ACQNET: Summary of Mid-Winter Discussion

From: ELEANOR COOK <COOKEI_at_appstate.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: acqnet-l_at_listproc.appstate.edu
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 08:56:25 -0500
From: E. Gail McClenney (VA State University) <gmcclenn_at_vsu.edu>
Subject: Summary of Mid-Winter ALA/ALCTS Creative Ideas in Technical
Services Discussion Group

Summary of the ALCTS Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion 
Group Mid-Winter 2001

Sixty-eight people met in the Parkview Room of the Hotel Washington to 
discuss six topics affecting technical services librarians today. Discussion 
topics included:  metadata, electronic resources, cross training, competencies 
for professionals, and serials/microforms.  Summaries of discussions are 
included below.

Metadata was co-facilitated by Rachel Wadham, Brigham Young University 
and Michael Chopey, University of Hawaii at Manoa.  Serving as recorders 
were Coby Johnson, University of Montana and Elaine Westbrook, Cornell 
University.  The group found that one of greatest issues in dealing with 
metadata is understanding what the term "metadata" really means and what 
does metadata encompass.   How worthwhile is it to translate information 
into a bibliographic record.  There is the "feeling that we don't know what 
we're dealing with."  The value of the information is called into question and 
the "technology is moving so fast that we as librarians need to get a handle 
on it."  The cataloger's job is to improve the basic Dublin Core records, but 
the question still remains "Do we need to remove our selection policies? 
Does all this  information need full records?"  When asked, it was found 
that many of the participants in this discussion group were still adding 
records through World Cat rather than CORC.

There were two discussion groups on electronic resources.  The facilitators 
were Rodney Lippard, Catawba College and Joanne Oud, Wilfred Laurier.  
The recorders were Beth Feinberg, UCLA and Linda Phillips, University of 
Tennessee.  Although there were two discussion groups, both had very 
similar issues and concerns.  In both groups  the issue of licensing emerged. 
Who actually negotiates or signs licenses varies widely.  Some libraries have 
specialists or attorneys to work out the details; others have systems staff who 
do the work.  Still others use their collection development department staff 
to work out the details.  Another issue that crossed both discussions is 
treatment of electronic resources in the online catalog.  How is that access 
going to be provided?  Can vendors provide records?  The third issue that 
crossed the discussion groups was the effect of electronic resources on the 
budget.  Some libraries canceled duplicate subscriptions, others looked to 
include funding in the subject areas for the electronic resources.

Cross training was another topic addressed.  Lorry Zeugner, University of 
Notre Dame, and Sara Williams, University of Tennessee co-facilitated the 
discussion.  Jett McCann, EBSCO and Gosia Fort, University of Pittsburgh, 
served as co-recorders.  The group found that cross training initiatives appear 
to have been more successful crossing from technical services into public 
services or into other areas of technical services. Cross training from the 
public services side into the technical services side were not as successful.  
Some areas in which participants of  the discussion found that cross training 
worked best were in bibliographic instruction and in acquisitions and 
cataloging such as accepting/selecting LC records.  The group also agreed 
that when cross training becomes a "standard part of a job" that it is 
 more successful, than "if it is done on an irregular basis."

Competencies for professionals was a fourth topic on the discussion list.  
Jack Hall, University of Houston, and Janette Griffin, University of New 
Orleans led the discussion.  Lois Schulz, Duke University and Ngoc-My 
Guidarelli, Virginia Commonwealth University served as co-recorders. 
The group found that competencies beyond core job elements should 
include communication, leadership, management, and technological skills.  
There is often tension associated with having to perform the elements of 
the job and those "other" duties as required; people are stretched to meet 
all the demands.  Librarians should be "proactive in making sure that we 
have the training we need."

Serials/Microforms was fifth discussion group.  The facilitator was Pat 
Loghry, University of Notre Dame, serving as recorder was Diane J. 
Sheldon-Ku, ProQuest, (UMI).  The issues that arose in this discussion 
group included pros and cons with archiving.  Print and microform 
resources have been stable over a period of time.  People are comfortable 
using the print medium.  Print is "low tech and portable."  The arguments 
against print as an archival medium is that it requires constant re-shelving, 
there is no "remote access," and only a single user can access it.  The 
electronic medium provides desktop delivery, alleviates shelving concerns, 
and increases the user potential.  Of concern for the electronic medium is the 
instability of the product, the completeness of the product (what's missing), 
and the technological changes.  Other issues considered were how long the 
print format was retained and the training issues associated with providing 
access to electronic resources.

The final discussion group was on the topic of acquisitions/collection 
development work flows.  The discussion group was facilitated by Sha Li Zhang, 
Wichita State University, and recorded by Leslie O'Brien, Virginia Tech.  The 
group found that among the participants, there were several different models 
used to support collection development and acquisitions functions.  For one 
library it was a volunteer function, for others it was a team based effort.  
The group had concerns of the level of faculty involvement in the decision 
process. The management of electronic resources was also at issue. Concerns 
for licensing, gap coverage, document delivery, and budgetary effects were 
discussed.

Overall according to the evaluations, the discussion groups were very 
successful.  Evaluations of the discussion recommended more time, better 
space, and repeat of some of the same topics at annual.

Thank you to all of the participants, facilitators, and recorders.  We 
look forward to seeing you in San Francisco.

Submitted by Co-Chair,
Elizabeth G. McClenney
Associate Librarian for Technical Services
Johnston Memorial Library
Virginia State University
Petersburg, VA
(804)524-5580
Received on Sun Feb 11 2001 - 17:41:18 EST