Sherrat, 'And Some Said, "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You.... (But Be There When We Call You!)', LIBRES v3n06 (October 30, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/libres/libres-v3n06-sherrat-and.txt LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal __________________________________________________________________ ISSN 1058-6768 October 30, 1993 Volume 3 Issue 6 Quarterly LIBRE3N6 SHERRAT And Some Said, "Don't Call Us, We'll Call You.... (But Be There When We Call You!)" A Review of the MIT Libraries Information Services Study by Christine S. Sherratt Introduction In one of his recent papers, Thomas Pinelli (1992) suggests a research agenda for scientific and technical information and writes, "How people seek information is the most fundamental theoretical and overarching issue in library and information science." A strong statement in these times when technological and fiscal factors drive many of our decisions. I recently had the opportunity to investigate Mr. Pinelli's issue when I was Project Leader for the MIT Libraries Information Services Study. The name was a slight misnomer; what we tried to study was not the information services presently offered, but rather three academic departments and the ways their members gathered information.With people, not the library, as our starting point, we engaged in applied library research. What I offer here is a discussion of what we learned and a critique of the process we followed. Background and Methodology There had been an informal desire to do a study in public services for some time in the Libraries, but this was made formal when the 1988 Strategic Plan and its Updates called for such a study to be done. The purpose was to examine how students, faculty and staff in the disciplines of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Management Science and Materials Science and Engineering gathered and used information for their work. Three study teams, one for each area, were formed to do this. The final task was to make preliminary recommendations which would strengthen information services. The group also had to design a methodology, perhaps the most difficult task we faced. The Associate Director for Public Services served as Project Director and presented the process we followed at the Fall 1992 EDUCOM meeting. To summarize, we used three data collection methods and then planned a fourth component, which was a review of our findings with the departments -a desire each department had expressed. The techniques we used to gather information were 1) a written questionnaire sent to all members of each department, which asked about the references cited in the recipient's most recent paper or grant proposal 2) semi-structured interviews with faculty and research staff and 3) focus group discussions with students. Data Collection and Results We chose to collect data in three ways both to experiment with these methods firsthand and to try to maximize the amount of information collected. The overall response to the mailed questionnaire was very low at 15.6%. More information was gained through 27 personal interviews and 2 focus groups (which drew 15 total participants). These gave us the data with which we had to work. Each team then wrote a report which included a profile of its department and recommendations for services. I synthesized these into a Final Report which presented a full description of the project and six themes with eight recommendations. The final component of the Study process, the review of findings with the departments, was done by sending the department chairs the full Report, an executive summary, a summary of the data collected from that department with our observations about its information gathering, and the list of service recommendations. The Project Director and I met with them and, following their suggestions, mailed the faculty, research staff and graduate students some of these documents, asking them to prioritize each recommendation as either high, medium or low. All mailings went out with a cover letter from the department chair. Response to this was higher and informative. Findings What did we learn from this project? Certainly we learned about the research process and how we could have improved our effort. I would make the following suggestions to anyone contemplating this kind of research, this "focus on the user" research for which Pinelli calls. *Consider the staff, time and funding needed to conduct such a study. The structure of a Project Leader and Director works well, but the size of the working group(s) should be kept small. While the size of our teams seemed right, our large group was hindered in some tasks by its size. Also ask the question, will the staff be given release time to do this work, or does it fall within "normal" committee assignment(s)? *Identify and state the purpose(s) of the study. *Design a methodology early. While not having this preset gave us flexibility, the disadvantage was the time consumed in study design. This delayed our involvement with outside consultants. *Consider the calendar of the community you study. It sounds obvious, and we did it, but we still ran into the problem of data collection coinciding with the end of the academic year. *In academic institutions, consider doing separate studies of faculty/staff and students. They may be joined by discipline but the needs of each are different and may warrant separate investigations. *Although rigorous social science research demands detachment from those we study, I wonder if it is the best approach for a project like this. Perhaps it would not be the case elsewhere, but I suspect that more visibility with the people we studied would have yielded more data. Whether or not this visibility would compromise objectivity or jeopardize the accuracy of data remains a question. Finally, we of course learned about the researchers in the three areas we studied, and hence my title, the expression one team used in observing its researchers. While we learned many interesting things and made reasonable recommendations, we were also confronted freshly and directly with the fact that many researchers do not use our, or other libraries, and some prefer not to use them. Many here do not want us to "call them"; rather, they will choose whether and when to call us and yet, in what is an interesting implication, they want us to be there when they do call! How should do we respond to this? Should we identify those for whom this is true and leave them to their own formal, informal or non-existent (non-necessary, or already sufficient?) information gathering and supply, but then be at-the-ready when-if-they ever call? And with what services? Do we simultaneously look for individuals with whom we can have a more active role, and pursue meeting their needs? Or do we instead concentrate on our very real missions of keeping collections and providing service and instruction to users who do call? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between. As others have expressed, we must, I believe, develop a more central role as an information source on the campus, and both be and be seen as competent guides in the "information maze" which we claim surrounds us. I think this means we organize, publicize, and offer instruction and consultation on an efficient set of services which we, and others, use as needed. It means we look both internally, to see that our own house is in order, and externally, to be able to understand more about the groups we serve. We may now have to exist in a world of reduced budgets and ever increasing technological changes, but we must not lose the goal of increased contact with our communities and our understanding of them. Our mission _is_ probably to "be there when they call," but also to periodically re-identify the services useful to our communities and provide them visibly and viably. Pinelli, Thomas. (1992). Establishing a Research Agenda for Scientific and Technical Information (STI): Focus on the User. In A _Research Agenda for Scientific and Technical Information_,Report of a Workshop held in Lisbon, Portugal, 7th-9th April, 1992. (pp.3-13) (AGARD Advisory Report 316, AGARD-AR-316) North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Appendix: The Information Services Study Recommendations 1. The MIT Libraries should continue and intensify efforts to mount electronic resources on the campus network and provide support for electronic access by individuals to those not mounted locally. This access should be accompanied by education and consultation services. 2. The MIT Libraries should provide tables of contents information to faculty. 3. The MIT Libraries should review the use now made of SDI services by researchers both through the libraries and other avenues. 4. The Libraries should continue to investigate and evaluate the document delivery systems available commercially and within existing library networks, with the design and trial of a rapid and more complete working system as the goal. 5. The Libraries should examine the kinds of in-depth personal (off the desk) assistance the staff are currently providing to users. Appropriate topics and types of assistance should then be outlined for such a "consultancy" service. 6. Given the importance and use of personal collections, one type of assistance which can be explored is that of providing expertise in bibliographic file management software. 7. Because responsibility for instruction is currently spread among individuals and committees, a review of ongoing efforts should be made. Other areas for such support should be identified. 8. The Libraries should continue and strengthen outreach efforts t to inform the community about their roles, plans and services. Christine Sherratt is Assistant Science Librarian at MIT. _____ Articles and Sections of this issue of _LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal_ may be retrieved via anonymous ftp to cc.curtin.edu.au or via e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (instructions below) Papers may be submitted at anytime by email or send/file to: Diane K. Kovacs- Editor-in-Chief, _LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, EDITORS@KENTVM.KENT.EDU _________________________________ *Copyright Declaration* Copyright of articles published by LIBRES: Library and Information Science Electronic Journal is held by the author of a given article. If an article is re-published elsewhere it must include a statement that it was originally published in LIBRES. The LIBRES Editors reserve the right to maintain permanent archival copies of all submissions and to provide print copies to appropriate indexing services for for indexing and microforming. _________________________________ ____________________________ GOPHER Instructions ____________________________ GOPHER will be available for future Issues. ____________________________ Anonymous FTP Instructions ____________________________ ftp cc.curtin.edu.au login: anonymous password: guest cd LIB-RESEARCH get filename (where filename = exact name of file in Table of Contents) quit LISTSERV Retrieval Instructions _______________________________ Send e-mail addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU Leave the subject line empty. The message must read: GET LIBRE3N6 CONTENTS Use this file to identify particular articles or sections then send e-mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU with the command: GET where is LIBRE#N# name) and is the name of the author