[Editor], 'Views & Reviews', LIBRES v2n09 (September 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/libres/libres-v2n09-[editor]-views.txt LIBRES 2.9 Views & Reviews [Volume 2, Number 9 (September 1992)] 1. Barbara Fister's response to LIBRES 2.8 feature article: "Place and Functionality of Reference Services from the Perspective of Total Quality Management Theory" by Alfred Willis and Eugene E. Matysek, Jr. (26 lines) 2. MacKenzie Smith's response to LIBRES 2.8 feature article (17 lines) 3. Stephen Hearn's response to LIBRES 2.8 feature article (11 lines) 4. William Drew's response to LIBRES 2.8 feature article (23 lines) 5. Norman Howden's response to LIBRES 2.8 feature article (20 lines) 6. Alfred Willis' reply to the above responses (283 lines) ==================================================================== 1. From: FISTER@gacvx1.gac.edu Subject: reference and tqm This is just an off-the-cuff response to the recent article on TQM and its implications for reference services--it was enough of a jolt to turn me from a lurker into a contributor. Michael Gorman suggested that a library that worked would not need BI--that BI functions only to interpret a byzantine and insensitive system. (This was in the Winter 1991 issue of _Library Trends_--I don't have the pages handy, sorry.) I find it amusing that now it is reference that is unnecessary in a functional library, while educating the user to the brilliantly functioning machine is. In fact, it seems to me, the reference librarian serves both as teacher--an on-demand, highly adaptable, individualized tutor of sorts--and as a particularly user-friendly, constantly upgraded, high-memory, fast expert system. No opac, however sophisticated, will advise users as efficiently as a reference librarian. Maybe we do a lot of fixing for the user that wouldn't be necessary in an "optimally functioning library." But you couldn't fund an optimally functioning library if you sacked the entire reference department and put their salaries into R&D. I disagree that reference librarians perform no value-adding work and only serve to correct failures of the system. I haven't met the system yet that provides the flexible and accessible consultation that a reference librarian can. One last quibble. The phrase "information packets" sends chills up my spine. Users don't collect information packets, they join a conversation. Please reconsider these outdated, linear, mechanistic communications models--there are far better ones available that come closer to describing the dynamics of human communication. (Though, come to think of it, if our users were machines collecting information packets--maybe I would be unnecessary. Oh, brave new world that has such machinery in it!) Barbara Fister Gustavus Adolphus College fister@gacvx1.gac.edu ====================================================================== 2. Sitting on a broken down subway train this morning I finally managed to read through your article on reference services and quality management. It's controversial alright. I agreed with the premise that a perfectly organized library shouldn't require reference service automatically (assuming that reference doesn't include BI which you claim will probably still be required). However, you make the library sound like a McDonalds. "In an optimally functioning library..." Also, it sounds like you're mainly focused on known-item searches by patrons (success vs. failure to locate the "information packet" sought by the patron). As we all know, much of libray use is very vague, a subject- oriented hunting and gathering activity for which reference librarians function kind of like guides to the subjects. They're like our marketing reps if you will. So although I agree with your basic notion that for certain types of library uses they shouldn't be necessary, they aren't just there for quality control and libraries aren't automobile plants. Very stimulating little piece... You should get LOTS of feedback on that one. MacKenzie Smith Systems Office Widener Library Harvard University ==================================================================== 3. It's nice to see the tables turned on rference, which often seems to have the upper hand in library leadership. However, I question whether reference librariams really do spend that much time making up for the failures of the catalog. My occasional experience of reference work has been that it focuses primarily on journal indexes and other secondary tools which tech services has little to do with, and that reference librarians in turn are relatively unfamiliar with the library catalog as compared with ERIC, MLA Bibliography, etc. And given the variety and complexity of these secondary sources, there would be a legitimate role for reference to play even if the catalog were a perfect self-service device. Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coordinator University of Minnesota ====================================================================== 4. From: "Bill Drew-Serials/Reference Librar. SUNY Morrisville" Subject: Re: LIBRES 2.8 Feature Article Is this the current state of research in library science? I knew I had to comment as soon as I read the first paragraph. On what basis is such a statement made? The authors are really missing the boat on the main purpose of reference. At least at the library I work in, refrence has two major functions: 1. Assisting patrons to locate information. 2. Instruct patrons that may never have been in, or do not know how to use a library. Please, let's see some useful research. > >LIBRES 2.8 Feature Article > > Theoretically, the quantity of >reference services provided by a library >may be regarded as an index of the >inefficiency with which the library is >operating. At the same time, the >provision of reference services can >arguably perpetuate existing >inefficiencies in the library's operation >and even exacerbate them. Wilfred Drew (Call me "Bill") Serials/Reference/Computers Librarian State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology P.O. Box 902; Morrisville, NY 13408-0902 BITNET: DREWWE@SNYMORVA Internet: DREWWE@SNYMORVA.CS.SNYMOR.EDU Phone: (315)684-6055 or 684-6060 Fax: (315)684-6115 Any opinions expressed here are mine and are subject to change without notice. ======================================================================= 5. From: "howden" Subject: Re: LIBRES 2.8 Feature Article The perspective of the authors, that reference services perform a self-correcting task in the stream of library access, is well taken. Certainly their perspective fits well with studies that have been done, like those conducted by Saracevic and Kantor in the early 1980's to ascertain what goes wrong during patron access and work to control human and system faults. The authors go astray in suggesting that quality control consists only of "reactions to problems rather than constructive improvements to failing or failed processes." Perhaps this is the perspective of an employee in many situations where quality control is used, but quality control is supposed to, and in most cases does, include feedback coupled to some mechanism for insuring that corrective action to improve the system is taken. Perhaps the authors have had bad experience with QC, but somehow I suspect they have none. Few librarians do. As a library educator who came through another profession where production-oriented quality control was applied, I continue to rankle at the lack of familiarity with routine practices in business and industy that pervades our profession. The dismissal of such practices without real experience, as appears to be the case here, does a disservice to everyone. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Norman Howden | | | | School of Library and Information Sciences | | University of North Texas | | howden@lis.unt.edu (817) 565-2760 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ===================================================================== 6. My co-author, Gene Matysek, and I are gratified to see how much feedback our essay generated. Three responses sent back to LIBRES were kindly forwarded by the editors for our reply. The authors of two additional replies which reached us directly accorded us permission to distribute them with the other three. It may be useful to preface our replies to our five critics with a restatement of our central thesis. We argued that reference service of a sort widely provided in contemporary American libraries is essentially a quality- control activity, the need for which is generated when library patrons anticipate or experience failures in their information-seeking efforts. We gave some examples of such failures, paying special attention to those of their potential causes not typically attributable to occasional lapses of staff performance but more probably to structural deficiencies or inefficiencies in a library operation. Finally, we suggested that financing increased reference services for purposes of quality control out of technical service budgets raises the likelihood of library failures by reducing the amount of value-added work provided by technical services departments and by limiting opportunities for improving the performance of a library's interdependent sub-processes. Barbara Fister takes what we said in paragraph twelve as a point of departure and gives several reasons why it is unlikely that we will ever attain in this world the ideal of the "optimally functioning library." Therefore, she argues, libraries will always have to have personnel on hand to "do a lot of fixing for the user" when problems do arise. We take this opinion as a confirmation of our view that reference librarians do serve a quality control function. At any rate, it is reasonably congruent with what we said in paragraph eight of our essay and with the opinion of Robert Taylor, who wrote that "the human interface will continue to be an important part of the negotiation and response process for some time to come" (_Value-added processes in Information Systems_, p. 42). We do not doubt that inefficient libraries can function quite effectively; and to a possibly very great extent inefficiencies (from a library manager's viewpoint) may even enhance a library's effectiveness (for a patron). But the fact that a library even with infinite fiscal resources at its disposal is still unlikely to function optimally, seems to us no reason to forego any improvements toward optimization that can be realized. We agree with Fister that a wholesale sacking of the members of a reference department in order to finace investment in research and development is probably not generally advisable. We feel, like Fister, that the phrase, "information packets," is more than a little infelicitous. We had hoped that it might be a slight improvement over the "information packages" that Taylor adopts (_Value-added processes_, p. 41), since "packages" seems to imply a degree of completeness or finish that we believe does not always obtain in the products of even the most successful library transactions. However, we strongly maintain (with Taylor and his predecessors) that library users _do_ collect information packets -- even when, in Fister's words, "they join in a conversation." If they leave a conversation with a librarian with more knowledge than they brought to the encounter, they have acquired an "information packet" in its most abstract sense. (Even so, current research in neurobiology -- e.g., by Columbia University's Eric Kantel - - suggests that the products of conversation are quite literally physical changes in human brain cells.) If they leave a library holding a book, a stack of photocopies (a most frequent scenario in my particular facility), a set of notes, etc., they have collected "information packets" in a highly concrete sense. We believe that in all such cases, the result of the successful library transaction is essentially the same, and that the transaction itself must have involved some physical dimension (contact with a person, reading a book, experiencing the visual stimulus of a CRT display, experiencing the aural stimulation of a telephonically transmitted message, etc.) as part and parcel of a cognitive experience. In summary, we did not intend by our vocabulary to equate the gathering of information simply with the gathering of documents, but rather to emphasize that the gathering of information involves a direct or mediated but nonetheless real contact with particular information sources, many of which are likely to be documents arranged in a library in a particular order. Fister believes that because we insist on this point, we must adhere to some "outdated, linear, mechanistic communications models." We believe that, in order to validate this criticism, she needs to show why our characterization of the general library process is inherently unthinkable or unworkable in the conversational or any other model she regards as more accurate than the one she imputes to us. Fister wants to claim that we err in supposing that "reference librarians perform no value-adding work." We feel bound to point out that this paraphrase is an unfair rendering of what we actually wrote in a meticulously qualified sentence in paragraph fourteen of our essay. We did not say that "reference librarians perform no value- adding work" (a statement which as far as we know is probably without any empirical foundation) but that "in so far as it operates only on failed products of the general library process and not on the process itself, the work involved in reference service is of a nature entirely different from that of the value-adding work carried out in most other library departments." We insist strongly on the importance of nuance here. Nevertheless, we plead guilty to overstating, or rather oversimplifying, a case that was not easy to make in a short essay because of the ambiguity of the word "reference" in the vocabulary of librarianship. Reference librarians obviously perform value-added work when they provide inquiry services, for example. (Taylor speaks of the values of "linkage," "interfacing," "mediation," and "delivery" -- values typically added to information by reference librarians -- and we have absolutely no quarrel with his view.) But much of such work normally occurs only at the end of a long string of library processes, beginning at least as far back as with resource selection (deciding to buy a certain reference book, deciding to subscribe to a certain online service, etc.), and all of which must be executed correctly unless, ultimately, the efficiency of an inquiry service itself is to be compromised by ongoing efforts to correct past mistakes. Whether some or all of the value-adding work performed by "reference librarians" is not really "reference work" is a categorical controversy difficult to resolve but perhaps worth discussing in a time when many libraries are considering radical staff reorganization plans. MacKenzie Smith's position strikes us as rather close to Fister's, though her reaction seems more sympathetic. We disagree that our argument is essentially concerned with known-item library searches. If reference librarians are needed to assist in other searches, we submit, it is probably because a library is providing inadequate structures for the systemic support of such easily anticipated needs as browsing (e.g., it may provide no up- to-date classified catalog). On the other hand, we completely agree that libraries are not automobile plants - - but principally because of the intangibility of their products (i.e., the knowledge potentially gained through cognitive contact with certain information packets) and the peculiar nature of information itself, not because of basic dissimilarities in processual function. We are intrigued by the analogy she finds latent in our essay of libraries to McDonald's restaurants. It is a fact that managing a McDonald's restaurant involves the efficient execution of a number of technical operations in order to satisfy effectively customer requests for certain products of those operations (including requests by customers who, when they enter the restaurant, are not exactly sure of what they want to eat even though they are quite certain that they are hungry). In this perspective, we are perfectly happy to assume responsibility for making the analogy that Smith imputes to us. Finally, we do agree with Smith that reference librarians (in part) function like "marketing reps." We note, however, that successful corporations carefully limit the ratio of such reps to productive personnel. We disclaim the motivation that Stephen Hearn believes he sees behind our essay, which was not written simply to turn the tables on reference. We were interested in looking at reference services as part of a library system, and believe we succeeded in portraying this system in an unusual enough light to get a number of people thinking about it in somewhat creative ways. But in drawing attention to secondary indexes and sources in a library, he touches upon an extremely interesting situation with which we did not deal in our essay. Beyond providing bibliographic instruction, why should reference librarians be needed to assist patrons with such sources as the ERIC database? One very plausible reason is that they are needed to correct the shortcomings of such sources, shortcomings purchased by the library along with the product at an actual price exceeding the "list price" by the cost of the reference services required to make them usable to the extent patrons deem necessary or acceptable. The acquisition of any imperfect information source is a systemic failure, albeit a more or less inevitable one in an imperfect world. Reference services dealing with failed or failing consultations of secondary sources are quality-control activities as surely as those dealing with the library's own catalog. Bill Drew begins his critique with a rhetorical question which, in the nature of such questions, answers itself. He then goes on to raise two substantial points. First, he observes that a major function of reference service is "assisting patrons to locate information." We believe that facilitating the location of information by the people who need it is the general function of libraries, not the sole province of library reference departments. We would like to know how Drew would characterize the overall mission of a library that assigns the mission of "assisting patrons to locate information" to only one of its several departments (assuming, of course, that Drew is thinking about a library large enough to have more than one department). Perhaps Drew would be willing to describe the organizational structure of the kind of library he has in mind. Meanwhile, we stick to our view that, in practice, the functioning of libraries in general as of their reference departments -- whatever their mission -- actually depends in large part on work carried out in departments such as systems, acquisitions, and cataloging. In our opinion, the big question for library managers has to do with specifying the way(s) reference departments can contribute to that function in ways that other library departments cannot or do not. (One might call this "The Reference Question....") If a reference department is regularly doing things that can be done (possibly better) in other departments, the overall functionality of the library will be compromised -- in part because the ability of the reference department to do things that only that department can do (or does best) is, given the limitations of time and energy, impaired. Among these things, to arrive at Drew's second point, is bibliographic instruction. On the value of bibliographic instruction we largely concur with Drew. This does not mean, however, that we entirely disagree with Gorman's extremely optimistic perspective as characterized by Fister. Gorman's main point seems to be that a library system can be designed and implemented in such a way as to provide bibliographic instruction without subsequent human intervention. Certainly, Gorman gives no hint that he believes users can do without _any_ knowledge of how libraries work. We explicitly recognized the need for such knowledge in paragraphs ten and eleven of our essay. From our perspective, bibliographic instruction serves as a preventive quality-control measure that is in all probability indispensable. Whether it actually adds value to the products of library research or merely subtracts costs from the research enterprise -- or both! -- is a quibbling matter that we would rather avoid. Norman Howden faults us for too limited a definition of "quality control." We agree with him that quality control in its fullest sense includes "feedback coupled to some mechanism for assuring that corrective action to improve the system is taken." (We note in passing that in paragraph eighteen we disparage only quality control without feedback.) Howden does not actually say so, but he seems to imply that reference librarians play an especially important role in that feedback process. We would agree with that assessment, too, but make three pertinent observations. First, the typical library organization in which reference librarians operate as (the chief?) sources of user feedback via personal encounters with patrons, is a historical construct and hence subject to change. Were this not so, visionary proposals such as Gorman's would be utterly devoid of the interest that they obviously do have even for unconvinced readers like Fister; that is, they would be pipedreams rather than projects. Second, while quality control without meaningful feedback is no doubt an egregious waste of time and effort and money, quality control with such feedback is still an expensive proposition. We believe that its cost-effectiveness may readily be enhanced by reducing the incidence of the failed products that trigger individual quality-control actions so that a larger proportion of a given quality-control investment can be attributed to processual improvements inspired by feedback. In libraries, we specifically believe, the incidence of failed products is most effectively reduced by improvements in technical services. Third, feedback can result in actual improvements in library function only when it is properly channelled (problems "corrected" at, but never reported from, the reference desk amount to quality-control with little or no feedback) and when fiscal and human resources are available to make improvements happen. We are afraid that some libraries may be reducing their ability to take full advantage of the opportunities for improvement that reference librarians _can_ suggest because they are financing those reference services out of cuts in technical services. (We trust we do not have to belabor at this point the image of the vicious circle.) Finally, Howden is wrong to presume that we have no experience, or have had only bad experience, with quality control. Contrary to Howden's supposition, we do not dismiss the need for quality control in libraries. Rather, we deplore with him "the lack of familiarity with routine ãquality-assurance| practices in business and industry that pervades our profession." In fact, we gave several examples of how just such a lack negatively affects library function. We would be interested in learning, from his experiences outside of libraries, what models of quality assurance he thinks might be more workable or cost-effective in library settings than those currently in place. We would also enjoy reading about how he approaches quality control in the courses he teaches at the University of North Texas. Most of all, we would like to be able to profit from a counter- demonstration of our thesis. Alfred Willis Architecture Library Kent State University REFERENCES Gorman, Michael. "Send for a Child of Four! or Creating the BI-less Library." _Library Trends_ 39 (Winter 1991): 354- 362. Taylor, Robert S. _Value-Added Processes in Information Systems_. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 15:07:24 EDT Reply-To: "'Library and Information Science Research Electronic Conference'" Sender: "'Library and Information Science Research Electronic Conference'" From: EDITORS@KENTVM.BITNET Subject: LIBRES 2.9 Notes & Queries LIBRES 2.9 Notes & Queries 1. Information supply by CD-ROM (21 lines) 2. More info on tools for CD-ROM prodn (27 lines) ========================================================================= 1. From: L.R.A.Melton@(Laury Melton) open.ac.uk Subject: CD-ROM Libraries and CD-ROM and Libraries INFORMATION SUPPLY BY CD-ROM The International Centre for Distance Learning at the UK Open University (ICDL) is involved, with National Council for Educational Technology (NCET) in a project for the Commonwealth Secretariat, looking at what might be possible in terms of the supply of information on CD-ROM, including full text, to Commonwealth academic and research institute libraries. We know that a number of bodies have been working in this area for some time and that there are ongoing projects, such as ADONIS, and Cornell's investigation of Agricultural literature, that are clearly of interest. In the time scale we have available we are going to have difficulty in making contact with everything that is being done, though we hope to identify most of the published literature. We should like to hear from anybody working in this area of interest, ie. supply of library type information in developing countries, particularly via CD-ROM. What projects are ongoing? How far have they got? What has already been made available? Papers in press? Please respond direct to L.R.A.MELTON@UK.AC.OPEN ===================================================================== 2. Subject: More info on tools for CD-ROM prodn? From: morrista@UC.EDU Thanks to everyone who sent information and suggestions regarding authoring and retrieval tools for producing/searching CD-ROMs. We've begun tracking down information, and trying to evaluate, a number of products, including but not limited to Ntergaid's HyperWriter, askSAM, hyperREZ, KAware, Folio Views, and BRS/Search for MS-DOS. Particularly in regard to the last three (KAware, Folio, and BRS/Search for MS-DOS) Can anyone give me first-hand comments regarding the construction of a database with the product, including the type and amount of effort required to markup or otherwise prepare data for inclusion into the database? Particularly in regard to BRS/Search for MS-DOS Can anyone give me first-hand comments regarding the "hypertext" linking features and their implementation? We are familiar with the searching and general database arrangments of the BRS/Search products for VMS, but have not gotten much information on the mechanics/capabilities of the linking features of the MS-DOS product. So far we have only seen a working copy of Folio, but are working on arrangements to try other products as well before making our decision. Any experiences/anecdotes you can share would be very welcome. Ted Morris, University of Cincinnati Medical Center Information and Communications Information Research & Development morrista@uc.edu 513-558-0177V, 513-558-0758F ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 15:08:15 EDT Reply-To: "'Library and Information Science Research Electronic Conference'" Sender: "'Library and Information Science Research Electronic Conference'" From: EDITORS@KENTVM.BITNET Subject: LIBRES 2.9 Announcements LIBRES 2.9 Announcements Table of Contents 1. LISTSERV for doctoral library & info science students (10 lines) 2. Lectures on computer tech and networking in Baltic countries (42 lines) ====================================================================== 1. From: Elizabeth Lane Subject: LIST for Lib. School PhD Students The University of Alabama School of Library and Information Studies is currently sponsoring a LISTSERV discussion group for doctoral students in library and information science. This group is open to doctoral students in any LIS program, and provides a forum in which to discuss issues surrounding the "doctoral experience." Topics range from comps and dissertation defenses to teaching strategies and general camaraderie. To subscribe to the list, which is called DOCDIS, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV@UA1VM.BITNET, with the line "SUB DOCDIS firstname lastname" in the text of the message. (substitute your own first and last name in the message) --- *----------------------------------------------------------------* | Elizabeth Lane Internet: elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu | | University of Alabama BITNET: ELANE3@UA1VM | *----------------------------------------------------------------* ===================================================================== 2. From: Algirdas.Pakstas@idt.unit.no Subject: Lectures on Computer Technologies and Networking in Baltic Countries LECTURES ON COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES AND NETWORKING IN BALTIC COUNTRIES Dear Colleagues, Let us we will introduce ourselvs. We are computer scientists from Vilnius, Lithuania (temporary staying in Trondheim, Norway). We both are working in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Main research topics are software engineening for distributed computer systems, methods and tools for development of distributed software configurations, networking, formal methods, simulation of message passing systems. We are going to visit USA in September-October, 1992 for conference. We also are interested to visit american Universities and give some lectures about our research results and more general lectures about Computer Technologies and Networking in Baltic Countries. Please, let us know if your organizations are interested in such subjects and can be partial sponsors for our visit at least inside USA (unfortunately, our host institute in Norway can't to provide full funding). Our CVs and abstracts of possible lectures are available on request. Please, reply ASAP by e-mail or by FAX. Our address: Dr.Algirdas Pakstas / Sonata Pakstiene Division of Computer Systems and Telematics (IDT) The Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH) The University of Trondheim (UNIT) N-7034 TRONDHEIM Norway PHONE: +47-7-594460 (secr.) or +47-7-594485 (direct in office); FAX : +47-7-594466; TELEX: 55637 NTHAD.N Email: Algirdas.Pakstas@idt.unit.no Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Algirdas Pakstas, Dr., Senior Scientific Staff Sonata Pakstiene, Junior Scientific Staff