ACQNET v6n017 (May 31, 1996) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v6n017 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 6, No. 17, May 31, 1996 ======================================== (1) FROM: Your Editor (Eleanor Cook) SUBJECT: A Special Introduction to a Special Issue (64 lines) (2) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: A Letter to Feather River (131 lines) (3) FROM: Eleanor Cook SUBJECT: Reply to Christian's letter (81 lines) (4) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Reply to Christian's letter (33 lines) (5) FROM: Marylou Hale SUBJECT: Reply to Christian's letter (40 lines) (6) FROM: Cynthia Coulter SUBJECT: Reply to Christian's letter (51 lines) (7) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Reply to Christian's letter (51 lines) (8) FROM: Scott Wicks SUBJECT: Do you have a license to drive on the Internet superhighway? (58 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------- >From the Editor: An Introduction to a Special Issue This is a special issue of ACQNET for several reasons. For one, it will be twice as long as usual and is devoted to a very specific topic: ACQNET itself. Second, I am hoping that each subscriber who cares about the future of ACQNET will read this and if you are too shy to respond publicly, or too busy to respond at length, that you will at least take the time to respond to me personally, even if it is just a couple of lines. I really would like substantial feedback and while I know that's asking a lot these days, it would mean a great deal to me. I recently attended the Feather River Institute in Blairsden, CA. It's often referred to the West Coast version of the Charleston Conference, though it has a very different ambiance (it's limited to 65 registrants). Scott Wicks has a posting about it in this issue and Peter Stevens is writing up a more comprehensive review that will appear soon. I presented a paper there on the past, present and future of ACQNET. I posted a brief questionnaire last month asking people to comment on web sites they had found through AcqWeb that they found interesting or annoying. This was to assist Steve Johnson and I in our presentations about acquisitions-related web sites. We only got a couple of responses! This was very discouraging, though perhaps it was because of the hasty fashion in which I designed the questions. But the low response also brings me to the main thesis of this issue: are we all drowning in e-mail these days to the point that we cannot engage in meaningful discussion via ACQNET and other lists and electronic newsletters? My hypothesis is that indeed we are overwhelmed, most of us, and that ACQNET's function has evolved to one of a typical bulletin board, and is no longer serving as an in-depth discussion forum. Following this introduction I am sharing with you the essence of a letter from Christian Boissonnas, founding editor of ACQNET, that was sent to the Feather River Institute with the intent of raising these questions. In response to Christian's letter are a number of replies, from myself and from members of the Editorial Board. I would very much like to hear from others of you who have something to say about this, and I will intersperse these "heavy" ACQNET issues amongst the more routine issues that need to continue to be posted. Take the time to speak out, please do. In taking responsibility as editor, I would like to say I agree with Christian that ACQNET is whatever the subscribers want it to be. It has evolved in to a very practical and less a theoretical forum. Is that what we want? Should ACQNET turn into a real listserve? That could happen if you want it to. I must also confess that I had many good intentions at the beginning of the calendar year to frame these very issues and then could not due to a number of serious distractions -- being the executor of my father's estate has been extremely time-consuming and wrought with personal challenges; situations at my library have been somewhat more demanding than usual for reasons you all can understand, and generally, as ACQNET has grown, managing it day-to- day has become ever more time-consuming. As you have read in previous issues, I am taking steps to find help, but just implementing the changes takes time. And all of us are finding ourselves slaves to the computer screen and that worries me sometimes. Please take the time to think about these issues if you will. I look forward to hearing from you ALL - all 1600+ of you! Your Editor, Eleanor Cook (2)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:21:24 -0400 From: Christian M. Boissonnas (Cornell U.) Subject: Feather River letter (E-mail version) [Ed. note: I have edited this slightly but without any significant change in substantial text; reprinted with permission by the author] May 9, 1996 Dear Meta: Dear Ron: I can't be with you this year, which is a pity. I love Feather River for the quality of the discussions that take place there, the camaraderie, and the fact that it is still one of the few gatherings in which librarians don't yet take each other too seriously. What prompts me to write this is the discussion on ACQNET and web pages in your program. This got me to thinking about communications in acquisitions librarianship, the kind that helps us live from day to day, the kind that ACQNET was created to facilitate. A bunch of us created ACQNET because we wanted to be in close contact with one another, compare notes on problems, commiserate about the latest unspeakable affront by whatever publisher or vendor was the bete noire du jour, and reinvent acquisitions librarianship (I see from the program that Joyce [Ogburn] is still trying) and have take its rightful place in the pantheon of librarianship disciplines. Some used, and still use occasionally, a particular loathsome expression, the "acquisitions sub-profession," to define what we were doing. These people didn't have a clue as to what acquisitions librarianship really was, but they tell us clearly how they viewed the profession and themselves: As sub-professionals. Yuck! But, then, we did not have a clue either, as it turns out. The reason we had so much trouble explaining acquisitions as a profession was that it isn't one. I refer you to a particular set of opinion pieces on the subject that appeared in _Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory_ last year (Vol 19:3, pp. 321-339.) Alex Bloss, who gets A for courage, attempted to define the value-added acquisitions librarian in a time of change. Meta, Ron, and I "trashed" him in separate responses in the same _LAPT_ issue. This series should have provoked all kinds of discussion among acquisitions people, on ACQNET and elsewhere, but there was nary a peep from anyone. I remember reading a posting from a cataloger, I think, who used the series to argue about the value of the cataloging process, but that's all. It is that silence that I cannot understand. A silence which descends upon acquisitions librarianship any time there is something really difficult to talk about, something that causes acquisitions librarians to shy away from looking closely at what they are, because they are afraid of what they will find, afraid that they will not measure up. It is a valid concern. Acquisitions librarians want to sell themselves as professionals. That was a stated aim in the acquisitions world when I joined it in 1977. It still was when I left two years ago. My generation failed to make much of an impression on this issue. We failed, I now believe, because the proposition that acquisitions librarianship is a profession is untenable. What defines us as professionals is the fact that we are librarians, not acquisitions, or catalog, or reference librarians. It is that silence which is so deafening on ACQNET. That silence which reflects our unwillingness to engage in introspection. Before anyone thinks I am being critical of Eleanor, let me say emphatically that I am not. I tried hard to light a fire under the profession when I was editor of ACQNET and I failed. I included a few opinion pieces, mostly my own, but they didn't provoke much discussion. And yet, what medium is more suitable to carry energetic debates about the profession, especially as it is changing? I have always maintained that ACQNET subscribers, not the editor, had the fundamental responsibility of defining ACQNET, and that the editor's main role is to attend to the orderly production of the issues. And this, Eleanor has done well, and we should be thankful to her for it. Not only that, she has added value to the communications process by tying ACQNET to AcqWeb. But, for some reason, subscribers have not wanted to take on the responsibility of defining ACQNET. So, what is it now? What has it become? Mostly a medium in which people ask questions. Often the same questions that have repeatedly been asked before, questions for which answers are readily available in standard sources or ACQNET archives. People who do this impose on others because they never contribute anything new of their own. Also, asking on ACQNET is easier. I am not unmindful of the fact that it performs a useful function. At least, I assume that it does, given the number of subscribers and the fact that people keep asking questions. But dialogue, never really strong, has become nonexistent. ACQNET is now an information referral service, not the dynamic medium for communication that we had envisioned. If acquisitions librarianship were truly a profession, it would have made ACQNET its flagship publication and would be arguing to hell and back about letters like this one. But let me suggest that the information needs of the people who ask on ACQNET could be met in some other, more focussed way. It is part of the ALA/ALCTS/AS Statement on Principles and Standards of Acquisitions Practice that: "In all acquisitions transactions, a librarian ... counsels and assists fellow librarians in the performance of their duties, whenever occasion permits." Please note that the statement does not use the words "acquisitions librarian," but "librarian." I suggest that experienced librarians at Feather River [or from elsewhere] form a group whose responsibility would be to answer the kinds of questions that come up in ACQNET questions such as "What vendor should we use ..." The group would assign one member to field such questions for a full month. [Or some time interval] Eleanor would announce on ACQNET the name and e-mail address of the Librarian of the Month, [or whatever] and refer to him or her informational questions. Then, next month, the responsibility shifts to the next person in line, and so on. Perhaps ALA/ALCTS/AS could be prevailed upon to form and maintain the group but, I would suggest to start the group first, then negotiate with AS. Things would happen more quickly that way. Everybody would gain. Experienced people would perform a service for their profession, which they should do anyway as a matter of course. People with questions would get quick answers from experienced peers and ACQNET could die or focus on other things depending on what readers really wanted. Let me suggest one thing that they might want. The trade of acquisitions, whether one views it as a profession or not, is not practiced in a vacuum. Most acquisitions folks also deal with catalogers, selectors, and public services staff. These people need a common ground on which to talk. All of us, to varying degrees, are involved in this and, maybe, a list with a broader scope would fill this need that I sense. So, let's hear it for RSNET (RS standing for ReSources.) And maybe, just maybe, the how-to-explain-acquisitions-librarianship issue would become irrelevant over time? I know, I'm dreaming. But it's a nice dream. Cordially, Christian M. Boissonnas (3)---------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor's reply:] May 21, 1996 Dear Christian, The Feather River Institute was successful this year in spite of the incessant rain. The weather kept us together during our free times instead of out on the golf course or hiking trail, giving more time for close conversations. Your letter provoked discussion, as you intended. I find it perplexing that you find failure with ACQNET since you yourself have become a "lurker." Being freed from editorial responsibilities, I had always hoped you would initiate the very types of conversations you seem to miss and we have missed YOU very much. So, I would like to encourage you to please contribute your views in order to drum up some discussion. I was under the impression that your administrative responsibilities had led you away from specific acquisitions issues and perhaps that was why you were not contributing. As for the content of your letter, let me make some observations, both my own personally and a synopsis of what I heard at Feather River: * The vision you've had for ACQNET in the past expected a richer content than that of a typical list. ACQNET's evolution is still going on, but in the last few years it often *does* seem like a typical list, but yet it is not. While I am pleased when people take the time to post more in-depth essays, I have not felt the urge to go looking for more. That could be construed as my fault, since as editor I could be doing more in that area, but I felt that I could barely handle the postings I was getting. * Which leads to my next point: managing e-mail in May 1996 is nothing like it was when ACQNET began or even when you and I made the transition in May 1994. Managing a list of 1600+ subscribers is mighty different and more intensive than whatever you had back in 1994. Also, the expectations of the subscribers is different. Not everyone shares your vision and in fact I suspect many would prefer a listserve format. Unless and when I poll the membership again I will not know that for sure. I have polled the membership in the past and the few who responded said they liked it the way it was. At Feather River those who spoke said that they found the practical questions helpful and not at all irritating. * I try not to repeat the exact same question on ACQNET if it has been asked before -- I research the archives myself to be sure on this. If I do send out a repeat, it's because some topics are perennial and newcomers may have a new angle or it may have been awhile and needs updated information. I often point this out in Ed. notes at the head of a posting. The idea of people asking about different types of vendors is perfectly valid to me. We are getting down to the more obscure ones these days, I'll admit! While I find the idea of "librarian of the month" rather unworkable, I would be willing to create a "FAQ" section in AcqWeb that would take care of some of this repetition. Feather River participants resoundingly found this a non-problem, especially in comparison to unmoderated lists! * What silence are you talking about? I just send out an issue that had some rather lengthy and thoughtful discussion concerning downsizing and reorganization in technical services. Also, I really do think people would be willing to read and respond to lofty matters if they had the time. But we are really not acquisitions librarians anymore - we are acquisitions/serials/ cataloging/BI/collection development etc. librarians who do not have the luxury of pondering our predicaments. That is a tragedy perhaps -- but it is also the most pervasive comment at Feather River. The whole issue about whether acquisitions is a profession is somewhat out of line with the kinds of challenges we are dealing with today. It's possible here that I am defending something that needs no defending. However, you have raised the issues, so I am responding. And yet, I cannot help but wonder why you did not raise them on ACQNET! I invite you to do so. You can either give me permission to post your letter [which he did], and then let it go from there and see what people say. I am planning to send the letter to those editorial board members who could not attend Feather River so that they can frame a response via ACQNET and/or to you personally. Thank you for taking the time to write to Feather River. Sincerely, Eleanor (4)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 09:05:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of WA) Subject: Christian's Letter I look forward to seeing Christian's letter on ACQNET (and Eleanor's reply); and to seeing if any of ACQNET's 1,585 lurkers respond to the exchange. I like to think that most acquisitions librarians are too action- and results-oriented to spend much time thinking about such abstruse topics as whether acquisitions librarianship is a profession. That's the sort of topic--like mission statements and strategic plans--that are best left to administrators with more time on their hands than working librarians deeply immersed in acquisitions operations. I also wonder if ACQNET is the optimum forum for the more thoughtful and philosophic issues that Christian would like to see addressed there. My experience with listserves is that they usually aim to provide news, ask and answer questions, and transmit information "soundbites" that busy people can access quickly and then go on to other things. Printed journals offer more readable space for the kinds of topics Christian would like to see. ACQNET is very democratic: the readership is also the generator of the content. What we see in ACQNET, collectively, is what we individually submit. The readership has spoken. /\ ------------------------------------------------/ \/\ Peter H. Stevens /__ / \ Head, Acquisitions Division |/ \ /\ University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900 / / \ Seattle, WA 98195-2900 / /____\ stevens@u.washington.edu -------- | Tel: 206-543-1919 Fax: 206-685-8782 | | Acquisitions Division: http://staffweb.lib.washington.edu/acq/ (5)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:39:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Marylou Hale (UNLV) Subject: Christian's letter Christian's letter addresses the changes in ACQNET. Perhaps five or six years ago, the problems were different. Christian states,". . . about communications in acquisitions librarianship, the kind that helps us live from day to day, the kind that ACQNET was created to facilitate." It seems to me that ACQNET is doing this more so than ever. As the indexer, I have seen how ACQNET has changed. The long discussions of the whys and whats have been replaced with questions requiring immediate action. [For example], recently, BIP+ on CDROM wasn't working properly. We all pay lots of money for this product and not to have it working properly is a BIG nuisance. After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain help through BIP+ channels, many people turned to ACQNET. Questions were asked; answers were given. This is the kind of communication that helps us live day-to-day, as expressed by Christian. Furthermore, with all the talk of downsizing and outsourcing, especially in Technical Services, we can't afford to be engaged in long discussions of the theory behind it all. We need ways to cope and fresh perspectives from those who survived. ACQNET provides the medium to do this. Conference reports are becoming much more prevalent, at least it seems that way from this indexer's point of view. Again, this is beneficial to the many "lurkers" who are unable to attend the conferences. Since conference proceedings are usually not available in a timely manner, or not available at all, ACQNET gives those who can not attend conferences information from those who do attend the events. Isn't this facilitating communication among Acquisitions Librarians? I agree with Peter, The long involved discussions should be left to administrators. The readership is indeed defining the content. Is that so wrong? Marylou Hale Former Order Supervisor UNLV and Member, ACQNET Editorial Board (6)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 14:36:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Cynthia Coulter (Univ. of N. Iowa) Subject: Christian's letter I find myself wondering if we see, in this new medium, some of the same problems I have heard expressed about library schools. When we first graduate from library school and get our first job, we lament the lack of practical, hands-on skills we didn't get in our classes. But we get those skills after we get into the job. After a few years of experience, we find ourselves bemoaning the lack of training while we were in library school on how to organize the work of our areas or the department which we may now supervise. But, we jump in and try our best and we usually muddle through. If we have proven successful, the day-to-day tasks become easier, more routine (in that we have built up a wealth of experiences to deal with the vagaries of acquisitions work; we don't usually panic the same way we did when were greenhorns). We find ourselves thinking more about the broader issues of acquisitions and how they (and we) fit into the library as a whole, or even the "profession." At this point, we may regret the lack of theoretical courses in library school. I see parallels to this in our discussion of ACQNET. We have many, many subscribers at all levels in their careers. [and many who are not librarians!] Some want the nuts and bolts; others the discussion of reorganization from the standpoint of the person thinking about doing one or going through one; and yet still others are NOT pondering their navels, but grappling with the broader issues of acquisitions librarianship itself. I personally feel ACQNET should be aware of all of these needs. I like the idea of bringing up, as was done with the question of reorganizations, some of those issues. I would hope some of those persons at that stage in their career that have an interest in the topic would participate in the discussion. But, we can't force them. Peter is right about that. But I don't feel we should ignore them and totally look to the print medium as the proper place for such discussions. As has occurred in the past, ideas brought forth on ACQNET have become some very fine articles in _LAPT_ and other places. THAT, I like. I have come away from this with the guilt that I am one of the parties that has had some very strong feelings and opinions about some of these "theoretical" issues, but didn't speak up. Mainly because I didn't feel confident enough about my views, not because of lack of time (although that's reason number 2). We have some big names on ACQNET from some big libraries. Like when thinking about writing an article, I think at times that I have nothing new (or earth-shattering or noteworthy) to contribute to our literature. That has to change...and will. Cynthia M. Coulter (7)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:01:40 -0500 (EST) From: Joyce L. Ogburn (Old Dominion U.) Subject: Christian's letter Being at Feather River, I was able to make a statement regarding Christian's letter. I'll repeat the gist of my remarks here. I don't think that ACQNET should be used as a diagnostic tool for the health of acquisitions. Healthy and meaty conversations do take place. They may not be on ACQNET or even always in the printed literature. Not everything is said in public. I also was surprised to learn that Christian thought that ACQNET should have become the flagship publication of acquisitions. Okay, for fresh perspective after reading everyone else's comments, I would now say that when ACQNET was new, we had a new voice and outlet for discussing topics that were in our minds at the time. Some of these topics have played out, some have recurred in different guises. Those of us who were active posters at the beginning (like me) now have other responsibilities and/or have some other outlets for expression. I have the avenue of a regular column in _Against the Grain_ to write about whatever I want. However, what I don't get from _Against the Grain_ is comment and reaction from others. Perhaps there could be some means of overlap to explore? I think this was proposed in the early days of _ACQNET_. Also, by joining up with AcqWeb and posting Acqflashes, ACQNET took on a stronger informational role. There is less discussion and more information shared. I also see more postings where people ask for comments to go to them and not to ACQNET - I don't like that. I don't know who has responded and in what way. There might be a particular comment that I would like to address, but I never see the comments. Let's get all the responses on ACQNET and not summarize them. This is not research, it's interaction. Can we put this in our editorial policy? [Or change the type of moderation -- Ed.] Perhaps we should challenge the editorial board to each write an editorial or pose a question on a regular basis to stimulate discussion? [I like that idea a lot! - Ed.] Joyce L. Ogburn AUL for Information Resources and Systems Old Dominion University Library Phone 804-683-4189 Fax 804-683-5767 (8)---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:40:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Wicks (Cornell U.) Subject: Do you have a license to drive on the Internet superhighway? I've just returned from the west coast where it seems that the sun no longer shines and the earth continues to rattle. I had the good fortune to ascend the Sierras through rain and snow and numerous warnings to have tire chains at the ready only to emerge on the outskirts of Blairsden, California to attend the latest Feather River Institute. If you've ever dreamed of an informal setting where 60 to 70 acquisitions and collection development business partners (are we a business? that's another question) can come together in denim and sweatpants, share relaxed conversation over any number of dinner tables, play poker until 2 a.m. even though the beer has run out hours ago, oh, and listen to and question several experienced colleagues as they deliver presentations of timely topics, then please consider attending the next Feather River Institute. One of this year's topics introduced the concept of responsible use of the Internet. I say "introduced" as the original topic was a different one, but one which led to some fiery interchanges concerning proper use of the Internet, citing SERIALST and ACQNET as two vehicles which facilitate the timely exchange of acquisitions information to an international audience. One seasoned professional (who I hope will join in this conversation) was moved to exclaim that we should all have our Internet licenses revoked. He has observed Internet behavior which he feels has adversely and improperly affected some of our business partners--rumors leading to more rumors leading to widespread distribution of misinformation, information which could potentially lead to the demise of one or more of our business partners. He was one of several who expressed this sentiment. I agree with his premise that widespread distribution of misinformation can adversely affect the health and welfare of the very people who provide us with a much needed value-added service, that such misbehavior is egregious, and that we have a professional obligation to present factual information. I also believe that widespread distribution of open discussion is very important to all of us and has the potential to provide us with much needed factual data to help us operate effectively and efficiently. I ask you, can we have an open discussion without starting the Internet brush fires (another participant used this metaphor) which might deliver an unintentional death sentence to any of our colleagues in a matter of minutes? What do you think? ********************************************* Scott B. Wicks *** Acquisitions Librarian *** Cornell University Library *** 110A Olin Library *** Ithaca, NY *** 14853-5301 *** ____ *** ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 6, No. 17 ****** END OF FILE ******