Ladner, 'Resource Sharing by Sci-Tech and Business Libraries: Informal Networking and the Role of Professional Associations.', LIBRES v2n12 (December 15, 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/libres/libres-v2n12-ladner-resource.txt LIBRES 2.12 Feature Article LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research (ISSN: 1058-6768 published monthly) December 15, 1992 [Volume 2, Number 12] Table of Contents 1. Resource Sharing by Sci-Tech and Business Libraries: Informal Networking and the Role of Professional Associations. (1372 lines) by Sharyn J. Ladner ********************************************************************** COPYRIGHT to this article is the property of Sharyn J. Ladner RESOURCE SHARING BY SCI-TECH AND BUSINESS LIBRARIES: INFORMAL NETWORKING AND THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS by Sharyn J. Ladner ABSTRACT This research, the third of a three-part investigation of resource sharing in special libraries, examines informal networking practices as a function of membership in professional associations, membership in formal resource- sharing networks and background variables such as library size and affluence. Data were gathered through a mail survey of 938 business and sci-tech special librarians and sci-tech academic librarians in the United States in 1990/91. Findings show (1) a synergistic effect between membership in resource-sharing networks, membership in professional associations and the degree to which informal networking takes place which is independent of library type; (2) that informal networking is also a function of library size -- infrequent networkers tend to be in small, poorly funded libraries; and (3) that SLA is the primary professional association used for informal networking contacts, regardless of library type. The paper concludes with a discussion of the impact of the Internet/NREN on networking relationships among special librarians, their colleagues and their clientele. -------------------------------- RESOURCE SHARING BY SCI-TECH AND BUSINESS LIBRARIES: INFORMAL NETWORKING AND THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS This study of informal networking and the role of professional associations is the third of a three-part investigation of resource sharing in special libraries. The analysis is based on data gathered through a comprehensive mail survey of 938 business and sci-tech librarians in the United States in 1990/91. This research was undertaken because there is a lack of systematic, statistically reliable studies of resource sharing by special librarians. The purpose of the overall study is to provide descriptive information on the resource sharing and networking practices of special librarians: specifically, to describe similarities and differences in networking behavior by librarians in two diverse types of special libraries, to identify factors which can explain these differences, and to compare networking by special librarians with those of academic librarians in the same subject specialties. The first phase of the research examined formal networking practices of sci-tech and business librarians in corporations or other for-profit firms, in not-for-profit organizations, and in government or public agencies.{1} The second analyzed formal networking practices by sci-tech libraries in for-profit firms, not-for-profit organizations, government or public agencies, and academic institutions in terms of organizational structure.{2} This third study examines informal networking practices engaged in by sci-tech special, sci-tech academic, and business special librarians as a function of their membership in professional associations, membership in formal resource-sharing networks and background variables such as library size and affluence. These findings are then discussed in terms of two major phenomena affecting special librarians today: the impact of the Internet/NREN on information exchange, and the role of the special librarian in the post-industrial organization. In this research the term, _special library_, refers to libraries in profit-making companies, not-for-profit organizations, or public agencies. A _sci-tech special library_ is considered to be a science or technical library that is located in a for-profit company, not-for-profit organization, or governmental or public agency. A _business special library_ is a library in a for-profit company, not-for-profit organization, or governmental or public agency whose subject emphasis is on business, management, finance, marketing, economics or other business-related disciplines. Although academic sci-tech libraries are also technically special libraries because of their subject specialization,{3} for ease of comparison in this research they are referred to as sci-tech academic libraries and are not included under the category of special library. Academic sci-tech libraries serve as a comparison group to the two special library samples in this study, since more is known about the networking practices of academic librarians than of special librarians. NETWORKING AND SPECIAL LIBRARIANS Special librarians are active participants in formal resource-sharing networks. In 1980 the National Committee on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and the Special Libraries Association (SLA) cosponsored a task force to study the role of the special library in nationwide resource-sharing networks and cooperative programs. The NCLIS/SLA Task Force found that 50% of the special libraries they surveyed participated in resource-sharing networks or cooperatives. The task force also found that network membership varied by type of library, with libraries in business and financial institutions being the least likely to be network members, which they attributed to the competitive nature of their parent organizations.{4} Special librarians have a history of participation in informal library cooperation to obtain information for their clientele.{5} The Special Libraries Association (SLA), in fact, was formed in 1909 to facilitate the accessibility and sharing of information among colleagues with similar interests and needs,{6} and today the association continues to promote itself as "a very special network of people."{7} SLA chapters provide the structure for informal networking and cooperative activities such as preparation of resource directories, union lists and duplicates exchange lists.{8}{9} Informal networks are basically people networks. According to Atkinson, they consist of unplanned interactions among individuals with particular things to contribute to one another.{10} Informal networking can take place within the context of a more formally organized group, such as a professional society or library resource-sharing network, or take place within a more social context -- lunches, receptions, etc. St. Clair conceptualizes informal networks as interpersonal networks which add value through personal relationships developed through connections made at professional association meetings, continuing education courses, and mentoring.{11} Naisbitt provides an even simpler definition: "networks are people talking to each other, sharing ideas, information, and resources."{12} During the 1980s informal cooperative arrangements among librarians for sharing information received less attention in the literature than membership in formal resource-sharing networks for sharing information. There were several reasons for this. First, systems-oriented, computer-based networks were seen as an evolutionary next step in library cooperation,{13} and libraries shifted from their participation in less formal cooperative arrangements to membership in formal resource-sharing networks.{14} Also, the development of regional networks and bibliographic utilities in the 1970s shifted the emphasis in library cooperation from that of sharing bibliographic information to sharing technology for bibliographic control. The success of these large systems in accomplishing technical processing tasks (such as shared cataloging) which benefit from economies of scale tended to minimize the benefits of interpersonal networking.{15} In some articles published during this period, special librarians' preference for informal networking over formal network membership is treated negatively, and considered a barrier to network participation, rather than an alternative information resource.{16} Special librarians who preferred their informal networking arrangements were viewed as being complacent, satisfied with the status quo, and resistant to change.{17} Some early observers of the special library scene, however, saw that formal networks were supplementing, rather than replacing, earlier informal cooperative arrangements.{18} Strable, for example, observed back in 1977 that in Chicago formal networking had "not really changed traditional informal cooperation" within the special library community, that in fact formal networks supplemented the earlier informal relationships.{19} More recently, Paskoff discusses the continued importance of informal networking for special librarians in addition to membership in formal resource-sharing networks.{20} There is substantial research evidence that special librarians do use multiple sources to obtain information not available within their own libraries. Wiggins demonstrated that sci-tech librarians in industry are more likely to use commercial sources for document delivery than are their academic counterparts because they have more time-sensitive document delivery needs, are lean on staff, and tend not to use more labor-intensive document delivery systems such as ILL.{21} Building on Wiggins' research, Ladner found that there is a network effect as well among corporate sci-tech librarians: corporate library members of resource-sharing networks are more active users of multiple sources of documents -- whether they be through informal contacts, formal network arrangements, or commercial services -- compared to non-members.{22} PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND INFORMAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE Professional societies provide a support system for their members, including such services as employment counseling and placement, continuing education, and opportunities for information exchange, not only in the library field but other areas as well. Articles on interpersonal networking as a benefit of professional association membership have proliferated, especially in trade journals, since Naisbitt included networking as one of the ten megatrends which would transform our work lives in the 1980s, as we shifted from an industrial to an information society.{23} Ten years earlier, Toffler had predicted the transformation of the hierarchical, bureaucratic organization into a less rigid corporate structure which he termed "ad-hocracy." Toffler's ad- hocracy would be staffed by "professional specialists" whose loyalties would be not to the corporation but to their respective professions and their professional societies.{24} The past 25 years has witnessed the continued proliferation of professional associations,{25} lending support to Toffler's predictions about the professionalization of industry. Studies of informal information exchange among scientists and researchers also underscore the importance of professional societies in facilitating this exchange. Menzel, for example, points out the crucial role of informal and unplanned communication which takes place at scientific meetings, colloquia and conferences.{26} Griffith mentions the importance of voluntary organizations in the dissemination of research results within scientific specialties.{27} Cronin, in a comprehensive review of invisible colleges and information transfer, alludes to the importance of professional organizations in informal information exchange in some disciplines, but not in others.{28} CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RATIONALE Although mechanisms for information exchange among scientists and scholars have been extensively studied, there is a lack of published research on the role of professional associations and informal information exchange among librarians and other information intermediaries. There is only limited research on special libraries and resource sharing, and none on the resource-sharing practices of business librarians. This research was designed to fill these gaps. The research is limited to two types of special libraries to minimize problems inherent in analyzing data gathered from a diverse population. Because sci-tech and business libraries represent two very different types of special libraries and because they comprise the two largest subject categories of special libraries, findings common to both are likely to be characteristic of special libraries in general. A comparison group of sci-tech academic libraries is also included in the study since more is known about the networking activities of academic librarians than special librarians. Review of findings to date Phase one of the research examined the formal networking practices of sci-tech and business librarians and corroborated many of the findings reported by the NCLIS/SLA Task Force. It demonstrated that more sci-tech special librarians (65%) than business special librarians (52%) participate in resource-sharing networks; that sci-tech special librarians accessed their networks more frequently than business librarians; that the main reason special librarians join resource-sharing networks is for interlibrary loan; and that the main reason they do not join is lack of demand or need. This analysis also demonstrated that business and sci-tech special libraries which belong to formal resource-sharing networks are larger, more affluent and more often managed by professionals than those which are not members.{29} Phase two looked more closely at the relationship between organizational structure and formal networking patterns among sci-tech libraries. This analysis demonstrated that, as expected, more academic sci-tech libraries (89%) are members of resource-sharing networks than sci-tech special libraries (65%), as well as an organizational effect among the different types of special libraries, with governmental libraries showing resource- sharing patterns that are closer to those observed for academic sci-tech libraries, and special libraries in not-for-profit organizations being least likely to join. This analysis also compared the use of formal networks to commercial document services and informal networking for document delivery and showed that sci-tech academic librarians are more dependent on their resource-sharing networks than corporate librarians, who are the heaviest users of both commercial services and informal connections for document delivery.{30} Current focus Phase three of this research examines informal networking practices engaged in by sci-tech special, sci-tech academic, and business special librarians. The following research questions are considered in this paper: 1. More sci-tech librarians participate in formal resource-sharing activities than business librarians -- will this same pattern be observed for informal networking? 2. What is the relationship between formal and informal networking among sci-tech and business special librarians? Do special librarians who are active participants in formal networks also actively participate in informal networking, or have they replaced their informal arrangements with formal network membership? 3. Do special librarians and academic library subject specialists use professional associations for informal networking? Do they differ in their use of these associations? Which associations will they consider most useful? 4. Business and sci-tech special libraries which are members of formal resource-sharing networks are larger, more affluent and more often managed by professionals than those which are not members -- can this model be extended to patterns of informal networking? To answer these questions, the following _null hypotheses_ are tested: (1) sci-tech and business special librarians and sci- tech academic librarians will not differ in their informal networking practices; (2) there will be no relationship between the degree of formal networking and informal networking among (a) sci-tech special librarians and (b) business special librarians; (3) sci-tech and business special librarians and sci-tech academic librarians will not differ in their use of professional associations for informal networking; and (5) size of library and staffing pattern will have no effect on the degree of informal networking in (a) sci-tech special libraries and (b) business special libraries. _Hypothesis one_ is tested by comparing (a) use and (b) frequency of use of informal contacts across all three types of specialized libraries. _Hypothesis two_ is tested by comparing (a) use and (b) frequency of use of informal contacts by (a) network membership status and (b) degree of network use for (a) sci-tech special librarians and (b) business special librarians. _Hypothesis three_ is tested by comparing (a) use and (b) frequency of use of professional associations and (c) professional association used most across all three types of specialized libraries. _Hypothesis four_ is tested by comparing (a) library budget, (b) number of employees, and (c) number of professionals by degree of informal networking for (a) sci-tech special librarians and (b) business special librarians. The definition of a resource-sharing network used in this research is the one also used by the NCLIS/SLA Task Force: "A _resource-sharing network_ is a formal arrangement whereby several libraries or other organizations participate in exchange of information, materials, services or all three for some functional purpose." _Informal networking_, by contrast, is defined as interaction with colleagues who are members of the same professional organization, social contacts, or other interactions with friends and colleagues for the purpose of resource sharing and information exchange. METHODOLOGY This research is a comparative mail survey of sci-tech and business special libraries sampled from the 1990 edition of the _Directory of Special Libraries and Information Centers_, published by Gale Research. The survey instrument was a self- administered, eight-page questionnaire. Respondents were promised a summary of the results and given a postage-paid return mail envelope as an incentive to complete the questionnaire. The survey instrument included questions on formal membership in networks and consortia, informal resource sharing, services offered by resource-sharing networks, problems encountered in networks, and reasons for non-membership, as well as measures of library organization and size. The questionnaire was pretested by 25 members of the Special Libraries Association at the SLA Annual Conference in June, 1990. Surveys were mailed in the Fall of 1990 to business and sci-tech special libraries; a supplementary survey of academic sci-tech libraries was completed in the Spring of 1991. Data were analyzed using SPSS on the University of Miami VAX computer.{31} The following statistical tests were used in the analysis: (1) chi-square was used to test for differences in nominal variables with more than two categories; (2) because the chi-square statistic is affected by large sample sizes, difference of proportions in dichotomies were evaluated with z- scores;{32} (3) gamma was used to evaluate strength of association in ordinal variables;{33} and (4) t-tests or the F statistic were used to test for differences in interval level variables. The difference of proportions test was also used to test for differences between sample and population data. Population and sample The special library population from which the sci-tech and business library samples were drawn consists of libraries in profit-making companies, not-for-profit organizations, and government or public agencies listed in the Gale _Directory_. The academic library population from which the sci-tech academic library sample was drawn consists of libraries in colleges and universities listed in the Gale _Directory_. These libraries tend to be branch libraries in departmentalized university library systems; they are generally smaller and more specialized in a scientific discipline than more centralized academic science libraries. Academic business libraries were excluded from the study because of the relatively small number of academic business libraries in the _Directory_. Sampling methodology is described in more detail in the appendix. A total of 419 sci-tech special library, 235 sci-tech academic library, and 281 business special librarians completed returned the questionnaire. Sample sizes are accurate to within +/_4.8% for sci-tech special libraries, +/_6.4% for sci-tech academic libraries, and +/_5.8% for business libraries at the 95% confidence level. The response rate for the special library mailing was 33%, the academic library mailing was 35%, and the business library mailing, 39%; these response rates are comparable to other surveys of special libraries. RESULTS Organizational differences Table 1 shows the background characteristics of sci-tech and business special libraries and sci-tech academic libraries. There are, in general, fewer differences between the sci-tech and business special library samples than there are between the sci- tech academic and the two special library samples. Sci-tech academic libraries are larger than sci-tech special libraries, both in terms of professional and total staff, budget and size of periodical collection.{34} Business libraries are also larger than sci-tech special libraries, measured by both annual budget and number of employees. Organizationally, there are more governmental and public agency libraries in the sci-tech special library sample, whereas the business library sample shows higher proportions of libraries in profit-making companies and non-for- profit organizations (X2 = 10.07, df 2, p < .01). ------------------------- Table 1 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS BY LIBRARY TYPE Sci-Tech Sci-Tech Business Item Academic Special Special ----------------------------------------------------------- (respondents) (235) (419) (281) Kind of Library Corporate/for-profit -- 54% 59% Not-for-profit -- 19 24 Governmental/agency -- 27 17 Academic 100% -- -- Library Budget[a] Under $50,000 22% 32% 30% $50,000 - $99,999 11 20 12 $100,000 - $249,999 25 21 29 $250,000 and above 41 26 29 Periodical subscriptions (mean)[b] 976 261 290 Percent in top 20 MSAs[c] 29% 42% 61% FTE Employees[d] One or less 18% 38% 29% 1.1 - 2.0 16 23 20 2.1 - 5.0 32 26 28 More than five 33 14 22 Number of employees (mean)[e] 8.5 3.3 5.1 FTE Professionals[f] Less than one 17% 16% 14% One 45 52 42 More than one 38 32 44 Number of professionals (mean)[g] 3.0 1.7 2.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ [a]X2 = 32.26, df 6, p < .001. [b]F = 30.31, df 2, p < .001. [c]X2 = 54.42,df 2, p < .001. [d]X2 = 51.01, df 6, p < .001. [e]F = 15.40, df 2, p < .001. [f]X2 = 11.73, df 4, p < .05. [g]F = 7.19, df 2, p < .001. ------------------------- Informal networking Table 2 shows the use of informal contacts by business and sci-tech special and sci-tech academic librarians to obtain information not available in the library. Virtually all librarians use informal contacts, regardless of library type. Both business and sci-tech special librarians, however, use informal contacts more frequently than sci-tech academic librarians: 52% of the business and 47% of the sci-tech special librarians use their informal contacts twice a week or more, compared to only 39% of the academic librarians. Conversely, sci-tech academic librarians are the heaviest users of formal networks for information exchange: 78% use their resource- sharing networks twice a week or more. Business librarians are least likely to be members of formal resource-sharing networks and those whose libraries are members use them less frequently than their sci-tech colleagues, regardless of library type. ------------------------- Table 2 FREQUENCY OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL NETWORKING BY LIBRARY TYPE Sci-Tech Sci-Tech Business Item Academic Special Special ----------------------------------------------------------- (respondents) (235) (419) (281) Use informal contacts to obtain information not in library:[a] 98% 98% 99% Daily 18% 21% 26% Several times a week 21 26 26 Several times a month 33 29 26 Once a month 14 11 15 Less than once a month 14 13 7 Use formal resource- sharing network:[b] 89% 65% 52% Daily 56% 44% 31% Several times a week 22 22 20 Several times a month 12 20 27 Once a month 6 4 8 Less than once a month 4 10 14 Number of networks (mean) 3.7 2.4 1.9 ----------------------------------------------------------- [a]X2 = 16.86, df 8, p < .05. [b]Use formal network: X2 = 77.88, df 2, p < .001; frequency: X2 = 32.08, df 8, p < .001; mean: F = 36.01, df 2, p < .001. Frequencies and means are based on the number of respondents who use formal resource-sharing networks to obtain information (209 sci-tech academic librarians, 271 sci-tech special librarians, 143 business librarians). ------------------------- Even though there is no difference in the use of informal contacts for information exchange by library type, differences in _frequency_ of informal networking between the special libraries and the sci-tech academic libraries are sufficient to reject null hypothesis one. Relationship between formal and informal networking Table 3 shows the frequency of using informal contacts to obtain information by network membership status for business and sci-tech special librarians.{35} These data indicate that formal network membership does not have an effect on the frequency of informal networking by either business or sci-tech special librarians. ------------------------- Table 3 FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING BY NETWORK MEMBERSHIP STATUS FOR SPECIAL LIBRARIES Sci-Tech Business Non- Non- Item Memb. Memb. Memb. Memb. ----------------------------------------------------------- (respondents) (271) (147) (146) (133) Use informal contacts:[a] 98% 98% 100% 98% Daily 24% 17% 29% 23% Several times a week 25 27 28 23 Several times a month 29 28 26 25 Once a month 11 10 10 21 Less than once a month 10 19 6 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- [a]Sci-tech libraries: X2 = 7.46, df 4, n.s.; business libraries: X2 = 7.20, df 4, n.s. -------------------------- Table 4 displays the relationship between the frequency of using informal contacts and the frequency of using a formal resource-sharing network to obtain information not available in the library for business and sci-tech special and sci-tech academic librarians in resource-sharing networks. There is a strong positive association between the frequency of informal and formal networking among business special librarians. This association is also found among sci-tech special librarians but is not so strong as that seen with the business librarians. Sci- tech academic librarians, on the other hand, show a much weaker association between informal and formal networking which is probably due to their heavy use of formal resource-sharing networks for obtaining information not in their libraries. The data displayed in Table 4 not only show that special librarians who are frequent users of formal networks are also frequent users of informal networks but that there are a lot of them as well. Fully 39% of the business and 38% of the sci-tech special librarians use both their formal networks and informal contacts twice a week or more to obtain information not in their libraries. -------------------------- Table 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMAL AND INFORMAL NETWORKING BY LIBRARY TYPE Informal Networking Formal Networking >=2x/wk >=2x/mo <=1x/mo ---------------------------------------------------------- n % n % n % Business Special >=2x/wk 57 69% 13 34% 3 14% >=2x/mo 14 17 12 33 12 49 <=1x/mo 12 14 13 33 9 37 --- --- --- --- --- --- 83 100% 38 100% 24 100% X2 = 29.07, df 4, p < .001; gamma = .56 Sci-Tech Special >=2x/wk 102 79% 45 59% 26 43% >=2x/mo 16 13 19 26 17 28 <=1x/mo 10 8 11 15 17 29 --- --- --- --- --- --- 128 100% 75 100% 60 100% X2 = 27.49, df 4, p < .001; gamma = .47 Sci-Tech Academic >=2x/wk 64 82% 47 76% 33 64% >=2x/mo 8 10 5 8 9 18 <=1x/mo 10 8 11 15 17 18 --- --- --- --- --- --- 82 100% 63 99% 59 100% X2 = 6.90, df 4, n.s.; gamma = .29 ------------------------- Although there is no difference in degree of informal networking between members and non-members of formal resource- sharing networks, the strong positive relationship between degree of formal networking and degree of informal networking among members of resource-sharing networks is sufficient to reject null hypothesis two. Association membership patterns Membership in professional associations was studied to determine if association membership enhances or otherwise influences informal networking behavior. Table 5 shows professional association membership patterns and the use of these associations for informal information exchange. Fully 89% of the sci-tech academic and 85% of the sci-tech and business special librarians belong to at least one professional organization. A diversity of memberships is represented in this study: survey respondents listed over 200 different associations in which they are members. ------------------------- Table 5 INFORMAL NETWORKING AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP BY LIBRARY TYPE Sci-Tech Sci-Tech Business Item Academic Special Special ----------------------------------------------------------- (respondents) (235) (419) (281) Percent holding membership in professional association(s):[a] 89% 85% 85% Local library association 7% 16% 12% State library association 29% 15% 12% Regional library association 8% 4% 1% ALA 54% 22% 26% ASIS 13% 12% 11% MLA 10% 3% 5% SLA 49% 70% 75% Other library association 18% 8% 8% Subject-based association 35% 23% 18% Number of associations (mean)[b] 2.2 1.3 1.3 Use professional associations to identify contacts for informal information exchange:[c] 84% 84% 84% Daily 4% 5% 10% Several times a week 11 10 18 Several times a month 28 24 26 Once a month 16 22 20 Less than once a month 41 39 26 Professional association used most:[d] Local library association 4% 4% 8% State/regional library assn. 14 8 2 ALA 11 1 1 SLA 27 49 64 Other library association 10 6 3 Subject-based association 13 10 7 Other, unknown 2 2 3 None, no specific one 19 20 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- [a]Multiple responses possible for association membership; percents may total more than 100%. [b]]F = 7.20, df 2, p < .001. [c]X2 = 26.07, df 8, p = .001. Frequencies are based on the number of respondents who use professional associations to identify contacts for informal information exchange (194 sci- tech academic librarians, 346 sci-tech special librarians, 234 business librarians). [d]X2 = 116.70, df 14, p < .001. Frequencies are based on the number of respondents who use professional associations to identify contacts for informal information exchange. ------------------------- Although the proportion of librarians who are members of professional associations does not differ by library type, there are differences in the types of associations to which they belong. Significantly more sci-tech academic librarians are members of ALA, non-library subject-based associations, and statewide library associations than sci-tech and business special librarians. SLA, on the other hand, is the primary association for special librarians: 75% of the business and 70% of the sci- tech special librarians are members. SLA membership among sci- tech academic librarians, however, is not insubstantial: fully half of these librarians are members. Academic sci-tech librarians, on the average, are members of more professional associations than their colleagues in special libraries. Whereas sci-tech academic librarians are likely to be members of both ALA (54%) and SLA (49%), special librarians are more likely to be members of SLA alone. Use of professional associations for networking The data in Table 5 show that 84% of the librarians in the study, regardless of library type, use their professional associations to identify contacts for informal information exchange. SLA is seen as the "most useful" association for informal networking, regardless of library type, mentioned by 64% of the business librarians, 49% of the sci-tech special librarians, and 27% of the sci-tech librarians. Academic sci- tech librarians in general found it more difficult to express a preference for one particular association for informal networking: one out of five could not make a choice. By comparison, only one out of eight business librarians fell into this category: these librarians very clearly preferred SLA for this function. Even though more of the sci-tech academic librarians are members of ALA than SLA, only 11% considered ALA to the most useful association for informal networking. Table 6 shows that across all three groups, librarians who are members of professional associations engage in informal networking more frequently than those who are not members. Business librarians who belong to professional associations are the most active networkers: 55% contact their colleagues twice a week or more for information not available in their libraries. Table 6 also shows that special librarians who belong to professional associations are much more likely to be in libraries which are members of formal resource-sharing networks. ------------------------- Table 6 FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING BY ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP STATUS BY LIBRARY TYPE Sci-Tech Sci-Tech Business Academic Special Special Non- Non- Non- Item Memb. Memb. Memb. Memb. Memb. Memb. ------------------------------------------------------------ (respondents) (208) (27) (356) (62) (240) (42) Use informal contacts:[a] 99% 93% 99% 90% 100% 95% Twice a week or more 40% 26% 48% 33% 55% 35% Several times a month 34 20 28 27 28 11 Once a month or less 26 54 23 40 18 54 Library in formal resource-sharing network:[b] 93% 54% 68% 43% 58% 22% ------------------------------------------------------------ [a]Sci-tech academic libraries: X2 = 8.57, df 2, p < .05; sci-tech special libraries: X2 = 8.71, df 2, p < .05; business libraries: X2 = 27.23, df 2, p < .001. [b]Sci-tech academic libraries: z = 4.08, p < .001; sci-tech special libraries: z = 3.78, p < .001; business libraries: z = 5.09, p < .001. ------------------------- Although the use of professional associations for informal networking contacts does not differ by type of library, the fact that business librarians use their professional associations for this purpose more frequently than their sci-tech colleagues coupled with their clear preference for SLA as their association of choice is sufficient to reject null hypothesis three. Networking and library size Table 7 shows the relationship between degree of informal networking and measures of library size for sci-tech special libraries. Table 8 does the same for business libraries. For all three measures -- budget, total employees, and number of professionals -- there is a stronger relationship between library size and informal networking in business libraries than in sci- tech special libraries. -------------------------- Table 7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBRARY SIZE AND FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING IN SCI-TECH SPECIAL LIBRARIES Informal Networking Library Size >=2x/wk >=2x/mo <=1x/mo ----------------------------------------------------------- n % n % n % Library Budget Under $50,000 47 25% 40 36% 43 42% $50,000-$99,999 33 18 27 25 21 20 $100,000-$249,999 45 24 19 17 19 18 $250,000 and above 62 33 23 21 20 20 --- --- --- --- --- --- 187 100% 109 99% 24 100% X2 = 15.94, df 6, p < .05; gamma = -.23 FTE Employees 1 or less 60 32% 45 38% 50 49% 1.1-2.0 38 20 34 29 20 20 2.1-5.0 56 30 29 25 21 20 More than 5 34 18 9 8 12 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- 189 100% 116 100% 103 100% X2 = 17.05, df 6, p < .01; gamma = -.21 FTE Professionals Less than one 21 11% 17 15% 25 25% one 95 53 66 57 45 45 More than one 65 36 32 28 30 30 --- --- --- --- --- --- 180 100% 115 100% 101 100% X2 = 11.07, df 4, P < .05; gamma = -.17 ------------------------- Table 8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBRARY SIZE AND FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING IN BUSINESS SPECIAL LIBRARIES Informal Networking Library Size >=2x/wk >=2x/mo <=1x/mo ----------------------------------------------------------- n % n % n % Library Budget Under $50,000 30 22% 16 24% 35 57% $50,000-$99,999 12 8 11 16 8 13 $100,000-$249,999 42 30 26 36 12 19 $250,000 and above 56 40 17 24 7 12 --- --- --- --- --- --- 140 100% 70 100% 61 100% X2 = 37.99, df 6, p < .001; gamma = -.42 FTE Employees 1 or less 29 20% 16 38% 34 54% 1.1-2.0 29 20 17 29 9 14 2.1-5.0 41 29 25 25 13 20 More than 5 44 31 11 8 8 12 --- --- --- --- --- --- 144 100% 69 100% 64 100% X2 = 31.42, df 6, p < .001; gamma = -.34 FTE Professionals Less than one 12 8% 6 8% 19 34% one 52 37 33 49 24 44 More than one 77 55 29 43 12 22 --- --- --- --- --- --- 141 100% 68 100% 56 100% X2 = 32.43, df 4, P < .001; gamma = -.42 ------------------------- Among business librarians who are infrequent networkers -- those who engage in informal networking once a month or less -- over half are in libraries staffed by a single person or with an annual budget under $50,000. Seventy percent of the business librarians who are frequent informal networkers -- those who engage in informal networking at least twice a week -- work in libraries with annual budgets of at least $100,000, and 60% have two or more employees, one of whom is a professional Although these same relationships are evident among sci-tech special librarians, they are not as strong as those observed for business librarians. Of the sci-tech librarians who are infrequent informal networkers, 42% work in libraries with annual budgets under $50,000 and 49% are the only employee in the library. Among the frequent informal networkers, 57% work in libraries with annual budgets of $100,000 or more and 48% have two or more employees. The positive relationship between these three measures of library size and the degree of informal networking observed in both business and sci-tech special libraries are sufficient reasons to reject null hypothesis four. DISCUSSION There are three major findings from this study of informal networking by business and sci-tech librarians: 1. there is a synergistic effect between membership in resource-sharing networks, membership in professional associations and the degree to which informal networking takes place which is independent of library type. 2. Informal networking is also a function of library size: infrequent networkers tend to be in small, poorly funded special libraries. 3. Both special and sci-tech academic librarians use professional associations for informal information exchange; SLA is the primary professional association used for informal networking contacts, regardless of library type. Synergy of networking modes Special librarians obtain outside information through a synergistic combination of formal and informal networking mechanisms: frequent users of formal networks also engage in more frequent informal networking. This relationship is stronger for business and sci-tech special librarians than for sci-tech academic librarians. The findings from this study indicate that formal network membership has not replaced the earlier informal cooperative arrangements so popular among special librarians; rather, formal network membership supplements informal networking by providing another vehicle for information exchange. In addition, librarians who are members of professional associations also engage in informal networking more frequently than non- members and work in libraries which are members of resource- sharing networks. These findings add another dimension to existing research on special librarians and information retrieval: special librarians will use a variety of sources, both commercial and cooperative, to obtain information for their clientele. Corporate library members of resource-sharing networks are more active users of multiple sources for document delivery -- informal contacts, formal network arrangements, or commercial services -- compared to non-members. This research supports the assumption that special librarians tend to use the most expedient or efficient means possible to obtain information: if it works, it will be used. Effect of library size on networking This analysis of factors affecting informal networking among special librarians demonstrates there is a positive association between the degree of informal networking and library size, as measured by annual budget and staffing, and that this association is stronger among business librarians than sci-tech librarians. Analysis of formal networking patterns and library size, by comparison, shows a stronger relationship among sci-tech special librarians than business librarians. These findings indicate that business librarians in general rely more on their informal relationships than do sci-tech special librarians. Support for this conclusion also comes from the finding that more sci-tech special libraries are members of resource-sharing networks. But these differences in degrees of informal and formal networking by business and sci-tech librarian do not alter the overall relationship between library size and networking: special librarians who use formal networks as well as those who are active users of informal contacts for the sharing of resources and information come from libraries which are larger and more affluent than those who do not. In addition, an annual budget of $50,000 appears to be the discriminating factor between special librarians who exchange in informal networking activities and those who don't. The findings from this research not only suggest that special libraries with budgets under $50,000 are just too small to afford membership in formal resource-sharing networks, this research also indicates that these same special libraries do not network informally for information gathering either. This research does not support the assumption that small, poorly funded special libraries obtain information through informal connections in lieu of formal network mechanisms: these librarians don't appear to participate in much of any type of networking for information exchange. Networking and SLA Sci-tech and business librarians are active users of their professional associations for informal information exchange. Although the sci-tech academic librarians tend to be members of both ALA and SLA, they prefer SLA over ALA for informal networking contacts. The academic librarians are more eclectic in their choice of a most useful association for networking, however: although SLA was the modal choice, it was still only mentioned by one out of four academic librarians. Special librarians, on the other hand, are more likely to be members of only one professional society -- SLA -- and half of the sci-tech special librarians and almost two-thirds of the business librarians consider SLA the most useful association for informal networking. These findings support the assumption that special librarians -- whether in academe or in other organizations -- join SLA for networking opportunities. SLA was founded more than 70 years ago to foster information exchange among special librarians, and special librarians today are using their primary association for this purpose. However, developments in interactive communications technology which have taken place over the past ten years -- in particular, the phenomenal growth and use of the Internet/NREN for collegial communication -- may have a significant impact on the role of professional associations in informal information exchange in the future. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Changing concept of "network" In the early 1970s librarianship was evolving from a period of informal cooperation and resource sharing to a period of formalized networking.{36} In a 1969 review of special library cooperation, William Budington considered the new library networks as simply a more sophisticated form of library cooperation, based on computerization and systems analysis. Budington observed that library networks at this time were developing into mechanistic, highly formalized, hierarchical systems, with local systems being part of larger state-wide, regional and national networks.{37} Today, of course, the concept of network has shifted to the point where _network_ is now equated with _connectedness_. Computer networks are distributed rather than centralized systems and are based on linkages with peers, not top-down control. The meaning of the word, network, has changed so much in the last 20 years that conceptually the terms _network_ and _hierarchy_ are today considered to be on opposite ends of the organizational continuum. The Canadian futurist Robert Russel, in a foresighted speech at the 1985 SLA Annual Conference, identified "network organization" as one of three triggers of the "informationization" of our industrial-age organizations.{38} Russel's remarks illustrate the shift in the concept of "network" discussed above. A network is no longer a hard-wired system, hierarchical in structure, distance sensitive and geographically rigid; it's an organic system where connections change with need, and network nodes are people-, rather than machine-based -- "super-people, supported by smart technology."{39} Information- age networking is pragmatic and fluid, unbound by the rules and regulations, governing bodies and geographic restrictions inherent in rigid hierarchical network systems like OCLC and its web of geographically distinct, regional access networks. And the Internet -- that assortment of intersecting electronic networks that has grown like topsy during the last five years -- is tailor-made for information-age networking. Impact of the Internet/NREN The Internet and its successor, the National Research and Education Network (NREN), will very likely affect special libraries in three ways: it will enhance communication with colleagues and clients; it will provide access to information not available anywhere else; and it will decrease the time to obtain information.{40} In a 1991 survey of special librarians Ladner and Tillman found that special librarians use the Internet primarily for communicating with colleagues and clients, and only secondarily for accessing remote databases. Over 90% of the survey participants considered electronic communication to be the Internet's "major advantage or opportunity" for special librarians.{41} These librarians are already using the Internet for informal networking, and are enthusiastic about it: as one science librarian remarked, "Hardly a day passes that I don't contact a colleague with a reference query or be contacted by one. The ability to give my patrons almost instant answers to obscure questions is terrific."{42} Marsha Ra predicts that the Internet/NREN "will probably make interlibrary loan obsolete within a generation," since computer-based information resources will be accessed directly by end-users rather than through an intermediary.{43} Special librarians need to be aware that the Internet/NREN is primarily directed at researchers and educators, i.e., end-users, rather than information intermediaries like librarians, and that it will enhance and facilitate their informal communication as well. The fact that scientists, researchers and other information end-users do not use libraries as their first (or even second or third) choice for information,{44} coupled with the ease of informal information exchange made possible through Internet/NREN technologies has real implications for the special library. Will the informal networking made possible by the Internet/NREN make the special librarian obsolete or enhance her role in the networked organization? This is a question that must be addressed by future research as well as by policymakers. Professional societies and the Internet/NREN Will professional associations like SLA and ALA lose their premier place in informal information exchange, a casualty of the enhanced communications capability provided by the Internet/NREN? Or, like with resource-sharing in the 1980s, where the formal resource-sharing networks did not replace informal cooperative arrangements among special librarians, will the NREN simply provide another way to "network?" Special librarians, moreso than their academic counterparts, use the most expedient means possible to obtain information for their clientele. Today, as in the past, special librarians use their memberships in their professional associations to identify contacts for informal information exchange. The Internet/NREN provides access to people -- librarians as well as other experts -- in a more timely and efficient manner than that which is available through traditional professional association networking mechanisms. If a professional society does not provide efficient communication mechanisms for its members, it runs the risk of being bypassed for organizations which do provide these means of communication. Special librarians may then shift their loyalties, for example, to more fluid and dynamic Internet-based discussion groups or to alternative, more technologically responsive, associations as their needs change. Toffler observed that professionalization of the workplace leads to the proliferation and blurring of disciplines, where subject areas splinter and are reshuffled, and new professional societies are formed to fill the gap.{45} This proliferation in fact was observed among survey respondents, as evidenced by the diversity of their association memberships, and there is no reason to assume that his diversification will not continue as professional needs change. Future research In one sense, it could be argued that this study on resource sharing in special libraries, begun in 1990, is already obsolete. The research was planned when there were still very real distinctions between informal networking and participation in resource-sharing networks to obtain information from outside the organization. The Internet was a distant dot on the technological horizon, not part of resource-sharing vocabulary, and questions about its use as a resource-sharing mechanism were not included in the survey. On the other hand, and more importantly, this study provides valuable baseline data on the use of informal networking and formal resource-sharing networks by special librarians at a point in time just before the entry of the Internet/NREN on the special library scene. It sets the stage for new studies which can investigate the impact of interactive communications technologies like Internet/NREN on the special library and its changing role in the post-industrial organization. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported here is part of a comprehensive study of resource sharing in special libraries, supported through a grant awarded to the author by the Division of Sponsored Research, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, in 1990. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Ladner, Sharyn J. "Resource Sharing in Sci-Tech and Business Libraries: Formal Networking Practices," Special Libraries 83 (no. 2): 96-112 (Spring 1992). 2. Ladner, Sharyn J. "Effect of Organizational Structure on Resource Sharing in Sci-Tech Libraries," Science & Technology Libraries 12 (no. 2): 59-83 (1991). 3. Mount, Ellis. Special Libraries and Information Centers: An Introductory Text. Washington, D.C., Special Libraries Association, 1991. p. 2. 4. National Committee on Libraries and Information Science/Special Libraries Association Task Force. Final Report: The Role of the Special Library in Networks and Cooperatives. 1984. ERIC Doc. No. ED60711. The "Executive Summary and Recommendations" section of the NCLIS/SLA Task Force Report was published as a monograph by SLA in 1984. 5. SLA Networking Committee, Guidelines Subcommittee. Getting into Networking: Guidelines for Special Librarians. New York, Special Libraries Association, p. 1. Also quoted by Strable, Edward G. "The Way It Was," The Special Library Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special Libraries Association, 1980, p.1. 6. Budington, William S. "Interrelations among Special Librarians." Library Quarterly 39 (no. 1): 64-77 (January 1969). 7. Special Libraries Association. Who's Who in Special Libraries, 1991-92. Washington, D.C: Special Libraries Association, 1991. p. 7. See also Paskoff, Beth. "Networks and Networking: How and Why Should Special Libraries be Involved," Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 94-100 (Spring 1989). 8. Ferguson, Elizabeth and Emily R. Mobley. Special Libraries at Work. Hamden, CT, Shoe String Press, 1984, pp. 146-149. 9. Budington, op. cit., p. 67. 10. Atkinson, Hugh C. "The Importance of People Networking: July 7, 1985." Resource Sharing and Information Networks 4 (no. 1): 83-90 (1987). 11. St. Clair, Guy. "Interpersonal Networking: It is Who You Know." Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 107-112 (Spring, 1989). 12. Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. New York, Warner Books, 1982, p. 192. 13. Budington, op. cit., p. 64. 14. Dougherty, Richard M. and Hughes, Carol. "Library Cooperation: A Historical Perspective and a Vision for the Future." Advances in Library Resource Sharing, Volume 1. Westport, CT, Meckler, 1990, pp. 1-21. 15. St. Clair, op. cit., p. 109. 16. See Segal, JoAnn S. "Special Libraries and Multitype Networks." Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 85-93 (Spring 1989), for an overview. 17. NCLIS/SLA Task Force, Executive Summary, op. cit., p. 18. 18. Echelman, Shirley. "Conference Wrap-Up." The Special Library Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special Libraries Association, 1980, p. 288. 19. Strable, Edward G. "The Illinois Experience: Special Libraries." Multitype Library Cooperation, ed., Beth A. Hamilton and William B. Ernst, Jr. New York, R.R. Bowker, pp. 138-144. 20. Paskoff, Beth M. "Networks and Networking: How and Why Should Special Librarians be Involved." Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 94-100 (Spring 1989). 21. Wiggins, Gary D. Factors Which Influence the Choice of Document Delivery Mechanisms for Serials by Selected Scientific and Technical Special Librarians. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University, 1985. Ph.D. Dissertation. 22. Ladner, Science & Technology Libraries, op.cit., pp. 76-78, 80. 23. Naisbitt, op. cit., pp. 1-2 and 189-205 (Chapter 8). 24. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York, Bantam Books, 1971, pp. 124-151 (Chapter 7). 25. The number of non-profit membership organizations of national scope located in the United States has grown from over 12,500 in 1964 to over 23,000 in 1992, according to figures reported in the 1964 and 1993 editions of the Encyclopedia of Associations (Detroit, Gale Research Inc.). 26. Menzel, Herbert. "Scientific Communication: Five Themes from Social Science Research." American Psychologist 21 (no. 11): 999-1004 (November 1966). 27. Griffith, Belver C. "Understanding Science: Studies of Communication and Information." Communication Research 16 (no. 5): 600-614 (October 1989). 28. Cronin, Blaise. "Invisible Colleges and Information Transfer: A Review and Commentary with Particular Reference to the Social Sciences," Journal of Documentation 38 (no. 3): 212-236 (September 1982). 29. Ladner, Special Libraries, 1992, op. cit. 30. Ladner, Science & Technology Libraries, op. cit. 31. Norusis, Marija J. SPSS Base System User's Guide. Chicago, SPSS Inc., 1990. 520p. 32. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1972. 583p. 33. Lutz, Gene M. Understanding Social Statistics. New York, Macmillan, 1983. 530p. 34. The distinction between professional and other categories of library employee was left up to the respondent. 35. Data on academic sci-tech librarians are not included in Table 3 because there are too few academic sci-tech librarians who do not participate in resource-sharing networks for statistical comparison with sci-tech and business special librarians. 36. Strable, Edward G. "The Way It Was," The Special Library Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special Libraries Association, 1980, p. 7. 37. Budington, op. cit., p. 64-77. 38. Russel, Robert A. "The High Tech Revolution." Special Libraries 77 (no. 1): 1-8 (Winter, 1986). 39. Ibid, p. 5. 40. Tillman, Hope N. and Ladner, Sharyn J. "Special Libraries and the NREN," Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy (in press). 41. Ladner, Sharyn J. and Tillman, Hope N. "How Special Librarians Really Use the Internet: Summary of Findings and Implications for the Library of the Future." Available via anonymous ftp from hydra.uwo.edu:/LibSoft/spec_libs.txt and ERIC Doc. No. ED345751. 42. Tillman and Ladner, ENRAP, op. cit. 43. Ra, Marsha, "Technology and Resource Sharing: Recent Developments and Future Scenarios." Advances in Library Resource Sharing, Volume 1. Westport, CT: Meckler, 1990, p. 149. 44. Poland, Jean. "Informal Communication Among Scientists and Engineers: A Review of the Literature, Science & Technology Libraries, 11 (no. 3): 61-73 (Spring 1991). 45. Toffler, op. cit. pp. 147-148. ************************************************************************ *Copyright Declaration* Messages posted on LIBRES are the intellectual property of the person who originally posted the message. Permission from the author prior to re-publication in any other medium is required. Notification of the LIBRES editors before publishing or speaking about LIBRES would be appreciated. The Editorial Group: ===================================================================== Diane K. Kovacs - Chief dkovacs@kentvm dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu Julie Gedeon jgedeon@kentvm jgedeon@kentvm.kent.edu Leslie Haas lhaas@kentvm lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu Tona Henderson tah6@psuvm tah6@psuvm.psu.edu Don Kraft kraft@bit.csc.lsu.edu Elizabeth Lane elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu Laure M. Mackay lmmackay@mailbox.syr.edu Amey Park apark@kentvm apark@kentvm.kent.edu Kara Robinson krobinso@kentvm krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu Barbara Schloman bschloma@kentvm bschloma@kentvm.kent.edu ==================================================================== The Advisory Board: ==================================================================== Barbara Berger Tom Froehlich tfroehli@kentvm tfroehli@kentvm.kent.edu Ellen Detlefsen ellen@pittvms ellen@idis.lis.pitt.edu Rosemary Dumont rdumont@kentvm rdumont@kentvm.kent.edu Stevan Harnad harnad@princeton.edu Ann Okerson ann@cni.org =====================================================================