-seeking between users and non-users of ILDS which might explain why relatively few researchers use the service.  In addition, its aim was to ascertain which factors users perceived as contributing to satisfactory outcomes, which exceeded their expectations.  The study is significant in that it highlights the role of ILDS in the information-seeking process and in the research cycle as a whole.  In addition, it may assist librarians in accommodating the different styles of information-seeking and addressing perceptions and misperceptions about ILDS and providing services and resources that promote its effective use.’ (21-22)

This section sounds very ambitious . . . but I have no idea, from the entire article, if the study accomplished these things.  It very well may have, but that is not articulated.  Also, it would have been helpful if the authors elaborated on how exactly the study results could assist in ‘accomodating the different styles of information-seeking and addressing perceptions and misperceptions about ILDS and providing services and resources that promote its effective use.’  Details would have been helpful. 

I do think that some of the ‘Findings’ and the ‘Practical and theoretical implications of findings’ sections were great:

‘The main finding of the current study was that ILDS users tended to be senior, productive, humanities faculty members who frequently borrowed books from the library who had a deep style of information-seeking.  Non-users of ILDS tended to be less senior, less productive science faculty members who use the library’s services and resources infrequently and who had a superficial style of information seeking.’ (22)

‘ . . . widespread access to electronic articles has caused a decline in the document supply aspect of ILDS.’ (22)

‘The study also attempted to find out if there was a relationship between satisfaction with ILDS outcomes, which exceeded users’ expectations and were integrated into their research, and the perceived benefit of the consultation of secondary information sources, choosing informative/indicative titles, receiving reference assistance, and achieving timely deliveries.  The findings showed that there was not significant relationship between choosing informative/indicative titles or achieving timely deliveries and satisfaction with ILDS outcomes.  However, there was a significant relationship between users’ perceptions of the benefits of consulting secondary information sources, such as abstracts, table of contents, and citation indexes, and of receiving reference assistance, prior to requesting ILDS and satisfaction with the outcomes.’ (22-23)

‘The main practical implication of the findings was that an awareness of the profiles of users and non-users of ILDS may enable librarians to identify potential or under-users and encourage them to become regular users.  In addition, an awareness of the contribution of the consultation of secondary information sources and reference assistance to ILDS outcomes may encourage librarians to verify and refer to secondary sources prior to recommending ILDS and thereby increase patron satisfaction with the outcomes.’ (23)

Overall, the article attempted to be tight, informative and direct.  Unfortunately, it failed.  It seemed to be a collection of interesting ideas, literature reviews and study results from a longer, more thorough, article.  I think in trying to economize the word count, the authors missed a great opportunity to share some fascinating and useful insights.  Yet, there are some nuggets of good information if you are willing to give this one a read.

My second ‘Library Day in the Life’ week-Day 3

Really, why did I go to bed after midnight last night?!?!?

• Dragged my carcass out of bed at 7 am, an hour later than my normal 6 am.  But, was still able to have breakfast and make lunch before getting in the car to work.  The problem with leaving later in the morning is that I drive past four schools and you run into school traffic if you are commuting between 8 and 9.
• Didn’t get to work until just before 9:30, had about an hour before our staff meeting.  Got some paperwork done and a few phone calls and processed a few interlibrary loan transactions.  Good news!  The space we want to use for the ACRL/NY Symposium (same as last year) has been verbally confirmed.  Now we just have to fill out the paperwork and get the deposit in.  Whoo hoo!
• 10:30 staff meeting went ok, but our normal room is being renovated so we were squeezed into a room too small for all of us.  We talked about the upcoming LibQUAL survey I am helping with, some web tutorials some of my colleagues are diligently working on putting together (can’t wait to see what they come up with), and some updates on further renovations/construction going on in the library.  We are currently having spaces repurposed into additional classrooms and office space as some departments need to vacate their normal locations temporarily.  Then the librarians met for an interesting discussion about a promotion and tenure topic.
• We were asked to share our thoughts on how use of things like blogs, wikis, e-journals and the like should possibly be evaluated in relation to promotion and tenure.  It actually was an interesting conversation.  A colleague shared an article in American Libraries, January/February 2010 that address the very topic we were discussing.  Now, while we were just sharing our thoughts, this idea is only beginning to be explored by those who would possibly open it up to a wider discussion on campus.  So, we don’t know where this will go, but we were happy to be asked to share our ideas.  The main thing we came up with was that really the format of promotion and tenure materials should not be the issue, it is the content and contributions  in relation to the person’s discipline that is important.  I can’t remember who came up with the phrase (not me) but it was called ‘format neutral.’  It will be interesting to see where this goes because I think all campuses with tenure is thinking about and discussing this issue.
• Lunch was again at my desk today, I have to leave slightly early today, but not as early as yesterday.  I did some paperwork, emails, talked to the ACRL/NY president about some chapter things like the symposium, and got some stuff together to bring down to my stacks reference shift with me.
• Stacks Reference was pretty quiet today, but I think I got enough questions to warrant me being there.  While there, I worked on my blog posts.
• Done in the stacks at 4 and had a half hour to get a few articles copied, answer a few phone calls and talk to my doctor’s office about changing my coumadin intake (not happy about the change, but I guess I don’t have a choice).
• Left at 4:30 for my appointment.  Where did I go?  Mammogram.  Yep, that’s what I wrote.  Do the women in your life (including yourself) get regular mammograms?  Well, if they don’t, they should go . . . ASAP.  I can’t say it is the most exciting thing to do, but it took less than ten minutes once I was in there.
• Got home to make some dinner, check some emails, blog, pay some more bills and shop for wedding shoes . . . I think I’ll go to bed a bit early to get a jump on tomorrow. 

My second ‘Library Day in the Life’ week-Day 2

Uhhh . . . yeah, yesterday was a bit of a blur.  Let’s see what I can remember.

• Got up a bit earlier and was able to successfully make my lunch and have breakfast before getting in the car to go to work.
• The road that was closed the night before (due to the wind and rain and power outages) was reopened and the drive was pretty uneventful.
• Work was  a bit hectic because I knew I had to leave by 3:15 for a doctor appointment.  Hmm, what can I do to be productive?
• The morning involved some interlibrary loan processing, reviewing of some LibQUAL notes and draft emails to comment on and give back to my colleague (she reported that we are getting some great help with incentives from other campus departments), also spoke to my director about his idea for weeding and moving the popular collection-a great idea and one I am grateful he suggested it.  I’m excited to do the weeding and get that collection in a more visible area.  The reason for the move is because that space will be renovated.  The renovation will be good because that area is now the ‘ugly step-child’ of the library that hardly anyone uses these days.  Our information commons computers will go in that space eventually.
• Lunch was at my desk, as I was leaving early, and also involved a bunch of packing up of interlibrary loan materials for shipment.
• The afternoon was about making phone calls for ACRL/NY (securing a space for the symposium), trying to get my car in for service and working on some paperwork.  Honestly, I know I got some stuff done in the afternoon, but I think I ended up with more papers on my desk than I started with that morning.  Actually, I’m starting to think my papers are like rabbits, multiplying when you turn you head for a second.
• A student came in just before I was about to leave for my appointment, thankfully I was able to give him a quick and direct answer.
• I got to my appointment on time (this all has to do with my recent bout of deep vein thrombosis and bilateral pulmonary embolism) to get my coumadin levels checked with a blood test.  I have to say, I do like my hematologist, he has a nice way with his patients.
• After my blood test I went and got my nephew’s birthday gift, he is 3 today . . . he is really good at being three.  Recently,while on vacation, he got his ear bitten by another little boy.  I’m hoping he is starting to get over the trauma of it, his first day back to school he looked at the other children and said: “They’re going to bite me.”  Luckily the boy who bit him doesn’t go to his school or live anywhere near him.  Anyway, Happy Birthday Big Boy!  I got him . . . well, he’ll have to wait and see.
• Grocery shopping followed and I elected to cook my first pork tenderloin (garlic and black peppercorns).  It was a bit of a mess but was yummy.  It called for browning it in olive oil in a pan on the stove, then transferring it to the oven to cook for 20 mins. per pound.  Well . . . I almost burnt the olive oil before putting the pork in, then when I did the oil got everywhere as it sizzled and popped, but once browned it was easy to pop in the oven.  Then I just had to check the temperature before serving.  I’m actually pretty proud of myself.
• The evening was spent doing a bit of laundry and sitting on the couch doing online work (checking emails, searching for a flight for a conference, beefing up my wedding registry, paying bills) and watching TV next to my sweetie.  Then to bed after midnight.